Poll: The Death Penalty
- Thread starter Chunko
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I did a paper on the death penalty, and decided that it should be applied. It costs too much to keep an inmate, not to put them to death.Necrofudge said:
To hell with lesser crimes, if it injured many people, the person should die.
Eh, I don't like death penalty threads, here are all the arguments for both sides when you reduce them:
For: The against people are a bunch of hippy pacifists who'd let their own mother be brutally murdered rather than commit a violent act. *insert famous civilization here* did it and it works fine.
Against: The for people are a bunch of barbarian warhawks who would bring back the Third Reich if they could. *Insert facts/statistics of dubious origin here* says that the death penalty is bad so we shouldn't do it.
Extremist For: We should kill people for jaywalking.
Extremist Against: Prison shouldn't exist.
Hee hee, I'm on the against side, I guess I'm a barbarian warhawk
.
For: The against people are a bunch of hippy pacifists who'd let their own mother be brutally murdered rather than commit a violent act. *insert famous civilization here* did it and it works fine.
Against: The for people are a bunch of barbarian warhawks who would bring back the Third Reich if they could. *Insert facts/statistics of dubious origin here* says that the death penalty is bad so we shouldn't do it.
Extremist For: We should kill people for jaywalking.
Extremist Against: Prison shouldn't exist.
Hee hee, I'm on the against side, I guess I'm a barbarian warhawk
.....What?Dancingman said:Eh, I don't like death penalty threads, here are all the arguments for both sides when you reduce them:
For: The against people are a bunch of hippy pacifists who'd let their own mother be brutally murdered rather than commit a violent act. *insert famous civilization here* did it and it works fine.
Against: The for people are a bunch of barbarian warhawks who would bring back the Third Reich if they could. *Insert facts/statistics of dubious origin here* says that the death penalty is bad so we shouldn't do it.
Extremist For: We should kill people for jaywalking.
Extremist Against: Prison shouldn't exist.
Hee hee, I'm on the against side, I guess I'm a barbarian warhawk
That_Which_Isnt said:....What?Dancingman said:Eh, I don't like death penalty threads, here are all the arguments for both sides when you reduce them:
For: The against people are a bunch of hippy pacifists who'd let their own mother be brutally murdered rather than commit a violent act. *insert famous civilization here* did it and it works fine.
Against: The for people are a bunch of barbarian warhawks who would bring back the Third Reich if they could. *Insert facts/statistics of dubious origin here* says that the death penalty is bad so we shouldn't do it.
Extremist For: We should kill people for jaywalking.
Extremist Against: Prison shouldn't exist.
Hee hee, I'm on the against side, I guess I'm a barbarian warhawk
What is this nonsense about "vilifying" "scape-goating(sic)" and "lashing out"? Rambling much?CrystalShadow said:
If you're too wussy to do it, then I and 99% of the rest of the people on this planet would have been more than happy to oblige and you'd be wise not to stand in our way. Winston Churchill had the genius idea of sentencing Hitler to death in the Electric Chair... lend-lease of course.
And lines like "I don't care" as your main response just show how much you have your head stuck in the sand... if not stuck up somewhere else.
and WTF with you calling self defence a "feeble excuse". Self-defence is a god damn human right, you KNOW it and nothing YOU nor anyone else like YOU can do to change that!
...wouldn't kill Hitler... pah... you hear the craziest things sometimes.
Self defense is one thing, But the death penalty is wanton murder.Rolling Thunder said:
Who are we to decide who lives and who dies?
Do you believe in infallible courts of law as well? Do you believe that humans can perfectly and accurately judge other humans, sentence them to death and make positively absolutely sure that ONLY the guilty ones gets executed? (remember, we're talking about humans here, one of the most flawed creatures ever to walk the earth)Satin6T said:
That being said: No, I don't believe in the death penalty. mainly because I don't believe that ANY court in the world can be one hundred percent sure that it is sentencing someone who't really guilty to death. Im not willing to risk getting falsely accused and sentenced to death myself, therefore I consider it hypocritical and stupid to expect others to take that risk.
At least with lifetime imprisonment you can let the person out if you discover that a mistake has been made. If you kill the accused, then it is impossible to bring that person back, and the blood of the innocent will be on the hands of the entire society that permitted the death sentence to occur...
Uh oh now we have to close the thread because of Godwin's Law. To answer the question though, I wouldn't kill Hitler if given the chance, because then the storyline from Command and Conquer Red Alert would happen and no one wants that. Although the eventual invention of exploding suicide cows would be cool.Treblaine said:
But it's a pointless analogy either way. Killing someone that we know would go on to murder millions of innocents is completely different to giving a fallable legal system permission to murder the very citizens it is meant to protect.
You seem to have a lot more faith in the British police than I do. Personally, based on interactions I've had with them in the past, the thought of arming the average British policemen scares the hell out of me. In fact, even the limited numbers of police that do have guns in this country seem to be dangerous enough.Treblaine said:
And then there's the whole escalation thing. Once you start arming the police, the bad guys have to tool up as well. And I'm a lot happier trying to run away from a mugger with knife than a mugger with a gun.
No, I actually assumed killing Hitler AFTER he committed his crimes, like in 1944 or 1945. But time is irrelevant, he made his plans very clear well in advance and was putting them into motion even before 1933.Lusty said:
And what I said was NOT Godwin's law as I did not and am not comparing anyone to Hitler. Get your facts straight buddy, if it is a thread lockable offence to merely mention Hitler or the Nazis then that is blatant censorship for no positive benefit at all.
As to your other comment there is a VERY GOOD REASON why almost every single country in the world regularly arm their police force since they are sworn to protect the public and criminals ARE armed with guns in every. country. in. the. world.
In fact of all the countries that don't regularly arm their police, most are ex British colonies only they are slowly coming to their senses and realising that practicality and their responsibility to the vulnerable citizens over-rules Tradition and idealistic fantasy thinking.
Britain is the exception not because we are significantly less violent or more peaceful but due to institutionalised professional incompetence and lack of responsibility in the Politic. So the police are considered too incompetent to be armed, you say? Well any sane country with RESPONSIBLE leaders would see this as incentive to improve the police force's standards of training and excellence to make sure they have the tools to do their vital work.
Only our leaders cling to easily electable "fantasies" of the nice British-bobby acting as nothing more than a professional nagger with virtually no physical powers to back up their authority. They don't trust them with guns but that is just lowering standards, expectations and ability to do their job which is to protect the public above ALL else.
I mean if a couple doctors abuse their power by using their painkiller medicine to get high or miss-prescribe patients and kill them, do we call for doctors to have their right to write prescriptions removed? maybe replaced by a small elite team and just have the regular doctors administer herbal remedies in the time being? Of course not. You fire the incompetent doctor, prosecute if necessary and tighten standards and improve training.
Also, it is 100% BULLSHIT that the criminals will arm themselves if the police are armed. It is the EXACT OPPOSITE that happens as you can tell from the increasing number of guns on British streets and how anybody who knows their arse from their elbow knows that criminals don't get in "arms races" with the police but criminal elements get into "arms races" with each other.
If fact, an "arms race" is preferable to what we have at the moment. The advantage a criminal has in getting a slightly better gun than the police is NOTHING compared to what we have today as any gun, any weapon of any sort has a complete advantage over our police who are armed with nothing but pepper spray or a baton, if they are lucky.
The reason I mentioned Godwin's law is that you've bought up a Nazi analogy that means nothing in the context of this thread. You were suggesting that anyone who would take the chance to kill Hitler (before or after his crimes, doesn't matter) would automatically be in favour of the death penalty. That's boiling the whole debate down to whether or not a criminal deserves the death penalty (which is still debatable, although not really in Hitlers case), completely ignoring the practical issues. The fact is, we KNOW what Hitler did, but in practically every other scenario there will always be an element of doubt. If you trust the government to get things right 100% of the time then you've lead a sheltered life.
I'm not going to go on about the armed police thing, safe to say I disagree with you but lets not take this any further off topic. Make a thread if you like.
I'm not going to go on about the armed police thing, safe to say I disagree with you but lets not take this any further off topic. Make a thread if you like.
death sentence is expensive, nearly as much as a life sentence. it should be used on a carefully considered, case by case basis. and never given as a court sentence. it should be considered after multiple failed appeals, to avoid the death of innocents.
Well I don't know, some people like murderers should have to die for what they did, to me some murderers are completely justified, see there was this girl who was raped a good long time ago and she went out and killed the rapist, that counts as murder, should that girl also be killed because she killed the person who violated her?. See the death sentence is flawed because some people are "Technically guilty" but morally in the right, others aren't guilty but are wrongly convicted then killed for it. Others that are guilty like rapist don't deserve to fry, they don't deserve the luxury of a easy way out, they should be put in a cold dark room to live out there live's.
yes because if you kill 20 people and their children you should fucking die not get a free extra 25 years in a cell with free meals and a roof over your head
So... raped for being a rapist?lwm3398 said:
As for my opinion, I'm against it. [user]Skeleon[/user] said why earlier on in this thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.146129#3324843], but I just find the ideas behind it flawed and am generally against intentional violence/ murder anyway (with exceptions for manslaughter, accidental killing, self defence etc.).
I'm against it, mainly because the criminal is not exactly paying for his crimes he's just getting out of them easily. Making them live out the remainder of their life in prison actually takes their life away. What's worse, living without it or outright dying. Hypothetically, if I were a convicted criminal I would rather die and get it over it. The death penalty is just an easy way out for criminals.