Poll: The Death Penalty

[jpoon]

I'm for it in the right circumstance. There are some totally despicable individuals that deserve nothing better than death. Now mind you, I would say allow for those people to go through the courts and use all their chances to save themselves, but if they are found guilty for what they are charged and it's pretty obvious they did it then it's time to pay the dues.

If they committed heinous crimes and are found guilty, why should they be allowed to live? Fuck the friendly, pussy, hug the trees and animals shit. The real world doesn't give a shit about being nice, and you have to play with their rules. Keeping them alive in many situations would be torture to the victim's families so I say when it is deserved some people should be lined up and shot, fuck the electric chair or lethal injection, just fucking shoot them. Simple, cheap, effective, quick and it NEVER fails to rectify the problem.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I think once you kill someone in cold blood with no reasonable motive (for example you find a man cheating on your wife, you are so angry you hit him with a lamp and he dies, thats a motive that is quite reasonable as long as you didnt mean to kill him) and not in the heat of the moment you have surrendered your rights as a human. I think the death penalty should be given to mass murderers and cold blooded killers. People who kill children too should be put to the blade. These people are leeches on society in jail where they can not be reformed and the space should be saved for those for whom jail can help correct their ways. These people are worthless, draining food,money and resources to prolong their pointless evil lives.

 

[UbarElite]

Data shows that the death penalty is actually more expensive than keeping a prisoner behind bars for life (due to the attorneys you have to hire for multiple appeals and all other normal costs associated with arrest), studies show that the death penalty does not reduce crime (and actually increases some forms of violent crime...they call it the brutalization effect or something) and morality shows that killing someone is wrong. It just seems petty to kill someone just because you want revenge on them (which could be the reason he ended up killing someone in the first place).

About the only positive effect of the death penalty is it prevents any possible recidivism (repeated offenses), but we also run the risk of executing the innocent...so whatever boats your float.

 

[lwm3398]

Why pay taxes to keep a murderer alive? Eye-for-an-eye. Killed for being a killer.

Same for rapists.

But accidental killing, manslaughter, that gets a 30-50 year sentence.

So... raped for being a rapist?

To clear this up, no.

I mean "Killed for being a killer" and "Same for rapists." meaning "Killed for being a rapist."

And, my thinking is, rape of anyone completely wrecks someone. Psychologically, they will never be the same. So, Ksshc, you just messed someone up, so you'll end up even more messed up.

Messed up meaning Dead.

 

[CrystalShadow]

1. Self-defense is a pretty feeble excuse. No, I'm not going to hold it against someone if they kill another person in self-defence, but I don't believe it's acceptable to work from the principle that it's alright to kill someone just because you did it in 'self defense'.

2. Yeah, an exaggeration on my part (it's only about 10%). But have a look at what I found in less than 5 minutes:
http://www.truthandjusticedenied.com/Wrongful_Conviction_Statist.html - The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, admits that statistically 8% to 12% of all state prisoners are either actually or factually innocent.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/7/9/5/p17957_index.html - erroneous conviction are far more likely to occur in murder cases - and especially in capital murder cases - than in other felony prosecutions.

-> Not an especially promising set of information, especially when you consider the death penalty.

Are you willing to accept that 1 in 10 of the people executed didn't actually do anything wrong? You can't reverse an execution...

Put it this way... would you kill Hitler?

Seriously, if you had the chance to do it yourself or merely decide, would you kill Adolf Hitler?

Do you think that no good murdering-genocidal-racist-goose-stepping sonuvabitch deserves to live or should he die?!?!

I don't care.

First of all, vilifying another person (or group), leads to the same idiocy that Hitler caused in Germany at that time to begin with.

No, I wouldn't kill Hitler. In principle.

On practical grounds, I would do whatever it takes to ensure someone like that can't do any further harm.
But to do that, you have to understand how they managed to be able to do harm in the first place.

What you're implying is scape-goating, anyway. Not justice, or even protecting 'society'...

You lash out at another because you feel victimised...
But hurting someone doesn't undo whatever it is they did. - It just causes more pain.

Revenge is not a good basis for a system of justice.

What is this nonsense about "vilifying" "scape-goating(sic)" and "lashing out"? Rambling much?

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.

Pathetic.

Do you understand the difference between pragmatism and morality? Because you act like a total idiot.

Blaming everything that happened in WW2 on Hitler alone is making one person responsible for the actions of millions.

Which is idiotic.
He may well have been a lunatic, and had he not done it himself, it may well have been safer to kill him, but that's beside the point.
Just because it's the easier option, doesn't mean it's the right one.
Not to mention that you gloss over the very real, and very important historical issues that led a whole country to commit gross atrocities in favour of arguing about their figure-head...
Yeah. Perceptive aren't we?

And really...

What is with this Self-Defense BS? Self-Defense is a human right?

First of all, there's no such thing as a human 'right' to begin with.
Where do these 'rights' of yours come from to begin with?

But then, I suppose the fact that you're justifying something on the basis of the 'kill or be killed' concept says more than enough.

People should certainly be allowed to defend themselves from violence. And using violence to do so is often effective. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it tolerable.

I really have little patience with people that espouse thoughtless violence though.

How does that have any bearing on executions though? What purpose does executing someone serve? None that are worthwhile, or even all that practical. But then, who cares about practicality when we can simply be brutal right?

At this point, I wonder why we even make a distinction between criminals and the general public anymore, considering how many people find this line of reasoning perfectly justified...

Hmm... How do we deal with violent people...
Oh, I know!
Let's be even more violent in response...

Yeah. Good idea.
Well done.

 

[woodwalker]

Why pay taxes to keep a murderer alive? Eye-for-an-eye. Killed for being a killer.

Same for rapists.

But accidental killing, manslaughter, that gets a 30-50 year sentence.

Good gods, man! Do you have any clue about how many "open and shut" cases in the past have been overturned by DNA? What is the next big leap in technology that will exonerate people?

That being said, I think that criminals should be incarcerated for the rest of their lives, with no TV, etc.

As for the manslaughter thing, Jesus Christ! 30-50 years for an accident?

 

[Treblaine]

Put it this way... would you kill Hitler?

Seriously, if you had the chance to do it yourself or merely decide, would you kill Adolf Hitler?

Do you think that no good murdering-genocidal-racist-goose-stepping sonuvabitch deserves to live or should he die?!?!

I don't care.

First of all, vilifying another person (or group), leads to the same idiocy that Hitler caused in Germany at that time to begin with.

No, I wouldn't kill Hitler. In principle.

On practical grounds, I would do whatever it takes to ensure someone like that can't do any further harm.
But to do that, you have to understand how they managed to be able to do harm in the first place.

What you're implying is scape-goating, anyway. Not justice, or even protecting 'society'...

You lash out at another because you feel victimised...
But hurting someone doesn't undo whatever it is they did. - It just causes more pain.

Revenge is not a good basis for a system of justice.

What is this nonsense about "vilifying" "scape-goating(sic)" and "lashing out"? Rambling much?

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.

Pathetic.

Do you understand the difference between pragmatism and morality? Because you act like a total idiot.

Blaming everything that happened in WW2 on Hitler alone is making one person responsible for the actions of millions.

Which is idiotic.
He may well have been a lunatic, and had he not done it himself, it may well have been safer to kill him, but that's beside the point.
Just because it's the easier option, doesn't mean it's the right one.
Not to mention that you gloss over the very real, and very important historical issues that led a whole country to commit gross atrocities in favour of arguing about their figure-head...
Yeah. Perceptive aren't we?

And really...

What is with this Self-Defense BS? Self-Defense is a human right?

First of all, there's no such thing as a human 'right' to begin with.
Where do these 'rights' of yours come from to begin with?

But then, I suppose the fact that you're justifying something on the basis of the 'kill or be killed' concept says more than enough.

People should certainly be allowed to defend themselves from violence. And using violence to do so is often effective. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it tolerable.

I really have little patience with people that espouse thoughtless violence though.

How does that have any bearing on executions though? What purpose does executing someone serve? None that are worthwhile, or even all that practical. But then, who cares about practicality when we can simply be brutal right?

At this point, I wonder why we even make a distinction between criminals and the general public anymore, considering how many people find this line of reasoning perfectly justified...

Hmm... How do we deal with violent people...
Oh, I know!
Let's be even more violent in response...

Yeah. Good idea.
Well done.

You may not stand "thoughtless violence" well I say that your 'dogmatic pacifism' is just as bad if not WORSE. If the politicians of Britain and France in the 1930's had not been so over-run with pacifists then they could have stood up to Hitler and Nazis before they unleashed their inevitable and crushing assault, pre emptive assertive force would most likely have prevented or drastically reduced the scope of conflict in WWII, such as if France had not fallen and the British run out of Continental Europe.

There is no debate on this, Self-defence is a human right. End. Of. Story.

Rights are innate, like right to freedom of expression, freedom of movement. It is not natural for humans to be born into cages like farm animals, we are individuals who have and innate instinct and of course logical imperative of self preservation that every free and lawful citizen should have the right and not suffer indignation from people like YOU!

I've had just about enough of your straw man arguments as you drone on and on for several paragraphs criticising me for saying Hitler was 100% responsible when I NEVER CLAIMED THAT. Anybody with a shred of common sense and with a shadow of knowledge of WWII know the extent of Hitler's guilt, so surely he deserves the most severe punishment, capital punishment.

And punishment is of absolute relevance to self defence as you made the quite frankly utterly ridiculous argument that there is no excuse for killing and cited self defence as an inflammatory example. You think you can get away with such a flagrant attack on the liberties that every free human being obviously deserves?

The worst part is all of this is you find it reprehensible that good innocent people should use violence to defend their life (is suppose it would be "right" just to curl into a ball and die?) yet you champion to spare the lives of the most despicable criminals in human history because of your dogmatic ideology.

If you think jail is just about "containment" or separating criminals from society so they can't victimise others again, you are dead wrong. A judicial sentence has ALWAYS been a PUNISHMENT and remains so. Do you have zero concept of JUSTICE? Do you see the law courts as just a means of enacting your crazy social treatments?

While we are at it, what about the commandants of the Nazi death camps, the once who skinned the bodies of gypsies and made lampshades and furniture from the skin? Are you saying the commandant ultimately responsible should be spared the death penalty?

You can give your own personal biased opinion on that but that is nothing but your own dogmatic ideology speaking, you can't make a single sane or convincing argument against the fact that there are some people in this world that are so evil and have committed such horrible crimes the only logical punishment is capital punishment.

 

[JonnoStrife]

Unjust killers forfeit their lives.

 

[EzraPound]

Put it this way... would you kill Hitler?

Seriously, if you had the chance to do it yourself or merely decide, would you kill Adolf Hitler?

Do you think that no good murdering-genocidal-racist-goose-stepping sonuvabitch deserves to live or should he die?!?!

I don't care.

First of all, vilifying another person (or group), leads to the same idiocy that Hitler caused in Germany at that time to begin with.

No, I wouldn't kill Hitler. In principle.

On practical grounds, I would do whatever it takes to ensure someone like that can't do any further harm.
But to do that, you have to understand how they managed to be able to do harm in the first place.

What you're implying is scape-goating, anyway. Not justice, or even protecting 'society'...

You lash out at another because you feel victimised...
But hurting someone doesn't undo whatever it is they did. - It just causes more pain.

Revenge is not a good basis for a system of justice.

What is this nonsense about "vilifying" "scape-goating(sic)" and "lashing out"? Rambling much?

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.

Pathetic.

Do you understand the difference between pragmatism and morality? Because you act like a total idiot.

Blaming everything that happened in WW2 on Hitler alone is making one person responsible for the actions of millions.

Which is idiotic.
He may well have been a lunatic, and had he not done it himself, it may well have been safer to kill him, but that's beside the point.
Just because it's the easier option, doesn't mean it's the right one.
Not to mention that you gloss over the very real, and very important historical issues that led a whole country to commit gross atrocities in favour of arguing about their figure-head...
Yeah. Perceptive aren't we?

And really...

What is with this Self-Defense BS? Self-Defense is a human right?

First of all, there's no such thing as a human 'right' to begin with.
Where do these 'rights' of yours come from to begin with?

But then, I suppose the fact that you're justifying something on the basis of the 'kill or be killed' concept says more than enough.

People should certainly be allowed to defend themselves from violence. And using violence to do so is often effective. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it tolerable.

I really have little patience with people that espouse thoughtless violence though.

How does that have any bearing on executions though? What purpose does executing someone serve? None that are worthwhile, or even all that practical. But then, who cares about practicality when we can simply be brutal right?

At this point, I wonder why we even make a distinction between criminals and the general public anymore, considering how many people find this line of reasoning perfectly justified...

Hmm... How do we deal with violent people...
Oh, I know!
Let's be even more violent in response...

Yeah. Good idea.
Well done.

You may not stand "thoughtless violence" well I say that your 'dogmatic pacifism' is just as bad if not WORSE. If the politicians of Britain and France in the 1930's had not been so over-run with pacifists then they could have stood up to Hitler and Nazis before they unleashed their inevitable and crushing assault, pre emptive assertive force would most likely have prevented or drastically reduced the scope of conflict in WWII, such as if France had not fallen and the British run out of Continental Europe.

There is no debate on this, Self-defence is a human right. End. Of. Story.

Rights are innate, like right to freedom of expression, freedom of movement. It is not natural for humans to be born into cages like farm animals, we are individuals who have and innate instinct and of course logical imperative of self preservation that every free and lawful citizen should have the right and not suffer indignation from people like YOU!

I've had just about enough of your straw man arguments as you drone on and on for several paragraphs criticising me for saying Hitler was 100% responsible when I NEVER CLAIMED THAT. Anybody with a shred of common sense and with a shadow of knowledge of WWII know the extent of Hitler's guilt, so surely he deserves the most severe punishment, capital punishment.

And punishment is of absolute relevance to self defence as you made the quite frankly utterly ridiculous argument that there is no excuse for killing and cited self defence as an inflammatory example. You think you can get away with such a flagrant attack on the liberties that every free human being obviously deserves?

The worst part is all of this is you find it reprehensible that good innocent people should use violence to defend their life (is suppose it would be "right" just to curl into a ball and die?) yet you champion to spare the lives of the most despicable criminals in human history because of your dogmatic ideology.

If you think jail is just about "containment" or separating criminals from society so they can't victimise others again, you are dead wrong. A judicial sentence has ALWAYS been a PUNISHMENT and remains so. Do you have zero concept of JUSTICE? Do you see the law courts as just a means of enacting your crazy social treatments?

While we are at it, what about the commandants of the Nazi death camps, the once who skinned the bodies of gypsies and made lampshades and furniture from the skin? Are you saying the commandant ultimately responsible should be spared the death penalty?

You can give your own personal biased opinion on that but that is nothing but your own dogmatic ideology speaking, you can't make a single sane or convincing argument against the fact that there are some people in this world that are so evil and have committed such horrible crimes the only logical punishment is capital punishment.

The problem with the dealth penalty was best illustrated by Plato - we don't know where we're sending people, so what moral right do we have to execute them and deem it a means of punishment? They could be going somewhere better, for all we know.

Also, the argument regarding cost to taxpayers is moot - it costs more in the U.S. to have the death penalty than to not have it, owing to the expense of lengthy appeals in which criminals receive the sentence. In this sense, the less "dogmatic" preference is for not having the dealth penalty: right-wing politicians in the U.S. merely advocate it as a sentimental appeal to the impulses of voters who feel that, say, a serial murderer of little girls should be put to death, in spite of the impracticalities and ethical conondrums involved. This is borne out by polls: the death penalty is fairly popular in the U.S.

...And what can you do to reverse an erroneous ruling if someone innocent is put to death? Admittedly, long-term imprisonment is a harsh fate, too, but atleast if the death penalty is waived someone unjustly sentenced can be let out if the ruling is overturned.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

If you commit murder or steal a whole bunch of stuff welll, fuck it, most criminals deserve the death penalty

But life in prison is alot worse than a quick easy death. Life in prison is being raped and shanked and beaten constantly till you die, that's far worse.

The death penalty is sometimes an easy way out.

 

[matrix3509]

I could comment on how California is going bankrupt and can no longer afford to keep its criminals locked up in prison, so they are planning on just releasing them. The vast majority of them being repeat offenders.

This situation single-handedly invalidates the theory that it is more expensive to kill someone than support them with taxpayer money the rest of their worthless lives.

To everyone that says death is the easy way out: you obviously don't value your own life very much do you?

There is nothing; and indeed no one more important than my own life, and I know several people on this very site that would say the exact same thing.

Though to be honest, I believe George Carlin's method of prison would work best for the U.S.

 

[joschen]

Turn lifetime into death sentence. Or turn all prisons into work caps.

 

[Diablini]

Noooooo! Not another Death Penalty thread!

*Virtual Seppuku*


Yes, but only for proven murderers (no self-defence) and people proven to have raped.

 

[Diablini]

If you commit murder or steal a whole bunch of stuff welll, fuck it, most criminals deserve the death penalty

But life in prison is alot worse than a quick easy death. Life in prison is being raped and shanked and beaten constantly till you die, that's far worse.

The death penalty is sometimes an easy way out.

Why do you care that much about punishment. Isn't the point of the practice to prevent him from murdering again? I think that if you are more for him sufering than the safety of others, then you are being selfish and a jerk.

 

[cobra_ky]

I could comment on how California is going bankrupt and can no longer afford to keep its criminals locked up in prison, so they are planning on just releasing them. The vast majority of them being repeat offenders.

This situation single-handedly invalidates the theory that it is more expensive to kill someone than support them with taxpayer money the rest of their worthless lives.

how exactly? all it proves is that letting criminals go is cheaper than keeping them in jail.

To everyone that says death is the easy way out: you obviously don't value your own life very much do you?

There is nothing; and indeed no one more important than my own life, and I know several people on this very site that would say the exact same thing.

do you know any murderers serving life sentences who would say the same?

 

[VanityGirl]

Hold on a secod, CrystalShadow made a good point.....

2. Yeah, an exaggeration on my part (it's only about 10%). But have a look at what I found in less than 5 minutes:
http://www.truthandjusticedenied.com/Wrongful_Conviction_Statist.html - The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, admits that statistically 8% to 12% of all state prisoners are either actually or factually innocent.

But... You kind of need to think about it this way, PS3's have a failure rate of 20%, but you don't hear people talking about that, nor would that STOP anyone from buying one.
Lame example, but take it into account and please read the rest before bashing me.

I'm definately for the death penalty.
What about people who are OUTSTANDINGLY guilty? You guys focus a lot on the "What ifs" but the fact is, a lot of the criminals are just plain old guilty. Many have eye witnesses, others have outstanding evidence that they are guilty, I mean, just because some are innocent, you're going to stop the others who are obviously guilty from dying?

Here's a case of someone who's OBVIOUSLY guilty (Warning, intense story): http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story/Father-Charged-with-Rape-of-8-Day-Old-Baby/gWsjkpvEAUSWeDaSwofKRA.cspx

Now, take into account that this man didn't kill this child, but there's going to be a lot of psychological problems with this kid later on. This guy shouldn't die for it, but should NEVER be allowed to get out of prison, not for bail, or good behavior or ANYTHING.


What about the people who go on shooting rampages and kill 5 or 6 people? You know, the people that were FILMED actually shooting another person, shouldn't they, with the obvious evidence, be sentenced to death?

I understand that 8-12% of people might be innocent, but should that stop us from using the death penalty on the ones we KNOW are guilty?

 

[CoziestPigeon]

If you commit murder or steal a whole bunch of stuff welll, fuck it, most criminals deserve the death penalty

But life in prison is alot worse than a quick easy death. Life in prison is being raped and shanked and beaten constantly till you die, that's far worse.

The death penalty is sometimes an easy way out.

Why do you care that much about punishment. Isn't the point of the practice to prevent him from murdering again? I think that if you are more for him sufering than the safety of others, then you are being selfish and a jerk.

If he raped and murdered my family, I reserve the right to be a selfish prick.

 

[Hedberger]

Why pay taxes to keep a murderer alive? Eye-for-an-eye. Killed for being a killer.

Same for rapists.

But accidental killing, manslaughter, that gets a 30-50 year sentence.

So... raped for being a rapist?

To clear this up, no.

I mean "Killed for being a killer" and "Same for rapists." meaning "Killed for being a rapist."

And, my thinking is, rape of anyone completely wrecks someone. Psychologically, they will never be the same. So, Ksshc, you just messed someone up, so you'll end up even more messed up.

Messed up meaning Dead.

What's the point of executing someone? No really what's the point? The crime has still been done and executing the perpetrator doesn't improve anything. Worst case scenario we get cheap manual labor and if not they get a chance to redeem themselves and get back to having a normal life.

 

[Dys]

It cannot be undone or in any way compensated if a mistake is made, and for that reason alone I am against it.

The various other reasons are a bonus, such as it being far too soft of a punishment for the worst (child molesters, rapists etc should be forced to share cells with rioters and the generally violent) and far too hard of a punishment for the common criminal ("but I it's just a bit of spray paint"). I'm a big fan of forced labor camps (*Gasp* like Stalin), people wouldn't be keen to rape/murder eachother if it meant a lifetime of hard physicial labour.

1. I don't think we as human have the right to choose who lives and who dies.

2. Its more expensive than life in prison

3. You can undo a life sentence if more evidence or testimony surfaces, can't exactly bring back the dead....

expensive? you mean the chair? how bout i come over with a hammer. iiiiiiiiittt,s cheap.

Who then, might I ask, will pay the compensation you would undoubtably be entitled for having a job which requires you abandon your human conscience.
Do we really want to desensitize people to the level where they can thoughtlessly kill another human being? (That's rhetorical, please don't answer it).

 

[Hedberger]

If you commit murder or steal a whole bunch of stuff welll, fuck it, most criminals deserve the death penalty

But life in prison is alot worse than a quick easy death. Life in prison is being raped and shanked and beaten constantly till you die, that's far worse.

The death penalty is sometimes an easy way out.

Why do you care that much about punishment. Isn't the point of the practice to prevent him from murdering again? I think that if you are more for him sufering than the safety of others, then you are being selfish and a jerk.

If he raped and murdered my family, I reserve the right to be a selfish prick.

Which is an excellent point as to why we don't let the victims relatives decide the punishment because whatever the criminal did and for whatever reason the relatives will want him tortured and/or dead. Personally i don't care what criminals deserve because it's beside the point. Since the crime has already been committed there's nothing left but trying to do the best of the situation. Such as making sure the criminal don't commit more crimes and make him/her become a productive member of society once more.