Should the death sentence be used more?
- Thread starter Arizona Kyle
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm going to say what I always say when this subject comes up for me.
You don't murder an animal, you kill it. There are some people who do such unspeakable things that they do not deserve the right to continue living in our society. That being said, I also don't like the system we have for the death penalty. It's expensive and takes forever. I'm not going to claim to know how to fix it, but...short answer, I support the death penalty in principle, but not the system it's used in.
You don't murder an animal, you kill it. There are some people who do such unspeakable things that they do not deserve the right to continue living in our society. That being said, I also don't like the system we have for the death penalty. It's expensive and takes forever. I'm not going to claim to know how to fix it, but...short answer, I support the death penalty in principle, but not the system it's used in.
In America a life sentence can be as short as 15 years (depending on the crime). It can also mean permanent imprisonment but in most cases it refers to a minimum time of imprisonment without hope of release or parole.CODE-D said:
They're kept on death row for so long on the off chance they may be found innocent (though, again, if that's the case they should remove the penalty altogether imo).Swny Nerdgasm said:
So what're you proposing? You don't get the right to appeal when the redneck local judge bangs the gavel, you just get two in the head?Aeshi said:
I don't want to face a firing squad because I boned the mayor's daughter, he flips & coerces her to cry rape and oh BTW the mayor is hunting buddies with the judge of the local district court. "Paperwork" could certainly be streamlined, but this "legal stuff" is ultimately for our own protection.
...KeyMaster45 said:
You are comparing an entirely different situation. Even then, I would do it out of the former, not the latter.
But, then you are doing it for a selfish reason, which is even worse.
And, I'm a "bleeding heart ninny", but even I would not campaign for their release, because they pose a very real and eternal threat to others. But that is still no reason to kill them. Unless they start escaping and begin killing even more, there is not a reason even remotely close enough to warrant such an action that basically amounts to murder. :/
The Bullshit! episode I posted earlier basically explains my stance. :/
If you rape or murder someone and there's DNA evidence and multiple witnesses, then I firmly believe you should get to go straight to the front of the line - no appeals.
People who have moral problems with it confuse me. There's a difference between murdering someone in cold blood, and executing someone who has murdered in cold blood. You forfeit any "human rights" you had the second you decide to bloody your hands and end the life of another intelligent being.
People who have moral problems with it confuse me. There's a difference between murdering someone in cold blood, and executing someone who has murdered in cold blood. You forfeit any "human rights" you had the second you decide to bloody your hands and end the life of another intelligent being.
Do you really think criminals plan on getting caught? If they're assuming they won't get caught, then it doesn't matter what the penalty is.The Night Shade said:
Prisons can work; some criminals do reform. The fact that they work rarely is reason to study them and find out why they work when they do in order to make them work more often. It is not a reason to give up on them for a system with the flaws the death penalty has(irreversibility, expense, iffy morality, etc.).thisbymaster said:
It actually normally costs more to euthanize a criminal than keep him in jail.Arizona Kyle said:
Human rights? I'm pretty sure the "Right to not be fucking murdered in cold blood" is a pretty fundamental one. The sociopaths who murder multiple people made the choice to "completely disregard human rights" long before they killed their first victim.The Unworthy Gentleman said:
Giving sympathy to these guys is just ignorant. Give them an inch, and they will take a mile.
No. First, if someone is wrongly convicted, for whatever reason, and they are put to death, it isn't enough to just say "Whoops, sorry bruv, turns out you were innocent" as the chappie will be toast and nothing can undo that.
Second, I don't see how the death penalty dissuades people from committing murders. Surely those who commit murder (the only crime really deserving of the DP) are not thinking of the consequences in the moment.
Third, locking people up for life protects citizens just as much as killing them.
Fourth, if you are looking for a proper punishment, sleeping with one eye open and a shiv under your pillow for fifty years in a Supermax is more than adequate a fate for the worst society has to offer.
Fifth, killing people to stop killing sets a bad precedent by telling people that murder is OK in some situations (perhaps true of self-defense, but I'd imagine that those situations are fairly rare) when we should be saying that it is not OK for anyone to do, even the State.
Sixth, are we not supposed to be better then criminals? How does killing them for killing, in light of the above, make us any better? Because we use a needle instead of a knife or a gun? I think the difference is negligible.
So no, I don't think we should be killing people to stop killing. That is like fucking for virginity. It makes no sense.
Second, I don't see how the death penalty dissuades people from committing murders. Surely those who commit murder (the only crime really deserving of the DP) are not thinking of the consequences in the moment.
Third, locking people up for life protects citizens just as much as killing them.
Fourth, if you are looking for a proper punishment, sleeping with one eye open and a shiv under your pillow for fifty years in a Supermax is more than adequate a fate for the worst society has to offer.
Fifth, killing people to stop killing sets a bad precedent by telling people that murder is OK in some situations (perhaps true of self-defense, but I'd imagine that those situations are fairly rare) when we should be saying that it is not OK for anyone to do, even the State.
Sixth, are we not supposed to be better then criminals? How does killing them for killing, in light of the above, make us any better? Because we use a needle instead of a knife or a gun? I think the difference is negligible.
So no, I don't think we should be killing people to stop killing. That is like fucking for virginity. It makes no sense.
See, that is the closest person that I would agree with on this subject, but still don't. :/HankMan said:
Now, if he escapes and tries to kill again... well, that is actually a little more in it's favor. That would be possibly one of the few cases where it might be warranted and I would agree. :/
Some people of proven that they are not worthy of living. These are the repeat offenders or those who do something truly horrific. These are the people that have proven that they can not be live in this world without destroying the world for others. These people were created just like everyone else. How they came to this point may not totally be their fault, but when they cross the line and kill others, the fault is theirs. They are damaged goods. This being the case, we have two options. Lock them up and feed them for the rest of their lives, or fix the problem so that they are no longer living in this world and have no chance to repeat offend.
While the death penalty may not be an issue in some cases (as the problem solved it's self early) ask yourself this. Do you think the parents of dead Columbine students would believe in the death penalty? Do you think Gabrielle Giffords would believe in the death penalty? What about her husband? There are countless other cases. There are cases as horrific where the offenders did actually live. Now, do you think these people should have to pay (taxes) to keep the offenders in these cases alive (again, assuming the offenders actually made it to police custody)?
Seriously, before speaking against the death penalty, look up some of the people who have died under it. See what they did to EARN that penalty.
Oh, yeah, and the mental defense is garbage. Someone being screwed up to the point where they don't understand what they did was wrong isn't a defense. If they have proven they can't live without destroying, this should be all that is needed.
While the death penalty may not be an issue in some cases (as the problem solved it's self early) ask yourself this. Do you think the parents of dead Columbine students would believe in the death penalty? Do you think Gabrielle Giffords would believe in the death penalty? What about her husband? There are countless other cases. There are cases as horrific where the offenders did actually live. Now, do you think these people should have to pay (taxes) to keep the offenders in these cases alive (again, assuming the offenders actually made it to police custody)?
Seriously, before speaking against the death penalty, look up some of the people who have died under it. See what they did to EARN that penalty.
Oh, yeah, and the mental defense is garbage. Someone being screwed up to the point where they don't understand what they did was wrong isn't a defense. If they have proven they can't live without destroying, this should be all that is needed.
But who is anyone to judge who is worthy? That makes you just as bad to kill them just because YOU believe they are not worthy of life.YouEatLard said:
You also stated a flaw in your logic.
If they are locked up for life... how can they re-offend?
You are justifying it as revenge. That is not the point of the system itself. You are saying it should be the Government's job to commit acts of revenge on behalf of families.
You should also look at all of the Innocent People killed by the Death Penalty. :/
Which is also covered by that episode of Bullshit!. In the sense that, if they kill him, it could be like Jesus all over again, except with insane, murderous psychopaths as followers. :/HankMan said:
Wait... (O_O)... nevermind that group comparison. :/
If anything, I'm actually surprised he wasn't executed, considering all of those on death row being killed for far less. :/
Seems... fucked.
Seriously, the fucking KKK hates the guy! (O_O)
Not trying to be offensive, but from an outsiders point of view (UK), america ain't perfect either in terms of human rights and justice systems. For example- a national healthcare system, racism (DO NOT DENY THIS- It wasn't just me who saw southerners having fits over a black president). Oh and America- I visited once and made the mistake of admitting that I am partly socialist in a bar. Didn't go down to well, like I say, its the minority groups, but the same could be said for the middle eastern countries and china above. Not perfect, as I say.ravensheart18 said:
The whole prison situation in America is... complicated, and the truth concerning the death penalty is that the reason it's inefficient is because we insist on giving people their civil liberties in prison through countless appeals. If we were to keep the system of capital punishment, we would ideally give the prisoner one appeal. Then again, that's never going to happen, so it would be best to scrap the ideal altogether.
And America's prison system is rather complicated. There are a ton, probably over 40% of our prisoners who are non-violent drug users; they got prison time for getting caught with some weed or crack, around 50-50 distribution between prisoners. Getting all those inmates out would cut our prison population tremendously. The worse stat is that around 60% of our violent crime is directly related to drugs in some way. This is excluding marijuana and excluding the mere presence of a drug at a crime scene. You got guys killing each other as competition in dealing hard drugs. You got guys doped up on heroin who overreact to certain situations. You got meth lab explosions. You got drug addicts killing people just to get their fix, or much more common, robbing places to get their fix, either for the money to buy it off the streets or for the raw materials needed to produce their drugs themselves. On the West Coast, meth is a crisis. In the Southeast, Dixie America, you got crack. In the North, you have prescription drugs and opiates. Cutting down on, or legalizing marijuana, would let loose about 40% of our prison population. Getting rid of the flow of harder drugs into the US would probably lead to a decrease of around 50% (at that point) of the future prison population. It would be brutally effective.
But then, I'm not sure we want that. More people out of prison and on the streets just means more competition for jobs that already see a lot of competition. And the jobs lost from the downsizing of the prison industry would create even more competition at that point. It's either prison or going back to farming by hand the way China does it, and since Wall Street would subsequently lend tons of money to new farmers with no notable credit history so they can push falsely rated trusts, we're ruling out the latter.
To be fair, this situation has come up before. We call it the Great Depression. Prison populations also boomed then in America, probably because poor people with no work wanted food and clean water. I'd say we're in a similar situation now. I'm not gonna count on World War 3 to bail us out, though, so the only other solution is to slash our defense budget, train people in engineering and start improving our infrastructure like crazy. Using our own workers, not Chinese ones.
And America's prison system is rather complicated. There are a ton, probably over 40% of our prisoners who are non-violent drug users; they got prison time for getting caught with some weed or crack, around 50-50 distribution between prisoners. Getting all those inmates out would cut our prison population tremendously. The worse stat is that around 60% of our violent crime is directly related to drugs in some way. This is excluding marijuana and excluding the mere presence of a drug at a crime scene. You got guys killing each other as competition in dealing hard drugs. You got guys doped up on heroin who overreact to certain situations. You got meth lab explosions. You got drug addicts killing people just to get their fix, or much more common, robbing places to get their fix, either for the money to buy it off the streets or for the raw materials needed to produce their drugs themselves. On the West Coast, meth is a crisis. In the Southeast, Dixie America, you got crack. In the North, you have prescription drugs and opiates. Cutting down on, or legalizing marijuana, would let loose about 40% of our prison population. Getting rid of the flow of harder drugs into the US would probably lead to a decrease of around 50% (at that point) of the future prison population. It would be brutally effective.
But then, I'm not sure we want that. More people out of prison and on the streets just means more competition for jobs that already see a lot of competition. And the jobs lost from the downsizing of the prison industry would create even more competition at that point. It's either prison or going back to farming by hand the way China does it, and since Wall Street would subsequently lend tons of money to new farmers with no notable credit history so they can push falsely rated trusts, we're ruling out the latter.
To be fair, this situation has come up before. We call it the Great Depression. Prison populations also boomed then in America, probably because poor people with no work wanted food and clean water. I'd say we're in a similar situation now. I'm not gonna count on World War 3 to bail us out, though, so the only other solution is to slash our defense budget, train people in engineering and start improving our infrastructure like crazy. Using our own workers, not Chinese ones.