Should the death sentence be used more?

[mrscott137]

What do you notice about the counties on that list? Except for Japan (that barely made the top 10) and the US, do those strike you as countries that have human rights and justice systems you might want to emulate?

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.

Well that was your fault for being a socialist.

My point is completely proven. Bravo to you sir, Bravo.

You know he was joking right? :/

I asked him about it and he meant it in a joking fashion, it just didn't come out that way.

Ah okay, sorry man, i'm just used to deadly serious shit from people about my political views. Sorry :/

 

[Biosophilogical]

Do you believe that the death sentence should be used more often

I'm pretty sure most people find that it's used only once...

I beg to differ. They tried on me three times, and I survived it the first and third times. Admittedly they shouldn't have tried to kill me when I was dead after the second time, it gave me the opportunity for a re-match with death.

OT: Seriously, why do you people like the death-penalty so much? Isn't it bad enough that the criminals have harmed humanity? Now you want to harm them back? Killing someone doesn't make anything right, it doesn't undo history. Seriously!!! What! The! Fudge! Is! Up! With! You! Guys! How on earth do people feel that killing someone as punishment! is in any way just? Killing someone because it is the only way to prevent them from killing or severely hurting others? Sure. Killing someone for revenge/'justice'/because you can't be arsed taking a less extreme method of prevention? RAWR!!! Only random key-pressing can possibly express my exasperation! hj;seuhbuiagbn[ea5'ujbaw4bpv2 Argh! ;aihjrbvabv'o9euj

 

[Leg End]

What do you notice about the counties on that list? Except for Japan (that barely made the top 10) and the US, do those strike you as countries that have human rights and justice systems you might want to emulate?

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.

Well that was your fault for being a socialist.

My point is completely proven. Bravo to you sir, Bravo.

You know he was joking right? :/

I asked him about it and he meant it in a joking fashion, it just didn't come out that way.

Ah okay, sorry man, i'm just used to deadly serious shit from people about my political views. Sorry :/

Eh, I somewhat made the mistake too.

Don't worry about it.

 

[New Troll]

Eye For An Eye justice, with extreme prejudice. I'm all for it.

I believe executions are much more economical than life-imprisonment. I could be wrong, but have yet to see otherwise. Course I'm also not a big fan of the prison system. Turning criminals into sadists before releasing them back among the world. Sure there's those who do in fact turn thier life around, but they seem to be the minority. Just not worth it in my opinion.

So... you are all for taking a life if to cut costs?

That... isn't exactly the most... humane, thing to do.

Also, criminal reform.

Plus, you would kill those that would reform.

Yes I am. A life not worth anything is better not on this planet in my opinion. And yes criminals reform, but most don't. And the ones that don't are notorious for raping and killing fellow criminals while in prison, so who's to say thier victums couldn't have reformed? I'm all for removing the worst element from an already bad situation.

And as for costs, it might be inhumane but spending billions to house criminals and train them to be more sadistic criminals does not help to pay my son's doctor bills. Give them free room and board while I struggle to keep food on my son's plate. To me, it feels a lot like everyone is having to still pay, often decades later, for the crimes commited.

I have an uncle who's in and out of jail all the time, a complete waste to everyone, which even he admits to, yet he isn't even one of the people I'm referring to in my statements. But if he was to murder or rape someone, he most definitely would. He's not that evil of a guy though, just stupid.

Now I am generally a nice guy, full of patience and forgiveness, but some people just don't care because they don't deserve such emotions. Call me inhumane for caring more for the rest of the people on this world than for the evil among us, then I guess I am. Still won't ever get me to see the reasoning behind paying to let them live by sacrificing from my son, who could one day be an Einstien or Hawking, a Mozart or Clapton, a Washington or Reagan, a Pele or Zidane. Why are we limiting his future to support thiers?

TL;DR: Anyone who complains about taxes should be more open-minded about means of lowering them.

 

[WaReloaded]

"An eye for an eye leaves us all blind" I think this sums up my answer concisely.

 

[Arizona Kyle]

What if we only used the death penilty if more then 3 people saw you do the crime? that would kinda solve the "turns out he was innocent"

and ik what you guys are going to say about how people could pay people to say that they saw them and stuff but atleast i offered this lol

also instead of them waiting for like years on death row where they are eating up more money then the usual criminal why dont we just put a bullet in there brain??? or something like that??? (ok ok thats like hella cruel)

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

In a day and age where men/women are killing each other, stealing millions of dollars, using drugs to the extreme, selling drugs, and oh so much more. Do you believe that the death sentence should be used more often rather then wasting tax payer money on some criminal that will never get out of prison

Yes. In fact, I say let's kill anyone we think might be committing a crime! What's all this due process shit, anyway? Just arm a bunch of people with shotguns and tell them to go to town. And drug users, yes, kill those fuckers by the truckload, because sitting around smoking pot and having "great ideas" is as evil as taking an AK-47 into a park and hosing people down with bullets. Hell, since most of the criminals we arrest are poor, minorities, or poor minorities, perhaps we should just take a preemptive strike, and drop napalm on all the ghettos, slums, and homeless shelters we can find.

No. First of all I believe it's morally wrong, and second of all it's not an action you can take back if the justice system fails.

Because you know, our justice system is 100% foolproof.

Furthermore, crime has plummeted [http://www.slate.com/id/2284662/] over the last 20 years. "Between 1990 and 2009, the national violent-crime rate was halved, while property crime dropped to 60 percent of its previous rate... The disparity has been especially clear in New York City. That city saw the most dramatic crime decline of all: Since 1990, the homicide rate has dropped 82 percent, robbery by 84 percent, rape by 77 percent, and auto theft a stunning 94 percent."

So why exactly do you want to start offing more people?

Oh, look, here comes the PC police with all those facts and logic. Stop speaking sense! Don't you know that "in a day and age where men/women are killing each other, stealing millions of dollars, using drugs to the extreme, selling drugs, and oh so much more" (that's to say, just like every day and age), facts don't matter? Arizona Kyle's sentence fragment opening was enough to convince me to buy into his moral panic, and it should convince anyone who's not some commie pinko terrorist-sympothizer. God bless America.

P.S.: And didn't you hear about DNA evidence? Because it's a magic wand that can automatically be used to determine someone's guilt, and not just another tool that police use, and not one that would be incredibly useless if they can't find a viable sample from the crime scene (hair, semen, skin cells, etc.) that could single out a person as opposed to a bunch of other people. Science is just magic, don't ya know?

 

[Arizona Kyle]

In a day and age where men/women are killing each other, stealing millions of dollars, using drugs to the extreme, selling drugs, and oh so much more. Do you believe that the death sentence should be used more often rather then wasting tax payer money on some criminal that will never get out of prison

Yes. In fact, I say let's kill anyone we think might be committing a crime! What's all this due process shit, anyway? Just arm a bunch of people with shotguns and tell them to go to town. And drug users, yes, kill those fuckers by the truckload, because sitting around smoking pot and having "great ideas" is as evil as taking an AK-47 into a park and hosing people down with bullets. Hell, since most of the criminals we arrest are poor, minorities, or poor minorities, perhaps we should just take a preemptive strike, and drop napalm on all the ghettos, slums, and homeless shelters we can find.

No. First of all I believe it's morally wrong, and second of all it's not an action you can take back if the justice system fails.

Because you know, our justice system is 100% foolproof.

Furthermore, crime has plummeted [http://www.slate.com/id/2284662/] over the last 20 years. "Between 1990 and 2009, the national violent-crime rate was halved, while property crime dropped to 60 percent of its previous rate... The disparity has been especially clear in New York City. That city saw the most dramatic crime decline of all: Since 1990, the homicide rate has dropped 82 percent, robbery by 84 percent, rape by 77 percent, and auto theft a stunning 94 percent."

So why exactly do you want to start offing more people?

Oh, look, here comes the PC police with all those facts and logic. Stop speaking sense! Don't you know that "in a day and age where men/women are killing each other, stealing millions of dollars, using drugs to the extreme, selling drugs, and oh so much more" (that's to say, just like every day and age), facts don't matter? Arizona Kyle's sentence fragment opening was enough to convince me to buy into his moral panic, and it should convince anyone who's not some commie pinko terrorist-sympothizer. God bless America.

ha ha ha very nice but i was just trying to start a discussion about the death sentence and yes another to the cause XD and ya ik it was sentence fragment but it was a sentence fragment that did the job at getting people to think about if we should use it more often

 

[PoliceBox63]

Used more?! It should be eliminated.
It's throwing away their right to life. Every human deserves to live as long as they can.
I mean, it's mostly murderers who are put to death? It's so hypocritical! You killed people and that's bad so we're going to kill you as punishment. Oh ya, great punishment, guys. A better punishment is letting them suffer incarcerated into old age.

Not to mention mistrials and biased juries and frame-ups... killing an innocent person is just tragic. Imagine right now you are taken from your home by the police and sentenced to death for murders you didn't commit and were then killed. If you were only incarcerated, over time evidence may come out in your favour and you would be freed.

This whole idea behind the death sentence is just Medieval.

 

[meowchef]

Every single time a person is convicted of rape or murder.

But, in the former, you would be sentencing them to a fate worse than the crime.

Not necessarily. They destroyed at least one life... you destroy one life.

Are you saying that rape victims are destroyed?

That's sensationalist nonsense, sorry.

Do you know any rape victims?

 

[theNater]

Well, I'll tell you what. If you go do something wrong, get convicted, and then proceed in having your feet and hands lopped off while a live snake is shove up your ass...and the people who get wind of it in one way or another DON'T react in a "Holy shit!" manner denoting a sudden desire to go straight...then I owe you a coke.

(In all seriousness, we're not allowed to punish people BEFORE they do it, so the only even-remotely-lawful way I could think of was to impress upon people that you don't get off easy anymore. No, most people DON'T think this stuff through, but if we don't do something that COULD make them think, we're not even trying.)

But the "Holy shit!" reaction won't denote a desire to go straight, because that's not what immediately preceded the punishment. It would denote a desire to avoid being convicted, which I suspect most criminals already have.

What if we only used the death penilty if more then 3 people saw you do the crime? that would kinda solve the "turns out he was innocent"

This might work, unless someone had 3 enemies who were willing to lie in order to see that person executed. Not worth the risk, in my opinion.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Quote Incarcerated.-

I understand you, but even if I don't agree, the truth of the matter is that you have no method outside of punishment that can be allowed by law when you factor in the justice system. As a part of that system, there is nothing else you can do but do something to them once convicted. That's the rule. If you have something better than what I'm saying, then please say so. The only way to make people stop doing bad shit is to make bad shit too hazardous a career to be acceptable. You can't put that wagon ahead of the horse, so work with what you got.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

It shouldn't be used at all. The correctional system should seek to rehabilitate people for the good of society, not engage in some barbaric vision of retribution.

 

[theNater]

-Quote Incarcerated.-

I understand you, but even if I don't agree, the truth of the matter is that you have no method outside of punishment that can be allowed by law when you factor in the justice system. As a part of that system, there is nothing else you can do but do something to them once convicted. That's the rule. If you have something better than what I'm saying, then please say so. The only way to make people stop doing bad shit is to make bad shit too hazardous a career to be acceptable. You can't put that wagon ahead of the horse, so work with what you got.

If the end goal is to reduce crime, making it more likely that criminals will be caught increases their risk very soundly. Any criminals who are considering consequences will have to go to greater effort to avoid it, and may therefore decide to find an easier(and hopefully, legal) route to achieve their aims.

The way to make criminals more likely to be caught is more funding towards law enforcement, including hiring more law enforcement officials, training them better, and developing new forensic techniques.

 

[godofallu]

As far as the US goes we shouldn't do the death penalty NOW. The reason being that it costs us way too much money, and we end up trying the same person 10 times before we actually fulfill our conviction.

In the future, where we get rid of this retry till you run out of cash system , I say death penalty all the way.

Some might argue that killintg someone for killing is Hippocratic, but I see that viewpoint as ignorant. You don't kill someone because killing is wrong, you kill them because killing a large amount of innocent people is wrong.

Whats better for society as a whole, keeping someone alieve (sometimes against their own will) for years. Paying for their room/food/healthcare/waste manage,ent ect, OR killing them and getting on with life?

The cheaper/better option should be obvious, the reason it isn't obvious is due to a flaw in our legal system.

That "Flaw" is absolutely necessary. You know how many people are wrongly convicted each year?
What if you were wrongly convicted and sentanced to death?
Despite the great lengths that your legal system goes to in an attempt to avoid executing innocent people it still happens.

Lengthly trials for death penalty cases are a necessity. As such, as are the costs of those trials.
This not only makes life in prison the more humane option, it makes it more financial viable.
If anything, people who still think in terms of "an eye for an eye" are the ones who are ignorant.

That's the thing though, why should a life sentence vs a death penalty be tried differently? Shouldn't both trials be treated equally? Is it ok that the rules for one are different than the other? Why is it that life sentence cases use the normal rules, why death penalty gets UNLIMITED retrials? If the legal system isn't accurate enough change the entire legal system. Don't add some phony rule that only applies to 1/10,000 cases.

If I was unjustly labeled a murderer, it would be a sad day for me whether i'm getting killed or going to prison forever. Adding unlimited retrials won't save me at all it will only delay the inevitable at a cost to taxpays of 3million a trial. If the first 3 trials don't go well, why on earth would the fifth or eighth?

I don't believe in eye for an eye, fuck vengeance. You kill because it is the morally right thing to do. It's better to protect society and other inmates from this monster than let him run around in prison eating food that the victims family pays for. I'd want a quick and noble death over a lifetime in prison as well, at least admit that people who would prefer death should get the option.

 

[Agila_77]

I say yes, we should use it more.

If you want reasoning, think about it from this perspective. They're convicts. They're in there because they've murdered someone. If they get out, whats to stop them from doing it again? It'll all just come down to a vicious cycle of sticking them in the equivalent of a time out corner.

Now execution, that means you are 100% sure they will never do it again.

Besides, if it was a fair trial, all the evidence was in that direction, but the man was innocent, I think God will forgive you for the mistake.

 

[Hairetos]

Every single time a person is convicted of rape or murder.

But, in the former, you would be sentencing them to a fate worse than the crime.

Not necessarily. They destroyed at least one life... you destroy one life.

Are you saying that rape victims are destroyed?

That's sensationalist nonsense, sorry.

Do you know any rape victims?

Does it matter? Because you're saying that rape victims are incapable of taking care of themselves emotionally. I can say with certainty that there are rape victims out there that have overcome the trauma eventually.

 

[theNater]

That's the thing though, why should a life sentence vs a death penalty be tried differently? Shouldn't both trials be treated equally? Is it ok that the rules for one are different than the other? Why is it that life sentence cases use the normal rules, why death penalty gets UNLIMITED retrials?

Could it be because with a life sentence, a meaningful attempt to rectify the error is at least theoretically feasible, while with the death penalty it isn't?

If the legal system isn't accurate enough change the entire legal system. Don't add some phony rule that only applies to 1/10,000 cases.

The only level of accuracy that is acceptable to me is 100%, which is not realistically achievable, no matter how the legal system is set up.

Besides, if it was a fair trial, all the evidence was in that direction, but the man was innocent, I think God will forgive you for the mistake.

One of the founding principles of the United States is that "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". Knowing that we will probably be forgiven is not an excuse for failing to live up to our own principles.

 

[Raddragon]

Everytime this comes up I just think about my friend who is blind, handicapped, needs a transplant and is still the sweetest person I know.

If someone commits a really severe crime, most of the criminals might just do it again, and thinking about my friend just makes me think about how death penalty would help this world. Wouldn't we have better ability to make transplants? A better society?

It just gets me thinking...

 

[Arizona Kyle]

Well, I'll tell you what. If you go do something wrong, get convicted, and then proceed in having your feet and hands lopped off while a live snake is shove up your ass...and the people who get wind of it in one way or another DON'T react in a "Holy shit!" manner denoting a sudden desire to go straight...then I owe you a coke.

(In all seriousness, we're not allowed to punish people BEFORE they do it, so the only even-remotely-lawful way I could think of was to impress upon people that you don't get off easy anymore. No, most people DON'T think this stuff through, but if we don't do something that COULD make them think, we're not even trying.)

But the "Holy shit!" reaction won't denote a desire to go straight, because that's not what immediately preceded the punishment. It would denote a desire to avoid being convicted, which I suspect most criminals already have.

What if we only used the death penilty if more then 3 people saw you do the crime? that would kinda solve the "turns out he was innocent"

This might work, unless someone had 3 enemies who were willing to lie in order to see that person executed. Not worth the risk, in my opinion.

well ya thats why its a "kinda" solution