PDA

View Full Version : Why The Death Penalty Needs To Go


Pages : [1] 2

thefacepubekid
October 19th, 2016, 11:08 PM
Hey guys,

I am currently studying the death penalty in Social Studies at school, and would like to say my entire viewpoint on the death penalty has since changed.
Because I live in New Zealand, where the death penalty has been abolished for many years, we base most of our study off the American death penalty. But here's my main points for why the death penalty should be 'axed' (geddit):

1) The death penalty was created to suit another time, age and system. It has become largely obsolete;
2) Although many taxpayers say they should not have to pay to keep murderers and criminals alive, it should be the government's responsibility to ensure they serve ALL the people. No government, person or state should be allowed to decide whether or not a human is a 'write-off' and should be put to death;
3) Every person can be rehabilitated unless they are mentally ill, in which case we should keep them away from the majority of society, but in their own secure communities which are constantly guarded to ensure that everyone gets a chance at life. Also, by the time death row inmates reach their execution date, they are more often than not ALREADY rehabilitated and understand their action were wrong;
4) Whether or not a person gets sentenced to death relies heavily on the quality of legal assistance they can afford;
5) The majority of people on death row are NOT the 'baddest of the bad', they are just people who have made honest mistakes in life.

Let me know what you think!

Thanks,
Josh

mattsmith48
October 19th, 2016, 11:22 PM
I agree that the death penalty as to be abolish everywhere where its still practice. Its a cruel punishment, barbaric and literally murder. In alot of cases they murder the wrong person and when you have the right person they will spend time in jail depending on what they do and after they payed their debt to society to get out and are free to get back to their live and do whatever the fuck they want.

PlasmaHam
October 20th, 2016, 12:25 AM
1) The death penalty was created to suit another time, age and system. It has become largely obsolete; The same thing could be said to support getting rid of Free speech, Habeas Corpus, and to bear arms. That is a very dangerous excuse, to say that something is inherently not applicable to this age because it was created by and for another.2) Although many taxpayers say they should not have to pay to keep murderers and criminals alive, it should be the government's responsibility to ensure they serve ALL the people. No government, person or state should be allowed to decide whether or not a human is a 'write-off' and should be put to death; So if someone came into my home and threatened me with a knife, it would me morally wrong for me to kill him? After all, I am choosing to "write off" his life, because I value mine and my family's over his. Should I not be allowed to defend myself by taking a life?3) Every person can be rehabilitated unless they are mentally ill, in which case we should keep them away from the majority of society, but in their own secure communities which are constantly guarded to ensure that everyone gets a chance at life. Is a life without freedoms better than no life? Prison rehabilitation also doesn't have the best track record with turning criminals good and keeping good people from going bad.
Also, by the time death row inmates reach their execution date, they are more often than not ALREADY rehabilitated and understand their action were wrong;If you went and stole someone's car, do you seriously expect to get off the hook just because you realize what you did was wrong, and you say you are sorry? You can return a stolen car, you can't return a stolen life. You have to pay the consequences in life, whether or not you actively knew what you did was wrong.4) Whether or not a person gets sentenced to death relies heavily on the quality of legal assistance they can afford; I'm sure there is some connection there, but that is for any court issue as a whole. And I doubt that the quality of your lawyers is going to heavily influence the judge's verdict to the degree you imply.5) The majority of people on death row are NOT the 'baddest of the bad', they are just people who have made honest mistakes in life. I'm not sure what they taught you, but death row isn't for your average murderer. It is for the mass murderers, child rapists, extreme torturers, it is for the people who go to the extremes. I doubt mass murdering or raping a child is something that you can dismiss as "honest mistakes."
Its a cruel punishment, barbaric and literally murder. Very nice description of abortion. Tearing apart a fetus limb from limb, even at a stage where scientists believe pain can be felt. That is unspeakably barbaric, not to mention murder. But I don't think the punishment term is necessary, because the mother doesn't even need a reason! She could decide to mutilate her baby at anytime because she felt like it! An innocent baby tortured to death by tearing it limb from limb. I really don't see how liberals justify this but see killing mass murderers via painless methods as unspeakable cruelty.

mattsmith48
October 20th, 2016, 01:08 AM
Prison rehabilitation also doesn't have the best track record with turning criminals good and keeping good people from going bad.

The reason rehabilitation doesn't work in the US and other countries who also do this, its they are treated like second class citizens while they are in jail and when they get out you exclude them from society. Start by treating them like humans and then rehabilitation would have a better success rate.


Very nice description of abortion. Tearing apart a fetus limb from limb, even at a stage where scientists believe pain can be felt. That is unspeakably barbaric, not to mention murder. But I don't think the punishment term is necessary, because the mother doesn't even need a reason! She could decide to mutilate her baby at anytime because she felt like it! An innocent baby tortured to death by tearing it limb from limb. I really don't see how liberals justify this but see killing mass murderers via painless methods as unspeakable cruelty.

If a fetus as no brain activity until around 24 weeks after the legal time you have to get an abortion, unless of some extreme circumstances like life of the mother is in danger or there is something wrong with the fetus. Most abortions are perform when the fetus as no brain activity and cannot survive outside of the uterus so its technically still part of the women's body and is free chose what she wants to do with it. All of this was already explained to you in the abortion debate. This is about murdering human beings who too many times didn't do anything and for those who did do something your not better than that person if you want to kill them.

Flapjack
October 20th, 2016, 09:08 AM
finally a fresh debate aha xD I will post my opinions on here later as I have to go be social now :')

PlasmaHam
October 20th, 2016, 09:49 AM
If a fetus as no brain activity until around 24 weeks after the legal time you have to get an abortion, unless of some extreme circumstances like life of the mother is in danger or there is something wrong with the fetus. I can't understand your grammar, as usual, but I'll try to decipher it. This is not the time nor the place to give you a lesson on developmental biology, but tearing a baby limb from limb and smashing in the head during a developmental age in which many scientists believe pain can be felt and the baby can survive for limited time outside the womb, I call that murder and torture of an innocent person.

Your argument is that we can't prove someone is guilty and worthy of death, so we shouldn't put them to death. You can't prove a fetus isn't alive and can't feel pain, but you have no hesitations about mutilating an innocent fetus in a possible agonizing death for no reason. You use the doubt factor in defense of criminals, yet abandon it for the innocents. You either abandon the doubt argument for the death penalty, or accept it for abortion.

Since this is getting off-topic and that this will just devolve into another argument about how a fetus is just a bunch of dead matter in the mother, I am not pursing this avenue of argument. But please consider using the doubt argument not only for the criminals, but the innocent.

Paraxiom
October 20th, 2016, 07:14 PM
1) The death penalty was created to suit another time, age and system. It has become largely obsolete [...]

The other reasons you give don't satisfy enough (in my view) why you see the death penalty as obsolete and only suitable for a bygone system.


2) Although many taxpayers say they should not have to pay to keep murderers and criminals alive, it should be the government's responsibility to ensure they serve ALL the people. No government, person or state should be allowed to decide whether or not a human is a 'write-off' and should be put to death[...]

I could argue in extension from your point though that no government should have the power to put any person into a greatly limited lifespan of jail.

The government (theoretically, at least) serves every person in a population as long as each person abides with the system-maintaining laws. If one does not, then that person is subject to punishment. It is part of the government's 'terms of service' (let's say) that they carry out punishments for those who violate the laws of system maintenance.


3) Every person can be rehabilitated unless they are mentally ill, in which case we should keep them away from the majority of society, but in their own secure communities which are constantly guarded to ensure that everyone gets a chance at life. Also, by the time death row inmates reach their execution date, they are more often than not ALREADY rehabilitated and understand their action were wrong [...]

You're in favour of some form of constructive 'healing' of criminals (the violators of system-maintenance laws, as I put it), rather than punishing them, correct?

I am sceptical of the worst criminals having capacity to see what they have done wrong - such criminals simply have a different view of what is right and wrong, so it is impossible for them to subscribe to a system that says otherwise.

What do you mean by 'mental illness' here? Wondering if you are drawing distinction between e.g. psychopathy, ADHD, or whatever.


4) Whether or not a person gets sentenced to death relies heavily on the quality of legal assistance they can afford [...]

I did not think that initial wealth of those charged guilty was a significant factor here, but I could be completely wrong by reason of ignorance on such matters, so I won't comment on it. I do know though that the legal realm is diverse across the world, but I assume you are talking about the USA.


5) The majority of people on death row are NOT the 'baddest of the bad', they are just people who have made honest mistakes in life.

Again, I wouldn't know of the statistics, but I imagine that there is at least some trend that has the worst of criminals being given death penalties.


I agree that the death penalty as to be abolish everywhere where its still practice. Its a cruel punishment, barbaric and literally murder. In alot of cases they murder the wrong person and when you have the right person they will spend time in jail depending on what they do and after they payed their debt to society to get out and are free to get back to their live and do whatever the fuck they want.

Funnily enough, my view on the death penalty in itself is that it is a less powerful punishment by pain-infliction than jail would be. I imagine that goes against your view on its barbarism and such, but I oppose the use of the death penalty with this being one of my reasons.


So if someone came into my home and threatened me with a knife, it would me morally wrong for me to kill him? After all, I am choosing to "write off" his life, because I value mine and my family's over his. Should I not be allowed to defend myself by taking a life? Is a life without freedoms better than no life?

I'd be of particular taste that I have a right to stop such a potential murderer by specifically stopping their ability to do such a thing, rather than specifically killing them. What I mean is that if it is possible, shooting the person in a non-fatal but critical spot is what should be done, rather than going the whole way to ending them completely. Killing as an act of self-defence can be justifiable, but it should not be seen as always justifiable, even if the attacker intends to kill.

Pretty irrelevant for me though in view of the death penalty itself, but I wanted to offer that.


Prison rehabilitation also doesn't have the best track record with turning criminals good and keeping good people from going bad.

I wouldn't know, so I won't comment.


You can return a stolen car, you can't return a stolen life.

Sure, but the death penalty stops all ability to punish a criminal thereafter as well.


You have to pay the consequences in life, whether or not you actively knew what you did was wrong.

I wouldn't consider the death penalty for those whose actions were done without them having awareness of the situation, or without having awareness of potential irresponsibility on their part.


And I doubt that the quality of your lawyers is going to heavily influence the judge's verdict to the degree you imply.

I'm still open to trying to reach some settled stance on lawyers in general, because (as I currently see it) lawyers have capacity to bring contingency/subjectivity into cases in the legal system. However, I'd be surprised if judges would be affected to that level, yes.


I'm not sure what they taught you, but death row isn't for your average murderer. It is for the mass murderers, child rapists, extreme torturers, it is for the people who go to the extremes. I doubt mass murdering or raping a child is something that you can dismiss as "honest mistakes."

As I said with the last death penalty thread (in August I think), I don't see the death penalty as the most powerful/effective punishment that could be done to such criminals. Death is a termination of known and controllable pain, from the POV of those carrying out punishments.

Very nice description of abortion. Tearing apart a fetus limb from limb, even at a stage where scientists believe pain can be felt. That is unspeakably barbaric, not to mention murder.

Irrelevant...

But I don't think the punishment term is necessary, because the mother doesn't even need a reason! She could decide to mutilate her baby at anytime because she felt like it!

...irrelevant...

An innocent baby tortured to death by tearing it limb from limb. I really don't see how liberals justify this but see killing mass murderers via painless methods as unspeakable cruelty.

Irrelevant. Bringing abortion into this is not relevant. Whatever about the perceived commonalities between it and the death penalty, we do arguing about the death penalty, centrally about the death penalty.


If a fetus as no brain activity until around 24 weeks after the legal time you have to get an abortion, unless of some extreme circumstances like life of the mother is in danger or there is something wrong with the fetus. Most abortions are perform when the fetus as no brain activity and cannot survive outside of the uterus so its technically still part of the women's body and is free chose what she wants to do with it. All of this was already explained to you in the abortion debate. This is about murdering human beings who too many times didn't do anything and for those who did do something your not better than that person if you want to kill them.

All but the end is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and it doesn't help in steering away from it either.


The reason rehabilitation doesn't work in the US and other countries who also do this, its they are treated like second class citizens while they are in jail [...]

In fairness, I would not expect those in jail to be otherwise regarded in well-mannered intent as non-criminals. I don't mean that I am okay with assaulting prisoners, I do not mean that. I mean that jail wouldn't function as punishment as effectively if it were only about holding people in a certain area, but with allowing them internet, whatever food, etc.


finally a fresh debate aha xD I will post my opinions on here later as I have to go be social now :')

A worthy plan! :D


Your argument is that we can't prove someone is guilty and worthy of death, so we shouldn't put them to death.

[P]lease consider using the doubt argument not only for the criminals, but the innocent.

mattsmith48 he has a point.

Uniquemind
October 21st, 2016, 02:17 AM
First off I have no moral problem with the death penalty as a tool or idea.

My issue with it is that how mankind as utilized it as a governance tool, their biases have caused grievous error upon the innocent, sometimes due to a bureaucratic career high-pressure DA wanting to improve crime statistics in various neighborhoods because of expectations and threat of fear.

Again the premise behind ALL the failure, is people are afraid of punishment.

I do not believe humanity learns well when ruled by fear of punishment, I believe it can work, but we rely on it too much.


I much prefer jail time and rehabilitation, but it is not politically correct to say that because our carnal instincts tend to want to seek revenge upon those who inflict pain upon others.

I think lawful punishments also should go by the latest psychological brain and behavior science behind why criminals feel the compulsions and urges they do. Some are not curable by rehabilitation. Pedophiles and sex offenders are a good example of a subset of criminals who re-offend. For them it's like telling a normal person not to masturbate.

In those cases I feel science would benefit greatly if you used life in prison as a cheaper alternative and as an opportunity to study them and separate them from society once they offend.

For thieves, let the law look into finding why they were misguided, are they otherwise sane people? Or do they turn to crime because of not being able to find a good paying job for their family's needs? Can you offer them education and steer them on a good path, or help them become less angry at society at large?


Dealing with human misbehavior is not as easy as how The Bible's influence on our culture, has conditioned us to adopt pro-spanking-esque policies (aka: the theme being pain and punishment by default cause an individual to suddenly learn correct behavior or that they are self-aware that they even did wrong)

In real life you have individuals who destroy and have no remorse for it, or they are hurting others as a reflection of some deeper self-issue they have.

thefacepubekid
October 21st, 2016, 07:11 AM
The same thing could be said to support getting rid of Free speech, Habeas Corpus, and to bear arms. That is a very dangerous excuse, to say that something is inherently not applicable to this age because it was created by and for another.
No, it couldn't. Because there has not been any modern scientific studies to prove that freedom of speech, habeas corpus and the right to bear arms showing that these are now creating adverse affects on modern society. On the death penalty, however, studies have proven that having a death penalty is NOT a deterrent, and in fact those who live in a death-penalty state are more likely to be involved in a murder than those who do not. So if someone came into my home and threatened me with a knife, it would me morally wrong for me to kill him? After all, I am choosing to "write off" his life, because I value mine and my family's over his. Should I not be allowed to defend myself by taking a life? Your level of stupidity amazes me. In a fight or flight situation, of course you will always have every right to defend yourself and other from crime. But those on death row sit for years awaiting death, and the victims family still have this feeling of hatred and anger towards the offender to feel happy when the execution takes place. Is a life without freedoms better than no life? Prison rehabilitation also doesn't have the best track record with turning criminals good and keeping good people from going bad. This quote was actually two points, and I will answer it as such. I am sure that any inmate on death row will be willing to take a life sentence over death. For your second point, your US system is so fucked that people often come out of prison with even more fear, anger and hatred towards society than when they went in.
If you went and stole someone's car, do you seriously expect to get off the hook just because you realize what you did was wrong, and you say you are sorry? You can return a stolen car, you can't return a stolen life. You have to pay the consequences in life, whether or not you actively knew what you did was wrong. Imagine this: One day you have a drunken argument with a mate, and you punch him in the face. He dies. And you have to live with that until the day of your execution. I'm sure there is some connection there, but that is for any court issue as a whole. And I doubt that the quality of your lawyers is going to heavily influence the judge's verdict to the degree you imply. It does, and it has been scientifically proven. I'm not sure what they taught you, but death row isn't for your average murderer. It is for the mass murderers, child rapists, extreme torturers, it is for the people who go to the extremes. I doubt mass murdering or raping a child is something that you can dismiss as "honest mistakes." Going back to my previous argument here, it can be very easy to fuck up once in life, and the legal system will screw you over for it. Also, corporations and the wealthy have been able to get away with far worse crimes than a lot of those on death row. "If we are executing the innocent, then who is in charge"?
I rest my case *mic drop*

Leaving out your little speech about abortion because it is off-subject.

TheFutureDoctor
October 21st, 2016, 07:53 AM
It may be cruel, but some people deserve it. Terrorists, rapists, murderers..... Others should just be punished and let off. But seriously, if a terrorist guns down 50 people and is caught alive, it's pretty damn bad to leave him off alive, according to me. Just my opinion. And I don't really think a terrorist made a *honest* mistake by taking so many lives?

mattsmith48
October 21st, 2016, 09:08 AM
It may be cruel, but some people deserve it. Terrorists, rapists, murderers..... Others should just be punished and let off. But seriously, if a terrorist guns down 50 people and is caught alive, it's pretty damn bad to leave him off alive, according to me. Just my opinion. And I don't really think a terrorist made a *honest* mistake by taking so many lives?

Most terrorists who do it in the name of their God want to die anyway so we punish them even more by not killing them. For murderers they made a mistake and they deserve a second chance after they spend the appropriate amount of time in prison

Uniquemind
October 21st, 2016, 11:16 AM
Most terrorists who do it in the name of their God want to die anyway so we punish them even more by not killing them. For murderers they made a mistake and they deserve a second chance after they spend the appropriate amount of time in prison

I think that depends on the murderer. Not all murderers are the same or equal, are motivated the same way etc.

It has to be a case by case basis.


The first people to get reformed I think are ones that are light drug dealers that haven't hurt anybody directly by force. That would shrink our prison and monetary cost of the system down by a lot.

Drewboyy
October 21st, 2016, 12:22 PM
Look up "Joseph Edward Duncan, III"
Abolishing the death penalty stops people like him getting the punishment they deserve. I'd personally kill anyone who did HALF the stuff he did

Reece L
October 21st, 2016, 02:03 PM
Bullshit. Death penalty reduces crime. In the U.K., there is currently 1 stabbing every minute. 2 deaths in London every 3 minutes. It would reduce crime. And would reduce murder. And mattsmith, you need education. "Cruel"? What? They give you a injection that peacefully kills you. Cruel would be beheadings. Curel is a form of word that defines harming or beating. That isn't. That is peacefully killing someone, someone who kills, molested a kid, or has raped someone. Needs to be put down. Like a dog when the dog is dangerous. You need education pal. More. What history did you learn? And the death penalty is for a murder. It is rare they get the wrong people. And pubekid, number 5, who gives. FUCK what they did? They are in that place for crime. And none should be given a second chance if they are in death row. You 2 nutters don't know anything. Death penalty should be legal all over..... Crime would drop so fast you could keep your doors unlocked. (Rhetorical) the death penalty is there for a reason. The ol sayin is, " a eye 4 a eye"

Vlerchan
October 21st, 2016, 02:16 PM
Death penalty reduces crime.
Please provide verifiable evidence. Thank you.

"Cruel"? What?
Would you have an issue with it if it was cruel? These are murderers and molesters after all.

It is rare they get the wrong people.
I would appreciate if you would then describe the methodology that allowed you to reach this conclusion.

[...] you could keep your doors unlocked.
Lots of the time we don't even lock our doors at night. That's probably because murder isn't a function of whether the death penalty exists or not.

Reece L
October 21st, 2016, 02:22 PM
Please provide verifiable evidence. Thank you.


Would you have an issue with it if it was cruel? These are murderers and molesters after all.


I would appreciate if you would then describe the methodology that allowed you to reach this conclusion.


Lots of the time we don't even lock our doors at night. That's probably because murder isn't a function of whether the death penalty exists or not.


You are stupid. Texas has death penalty. Crimes are rare there, yeah a few murders every year. But look at London vs Texas. Here is filled with gangs. N I dint think they'd wanna be killed by that same as random killings. London is violent. Very. Live in it.

Gangs all over. Death penalty came, the'd be gone maybe. You need to learn facts. Anyways I dont need to provide proof. Cause that's your proof 🖕

Vlerchan
October 21st, 2016, 02:27 PM
Texas has death penalty. Crimes are rare there, yeah a few murders every year.
Texas also has higher rates of fire-arm possession. And a higher rate of cowboy hat ownership. And more cattle per capita.

You're mistaking correlation for causation and it's glaring.

You need to learn facts.
You need to read the first 5 pages of any statistics textbook ever written.

:)

Anyways I dont need to provide proof.
You're making a claim and in accordance with the general tradition of rational debate, I was hoping for some sort of evidence.

phuckphace
October 21st, 2016, 04:22 PM
You are stupid.

lol

Texas has death penalty. Crimes are rare there, yeah a few murders every year.

El Tejas has extensive Cartel activity, including MS-13 and Los Zetas, as well as an enlarging Muslim population in the urban centers. the death penalty as it stands now is totally ineffective at combatting crime because it isn't implemented properly (i.e. used often/quickly enough).

But look at London vs Texas. Here is filled with gangs. N I dint think they'd wanna be killed by that same as random killings. London is violent. Very. Live in it.

try visiting the city of al-Houstan (formerly Houston) the ten white people left are apparently still launching shit into space while the city rapidly empties of white people.

Gangs all over. Death penalty came, the'd be gone maybe.

El Tejas = thick with gangs, but okay

maybe not, fam.

Professional Russian
October 21st, 2016, 07:14 PM
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a toot, thats the way i see it im a simple man" I love it when this debate comes up. Then i get to use Charlie Daniels quotes. anyways yeah eye for an and a tooth for a tooth i think you can figure it out

Stronk Serb
October 21st, 2016, 07:20 PM
Duuuude, the death penalty can be abolished and the inmates can technically pay for themselves if you turn them into quasi-slave labor. Put them in gulag-like work camps where they will toil hard hours and rig them with a slave collar. If he tries to remove it, escape or sum shit, boom! Implant them with tracking chips and remove them if they serve their sentence to the end. Instead of having a 3 milion pool of manpower doing nothing, make them do something. Everything from cleaning, excavating, growing crops, construction, application of professional skills etc. It would ease on the budget and would put an end to private prisons because the state would effectively with all cost cuts of this idea, just be tasked eith maintaining the complex, guards, food and ensuring electricity comes, if not less.

Vlerchan
October 21st, 2016, 07:23 PM
In a situation where the state can reap economic benefits from the incarceration of citizens it introduces a pretty perverse set of incentives.

---

I also checked and there's an entire Wikipedia category-page for Texan gangs. Didn't know that.

Arkansasguy
October 21st, 2016, 09:51 PM
Hey guys,

I am currently studying the death penalty in Social Studies at school, and would like to say my entire viewpoint on the death penalty has since changed.
Because I live in New Zealand, where the death penalty has been abolished for many years, we base most of our study off the American death penalty. But here's my main points for why the death penalty should be 'axed' (geddit):

1) The death penalty was created to suit another time, age and system. It has become largely obsolete;
2) Although many taxpayers say they should not have to pay to keep murderers and criminals alive, it should be the government's responsibility to ensure they serve ALL the people. No government, person or state should be allowed to decide whether or not a human is a 'write-off' and should be put to death;
3) Every person can be rehabilitated unless they are mentally ill, in which case we should keep them away from the majority of society, but in their own secure communities which are constantly guarded to ensure that everyone gets a chance at life. Also, by the time death row inmates reach their execution date, they are more often than not ALREADY rehabilitated and understand their action were wrong;
4) Whether or not a person gets sentenced to death relies heavily on the quality of legal assistance they can afford;
5) The majority of people on death row are NOT the 'baddest of the bad', they are just people who have made honest mistakes in life.

Let me know what you think!

Thanks,
Josh

1 is an appeal to progress, 2 is begging the question, and 3-5 are red herrings.

The OP does bring up a good point though, the death penalty is far better at rehabilitating prisoners than life imprisonment.

Posts merged. Use the multi-quote button or edit your post next time. ~Amethyst_

PlasmaHam
October 21st, 2016, 11:47 PM
Vlerchan, I did get off on a little rabbit trail about abortion, but I hope you understand my reasoning. People keep bringing Trump into completely unrelated debates, so it seemed fair, though I would appreciate you just ignoring when I do that, especially when I state that I am aware that such an argument is bordering off topic and I wish to end it.

I'll explain my argument more clearly without the abortion subtext for those who thought my rants were off-topic. I was doing that to expose a flaw in the support of the main argument against the death penalty, the idea that the death penalty shouldn't be used because we cannot guarantee guilt. They basically are supporting a form of morality where we shouldn't risk doing something immoral towards someone if we are not 100% sure that the action is morally and justly right. Yet looking at their other stances in which this can apply, they seem to completely disregard or outright contradict the doubt argument. Abortion is an obvious case, in which there is legitimate evidence that fetuses are fully alive and capable of brain and sensory functions during abortion periods. They say there is not enough evidence, so abortion is fine, yet when there is not enough evidence that someone is innocent of an awful crime, they say this man should be spared, as there is still the possibility the man was innocent.

I will not consider the doubt argument a legitimate factor against the death penalty if they believe that this applies more to criminals than the innocents. That is a flawed position if I have ever seen one.

Arkansasguy
October 22nd, 2016, 01:38 AM
Vlerchan, I did get off on a little rabbit trail about abortion, but I hope you understand my reasoning. People keep bringing Trump into completely unrelated debates, so it seemed fair, though I would appreciate you just ignoring when I do that, especially when I state that I am aware that such an argument is bordering off topic and I wish to end it.

I'll explain my argument more clearly without the abortion subtext for those who thought my rants were off-topic. I was doing that to expose a flaw in the support of the main argument against the death penalty, the idea that the death penalty shouldn't be used because we cannot guarantee guilt. They basically are supporting a form of morality where we shouldn't risk doing something immoral towards someone if we are not 100% sure that the action is morally and justly right. Yet looking at their other stances in which this can apply, they seem to completely disregard or outright contradict the doubt argument. Abortion is an obvious case, in which there is legitimate evidence that fetuses are fully alive and capable of brain and sensory functions during abortion periods. They say there is not enough evidence, so abortion is fine, yet when there is not enough evidence that someone is innocent of an awful crime, they say this man should be spared, as there is still the possibility the man was innocent.

I will not consider the doubt argument a legitimate factor against the death penalty if they believe that this applies more to criminals than the innocents. That is a flawed position if I have ever seen one.

The "100%" argument is idiotic for a number of reasons, not least of which that it would rule out any form of criminal punishment whatsoever.

But this is an ad hominem. That a person making an argument adheres to an inconsistent position doesn't invalidate the argument.

Just JT
October 22nd, 2016, 06:03 AM
Such a long conversation it's hard to go back and quote people who said stuff so I'll try my best.

First, I think this is a good topic, a new topic I guess, some new blood (lack of better terms). And we all have different opinions, and we should try and be mindful that diverse opinions are the very strand of humanity that create laws. It's the debate part between people that they feel that brings up valid points that make things become reality. So Reece L let's not be so closed minded ok.

An eye for an eye is a very old law, goes back thousand of years, and seems to me it would prevent repeat offenses. Does that mean to take it literally? No. but some crimes are so bad, so horrible, rehab will not fix them or make the situation right, or whole ever again. Even in a simple law suit, the end result is to make the victim whole again. How can you do that in a case of rape murder or child molestation or abuse? You can't.

And locking the perp up for how long? Give them a chance to rehabilitate? Then return to the community? How do you think the victims or the victims family would feel about that? Going to church and sitting in front of that guy who raped and murdered your only child? Yeah, no, sorry, I'm a Christian, but I can't forgive that. Not to mention sexual offenders can not be rehabilitated.

Why should the tax payers pay taxes and support these criminals in prison form20 years or what ever, perhaps life? They get very good care in prison. Clean facilities, 3 meals a day, heat and a/c in the summer. They get healthcare for free, play sports, get an education, and gain valuable skills if they choose to. Those are all great things. Many of those things thousands of humans, who knows how many humans do not have access to those same basic daily needs, who have done nothing wrong other than being poor?

So yeah, personally, I think the death penalty is a good thing. Someone does something stupid, I get that, and end up taking someone's life, intentionally murdering someone. Not an accident, accidents happen in life. Rape isn't an accident, rape of a child or child abuse isn't an accident. I can look back and make a list of people I think should be on that list. I'd fill the syringe and inject them myself, and take no issue with it. Because I know they'd never be able to do their crime against someone else again. These people are repeat offenders.

Is it right? That's a personal choice, one that's made a decision on for us by our government. So if you can have an impact on that like in the USA, then people should vote for or against it when it comes up for a vote.

Me, I say yeah, it's good, helps prevent repeat offenders when they can't be rehabilitated in the forst place

Vlerchan
October 22nd, 2016, 06:24 AM
@Vlerchan, I did get off on a little rabbit trail about abortion, but I hope you understand my reasoning.
I do understand the point of dragging the abortion debate up for discussion so far as a lot of people have a difficult time considering your own views without dragging Trump into it. Though, I would agree with Arkansasguy that it is fundamentally an ad hominem - as it is when people do it to you.

Nevertheless, I will outline the reasoning I have for both being against capital punishment and being in favor of women having access to abortion.

They basically are supporting a form of morality where we shouldn't risk doing something immoral towards someone if we are not 100% sure that the action is morally and justly right.
I disagree with requiring dead-certainty to as it is simply untenable. Our legal systems operate on the idea of one being guilty 'within a reasonable doubt' in recognition of that.

But I would argue that the state should refuse death as a punishment insofar as - if the state is in fact incorrect: and, significant numbers of exoneration from death row every year would suggest that it all too often - it is impossible to provide compensation to what is the now-deceased. Given that there is a host of reversible and compensatable alternatives it seems needlessly reckless to me that the state would pursue death ahead of those other alternatives.

Unless one can propose some greater positive that emerges from capital punishment ahead of life-incarceration so that the lives of dead innocents might be absorbed in that utilitarian calculation, of course. But I don't think that capital punishment provides some special purpose that we can rightly discount the lives of those that died in err.

---

I also argue that women should be allowed to have abortions on the grounds of them possessing control over their own bodies - a right I see as fundamentally inalienable. That has nothing to do with the fetus and thus uncertainty over whether the fetus is alive or not isn't a relevant counter to what I am claiming - though, that question should make the women-in-question squeamish [and I think that if the fetus has become viable, and there is no risk to the women's life beyond that typical of abortion, then it should be delivered through c-section].

How do you think the victims or the victims family would feel about that?
In criminal law, the alleged is considered to have committed a crime against the state. That's why the listing is always something like State of California v Wood, and not Greg v Wood [as it would be in a civil case]. In other words, legally-speaking, the victim is irrelevant to this whole process, except as a witness when appropriate.

The aim of criminal law is to discover justice as it befits our entire society and it encourages us to not take a disproportionate focus on the victim.

Why should the tax payers pay taxes and support these criminals in prison form20 years or what ever, perhaps life?
Capital punishment is more expensive - astronomically so - than incarceration if it is something we care about.

Because I know they'd never be able to do their crime against someone else again.
And under life-incarceration..?

Flapjack
October 22nd, 2016, 07:19 AM
Sorryyy Jack has a reallyyy busy week this week so won't be posting much but I will try to squeeze vt in when I can xD

Jack's opinions:
1. The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk.
2. Capital punishment does not deter crime.
3. Goes against nearly every major world religion (This isn't a reason that should decide whether or not there is a death penalty but there are sooo many religious people that want executions that I thought I'd put it in.)
4. Worse for grieving families, some have asked the criminal not be execute because they don't want to have to go through the length legal process of appeals. The money could instead be spend on helping the families.
5. Shooting defenceless people, I believe is morally wrong.
6. Costs loads (I think more than a life sentance)

The reasons below are directed towards the US where the ones above were directed at the death penalty in general.
1.The death penalty is applied at random.
The death penalty is a lethal lottery: of the 15,000 to 17,000 homicides committed every year in the United States, approximately 120 people are sentenced to death, less than 1%.
2. Race and place determine who lives and who dies.
Those who kill whites are more likely to be sentenced to die than those who kill African-Americans. In Oregon, prosecutors from some counties are more likely to pursue the death penalty than others are.
3. Poor quality defense leaves many sentenced to death.
One of the most frequent causes of reversals in death penalty cases is ineffective assistance of counsel. A study at Columbia University found that 68% of all death penalty cases were reversed on appeal, with inadequate defense as one of the main reasons requiring reversal.
4. Mentally ill people are executed.
One out of every ten who has been executed in the United States since 1977 is mentally ill, according to Amnesty International and the National Association on Mental Illness. Many mentally ill defendants are unable to participate in their trials in any meaningful way and appear unengaged, cold, and unfeeling before the jury. Some have been forcibly medicated in order to make them competent to be executed. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has decreed that people with “mental retardation” may not be executed, Oregon has not yet passed a law banning the execution of the mentally ill.

I understand why people want revenge against evil people, but this is a knee jerk reaction and a very harmful one when you look at the facts.
The "100%" argument is idiotic for a number of reasons, not least of which that it would rule out any form of criminal punishment whatsoever.

But this is an ad hominem. That a person making an argument adheres to an inconsistent position doesn't invalidate the argument.
What 100% argument? The argument that there will never be 100% certainly about whether someone is guilty or not?

I don't get how that is an ad hominem?

Just JT
October 22nd, 2016, 08:02 AM
In criminal law, the alleged is considered to have committed a crime against the state. That's why the listing is always something like State of California v Wood, and not Greg v Wood [as it would be in a civil case]. In other words, legally-speaking, the victim is irrelevant to this whole process, except as a witness when appropriate.

The aim of criminal law is to discover justice as it befits our entire society and it encourages us to not take a disproportionate focus on the victim.

You are right. However, reality is, these types of crimes, the victim is the victim, not the state. Seems like there should be a shift of some influence.


Capital punishment is more expensive - astronomically so - than incarceration if it is something we care about.

Right again, something I doubted, looked it up and read about it. But then again, if the system itself is changed. Then this cost could come down. Also, the cost of conviction is also calculated into the cost of execution. Remove that factor, I think the margin may change somewhat


under life-incarceration..?
Yes. If someone is spending life in prison for child rape for example, yeah, he won't commit that crime ever again. Someone else, maybe, probably, but then there is another alleged crime and cost of conviction, and another offense against the state, regardless of the impact of the victim

Arkansasguy
October 22nd, 2016, 09:12 AM
Sorryyy Jack has a reallyyy busy week this week so won't be posting much but I will try to squeeze vt in when I can xD

Jack's opinions:
1. The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk.
2. Capital punishment does not deter crime.
3. Goes against nearly every major world religion (This isn't a reason that should decide whether or not there is a death penalty but there are sooo many religious people that want executions that I thought I'd put it in.)
4. Worse for grieving families, some have asked the criminal not be execute because they don't want to have to go through the length legal process of appeals. The money could instead be spend on helping the families.
5. Shooting defenceless people, I believe is morally wrong.
6. Costs loads (I think more than a life sentance)

The reasons below are directed towards the US where the ones above were directed at the death penalty in general.
1.The death penalty is applied at random.

2. Race and place determine who lives and who dies.

3. Poor quality defense leaves many sentenced to death.

4. Mentally ill people are executed.


I understand why people want revenge against evil people, but this is a knee jerk reaction and a very harmful one when you look at the facts.

What 100% argument? The argument that there will never be 100% certainly about whether someone is guilty or not?

I don't get how that is an ad hominem?

You may want to carefully reread that post and the one it was replying to.

BTW your general point #3 is factually incorrect. I'm not aware of any major world religion that condemns the death penalty wholesale, and there are several that positively endorse it's use.

phuckphace
October 22nd, 2016, 09:45 AM
Duuuude, the death penalty can be abolished and the inmates can technically pay for themselves if you turn them into quasi-slave labor. Put them in gulag-like work camps where they will toil hard hours and rig them with a slave collar. If he tries to remove it, escape or sum shit, boom! Implant them with tracking chips and remove them if they serve their sentence to the end. Instead of having a 3 milion pool of manpower doing nothing, make them do something. Everything from cleaning, excavating, growing crops, construction, application of professional skills etc. It would ease on the budget and would put an end to private prisons because the state would effectively with all cost cuts of this idea, just be tasked eith maintaining the complex, guards, food and ensuring electricity comes, if not less.

labor camps are a good idea but not as a replacement for capital punishment. I'd reserve death for the most heinous crimes such as murder, rape and drug trafficking, while forced labor would be a lesser punishment passed for serious crimes that aren't serious enough to warrant execution (fraud/embezzlement, auto theft, burglary without a gun, etc.)

we've had several...uh...experiments with labor camps that turned out to be pretty inefficient, since in most cases you were sent there to die and thus your work performance was of secondary concern. since I intend to get some actual work out of these prisoners, who are not under a death sentence in most cases, it would require feeding them nutrient-dense meals with adequate fluids, providing appropriate clothing for the season, etc. the better-behaved and highest-performing could be rewarded with tokens to buy extra things like cigarettes for example.

basically what I'm saying is that in mein Reich there would be no SuperMax prisons because anyone convicted of a serious enough crime to warrant maximum security would be fast-tracked to the chair instead. the rest can be of better use as long as they're not starving.

Uniquemind
October 22nd, 2016, 09:56 AM
Let's not involve religion of any sort in this debate issue given a great majority have been pro-death within the context of religious conversions upon various populations historically.

--

I wouldn't mind starting a new thread with specific regards to the death penalty of a government nation-state, and religious opinions accelerating that or decelerating those civil actions.

--

I believe the death penalty and the criminal code in general needs a redesign and that we need to shy away from "private contract prisons, in a for-profit capitalistic system" because it incentivized prisons to be full with little regard for justice and truth.

Also there is risk that when you sentence too harshly criminals who get thrown in with harder criminals LEARN from those worse than them, and often they become more dangerous than what they went in for.

Child molesters have a high re-offense rate, and I don't support their release.

I wouldn't mind though jailing them, and giving them a false virtual reality to satisfy what they want, and yet keep them completely separate from the rest of society. I think we're closer to this with technology as it advances further.

mattsmith48
October 22nd, 2016, 10:07 AM
I think that depends on the murderer. Not all murderers are the same or equal, are motivated the same way etc.

It has to be a case by case basis.

Thats why you give them different amount of time in jail depending on what they did.

The first people to get reformed I think are ones that are light drug dealers that haven't hurt anybody directly by force. That would shrink our prison and monetary cost of the system down by a lot.

Yeah lets reformed people who didn't do anything wrong just broke a dumb law that should have been changed years ago.

Bullshit. Death penalty reduces crime. In the U.K., there is currently 1 stabbing every minute. 2 deaths in London every 3 minutes. It would reduce crime. And would reduce murder. And mattsmith, you need education. "Cruel"? What? They give you a injection that peacefully kills you. Cruel would be beheadings. Curel is a form of word that defines harming or beating. That isn't. That is peacefully killing someone, someone who kills, molested a kid, or has raped someone. Needs to be put down. Like a dog when the dog is dangerous. You need education pal. More. What history did you learn? And the death penalty is for a murder. It is rare they get the wrong people. And pubekid, number 5, who gives. FUCK what they did? They are in that place for crime. And none should be given a second chance if they are in death row. the death penalty is there for a reason. The ol sayin is, " a eye 4 a eye"

You are stupid. Texas has death penalty. Crimes are rare there, yeah a few murders every year. But look at London vs Texas. Here is filled with gangs. N I dint think they'd wanna be killed by that same as random killings. London is violent. Very. Live in it.

Its just bullshit that the death penalty reduce crime, there is no evidence the death penalty reduce crime. Places with the death penalty generally have higher crime and murder rate. Texas is one of the most dangerous state in the US.

Even if its true that its rare that they kill the wrong person, if it happen once its too many times.

Cruel doesn't only mean its physically but also mentally and not only during the murder but everything leading up to the murder.

You 2 nutters don't know anything. Death penalty should be legal all over..... Crime would drop so fast you could keep your doors unlocked.

You mean like Canada where people leave their door unlocked because they feel safe and the death penalty as been abolish 40 years ago.


3. Goes against nearly every major world religion (This isn't a reason that should decide whether or not there is a death penalty but there are sooo many religious people that want executions that I thought I'd put it in.)

I agree with everything you said except this, the death penalty actually comes from religion even if most of them contradict them self by saying earlier that killing other people is wrong.

ThisBougieLife
October 22nd, 2016, 11:31 AM
I oppose the death penalty in practice for the primary reason that: innocent people are sometimes put to death, and the idea of the state having power over life and death is "problematic" to me. At the same time, I'm not sickened by the idea of people dying for heinous crimes, but I admit that my desire to see some heinous murders/rapists/child molesters put to death is more about bloodlust than it is about justice. I simply want to see horrible people pay the ultimate price, but that isn't something I should base a law off of.

However, I do recognize that the death penalty is to some extent inherent in human culture and I wonder how valid it is to suppress something that was so prevalent in human society for so long.

phuckphace
October 22nd, 2016, 12:07 PM
taking perverse celebratory satisfaction in someone's death, even if well-deserved is pretty disturbing, IMO. the purpose of execution isn't to revel in death but to permanently and decisively remove dangerous individuals from society. that capital punishment happens to inflame the bloodlust of some individuals is beside the point.

the concept of "justice" means many different things to different people, in my case I don't see it as a matter of justice so much as a simple but effective safety measure. if we can unofficially sanction the execution of future would-be criminals via abortion, then condemning adults who are in control of their own decisions to death is the next logical conclusion.

ThisBougieLife
October 22nd, 2016, 12:19 PM
Disturbing, perhaps, but not uncommon. There are many who speak of the satisfaction at seeing a particularly heinous person put to death; and look at how heinous leaders are sometimes treated after they are killed. There is some natural human desire to see people "get theirs", and in the case of those who committed particularly evil crimes, "theirs" may be death. It's difficult to escape the influence this has on those who support the death penalty. It isn't that I'm going to start dancing and hollering when someone I don't like dies, but people who wreak death and destruction I do sometimes feel have death and destruction coming to them. When I found out Bin Laden had been killed, there was a part of me that was satisfied, and perhaps I might not have felt as strongly if he had only been captured alive.

That said, people who are put in prison for life are effectively removed from society. It's very uncommon in developed countries that people escape from prison, and those sentenced to life for particularly heinous crimes are not eligible for any kind of release, either.

I also don't think that the morality of the death penalty hinges on abortion, either. If abortion were completely illegal, there would still be an argument for the death penalty.

Porpoise101
October 22nd, 2016, 04:07 PM
Hey guys,

I am currently studying the death penalty in Social Studies at school, and would like to say my entire viewpoint on the death penalty has since changed.
Because I live in New Zealand, where the death penalty has been abolished for many years, we base most of our study off the American death penalty. But here's my main points for why the death penalty should be 'axed' (geddit):

cool, never seen an internet kiwi before. Welcome!

1) The death penalty was created to suit another time, age and system. It has become largely obsolete;

Doesn't quite sit well with me, this argument. I do not think it is obsolete, therefore it still has personal relevance (to me at least).

2) Although many taxpayers say they should not have to pay to keep murderers and criminals alive, it should be the government's responsibility to ensure they serve ALL the people. No government, person or state should be allowed to decide whether or not a human is a 'write-off' and should be put to death;

Well the government represents the collective of the nation, or the world for international court cases. Personally, I believe the collective is greater than the individual, meaning that the collective should have the right to resort to the ultimate punishment.

3) Every person can be rehabilitated unless they are mentally ill, in which case we should keep them away from the majority of society, but in their own secure communities which are constantly guarded to ensure that everyone gets a chance at life. Also, by the time death row inmates reach their execution date, they are more often than not ALREADY rehabilitated and understand their action were wrong;

Rehabilitation is not necessary for those who are in prison for life. Not all criminals are meant to be rehabilitated. I do agree that the trials for death take waaay too long.

4) Whether or not a person gets sentenced to death relies heavily on the quality of legal assistance they can afford;

That is true for almost all court cases unfortunately. This is a flaw with the whole justice system in the US, not this particular punishment.

5) The majority of people on death row are NOT the 'baddest of the bad', they are just people who have made honest mistakes in life.

Because killing is an honest mistake. Because the Holocaust was an honest mistake. Imagine if we did not have the death penalty for the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials. Sure, the death penalty might be overused. But it should be there for those who have committed the ultimate crimes.

Vlerchan
October 22nd, 2016, 04:50 PM
However, reality is, these types of crimes, the victim is the victim, not the state. Seems like there should be a shift of some influence.
The plaintiff has no legal interest in the case insofar as its outcome doesn't affect her in a legal sense, is the reason for the separation. Nonetheless I support detachment of criminal law from the victim insofar as litigation occurs removed from the passions of the case and with greater motives than retribution in mind. The criminal law is designed to do service to society and not designated individuals, because there is a recognition that the nature of crime affects us all: the circumstances of someone who has been the victim of rape can never be amended but the end of the wider community can surely be facilitated.

But then again, if the system itself is changed. Then this cost could come down. Also, the cost of conviction is also calculated into the cost of execution. Remove that factor, I think the margin may change somewhat.
I don't feel it is a good idea to make it easier for the legal system to make mistakes when it comes to questions of life and death, which is what 'removing that factor' - by which you can only mean appeals - is facilitating.

[...] but then there is another alleged crime and cost of conviction, and another offense against the state, regardless of the impact of the victim[.]
That events like this don't occur with any great regularity that it would result in a net saving to introduce capital punishment.

I don't figure that just sending them all to the chair is a very efficient means of stopping prisoners from incurring harm.

However, I do recognize that the death penalty is to some extent inherent in human culture and I wonder how valid it is to suppress something that was so prevalent in human society for so long.
Just replace 'death penalty' with 'slavery' and that answer will probably come somewhat easier.

Jthompson
October 23rd, 2016, 10:18 AM
I believe some people deserve to die for the crimes they commit.

mattsmith48
October 23rd, 2016, 05:54 PM
Rehabilitation is not necessary for those who are in prison for life. Not all criminals are meant to be rehabilitated. I do agree that the trials for death take waaay too long.
If you know you can rehabilitate them there is no reason to keep them in prison for live

Because killing is an honest mistake. Because the Holocaust was an honest mistake. Imagine if we did not have the death penalty for the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials. Sure, the death penalty might be overused. But it should be there for those who have committed the ultimate crimes.

In some cases its not an honest mistake but if you kill someone because he killed someone else your not better than the person you just killed

Professional Russian
October 23rd, 2016, 06:10 PM
In some cases its not an honest mistake but if you kill someone because he killed someone else your not better than the person you just killed

AN eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If you kill someone, rape someone, or other crimes of the nature you are not fit to be in public and deserve to be killed for the crime you have committed.

mattsmith48
October 23rd, 2016, 06:14 PM
AN eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If you kill someone, rape someone, or other crimes of the nature you are not fit to be in public and deserve to be killed for the crime you have committed.

Eye for eye means if you commit a crime the same thing should happen to you if you kill someone, you get killed, if you rape someone, you get raped it doesn't mean you commit a crime, we kill you because of it.

StoppingTom
October 23rd, 2016, 06:32 PM
honestly my concern with the death penalty is making sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that guy/gal did it before flipping the switch.

as a bleeding liberal idrc what happens to someone on death row as long as they deserve to be there ((which is subjective i know but you know what i mean))

Professional Russian
October 23rd, 2016, 06:54 PM
Eye for eye means if you commit a crime the same thing should happen to you if you kill someone, you get killed, if you rape someone, you get raped it doesn't mean you commit a crime, we kill you because of it.

then so be it

Uniquemind
October 23rd, 2016, 07:09 PM
honestly my concern with the death penalty is making sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that guy/gal did it before flipping the switch.

as a bleeding liberal idrc what happens to someone on death row as long as they deserve to be there ((which is subjective i know but you know what i mean))

That's my biggest problem with it too.

But in retrospect, a lot of the mistakenly imprisoned people came from criminal cases in the 70's and 80's and 90's, before the level of DNA testing technology we have today.

Now we can find someone via their own kid's DNA and get partial matches and probable cause to look into a specific family for a full match to old crime scenes.

So in time I believe my misgivings about the death penalty will be a thing of the past.

Porpoise101
October 23rd, 2016, 07:57 PM
If you know you can rehabilitate them there is no reason to keep them in prison for live

Fair enough. But if you can't rehabilitate them, why should they even exist within the society? Over human history we have developed methods to deal with those beyond rehabilitation: exile, execution, and imprisonment.

In some cases its not an honest mistake but if you kill someone because he killed someone else your not better than the person you just killed

You. Why do you say 'you'? No individual is killing anyone, rather it is an institution. Maybe you could say that makes the government unjust at most.

Arkansasguy
October 23rd, 2016, 09:42 PM
Eye for eye means if you commit a crime the same thing should happen to you if you kill someone, you get killed, if you rape someone, you get raped it doesn't mean you commit a crime, we kill you because of it.

Some crimes cannot be morally sanctioned with retaliation in kind, thus the death penalty.

EuRo
October 23rd, 2016, 10:08 PM
I am a believer in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". If someone murders another person and it wasn't in self defense and they killed out of anger or lust or envy or whatever, they must also be punished in a similar way. I think they should be killed in a similar way that they killed. When it comes to molesters and rapists, I think they should go to prison for life and deal with brutal guards and harsh conditions.

This should all be done when there is an astounding amount of evidence of their crime, though. I think the death penalty shouldn't just stay, but it should be revised and enforced. I also think the same goes for criminal justice in general. I.e: Someone steals a car and causes damages, they should pay exactly what it costs to repair the damage, no more and no less.

For things such as stealing a car and NOT damaging it or wasting much gas, there should be a small penalty and the wrongdoer should be consulted and be rehabilitated and taught that it is wrong to the fullest extent in a peaceful way.

mattsmith48
October 24th, 2016, 02:08 PM
Fair enough. But if you can't rehabilitate them, why should they even exist within the society? Over human history we have developed methods to deal with those beyond rehabilitation: exile, execution, and imprisonment.

If you would treat prisoners like humans and not marginalize them when they get out, most of them would not commit more crimes after they get out and go back in prison.

You. Why do you say 'you'? No individual is killing anyone, rather it is an institution. Maybe you could say that makes the government unjust at most.

You represent everyone responsible and who wants to kill the prisoner.

Some crimes cannot be morally sanctioned with retaliation in kind, thus the death penalty.

So raping a rapist is wrong but murdering a murderer is fine?

Professional Russian
October 24th, 2016, 03:55 PM
So raping a rapist is wrong but murdering a murderer is fine?

rape is horrible no matter how you put it. murder and death is natural selection at its best.

PlasmaHam
October 24th, 2016, 07:14 PM
If you would treat prisoners like humans and not marginalize them when they get out, most of them would not commit more crimes after they get out and go back in prison. This is not the thread is bash on criminal justice for not being nice enough. I'm not even sure how this post hurts the death penalty argument, it actually supports it. Dead men cannot get out of prison and commit more crimes.
You represent everyone responsible and who wants to kill the prisoner. That seems like a pretty extreme and unfounded exaggeration if I do say so.

Porpoise101
October 24th, 2016, 07:21 PM
If you would treat prisoners like humans and not marginalize them when they get out, most of them would not commit more crimes after they get out and go back in prison.
If you haven't caught on, I'm referring to the people which are not meant to come back into society. The ones who are in prison for life anyways.

Arkansasguy
October 25th, 2016, 12:31 AM
So raping a rapist is wrong but murdering a murderer is fine?

The death penalty is not murder.

Uniquemind
October 25th, 2016, 01:36 AM
The main issue with the death penalty is monetary cost to keep it going within the existing human rights and ethics laws the developed world has adopted, that if you start making exceptions for, becomes exploitable for good lawyers and clients of those lawyers who have enough money.

This is the crux of the problem.

From a society tax payer perspective, it's most efficient for a society to appoint 1 individual who enjoys killing as a hobby, to be put to good use for their bloodlust and set loose upon the most heinous criminals. (Like Harry potter's dementors)

Society makes WWE wrestling and boxing profitable business, and the audience technically witnesses a violent act potentially at any time permanently injure or kill a sportsman.

But we aren't a society of barbarians, and for scientific behavior study purposes it is advantageous to keep the criminals alive, because they certainly won't be the last psychos humanity is gonna see.


As for a broader prison problem, I declare it's root cause are threefold:

1. A poor education system, that's inconsistent in quality across the nation depending on wealth gaps, and cost of living.

2. Family problems at home causing emotional problems in kids who then act out at school.

3. The wealth gap in job creation causing so much stress in the cash flow of homes nobody can provide adequate child care because they have to work, and pay out child care expenses negating whatever pay they earned from working.


So this is a multi-pronged problem because crimes like human trafficking and drug selling make hundreds of thousands in profit.

People WILL do these crimes because they DO pay.

You wanna get rid of the crime you can't do it by punishment alone, you gotta fix the foundational cause.

mattsmith48
October 25th, 2016, 08:24 AM
This is not the thread is bash on criminal justice for not being nice enough. I'm not even sure how this post hurts the death penalty argument, it actually supports it. Dead men cannot get out of prison and commit more crimes.


If you treat them like humans and you know the odds they will commit another crime when they get out are really low why would you killing them?

If you haven't caught on, I'm referring to the people which are not meant to come back into society. The ones who are in prison for life anyways.

That is a really small percentage. If its not save to let someone get out of prison fine, keep him in prison.

The death penalty is not murder.

Premeditated killing of one human being by another. sounds like murder to me

PlasmaHam
October 25th, 2016, 01:39 PM
If you treat them like humans and you know the odds they will commit another crime when they get out are really low why would you killing them? Prison is not all about rehabilitation, there are thousands of people in prison who know good and well what they did was wrong, and they regret it, but they must pay the consequences. You seem to be advocating a prison system based entirely around rehab, which has no basis in reality.
Premeditated killing of one human being by another. sounds like murder to me This is much more complicated than that.

mattsmith48
October 25th, 2016, 03:37 PM
Prison is not all about rehabilitation, there are thousands of people in prison who know good and well what they did was wrong, and they regret it, but they must pay the consequences. You seem to be advocating a prison system based entirely around rehab, which has no basis in reality.
This is much more complicated than that.

Isn't that what prisons are suppose to be about rehabilitation? You commit a crime, you pay the consequences, if the consequence include time in prison while your in prison we help you and give you the tools necessary to be able to get back to a normal live after you get out and not come back in prison later

Arkansasguy
October 26th, 2016, 04:55 AM
Isn't that what prisons are suppose to be about rehabilitation? You commit a crime, you pay the consequences, if the consequence include time in prison while your in prison we help you and give you the tools necessary to be able to get back to a normal live after you get out and not come back in prison later

People on death row are much more likely to be sorry for what they did than lifers.

mattsmith48
October 26th, 2016, 07:32 AM
People on death row are much more likely to be sorry for what they did than lifers.

a few months on death row or 25 years in prison who is really going to regret what they did more?

Flapjack
October 26th, 2016, 07:40 AM
People on death row are much more likely to be sorry for what they did than lifers.
So? You want to spend more money, execute innocents and make it more difficult for the victims family so that they will feel more sorry? Also do you have a source because I believe someone on death row would be more likely afraid and full of hatred that someone with a life sentence as they have more time to reflect so the 'lifers' would be more likely to feel sorry.
Prison is not all about rehabilitation, there are thousands of people in prison who know good and well what they did was wrong, and they regret it, but they must pay the consequences. You seem to be advocating a prison system based entirely around rehab, which has no basis in reality.
.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12?r=US&IR=T
So yeah it does have some basis in reality xD But ya know private prisons buy politicians to support policies and laws that result in longer prison times and where inmates are more likely to re-offend.

Uniquemind
October 26th, 2016, 10:45 AM
a few months on death row or 25 years in prison who is really going to regret what they did more?

People on death row are much more likely to be sorry for what they did than lifers.

Isn't that what prisons are suppose to be about rehabilitation? You commit a crime, you pay the consequences, if the consequence include time in prison while your in prison we help you and give you the tools necessary to be able to get back to a normal live after you get out and not come back in prison later


Here's a toughie, how do you verify someone is genuinely sorry for what they did VS sorry for the consequences they're enduring?

How do you verify if the emotional behavior is genuine, especially from the best social manipulators and psychopaths?

mattsmith48
October 26th, 2016, 11:12 AM
Here's a toughie, how do you verify someone is genuinely sorry for what they did VS sorry for the consequences they're enduring?

How do you verify if the emotional behavior is genuine, especially from the best social manipulators and psychopaths?

Easy, you can't.

Uniquemind
October 26th, 2016, 11:31 AM
Easy, you can't.

Exactly.

Arkansasguy
October 26th, 2016, 07:35 PM
a few months on death row or 25 years in prison who is really going to regret what they did more?

The one who gets a definite and unequivocal execution date is much more likely to be sorry.

"If the master had known what time the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into"

So? You want to spend more money, execute innocents and make it more difficult for the victims family so that they will feel more sorry? Also do you have a source because I believe someone on death row would be more likely afraid and full of hatred that someone with a life sentence as they have more time to reflect so the 'lifers' would be more likely to feel sorry.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12?r=US&IR=T
So yeah it does have some basis in reality xD But ya know private prisons buy politicians to support policies and laws that result in longer prison times and where inmates are more likely to re-offend.

It only costs more because of the ridiculous nature of our appeals system. And where would I find s source for that. It's a speculative rather than empirical matter. And on that note:

"Nothing so concentrates the mind as the prospect of a hanging in a fortnight"

Here's a toughie, how do you verify someone is genuinely sorry for what they did VS sorry for the consequences they're enduring?

How do you verify if the emotional behavior is genuine, especially from the best social manipulators and psychopaths?

Thus why it's not possible to cite a source on the question, only in engage in speculation.

In any case, what matters in the long run is whether they are in fact sorry, not whether we know about it.

Uniquemind
October 26th, 2016, 08:10 PM
The one who gets a definite and unequivocal execution date is much more likely to be sorry.

"If the master had known what time the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into"



It only costs more because of the ridiculous nature of our appeals system. And where would I find s source for that. It's a speculative rather than empirical matter. And on that note:

"Nothing so concentrates the mind as the prospect of a hanging in a fortnight"



Thus why it's not possible to cite a source on the question, only in engage in speculation.

In any case, what matters in the long run is whether they are in fact sorry, not whether we know about it.


That line of scripture you quoted, is in a totally different context than what we're talking about here and it doesn't apply.


A definite execution date that is immoveable requires a complete redesign of constitutional laws and precedent.

Arkansasguy
October 26th, 2016, 08:17 PM
That line of scripture you quoted, is in a totally different context than what we're talking about here and it doesn't apply.

It applies perfectly. If a man knows exactly when he is going to die, he will be more likely to put himself aright in advance. Literally the whole point of the parable it comes from is that people should be always vigilant morally since they don't know when they're going to die.

A definite execution date that is immoveable requires a complete redesign of constitutional laws and precedent.

I agree. Convicts sentenced to die should get one or two appeals, and then a few months to prepare themselves. After the appeals, the execution date should not be moveable by the judiciary except in the event of serious new evidence of innocence.

Porpoise101
October 27th, 2016, 02:24 PM
That is a really small percentage. If its not save to let someone get out of prison fine, keep him in prison.

Wasting away in a dungeon vs living? Why does it matter to that person? More importantly, why does it matter to the greater society? Why should I care that the worst of the worst got hanged/lethally injected/shot vs not contributing anything of value in a prison cell? The answer is that I don't. Whatever is the cheapest, fastest way of getting justice, I will support.

Flapjack
October 27th, 2016, 03:46 PM
I agree. Convicts sentenced to die should get one or two appeals, and then a few months to prepare themselves. After the appeals, the execution date should not be moveable by the judiciary except in the event of serious new evidence of innocence.
So when you see the current system in the US putting innocents to death, your answer is to speed up the process and reduce the number of appeals....

Arkansasguy
October 27th, 2016, 04:17 PM
So when you see the current system in the US putting innocents to death

If you say so.

Flapjack
October 27th, 2016, 05:16 PM
If you say so.
One in 25 Sentenced to Death in the U.S. Is Innocent (http://europe.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889?rm=eu)

PlasmaHam
October 27th, 2016, 07:13 PM
One in 25 Sentenced to Death in the U.S. Is Innocent (http://europe.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889?rm=eu)

One in 1 babies aborted in the US are innocent.

mattsmith48
October 27th, 2016, 11:55 PM
Wasting away in a dungeon vs living? Why does it matter to that person? More importantly, why does it matter to the greater society? Why should I care that the worst of the worst got hanged/lethally injected/shot vs not contributing anything of value in a prison cell? The answer is that I don't. Whatever is the cheapest, fastest way of getting justice, I will support.

This is why

One in 25 Sentenced to Death in the U.S. Is Innocent (http://europe.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889?rm=eu)

Holy shit, thats alot!

Flapjack
October 28th, 2016, 04:23 AM
One in 1 babies aborted in the US are innocent.
Sooooo you're defending the death penalty by saying it's okay because more innocents die somewhere else... if changing the subject is the best defence you have then surely you should accept it's wrong and harmful?

Porpoise101
October 28th, 2016, 03:29 PM
Holy shit, thats alot!
I'd wager that many of those people wrongfully executed were actually sentenced before the advanced CSI technology we have today. If they were put on trial with the higher-quality system we have today, I believe the rate of innocents killed would be much lower.

I do agree with you that the death penalty is overused. I just think it should be an option for those who do terrible things like genocide and crimes against humanity.

mattsmith48
October 28th, 2016, 06:04 PM
I'd wager that many of those people wrongfully executed were actually sentenced before the advanced CSI technology we have today. If they were put on trial with the higher-quality system we have today, I believe the rate of innocents killed would be much lower.

I do agree with you that the death penalty is overused. I just think it should be an option for those who do terrible things like genocide and crimes against humanity.

Most of the time those people are killed when they try to catch them

PlasmaHam
October 28th, 2016, 07:16 PM
Most of the time those people are killed when they try to catch them

I'm not sure how police related shootings are in any way connected to a death penalty discussion. I guess that is what you are trying to say, your remark seemed really out of place.

lyhom
October 28th, 2016, 09:03 PM
I'm not sure how police related shootings are in any way connected to a death penalty discussion. I guess that is what you are trying to say, your remark seemed really out of place.

not sure what bringing up abortion all the damn time has anything more to do with this discussion (and frankly I'd rather that everyone stop with these red herrings) than that but that doesn't seem to stop you lmao

anyways what StoppingTom said a page back is literally my exact opinion on this topic so I'm out

Uniquemind
October 29th, 2016, 01:30 AM
I'm not sure how police related shootings are in any way connected to a death penalty discussion. I guess that is what you are trying to say, your remark seemed really out of place.

It's a different topic for sure.

The only commonality is that a representative of some branch of government delivered a death blow to someone.

In some cases it's worse because the trigger has to be pulled in spur of the moment, and cops freak out when they encounter mentally ill people they aren't trained enough nationwide to do well in those situations on the whole. Death penalty gets a trial at least.


But death by a cop or some law enforcement agent is cheaper economically on the tax payer.

So it's whatever angle you want to take in your argument regarding due process.

brandon9
November 22nd, 2016, 09:04 PM
I realize this thread is almost a month old, but as someone studying criminal justice and who wants to go into federal law enforcement behavioral analysis, I feel almost obligated to comment.

The death penalty should not be abolished. There are people who commit such horrific crimes that they absolutely deserve to die. Would you want a serial killer who raped and murdered 13 young girls to live out his days in the absolute joke we call the American prison system? Or a mass shooter? I wouldn't. That person took the future of multiple people. He forfeited his right to a future of his own in commiting such heinous acts. Those are examples of course but the point is the same. Its a crime-control approach, but in my opinion the right to certain aspects of due process are forfeit if you did something bad enough to warrant being put to death. I've studied criminal law and enforcement approaches for a year now and my opinion is no different than the day I began my first course. Should every case be a death penalty case? No. But some do warrant it, and they aren't as common as people seem to believe. We don't just kill inmates every day and twice on Tuesday.

Agent X
November 22nd, 2016, 11:29 PM
I support the death penalty for any crimes in which the criminal willingly ends someone's life. As far as I'm concerned, if you willingly kill someone, you deserve the same to happen to you. No exceptions. The death penalty is a humane, painless way to die, and I don't think any murderer deserves to live.

Periphery
November 23rd, 2016, 01:18 AM
I support the death penalty for any crimes in which the criminal willingly ends someone's life. As far as I'm concerned, if you willingly kill someone, you deserve the same to happen to you. No exceptions. The death penalty is a humane, painless way to die, and I don't think any murderer deserves to live.

You can also make them live in the worst conditions out there and give them a shit life. I feel like death is the easy way out for them. Let them live, give them a shitty life so they know what they did was wrong.

Also, humane and painless? I'm pretty sure there are cases out there where that wasn't the case at all.

brandon9
November 23rd, 2016, 09:01 AM
You can also make them live in the worst conditions out there and give them a shit life. I feel like death is the easy way out for them. Let them live, give them a shitty life so they know what they did was wrong.

Also, humane and painless? I'm pretty sure there are cases out there where that wasn't the case at all.

I agree that would be feasible provided our prison systems actually punished offenders, but the "shit life of an inmate" is a thing of the past, for the most part. Very few inmates are subject to harsh conditions, and even "harsh" is a hard word to use in talking about American prisons. I mean we give these people 3 meals a day, let them read, some even have televisions, they've got a bed, it goes on and on. When homeless people commit crimes just for the fact that life in prison is easier than the streets, there's a problem.

And the most humane/painless option is a firing squad, but only a handful of states still offer that option. Most go via lethal injection or the electric chair (which I happen to think is very antiquated). Guns are immediate. Injection is mostly painless provided they administer proper dosages in the correct order. That chair is painful.

bentheplayer
November 23rd, 2016, 09:54 AM
The justice system is a kinda a reflection and a barometer of societal morals and ethics. Most countries with the death penalty, like the US, works on the concept on deterrence and retributivism. In an ideal justice system, no one should ever be sentenced wrongly but this happens all too often in the US. This means that it is the courts that need to be taken to task and not the death penalty itself. I hate to pull the race card but it is known that blacks tend to be more frequently wrongly convicted. This boils down to lack to a lack of objectivity in the courts and possible police corruption. I think what we need is a more robust criminal justice system instead of dismissing the death penalty. Also, police and proscecutorial misconduct should be more severely punished as currently most of them get away with a mere slap on the wrist.

For those who want to abolish the death penalty read up on the 2011 Norway attack. That guy killed 8 people and wounded over 200 people. Do you think that it is alright to just imprison him indefinitely?

As far as most courts are concerned, what constitutes as humane changes and evolves with the time. Just a few centuries ago, beheading with an axe was not considered as inhumane in many European countries. A significant proportion of people still think that lethal injection, electric chair and hanging as relatively humane today.

ethan-s
November 23rd, 2016, 02:54 PM
In my opinion, murder and rape, and treason should be punished by death. Just saying...

Flapjack
November 23rd, 2016, 03:03 PM
In my opinion, murder and rape, and treason should be punished by death. Just saying...
Punish murder with murder.... what about the innocents that will inevitably be sentenced to death??

bentheplayer
November 23rd, 2016, 03:15 PM
Punish murder with murder.... what about the innocents that will inevitably be sentenced to death??

Then strengthen the judicial system. If innocents get sentenced wrongly, its the judicial system that is flawed, not the death penalty. Ensure that a fair trial is given and that the prosecution can't play god and temper with the evidence.

Flapjack
November 23rd, 2016, 03:26 PM
Then strengthen the judicial system. If innocents get sentenced wrongly, its the judicial system that is flawed, not the death penalty. Ensure that a fair trial is given and that the prosecution can't play god and temper with the evidence.
Well if innocents get sentenced wrongly and sent to prison they can be released.... there have been cases in the past where innocent people have confessed to crimes they did not commit and have been sentenced to death.

Why support the death penalty? It is a lot more expensive, worse for the victims family and kills innocents.

bentheplayer
November 23rd, 2016, 03:53 PM
Well if innocents get sentenced wrongly and sent to prison they can be released.... there have been cases in the past where innocent people have confessed to crimes they did not commit and have been sentenced to death.

Why support the death penalty? It is a lot more expensive, worse for the victims family and kills innocents.

The idea of potential innocent is a rather common point that is often used. So following this trend of argument, shouldn't firearms or motor vehicles be banned since the chance of a fatal incident involving them is greater than those wrongly accused of murder? The inevitability of potential mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty. The death penalty should be kept as people usually fear nothing more than death; otherwise they won't try for life sentence instead. Hence capital would be a more effective deterrent than mere life imprisonment.


In terms of cost, while capital has a high upfront cost, life without parole is estimated to be at least a ballpark of $1-4 mil more and this was about 2 decades ago in 1997. Housing an inmate in LWOP isn't cheap as security has to be tighter. Granted, there has been loads of dispute on cost but since when should cost ever be part of the discussion? Justice should always be served irrespective of cost especially in such severe crimes.

Vlerchan
November 23rd, 2016, 05:01 PM
So following this trend of argument, shouldn't firearms or motor vehicles be banned since the chance of a fatal incident involving them is greater than those wrongly accused of murder?
Cars and firearms service a socially-useful function and net welfare gains are high even after we account for the issues raised. It's quite dubious that it is the case with capital punishment that the gains are too high if they exist at all - the evidence on whether there is a deterrent effect is quite incomplete.

Furthermore, individuals can take actions to guard themselves from such accidental incidents involving cars and firearms - up to their level of risk-adverseness - and thus their persistence can be seen as falling inside the remit associated with personal autonomy and personal responsibility within a free society. On the other hand, those accused falsely cannot act in a manner that meaningfully controls their exposure to such accusations: if it was the case that there was the necessary information to reduce exposure available, then that would suggest complicity.

For those who want to abolish the death penalty read up on the 2011 Norway attack. That guy killed 8 people and wounded over 200 people. Do you think that it is alright to just imprison him indefinitely?
I have no idea why you think that the ugliness of someone's crimes are substantive given the objections that those against the death penalty typically raise.

brandon9
November 24th, 2016, 04:47 PM
It's true innocents have ended up on death row in the past - hell, go read John Gresham's book "The Innocent Man" for an account of such an event. However, the placement of innocents on death row is not a valid argument against the death penalty itself, rather an argument supporting the need for reform within the justice system. It sounds cold to say, but in arguing about the VALIDITY and PURPOSE of the death penalty, the less than 5% of wrongly executed innocents don't matter. That's a prosecutorial / court issue.

In response to the post directly above, the ugliness of the crime typically not only has sway on the way the case is handled, but in the perception of the individual. For example, a gang member who fatally shoots a rival gang member is viewed a bit differently in the eyes of the law than a guy who kidnaps a random girl off the street and proceeds to rape, kill, and dismember her. The gang member is far more likely to do a prison stint, maybe get out one day depending on his age and if parole is offered; the kidnapper-rapist is likely to receive life without parole, if not a push for execution. It's about the severity of the crime in relation to the law.

A final point to make is that in death penalty cases, no single individual decides the sentence. It's a mutual decision between multiple parties.

Babs
November 24th, 2016, 09:04 PM
Whether the death penalty should be legal, I don't fucking know. I think it's fitting for certain criminals but that's not an opinion that I spent hours analyzing, nor one that I'm more than 51% confident in, and I could definitely be swayed on that one. However, I think the method of doing so in the US is the wrong one. Rather than lethal injection (which is not actually very quick or humane, and costs a shit load in insurance bs) I think the guillotine or firing squad should take it's place. Quick and dirty.

bentheplayer
November 25th, 2016, 08:39 AM
This charade of wanting to ban death penalty for humane reasons is kinda funny really. Today, a number of countries/states allow assisted suicide for those who are supposedly terminally ill. Is that inhumane as well? All of these is just merely human perception. If you don't wanna get the death penalty then don't do something that currently warrants it under the law. Don't just be against the death penalty cos that's the seemingly cool stand to take. There are way bigger issues to tackle such as gun violence or police brutality that claims a lot more victims. As for cost issues, why don't we just abolish the whole justice system and be all nice and forgiving to criminals? That would "save" even more right?

ethan-s
November 25th, 2016, 09:02 AM
The idea of potential innocent is a rather common point that is often used. So following this trend of argument, shouldn't firearms or motor vehicles be banned since the chance of a fatal incident involving them is greater than those wrongly accused of murder? The inevitability of potential mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty. The death penalty should be kept as people usually fear nothing more than death; otherwise they won't try for life sentence instead. Hence capital would be a more effective deterrent than mere life imprisonment.


In terms of cost, while capital has a high upfront cost, life without parole is estimated to be at least a ballpark of $1-4 mil more and this was about 2 decades ago in 1997. Housing an inmate in LWOP isn't cheap as security has to be tighter. Granted, there has been loads of dispute on cost but since when should cost ever be part of the discussion? Justice should always be served irrespective of cost especially in such severe crimes.
The best way to cut cost of the death penalty would be to put the bad guy against a brick wall and shoot him in the head.

brandon9
November 25th, 2016, 07:03 PM
The best way to cut cost of the death penalty would be to put the bad guy against a brick wall and shoot him in the head.

This ^^

Unfortunately, this idea REALLY offends the anti-gun population. Hence in part why only 2 states currently allow death by firing squad (in certain circumstances).

A list of execution methods by each state can be found here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution?scid=8&did=245#state

Personally I agree with you that execution via a gun is the best approach. It is immediate, there is practically 0% chance of any botched execution, and it only costs a few bullets. No real reason why we should spend time and resources on electric chairs and lethal injection drugs.

bentheplayer
November 26th, 2016, 06:07 AM
The best way to cut cost of the death penalty would be to put the bad guy against a brick wall and shoot him in the head.

I absolutely agree but it is unlikely to happen. If it did, there will be media field day with "moralists" condemning society for regressing back to the barbaric age. Its too grisly for them to handle even though they love their steaks rare.

I think hanging is a pretty good way too. It is supposedly very fast and painless when done right.

Flapjack
November 26th, 2016, 09:10 AM
The best way to cut cost of the death penalty would be to put the bad guy against a brick wall and shoot him in the head.
You do know that isn't why the death penalty is so expensive.... right? It is the legal costs that make it so expensive.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty


Personally I agree with you that execution via a gun is the best approach. It is immediate, there is practically 0% chance of any botched execution, and it only costs a few bullets. No real reason why we should spend time and resources on electric chairs and lethal injection drugs.
What about the people that fire the guns?

What about the innocent sentenced to death?

What about how expensive the death penalty is? Money that could be spent helping the victims and their families.

Is it not immoral to shoot a defenceless person? Surely 2 wrongs do not make a right?

brandon9
November 26th, 2016, 11:20 AM
You do know that isn't why the death penalty is so expensive.... right? It is the legal costs that make it so expensive.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty


What about the people that fire the guns?

What about the innocent sentenced to death?

What about how expensive the death penalty is? Money that could be spent helping the victims and their families.

Is it not immoral to shoot a defenceless person? Surely 2 wrongs do not make a right?

The people who fire the guns are mentally prepared for the job they are doing - that is precisely why they use a firing squad versus a single individual. Nobody in the squad knows for sure who fired the "killing shot." They are all given extensive psychological evaluations, and if they do not pass them, they cannot be a member of the firing squad.

I've already mentioned in an earlier post about the innocents, less than 5% of executed individuals were innocent. That is a problem with the judicial system and investigative technique of police used to build the case against the innocent, not with the death penalty itself. ~95% of people sentenced to death are properly convicted and sentenced under the law. The 5% is not a factor in discussing the validity and purpose of the death penalty, rather a factor in another argument entirely.

The biggest cost problem with the death penalty in my eyes is the fact that those convicted are allowed multiple appeals and stays of execution, therefore increasing the time spent in federal custody, costing more in legal fees, and using up resources on these individuals. The prerequisites for obtaining a death sentence are exhaustive in the judicial system, so if the individual is sentenced to death after trial, it's typically a just ruling. If there is some room for doubt, allow them a SINGLE appeal, and if the original ruling is upheld then that must be the end of it. And if the evidence is overwhelming or the individual is a real-life Joe Carroll with 14+ victims admitted to, they don't deserve an appeal. Want to cut costs on the fees for holding these people in supermax facilities? Execute them within 30 days of the ruling unless the first appeal is filed, if which fails the 30 day rule still applied. Cut costs on the execution itself? Don't use electric chairs or injection drugs, use the firing squad; its exponentially cheaper to buy the bullets than specialized drugs or the cost in electricity for the chair. Want to kill them as humanely as possible? Shoot them, it is the most immediate form of death you can grant them, which is most likely more than they gave their victims.

I agree that in certain cases it is immoral to shoot a defenseless person in a real-world setting, such as police work or in war, unless the individual was previously disarmed or was going to make a motion in which he could acquire a weapon, then by all means he should be shot to protect yourself and the people around you. In the setting of an execution that was approved legally, I see no problem with it. That person committed such a heinous act or actions that his life is forfeit, be it mass murder or treason or whatever else. Execution has been a staple of world law dating as far back as history is recorded - it wouldn't still be around today if it did not have a valid place in codified law.

I realize I probably sound quite callous about the value of the human life, however I'd like to say I'm not. I value human life and the safety of society so highly that I'm willing to enter a profession in which I may be required to kill someone in the line of duty. I've reconciled to that fact, I have been in situations before where it was my life or someone else's (I highly doubt I can describe that event in detail on this site), and I understand that sometimes the taking of a life is inevitable. I've got a family of military vets and federal law enforcement personnel, who have been in hairy situations, and the stories are just chilling. Its a hard thing to reconcile as a truth, but its one that you kind of have to in my opinion.

bentheplayer
November 26th, 2016, 02:19 PM
You do know that isn't why the death penalty is so expensive.... right? It is the legal costs that make it so expensive.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty


What about the people that fire the guns?

What about the innocent sentenced to death?

What about how expensive the death penalty is? Money that could be spent helping the victims and their families.

Is it not immoral to shoot a defenceless person? Surely 2 wrongs do not make a right?

I don't think you get what brandon and me have been saying. Yes we agree that the legal process for the death penalty is long and inefficient. However, this means the process needs to be reformed and not the abolishment of the death. In other countries the judicial process is a lot quicker as there is less corruption/misconduct of the police/prosecutor and a more straight forward codified form of criminal law.

The legal process is crazy for the US. It might differ between States but usually the case goes through 3 courts (trial,appeal, supreme) first at state level followed by federal level. Finally they might request for clemency at State or Federal level. There is also loads of legal wizardry defense attorneys worth their salt can pull like habeas corpus or claiming an unfair trial, etc. So loads of pen pushing and paper work.

As for innocents sentenced to death, there are also loads of people who are wrongly sentenced too albeit for lesser crimes. Should we then also abolish laws regarding those crimes. Please elaborate further on your point of innocents rather than repeating it.

In terms of criminal restitution, they can turn to National Center of Victim of Crime. https://victimsofcrime.org/about-us/our-work As said earlier, the budget for the judicial system in US is to prosecute criminals and upkeep the law. It's not meant to be used to help victims financially but to give them some measure of retributive justice.

2 wrongs don't make one right. This has also been a very common argument used but it fails to recognize that killing isn't inherently wrong. If it is, states will not engage in war or give police the right to use lethal force in any circumstance. (Pls see my elaboration on this point below.) In this case it is a punishment(restitution) not a wrong action per se. You talked about restitution earlier. Not all forms of restitution is financial, some still desire the a life for a life kind. Granted some victim's family might be magnanimous enough to forgive the criminal but there are also others who find closure only after the criminal has been killed.

The other issues raised I believe have been well explained by Brandon.

Brandon, personally I don't think you sound callous about human life. Many argue that everyone has a right to life and the state should not be allowed to deny anyone the right to life. However, I believe that one can effectively waive his right to life by his actions. Hypothetically speaking, if the state can't kill then we can forget about surviving any trigger happy gunman/terror attacks and must in turn be willing to die for our beliefs of not killing another man. Another unfortunate problem with the law is parity so basic principles of the law would usually have to be applied across the board no matter the situation.

Vlerchan
November 27th, 2016, 06:13 AM
I'll respond to this when I'm home (I'm in London now) but the discussion centres around the deliverance of justice.

What separate the acts from the state from the acts of the convicted is that the state acts in accordance with an agreed procedure carried out under the rule of law. Justice itself is thus found in the procedure - what separates capital from wanton murder: kidnapping and false imprisonment from legitimate imprisonment - and it becomes impossible to separate one part of that procedure - capital - from the other - a fair investigation and trial. In other words: Justice isn't found in the punishment - the harm inflicted on prisoners - but rather the enactment of each stage. Punishment in isolation can't be separated from the private infliction of violence.

The attempts to do so debase the centrality of justice as correct procedure.

In a more pragmatic sense unless tangible benefits that override such issues can be identified - and so far those can't - punishment should aim to be both compensatable and reversible. The design of a procedure that sets aside the realities of chaos in human relations cheapens the idea of justice insofar as it allows it to be irreversibly unjust.

Stronk Serb
November 27th, 2016, 03:01 PM
I will continue to advocate for turning the guys who qualify for death row into slave labor with slave collars and tracking chips. They should work on infrastructure and large-scale construction projects.

Porpoise101
November 27th, 2016, 04:20 PM
I will continue to advocate for turning the guys who qualify for death row into slave labor with slave collars and tracking chips. They should work on infrastructure and large-scale construction projects.
I have to wonder if that would make things worse for the other construction workers though. If there are more workers, then the old ones will have to compete with the newer ones.

PlasmaHam
November 27th, 2016, 04:45 PM
I have to wonder if that would make things worse for the other construction workers though. If there are more workers, then the old ones will have to compete with the newer ones.

After the Great Trump Deportation, there will be a lot of vacancies in construction jobs, problem solved!:P.

In more serious terms, I do agree with putting prisoners to work. American infrastructure is a big issue right now, Obama put 1 Trillion into solving this, only to barely change anything. I do not believe that a prison workforce would be in competition with private businesses in this area. There is simply so much work to be done, and not enough money to rely 100% on private businesses.

brandon9
November 27th, 2016, 08:02 PM
Putting prisoners to work is something that should be mandatory as part of their "resocialization procedure." Put the bastards to work building roads as part of a chain gang, it'll certainly cut the cost on having 35 fucking DOT "workers" hanging out for two weeks to do a job 5 men could do in 3 days if they actually put some effort in. And the prisoners don't need a salary because they're repaying society for their fuck-up. The only ones exempted from this should be dangerous prisoners, those liable to attempt some ill-conceived escape or murder. My dad managed work-release inmates for about 2 years and he said it brings a real transformation in them.

Stronk Serb
November 28th, 2016, 02:50 AM
I have to wonder if that would make things worse for the other construction workers though. If there are more workers, then the old ones will have to compete with the newer ones.

Yes but due to a drop in labor prices, the state for example can take on large-scale projects of rebuilding infrastructure and because there are not a lot of life imprisonment and death row inmates, the state would need to hire folks from the private sector.

Porpoise101
November 28th, 2016, 04:58 PM
I learned a lot about infrastructure and construction after looking into it, and the system of prison workers that some have suggested will not work. Unlike in the past, construction is very machinery-oriented, meaning that you need experience and training with equipment to build things. I don't know about you, but I feel like giving prisoners heavy machinery is a bad idea. And if you wanted them to build things the old fashioned way, then the end product will be less reliable and take longer to construct. Infrastructure poses long-term costs as well, as you will have to think of future maintenance costs. This means that there is a limited amount of construction to be done, and that it isn't a real long-term solution to dealing with the prison population.

If you are still hellbent on giving prisoners some kind of constructive work to do, it's better to give them a job which needs little prior training and equipment.

lliam
November 28th, 2016, 05:58 PM
The first people to get reformed I think are ones that are light drug dealers that haven't hurt anybody directly by force. That would shrink our prison and monetary cost of the system down by a lot.


imo, the 1st poeple who schould get reformed are those who are pro death penalty. cause those are the actual criminals to which the topic of the thread applies.

Uniquemind
November 29th, 2016, 04:49 AM
imo, the 1st poeple who schould get reformed are those who are pro death penalty. cause those are the actual criminals to which the topic of the thread applies.

I don't follow, especially after there were 2 escaped convicts from prison in the news today.

brandon9
November 29th, 2016, 12:30 PM
imo, the 1st poeple who schould get reformed are those who are pro death penalty. cause those are the actual criminals to which the topic of the thread applies.

I don't know that I've ever seen a more brainless statement in my entire life. Seriously, that is just an astoundingly offensive statement to me, someone who is going to school and paying tens of thousands of dollars a year to enter a career in which I'll vow to protect idiots such as yourself, with my life if necessary, as a law enforcement officer.

I'm glad to know I'm a criminal for supporting the execution of ACTUAL CRIMINALS, who have actually committed a CRIME and been LEGALLY PROSECUTED under the American JUDICIAL SYSTEM in accordance with the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. What the fuck kind of backwards ass world do you live in to call people criminals for supporting a punishment that is LEGALLY APPROVED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE GOVERNMENT?

I am quite sure you are totally uninformed about the judicial system, the death penalty, the role of law enforcement in society, hell probably even how the government works in the first place. I would highly recommend you read up about the purpose and function of each before you come out with such a brainless comment; I implore you, think VERY hard before you make such a hasty fucking generalization next time, it only makes you look like an uneducated dumbass. What's next, calling out the Republican conservatives for our "outdated, racist, misogynistic, homophobic values?" Smh.

Vlerchan
November 29th, 2016, 01:01 PM
What the fuck kind of backwards ass world do you live in to call people criminals for supporting a punishment that is LEGALLY APPROVED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE GOVERNMENT?
Liam is from Germany which so happens to be a country where a rather famous genocide was carried out as LEGALLY APPROVED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE GOVERNMENT. I don't agree with his claim - if my arguments have been read then it should be quite clear that I have no issue with capital punishment per se - though I thought this was hilarious and felt a need to point it out.

That - and I might point out that the argument you have resorted to is just an elaborate appeal to authority. It's not reasonable.

brandon9
November 29th, 2016, 01:18 PM
Liam is from Germany which so happens to be a country where a rather famous genocide was carried out as LEGALLY APPROVED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE GOVERNMENT. I don't agree with his claim - if my arguments have been read then it should be quite clear that I have no issue with capital punishment per se - though I thought this was hilarious and felt a need to point it out.

That - and I might point out that the argument you have resorted to is just an elaborate appeal to authority. It's not reasonable.

I'm well aware of the genocide committed in Germany, but that has nothing to do with the death penalty. Holding the legal execution of criminals par to the genocide of an innocent people is not a reasonable argument, the two don't even share the same plane of existence.

And, despite his national heritage, his statement is simply outrageous, the kind of argument someone makes when they have no clue what is actually happening in the world around them. I would not say my argument in the last post is an appeal to authority, rather an appeal to an offensively misinformed individual to smarten up before making such ridiculous statements. If you want to critique the death penalty itself, go ahead - don't call those who support it, the people who aren't sitting in a federal prison, criminals. The people being executed are the criminals. We just so happen to support their execution.

PlasmaHam
November 29th, 2016, 01:24 PM
Liam is from Germany which so happens to be a country where a rather famous genocide was carried out as LEGALLY APPROVED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
I understand and support your point, just because the government authorizes something does not make it moral. We have seen that throughout history, and I agree that Brandon9's argument was illogical. Though I also must say that lliam's argument was illogical and fallacious too, and him being from Germany is not justification for that.
I'm well aware of the genocide committed in Germany, but that has nothing to do with the death penalty. Holding the legal execution of criminals par to the genocide of an innocent people is not a reasonable argument, the two don't even share the same plane of existence. Vlerchan did not bring up the Holocaust as an allegory to the death penalty. He brought it up because you justified the death penalty as being moral because the government legally approves it. The German government legally approved the Holocaust, does that make it suddenly moral? There is a major danger in believing that if the laws support something, then that something is moral because of it. That is what we are talking about, you cannot justify the death penalty because the government approves it, and this is coming from a guy who supports the death penalty.

imo, the 1st poeple who schould get reformed are those who are pro death penalty. cause those are the actual criminals to which the topic of the thread applies.
This is irrelevant and is guilty of a major fallacy. When you are debating someone in the forums here, or in real life, never ever stoop down to personal insults towards your opponent. That does nothing but make you look like a spoiled brat who can only support their position by cussing and throwing insults. Your claim that anyone who supports the death penalty is inferior and is guilty of a serious crime is irrelevant, hurtful, and ultimately undermines your position. I suggest you don't continue using such tactics on the forum.

Vlerchan
November 29th, 2016, 01:38 PM
I'm well aware of the genocide committed in Germany, but that has nothing to do with the death penalty. Holding the legal execution of criminals par to the genocide of an innocent people is not a reasonable argument, the two don't even share the same plane of existence.
Please re-read my post. You'll see I'm not doing that. I'm criticising the idea that because a government upholds it as part of its law that does not make it ethical or a less condemnable a practice.

his statement is simply outrageous[.]
Of course. You'll find in the above post I also qualified my post with the statement that I don't agree with Liam.

I would not say my argument in the last post is an appeal to authority, rather an appeal to an offensively misinformed individual to smarten up before making such ridiculous statements
Just to clarify: it was the demonstration of its ridiculousness that was an appeal to authority.

Though I also must say that lliam's argument was illogical and fallacious too, and him being from Germany is not justification for that.
Definitely. I'm not claiming it's a justification. Though I found it funny that the German poster was being asked what made him a good candidate to declare that governments could commit wrongs.

brandon9
November 29th, 2016, 01:47 PM
I understand and support your point, just because the government authorizes something does not make it moral. We have seen that throughout history, and I agree that Brandon9's argument was illogical. Though I also must say that lliam's argument was illogical and fallacious too, and him being from Germany is not justification for that.

I am not trying to play moderator here, but I suggest that lliam and brandon9 stop these petty insults and offensive claims before a real mod comes in and locks the thread because of it.

The argument is not that the government support provides a morality to the action, but that the death penalty itself is a legal punishment. People can debate the morality of the death penalty all day long, but it is legal; therefore, supporters are not criminals. We do not advocate an illegal punishment, but a legal one, which is carried out across the nation.

I will drop my argument specifically against Liam with the sake of the thread in mind, as I happen to believe quite strongly this is an important thread/conversation for people of this generation to be having. However, I do not - and will not - condone such comments as the one Liam made. It is sickeningly offensive to me, as I'm sure I've made clear by now.

Please re-read my post. You'll see I'm not doing that. I'm criticising the idea that because a government upholds it as part of its law that does not make it ethical or a less condemnable a practice.


Of course. You'll find in the above post I also qualified my post with the statement that I don't agree with Liam.


Just to clarify: it was the demonstration of its ridiculousness that was an appeal to authority.


Definitely. I'm not claiming it's a justification. Though I found it funny that the German poster was being asked what made him a good candidate to declare that governments could commit wrongs.

Oh I wasn't striking at you for that, I understood the point there. I believe my last post clarified that as well, involving the government support/morality argument. I was simply saying the genocide really has nothing to do with the argument about the death penalty, regardless of context, as it's an unrelated thing.

I also knew from the post you didn't agree, and I'm glad I am not the only one. I am perhaps more outspoken about my dislike of the comment he made than you, is all.

If it is an appeal to authority, it's unintentional on my part, I intended to appeal to intelligence.

As for the last, I did not realize he was German at first, but it is besides the point in my opinion. His nationality doesn't affect my opinion of his comment.

Posts merged. Use the multi quote button next time. ~Mars

Flapjack
December 4th, 2016, 01:47 PM
Why do people want the death penalty? I have said so much about how it is not ethical and innocents will die and people think that the death penalty should be used despite this, but why?

PlasmaHam
December 4th, 2016, 03:54 PM
Why do people want the death penalty? I have said so much about how it is not ethical and innocents will die and people think that the death penalty should be used despite this, but why?
Why do people want abortion? I have said so much how abortion is not ethical and how in every abortion an innocent dies and people still think abortion should be done despite this, but why?

You made a moral argument, but it has flaws, that is why people don't see things your way. Maybe instead of complaining that people don't share your opinions, you actually state your opinions and tell me this 100% certain evidence you have for the immorality of the death penalty?

Pyromaniac27
December 4th, 2016, 07:36 PM
In my opinion, if you are such a threat to society that the state wants to excuse you, you should die. You deserve it

Flapjack
December 5th, 2016, 02:06 PM
Why do people want abortion? I have said so much how abortion is not ethical and how in every abortion an innocent dies and people still think abortion should be done despite this, but why?

You made a moral argument, but it has flaws, that is why people don't see things your way. Maybe instead of complaining that people don't share your opinions, you actually state your opinions and tell me this 100% certain evidence you have for the immorality of the death penalty?
Nice deflection? People want abortion because they don't want the pregnancy... so for the second time, why do you want the death penalty? For get the arguments against it, present an argument for it.

Vlerchan
December 5th, 2016, 03:17 PM
... so for the second time, why do you want the death penalty?
I might be being presumptions but I imagine it's because they don't want the criminals.

Flapjack
December 5th, 2016, 04:59 PM
I might be being presumptions but I imagine it's because they don't want the criminals.
Then lock them away? XD I think it is an animistic knee-jerk reaction as I have never seen any reason to support it?

brandon9
December 8th, 2016, 01:15 PM
Why do people want the death penalty? I have said so much about how it is not ethical and innocents will die and people think that the death penalty should be used despite this, but why?

I've addressed in a few of my previous posts about the innocents - the likelihood this this scenario happening is simply ridiculously small in the overall percentage of death penalty cases, and as I've stated multiple times before, the innocents have nothing really to do with the argument of if the death penalty is a valid, legal, ethical punishment. The argument around innocents centers in the judicial system itself and the procedural flaws that sometimes arise (which in of themselves are rare).

Nice deflection? People want abortion because they don't want the pregnancy... so for the second time, why do you want the death penalty? For get the arguments against it, present an argument for it.

I would like to point out that you said earlier that the death penalty "is not ethical and innocents will die," however the exact same thing is true of abortion. Literally, it is the exact same principle, so by your own logic, you should be against abortion as well due to what, again by your own logic, is the death of an innocent.

Then lock them away? XD I think it is an animistic knee-jerk reaction as I have never seen any reason to support it?

The criminals sentenced to the death penalty are of an entirely different breed than those who can be "safely" and "cost-effectively" held in a prison. Locking this type of criminal away is much more difficult than incarcerating your common street offenders and one-off murderers. These people require the highest possible level of security, housing them in facilities specifically built for the purpose that cost millions of dollars to upkeep, you require more personnel, if they are locked away society is literally paying to keep them alive. You want to pay for a serial killer or treasonous individual to live comfortably in a cell until he dies naturally because it's "immoral" to kill him?

I think calling it an "animalistic, knee-jerk reaction" is a stretch; animalistic would be killing them slowly, gorily, and inhumanely, and it is in no way "knee-jerk," as it takes a VERY long time to arrive at a death sentence. It's not a "let's go to court once and decide to kill him" kind of thing. Most states kill via lethal injection, which I assure you is quite humane - the offender is put into a deep sleep within 30 seconds of the first injection of heavy sedative, which in itself is a lethal dose. By the time the other drugs enter the system, the person doesn't feel a thing. Far from animalistic.

PlasmaHam
December 8th, 2016, 02:39 PM
I would like to point out that you said earlier that the death penalty "is not ethical and innocents will die," however the exact same thing is true of abortion. Literally, it is the exact same principle, so by your own logic, you should be against abortion as well due to what, again by your own logic, is the death of an innocent.
This sums up my point I was trying to make. Your own argument is hypocritical to your stances on other positions, like abortion. Your exact same argument can be used in defense of a fetus' life, yet you conveniently ignore that in worship of "Equality"

Flapjack
December 8th, 2016, 04:17 PM
I think calling it an "animalistic, knee-jerk reaction" is a stretch; animalistic would be killing them slowly, gorily, and inhumanely, and it is in no way "knee-jerk," as it takes a VERY long time to arrive at a death sentence. It's not a "let's go to court once and decide to kill him" kind of thing. Most states kill via lethal injection, which I assure you is quite humane - the offender is put into a deep sleep within 30 seconds of the first injection of heavy sedative, which in itself is a lethal dose. By the time the other drugs enter the system, the person doesn't feel a thing. Far from animalistic.
Again you have not answered why you want the death penalty! I think animalistic, knee-jerk reaction is a very accurate description of calls for the death penalty. The only reason I have heard is people wanting revenge. I do truly understand that but the reality of the matter is that it is not humane and innocents die. I know you say that is the courts fault for finding them guilty when they're not but if there was no death penalty they would still be alive.

Are there any other reasons you support the death penalty?
This sums up my point I was trying to make. Your own argument is hypocritical to your stances on other positions, like abortion. Your exact same argument can be used in defense of a fetus' life, yet you conveniently ignore that in worship of "Equality"
Again you do not respond to my ideas and facts presented but instead bring into my beliefs in other topics in an attempt to weaken my argument? Whether I am pro-life or pro-choice, the arguments I have made here are still valid.

So I ask you for the third time, why do you support the death penalty?

To answer your obvious attempt to derail the debate, yes I am against the death penalty and yes I support a women's right to choose. Surely you see the same inconsistency you see in me, in yourself? You defend unborn babies but not innocents with families and responsibilities sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit? I believe a women should be able to do what she wants with her body and at the early stages of pregnancy the baby is not alive and making abortion illegal forces women to have illegal abortions, more dangerous and less hygienic.

Porpoise101
December 8th, 2016, 06:43 PM
I think the death penalty is good because it feels good and it has never been a better time to perform it; our CSI tech is better than ever. I am also not comfortable with people who have committed crimes against humanity from being exempt. If there was no death penalty, then the people who carried out the Nazi war crimes would have lived fairly well in a cell. This doesn't sit well with me.

Vlerchan
December 9th, 2016, 03:36 AM
Then lock them away? XD I think it is an animistic knee-jerk reaction as I have never seen any reason to support it?
Women can also put their children up for adoption instead of aborting them. The latter being animalistic.

and as I've stated multiple times before, the innocents have nothing really to do with the argument of if the death penalty is a valid, legal, ethical punishment. The argument around innocents centers in the judicial system itself and the procedural flaws that sometimes arise (which in of themselves are rare).
I responded to this point earlier.
What separate the acts from the state from the acts of the convicted is that the state acts in accordance with an agreed procedure carried out under the rule of law. Justice itself is thus found in the procedure - what separates capital from wanton murder: kidnapping and false imprisonment from legitimate imprisonment - and it becomes impossible to separate one part of that procedure - capital - from the other - a fair investigation and trial. In other words: Justice isn't found in the punishment - the harm inflicted on prisoners - but rather the enactment of each stage. Punishment in isolation can't be separated from the private infliction of violence.

The attempts to do so debase the centrality of justice as correct procedure.

In a more pragmatic sense unless tangible benefits that override such issues can be identified - and so far those can't - punishment should aim to be both compensatable and reversible. The design of a procedure that sets aside the realities of chaos in human relations cheapens the idea of justice insofar as it allows it to be irreversibly unjust.

These people require the highest possible level of security, housing them in facilities specifically built for the purpose that cost millions of dollars to upkeep, you require more personnel, if they are locked away society is literally paying to keep them alive. You want to pay for a serial killer or treasonous individual to live comfortably in a cell until he dies naturally because it's "immoral" to kill him?
If costs matter, it would still be much less expensive to imprison them for life.

I want to pay for them to live in a cell - in an environment where there is roughly 250,000 individuals of rape and sexual assault per annum; alone, his freedoms greatly restricted and with little access to daylight - thank kill him, for the reasons outlined prior. Let's not begin to pretend that prison is a nice place to be, though.

NewLeafsFan
January 5th, 2017, 01:18 AM
Hey guys,

I am currently studying the death penalty in Social Studies at school, and would like to say my entire viewpoint on the death penalty has since changed.
Because I live in New Zealand, where the death penalty has been abolished for many years, we base most of our study off the American death penalty. But here's my main points for why the death penalty should be 'axed' (geddit):

1) The death penalty was created to suit another time, age and system. It has become largely obsolete;
2) Although many taxpayers say they should not have to pay to keep murderers and criminals alive, it should be the government's responsibility to ensure they serve ALL the people. No government, person or state should be allowed to decide whether or not a human is a 'write-off' and should be put to death;
3) Every person can be rehabilitated unless they are mentally ill, in which case we should keep them away from the majority of society, but in their own secure communities which are constantly guarded to ensure that everyone gets a chance at life. Also, by the time death row inmates reach their execution date, they are more often than not ALREADY rehabilitated and understand their action were wrong;
4) Whether or not a person gets sentenced to death relies heavily on the quality of legal assistance they can afford;
5) The majority of people on death row are NOT the 'baddest of the bad', they are just people who have made honest mistakes in life.

Let me know what you think!

Thanks,
Josh

I completely agree. We have come so far from the times when it was used.

I'd like to add something about taxpayers. A lot of people believe that it saves money by just putting them to death instead of feeding and sheltering them. This is incorrect. It costs about 5x as much to put someone to death. It involves a lot more lawyers, time in court, ect.

Flapjack
January 14th, 2017, 06:55 PM
I think the death penalty is good because it feels good and it has never been a better time to perform it; our CSI tech is better than ever. I am also not comfortable with people who have committed crimes against humanity from being exempt. If there was no death penalty, then the people who carried out the Nazi war crimes would have lived fairly well in a cell. This doesn't sit well with me.
This is what I believe the death penalty debate truly boils down to, there is loads of talk about ethics and costs but I think that is the main reason people support the death penalty and I do understand why, when I was younger I was a massive supporter of the death penalty for this very reason however now I against it because of the risk of killing innocents and I personally believe you can't punish murder with murder and it is not right to kill a defenceless person that poses no threat.

Jean Poutine
January 15th, 2017, 04:15 AM
When Beccaria argued against the death penalty in On Crimes and Punishments in 1764, in part one of the earliest treatises against the use of the death penalty, one of his main arguments is that it deprived the State of its workforce and the condemned of his penance. Another was that as men view death as something quite ethereal, borderline mystical as living creatures push death and its inevitability to the back of their minds, a prolonged punishment instead of a transient one is more effective as a deterrent as the citizenry can then look at the condemned and realize in what miserable state of existence he would be if he committed a serious crime.

It was as much a critique of the death penalty as it was an argument for the use of forced labour (or, as it was then known, penal slavery), the punishment Beccaria thought ought to be the replacement. Unfortunately, along the way it seems we grabbed on to the former and told the latter to fuck off.

I do not support the death penalty, but I do not think seclusion as the sole punishment is the answer either. The death penalty is based on the archaic notion of paying back debts with one's own blood. I do not much care for bloodshed but I do care about the astronomical cost of keeping prisoners into seclusion while all they ever do is eat, shit, sleep, work out a bit in the yard and for some, work some bullshit job that benefits only the jail's internal economy.

If we're going to get rid of the death penalty, fine by me, but bring back extended forced labour terms for serious crimes. Seclusion means society loses out on the prisoner's contribution to production as well as a portion of that of free citizens'. It's a stupid punishment. At least let the prisoner contribute a substantial amount towards his "lodging" and perhaps rehabilitate him along the way.

That was my drive-by shitpost for 2017.

Hermes
March 7th, 2017, 02:43 PM
...so for the second time, why do you want the death penalty?
I might be being presumptions but I imagine it's because they don't want the criminals.

So there are two sides to that:

1. Taking those who have already committed a crime out of the mainstream of society so that they may not commit further crime.
2. Establishing a deterrent by making it plain that crime results in punishment.

But both of these could be achieved by other means. Locking someone up prevents him from committing further crime for at least as long as the locking up continues.

I am unconvinced that prison is any less of a deterrent than the dealth penality. I think in general we suppose the deterrent effect of a given sentence is the product of the severity of the sentence and the likihood of sentence being passed, i.e. the combined probability of first being caught and then being found guilty, but apart from small fines which people can easily write off, I think the effectiveness of the deterrent depends much more on the likihood of actually being punished rather than on the severity of the punishment. This is why speed cameras with fixed penalty notices are effective and why, for example, armed robbers are prepared to shoot at police and risk a harsher sentence for the chance of escape rather than face the certainty of surender for the robbery.

So we are left that the death penalty is no more effective a deterrent and is a more costly way of removing people from circulation than life imprisonment. Once people know this why would they still choose to support it? It can only be the instinct for revenge.

If it's revenge then perhaps it doesn't matter if it is painful or not. That maybe just as well because a programme I saw recently suggested that the selection of drugs used for lethal injection may not make the process painless but may instead prevent the condemed doing anything that could communicate pain to anyone else. It is more important, it seems, that inlookers should not find the process barbaric than that it should be humane to the condemed.

Executions here in England used to be carried out in public and men who were hanged were left there for passers by to see. The modern equivalent would be to televise executions. Why is that not done? I am sure there would be a market for it. The answer, of course, is that we all know it is barbaric. That's why more countries in the world have abandoned it than retained it including Canada, Europe, Australia, most of South America and parts of Africa. Even Rusia, though it still officially available have not made use of it recently.

bentheplayer
March 7th, 2017, 10:23 PM
If it's revenge then perhaps it doesn't matter if it is painful or not. That maybe just as well because a programme I saw recently suggested that the selection of drugs used for lethal injection may not make the process painless but may instead prevent the condemed doing anything that could communicate pain to anyone else. It is more important, it seems, that inlookers should not find the process barbaric than that it should be humane to the condemed.

Executions here in England used to be carried out in public and men who were hanged were left there for passers by to see. The modern equivalent would be to televise executions. Why is that not done? I am sure there would be a market for it. The answer, of course, is that we all know it is barbaric. That's why more countries in the world have abandoned it than retained it including Canada, Europe, Australia, most of South America and parts of Africa. Even Rusia, though it still officially available have not made use of it recently.

Lethal injections are usually not administered by a medical doctor so I suppose there is a higher chance of botched jobs. Also there are various protocols for lethal injections. Having watched euthanasia consume the drug and die in a seemly pain free and peaceful manner, the blame should be on the lethal injection protocol. The idea of what is barbaric or not can be vague. If one is used to watching executions, one would naturally be desensitized. Just as some can't stomach autopsy of dead people, there are some who can't stand the sight of executions.

As for televised executions, considering that we have loads of media regulations to "protect the innocence" of young viewers, it is unlikely to be allowed. In judicial hanging, the person to be executed is usually hooded so there isn't any real gore that can be seen such as bleeding fro the ear or bulgy eyes. Death by hanging is probably the most efficient way to kill a person quickly and painlessly as atlanto-occipital disruption is known to cause instant death.

Pyromaniac27
March 7th, 2017, 10:47 PM
sorry but i disagree, your basically telling me if the pulse nightclub shoot was still alive, even though that bastard killed all those people, he deserves to live the rest of his life in peace, he should get the juice directly to hell in my opinion

Periphery
March 16th, 2017, 11:25 AM
sorry but i disagree, your basically telling me if the pulse nightclub shoot was still alive, even though that bastard killed all those people, he deserves to live the rest of his life in peace, he should get the juice directly to hell in my opinion

He shouldn't live in peace. Giving him the death penatly means taking away the potential suffering he would endure in prison. I don't think he'd mind dying, he would mind prison though.

Pyromaniac27
March 16th, 2017, 12:30 PM
why dont we nust torture them for eternity then, thar would controll the population xD

Dmaxd123
March 16th, 2017, 02:38 PM
i'm not always for the death penalty but if the person confesses to the crime, or we have irrefutable evidence (video, not just witnesses) then I think it's a decent option.

I also think that people given a life sentence without parole should be given the option to join death row or just do an assisted suicide.

i know it sounds rough/crude/cruel but why should an inmate get better treatment than a veteran? too many homeless veterans for me to worry about rapists/murderer's well being


i think the criminal justice system needs a reform an incentives for each prison to get them to help the inmates from becoming repeat offenders but that is a different subject

Jamesk0050
March 16th, 2017, 06:36 PM
The problem is some innocent people have been put to death. One innocent person put to death for a crime they did not commit is too many.

MaeFae
March 19th, 2017, 09:06 AM
Maybe it's a bit of an oddball idea but what if we take away any mandatory death penalty and instead let the prisoner die if they so choose? I feel like a surprisingly lot of people would take the option, especially if they have life sentences.

Periphery
March 19th, 2017, 03:18 PM
why dont we nust torture them for eternity then, thar would controll the population xD

Because physical torture shouldn't be an option. That'll just take you to a low level. I don't think it looks good to the outside when a modern western country tortures its prisoners. Taking away someone's freedom is already torture in its own right, locking someone up is. Torture wouldn't controll the population though, unless you intend to murder your prisoners

Pyromaniac27
March 24th, 2017, 05:44 AM
Because physical torture shouldn't be an option. That'll just take you to a low level. I don't think it looks good to the outside when a modern western country tortures its prisoners. Taking away someone's freedom is already torture in its own right, locking someone up is. Torture wouldn't controll the population though, unless you intend to murder your prisoners

was joking dude

Beauregard
March 26th, 2017, 12:09 AM
Maybe it's a bit of an oddball idea but what if we take away any mandatory death penalty and instead let the prisoner die if they so choose? I feel like a surprisingly lot of people would take the option, especially if they have life sentences.

Yes that's true. I have seen a documentary on TV and few years ago. I don't remember any details about it It was about a large US prison in the South....Angola prison LA I assume but I'm not sure. Even though death penalty would be allowed people all get life sentences.
A lot of those prisoners said they'd rather have died. As I said I don't remember much of this TV programme apart from a real haunting scene where some 75+ black guy showed the reporter graves he had helped dig for fellow prisoners and where he told him how he had spent most of his life in prison without visits and always knowing he will end up in one of them graves here too. Asked about death penalty he said that death isn't so scary as what he experienced in all those years of complete hopelessness. Knowing that he will have to spend more than 50 years in captivity and one day die without ever have been free again.
Death would have been an easier way out and that's why a lot of others tried or successful committed suicide.

veroda
April 2nd, 2017, 09:55 PM
this thread looks sinister to me...

JakeyZ
April 12th, 2017, 05:54 AM
On first glance I have to say "a life for a life", but I don't know enough about the death penalty to comment.

Snowfox
May 28th, 2017, 11:08 AM
Death penalty needs to go but also life without possibility to parole should go as well.

Possibility of parole has positive effect. less violence inside prison and less need for prison guards. Hope is powerfull drug

Periphery
May 28th, 2017, 11:18 AM
Death penalty needs to go but also life without possibility to parole should go as well.

Possibility of parole has positive effect. less violence inside prison and less need for prison guards. Hope is powerfull drug

I'm someone who thinks prisons should focus on the recovery of their prisoners rather than keeping them locked away from society. However I think completely taking this away is a bad idea. In some cases the individual is simply unable to rejoin society because of a variety of reasons. They can go from sever mental issues to just being highly agressive and most likely to end up in prison again. While hope is a powerful drug, I really don't think this will end up causing less violence and will definitely not cause a need in reduction fro prison guards.

Snowfox
May 28th, 2017, 11:28 AM
I'm someone who thinks prisons should focus on the recovery of their prisoners rather than keeping them locked away from society. However I think completely taking this away is a bad idea. In some cases the individual is simply unable to rejoin society because of a variety of reasons. They can go from sever mental issues to just being highly agressive and most likely to end up in prison again. While hope is a powerful drug, I really don't think this will end up causing less violence and will definitely not cause a need in reduction fro prison guards.


Mental cases should not be in prison at first place.
Also in case someone is in prison for some crime and develops mental problems they should receive treatment to it.
Also possibility of parole doesnt mean certainty of parole.
Where I am from it works like this:
Minimum sentence for murder is 12 years always (more or less always underage murderer gets reduced sentence however as well person who was not mentally competent at time of crime) after 12 years period they can get parole but its not certain. if their parole is rejected as usually is the case its is 2 more years to do time and then another possibility and so on. Most times person ends up doing 16-20 years behind bars.
Before one is released prisoner is transferred to another facility where they are taught how modern life works. starting from basics how to open bank account how to search job and how to navigate system how to apply for flat.
There is social security worker guiding them. First weeks after release they spend in midway home that is like motel and they need to report to social worker every day and after few weeks once in month and after first year 4 times a year.
Murder excons can never get licence to gun unless president takes action and that has never happened.

Snowfox
July 2nd, 2017, 01:25 PM
So DriveAlive started thread of slaughterhouse cruelty meaning that slaughterhouse is cruel and ways meat-industry is operating it is cruel.
Wether one agrees this or not it leads to another big question.

Why we want to treat animals better than other humans?
Aren.t humans more valuable than animals?
For me this answer is yes humans are more valuable than animals.

Then lets think what happens to humans in prison?
How they are locked to small cell for long periods of time like animals? Even after petty crimes like theft? There I am referring for 3 strikes you are out laws in USA.
What about torturing them to death with poison or electrical current or poison gas in US prisons.
We really seem to care more about animal rights than human rights.
Right to life being basic human right. Or persons right to not be treated degrading way.

As I see it justice is not and can not be revenge. Revenge is revenge but not justice.

How do I see violence. I see it necessary evil that is ok in certain situations. Like protecting greater good ie. someones life.
Unnecessary killing is murder. Like murderer who is in prison already is not threat to society so there is no need to kill him/her.

Stronk Serb
July 4th, 2017, 03:16 PM
I would not aim to rehabilitate prisoners but to punish them and use them as an example to others. Bring back public executions, hangings, floggings etc...

Coolteenboy
July 4th, 2017, 05:14 PM
Rehabilitation?
Seriously?
How do you explain the MASSIVE recidivism rates?

mattsmith48
July 4th, 2017, 07:32 PM
I would not aim to rehabilitate prisoners but to punish them and use them as an example to others. Bring back public executions, hangings, floggings etc...

That does not work, people are gonna commit crimes no matter how much punish those crimes, which is why we should focus more on rehabilitation so when they get out they are capable to have a normal live and for some even go back to their old live before they committed the crime.

Stronk Serb
July 5th, 2017, 03:37 AM
That does not work, people are gonna commit crimes no matter how much punish those crimes, which is why we should focus more on rehabilitation so when they get out they are capable to have a normal live and for some even go back to their old live before they committed the crime.

You think? Look at North Korea, if you exclude thought crimes, they are really low on crime.

Snowfox
July 5th, 2017, 03:49 AM
You think? Look at North Korea, if you exclude thought crimes, they are really low on crime.

I wouldn't see North Korea as any kind of example of good society.
Also what they report and what actually goes on there is another question.

Then to another question wouldnt it be best idea for serial killer to be police. Like cops are above all laws.

naenaendr
July 5th, 2017, 08:14 AM
I'm not sure. If there is a man trying to kill people, he should be stopped and the only way to is sometimes the death sentence. To save dozens of lives, you may have to take one.

Flapjack
July 5th, 2017, 11:04 AM
You think? Look at North Korea, if you exclude thought crimes, they are really low on crime.
Says who? North Korea? If we are getting facts from then you'll be pleased to know how they discovered a unicorn lair (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/30/unicorn-lair-discovered-north-korea).

If you want to see low crime rates look at countries like Norway where they focus on rehabilitation, not only more effective but the morally correct thing to do too.

DriveAlive
July 5th, 2017, 12:05 PM
Death penalty does not work at preventing crime and is morally wrong. People who commit murders either think that they will not be caught or do not care if they are caught. Therefore, the death penalty does not dissuade people from committing murders. All it does it allow the state to exact vengeance. That is, until the state accidentally executes an innocent person...

Stronk Serb
July 5th, 2017, 01:40 PM
I wouldn't see North Korea as any kind of example of good society.
Also what they report and what actually goes on there is another question.

Then to another question wouldnt it be best idea for serial killer to be police. Like cops are above all laws.

Police and prison security are two different branches.

Says who? North Korea? If we are getting facts from then you'll be pleased to know how they discovered a unicorn lair (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/30/unicorn-lair-discovered-north-korea).

If you want to see low crime rates look at countries like Norway where they focus on rehabilitation, not only more effective but the morally correct thing to do too.

Norway where a mass shooting happened a few years back?

mattsmith48
July 5th, 2017, 02:00 PM
Norway where a mass shooting happened a few years back?

Because one isolated incident proves that a whole system is not working. Tell me which of the 14 mass shooting in Texas this year proves the death penalty does not dissuade people from killing?

Flapjack
July 5th, 2017, 02:03 PM
Norway where a mass shooting happened a few years back?
I never said rehabilitation eliminated crime did I?.... If you are looking for anecdotal evidence look at the US with a mass shooting everyday.

But instead you should look at how much a country tries to rehabilitate and the crime rate, as well as of course any other factors that could effect that crime rate as not every country is the same.

What do you have against rehabilitation??

Stronk Serb
July 5th, 2017, 04:31 PM
I never said rehabilitation eliminated crime did I?.... If you are looking for anecdotal evidence look at the US with a mass shooting everyday.

But instead you should look at how much a country tries to rehabilitate and the crime rate, as well as of course any other factors that could effect that crime rate as not every country is the same.

What do you have against rehabilitation??

Why waste taxpayer money on rehabilitating murderers, pedophiles and rapists? Sure it can work for druggies, petty thieves and white collar crime, but why bother for the scum that is going to spend a large part of their lives there? Are they somehow more precious that the state should divert more funding for them instead to the average law-abiding citizen?

mattsmith48
July 5th, 2017, 05:46 PM
Why waste taxpayer money on rehabilitating murderers, pedophiles and rapists? Sure it can work for druggies, petty thieves and white collar crime, but why bother for the scum that is going to spend a large part of their lives there? Are they somehow more precious that the state should divert more funding for them instead to the average law-abiding citizen?

You realize that having them in prison also cost taxpayer money? Its a better investment to rehabilitate them and give them what they need to live an honest and successful live after they get out instead of when you just punish criminals and after they serve their sentence you leave them on their own, they can't get anything but shitty low paying job and have to commit more crimes to survive and eventually get caught again and return to prison costing more taxpayer money.

Stronk Serb
July 6th, 2017, 04:02 AM
You realize that having them in prison also cost taxpayer money? Its a better investment to rehabilitate them and give them what they need to live an honest and successful live after they get out instead of when you just punish criminals and after they serve their sentence you leave them on their own, they can't get anything but shitty low paying job and have to commit more crimes to survive and eventually get caught again and return to prison costing more taxpayer money.

Or just kill them off? Or use them as slave labour?

mattsmith48
July 6th, 2017, 07:35 AM
Or just kill them off? Or use them as slave labour?

That is just cruel and inhumane

Stronk Serb
July 8th, 2017, 11:16 AM
That is just cruel and inhumane

Taking away someone's life and/or human dignity is also cruel and inhumane.

Snowfox
July 8th, 2017, 12:42 PM
Taking away someone's life and/or human dignity is also cruel and inhumane.

Yes dont you see it? Criminals are humans just like you or me. Treating those who have committed crimes inhumanely is not going to make anything better. They make be scum but if we treat them degrading way it makes us worse than scum. Prison sentence alone doesnt make anyone better. Which is why every time someone is sentenced we should focus also to make sure that rehabilitation happens.

Also one thing that all of us seem to have forgotten now is that there is always some reason for every crime.
Some reasons are more understandable than others.
For example repeated offender who have committed robberies to fund his addiction. Or biker gang member who kicks peoples ass as business.
Drug dealer ansvers demand.
On other hand we have serial killers

DriveAlive
July 8th, 2017, 02:20 PM
While I am all for reforming prisons and whatnot, I strongly believe that certain crimes deserve the harshest punishments, such as murder, rape, and cruelty to animals.

Flapjack
July 8th, 2017, 04:59 PM
While I am all for reforming prisons and whatnot, I strongly believe that certain crimes deserve the harshest punishments, such as murder, rape, and cruelty to animals.
What about those wrongly convicted?

DriveAlive
July 8th, 2017, 05:12 PM
What about those wrongly convicted?

Which is just one of the reasons why I am against the death penalty. I was not speaking about the death penalty when I said harshest punishments, although I understand how it could be taken that way. I meant life in prison and such. Nothing cruel or unusual either.

Flapjack
July 8th, 2017, 05:36 PM
Which is just one of the reasons why I am against the death penalty. I was not speaking about the death penalty when I said harshest punishments, although I understand how it could be taken that way. I meant life in prison and such. Nothing cruel or unusual either.
Oh sorry buddy I just assumed it because of the topic of the thread :P but yesss I do agree with increasing sentencing for some crimes, especially animal abuse, don't know what it is like in the states but they get hardly anything over here :(

Just JT
July 8th, 2017, 07:51 PM
Cruelty to animals is a felony in the states. And the aspca was also created before the same equal counter part to prevent cruelty to children. Her in the good ol USA

Imo, in today's world of DNA evidence, if convicted of something so horrible le as rape,murder, child rape, something along those lines. You should be takes from the courthouse, cuffed, out front, and publicly executed immediate after conviction.

People might think trice about committing those crimes going forward

My opinion may be tainted

mattsmith48
July 8th, 2017, 08:33 PM
Cruelty to animals is a felony in the states. And the aspca was also created before the same equal counter part to prevent cruelty to children. Her in the good ol USA

Imo, in today's world of DNA evidence, if convicted of something so horrible le as rape,murder, child rape, something along those lines. You should be takes from the courthouse, cuffed, out front, and publicly executed immediate after conviction.

People might think trice about committing those crimes going forward

My opinion may be tainted

This is not like CSI sometimes they are mistake. You couldn't do it anyway because it would be consider cruel and unusual punishment you couldn't do that, plus imagine the outrage when we start publicly executing priest.

Just JT
July 8th, 2017, 08:38 PM
This is not like CSI sometimes they are mistake. You couldn't do it anyway because it would be consider cruel and unusual punishment you couldn't do that, plus imagine the outrage when we start publicly executing priest.

You have a point. But then again did you ever hear about the Boston Archdioces child sex scandal?
And those priests are somehow protected?
Above the law?

mattsmith48
July 8th, 2017, 08:48 PM
You have a point. But then again did you ever hear about the Boston Archdioces child sex scandal?
And those priests are somehow protected?
Above the law?

Why are they protected and above the law?

Just JT
July 9th, 2017, 12:45 AM
Why are they protected and above the law?

Because ther escaped conviction for their crimes. They were basically "transferred" to some other remote or higher up location, outside the us jurisdiction.

The Archdiocese was all in on it, covered it up. And as it all unraveled, and priests or bishops became in question, they got moved to avoid testifying, being questioned, or being prosecuted

After the lives they ruined through molesting raping and abusing young kinds, and coveringot up

Sorry, in my book, that's an offense well worth the death penalty, without due process, without appeals. They lost that right imo.

DriveAlive
July 9th, 2017, 01:16 AM
Oh sorry buddy I just assumed it because of the topic of the thread :P but yesss I do agree with increasing sentencing for some crimes, especially animal abuse, don't know what it is like in the states but they get hardly anything over here :(

animal cruelty is not treated seriously at all here. Truly depressing.

mattsmith48
July 9th, 2017, 03:19 PM
Because ther escaped conviction for their crimes. They were basically "transferred" to some other remote or higher up location, outside the us jurisdiction.

The Archdiocese was all in on it, covered it up. And as it all unraveled, and priests or bishops became in question, they got moved to avoid testifying, being questioned, or being prosecuted

After the lives they ruined through molesting raping and abusing young kinds, and coveringot up

Sorry, in my book, that's an offense well worth the death penalty, without due process, without appeals. They lost that right imo.

Catholics believe in a God that will forgive anything as long you repent yourself. If we were to give the death penalty to Catholic priest for molesting children, he believe when we kill him he is going to heaven wouldn't it be a bigger punishment for him to be sent to prison?

Just JT
July 9th, 2017, 03:25 PM
Catholics believe in a God that will forgive anything as long you repent yourself. If we were to give the death penalty to Catholic priest for molesting children, he believe when we kill him he is going to heaven wouldn't it be a bigger punishment for him to be sent to prison?

So that absolves him of the laws of the state?
And the death penalty imo isn't about punishing them, it's about making sure they don't commit the same crime again. And should be used as a deturamt for
Potential Offenders.

Personally, I don't give a shit about how an offender feels about their punishment. Regardless of who they feel they are ultimately answerable to. If they wana believe they can repent and enter the kindgom of god, cool, let them. They'll probably meet Hitler there when they get there

randall
July 9th, 2017, 04:49 PM
the death penalty is useful/necessary, in certain cases, it just needs to be made less expensive.

Stronk Serb
July 9th, 2017, 08:17 PM
Why not just use all those criminals as slave labour? If they are innocent, they will be alive to see their freedom. I mean they could do something useful while in shackles.

mattsmith48
July 9th, 2017, 09:04 PM
So that absolves him of the laws of the state?
And the death penalty imo isn't about punishing them, it's about making sure they don't commit the same crime again. And should be used as a deturamt for
Potential Offenders.

Personally, I don't give a shit about how an offender feels about their punishment. Regardless of who they feel they are ultimately answerable to. If they wana believe they can repent and enter the kindgom of god, cool, let them. They'll probably meet Hitler there when they get there

Killing people for their crimes as a deterrent does not work. I can't find the quote but someone said on here that when someone commits a murder they either think they won't get caught or they don't give shit. It's the same thing with child molesters.

Why not just use all those criminals as slave labour? If they are innocent, they will be alive to see their freedom. I mean they could do something useful while in shackles.

Nope can't do that either, it would break international laws.

Just JT
July 9th, 2017, 09:14 PM
Killing people for their crimes as a deterrent does not work. I can't find the quote but someone said on here that when someone commits a murder they either think they won't get caught or they don't give shit. It's the same thing with child molesters.



Nope can't do that either, it would break international laws.

Might be that some laws need to be changed

mattsmith48
July 9th, 2017, 09:20 PM
Might be that some laws need to be changed

Like what?

Just JT
July 9th, 2017, 10:37 PM
Like what?

Perhaps some international laws to that Capitol punishment and community service won't violate international laws

Periphery
July 10th, 2017, 08:15 AM
Perhaps some international laws to that Capitol punishment and community service won't violate international laws

They don't violate rules though. Slavery does, those 2 don't.

ShineintheDark
July 10th, 2017, 09:32 AM
Why not just use all those criminals as slave labour? If they are innocent, they will be alive to see their freedom. I mean they could do something useful while in shackles.

It's technically already a thing since some prisons have their inmates doing dirt cheap manufacturing work for 'enrichment' whiilst the prisons take the wages as a fee for the work. You physically can't make the prisoners work as slaves because slavery is banned by the UN so you'd have top find a fairer alternative.

Snowfox
July 10th, 2017, 11:08 AM
Because ther escaped conviction for their crimes. They were basically "transferred" to some other remote or higher up location, outside the us jurisdiction.

The Archdiocese was all in on it, covered it up. And as it all unraveled, and priests or bishops became in question, they got moved to avoid testifying, being questioned, or being prosecuted

After the lives they ruined through molesting raping and abusing young kinds, and coveringot up

Sorry, in my book, that's an offense well worth the death penalty, without due process, without appeals. They lost that right imo.

Interesting so bascally if someone accuses another for rape it means that accusation=accused is criminal-->execute them without fair trial.

So if some girl accuses her ex bf for rape just case she hates herb its reason to execute this person.

Due process is about proof that sometning actually happened. Where I live all trials are political and result is allready known. I thought that USA would be better. I guess I was wrong

Just JT
July 10th, 2017, 12:19 PM
They don't violate rules though. Slavery does, those 2 don't.

Slavery is wrong. That's taking someone against their will, and forcing them to do things at/for someone else's benefit. But, after being convicted of a crime (in the USA you lose many rights after some felony convictions) and I mean this to be about very serious crimes like rape and murder, imo you lose those rights.


Interesting so bascally if someone accuses another for rape it means that accusation=accused is criminal-->execute them without fair trial.

So if some girl accuses her ex bf for rape just case she hates herb its reason to execute this person.

Due process is about proof that sometning actually happened. Where I live all trials are political and result is allready known. I thought that USA would be better. I guess I was wrong

No, not a simple accusation. A fair trial, and conviction with evidence that is not
Disputable, like DNA, multiple same account she witnesses, other physical evidence, and convicted by a jury of your peers.

Really not different that we already have in the USA now. It's just after conviction of whatever list is made up, I'd start with rape, murder, severe child abuse, etc, yeah, no appeals, immediate death penalty. No death row. Public execution, family fakes care of final expenses. People like that....sorry, you might find my thoughts distasteful, but it's how I feel, they have no human rights. They aren't human, and I don't want them in my world.

Flapjack
July 10th, 2017, 01:30 PM
evidence that is not Disputable, like DNA,
But DNA evidence has been wrong in the past!! Here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19412819)an innocent man was jailed for murder because of DNA evidence. If we used the death penalty as you suggested... he would be dead.

Whilst DNA evidence can be amazing, like all evidence, you can never be 100% sure and with DNA evidence there can be problems. For example the DNA left on the victims coat after she bumped into someone innocent on the train would be amplified using PCR (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/biotech-dna-technology/dna-sequencing-pcr-electrophoresis/a/polymerase-chain-reaction-pcr) and could then be used against them.

Here are some articles you could read that do a much better job at explaining the problem than I do but at the end of the day, you can never be 100% sure someone is guilty.
The False Promise of DNA Testing (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/)

Forensics gone wrong: When DNA snares the innocent
(http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/when-dna-snares-innocent)
The case against DNA (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/9115916/The-case-against-DNA.html)

Thousands of cases compromised due to faulty forensic analysis (https://ncforensics.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/thousands-of-cases-compromised-due-to-faulty-forensic-analysis/)

Reliability of DNA evidence (http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/44-criminal-proceedings/reliability-dna-evidence)

In Criminal Defense, Is DNA Evidence Really a Smoking Gun? (https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=37004)

Just JT
July 10th, 2017, 01:50 PM
But DNA evidence has been wrong in the past!! Here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19412819)an innocent man was jailed for murder because of DNA evidence. If we used the death penalty as you suggested... he would be dead.

Whilst DNA evidence can be amazing, like all evidence, you can never be 100% sure and with DNA evidence there can be problems. For example the DNA left on the victims coat after she bumped into someone innocent on the train would be amplified using PCR (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/biotech-dna-technology/dna-sequencing-pcr-electrophoresis/a/polymerase-chain-reaction-pcr) and could then be used against them.

Here are some articles you could read that do a much better job at explaining the problem than I do but at the end of the day, you can never be 100% sure someone is guilty.
The False Promise of DNA Testing (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/)

Forensics gone wrong: When DNA snares the innocent
(http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/when-dna-snares-innocent)
The case against DNA (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/9115916/The-case-against-DNA.html)

Thousands of cases compromised due to faulty forensic analysis (https://ncforensics.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/thousands-of-cases-compromised-due-to-faulty-forensic-analysis/)

Reliability of DNA evidence (http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/44-criminal-proceedings/reliability-dna-evidence)

In Criminal Defense, Is DNA Evidence Really a Smoking Gun? (https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=37004)


I didn't read all those articles. And yes, im pretty sure your right about not being 100% accurate. Is bumping into someone on a train, getting blood on your jacket enough for a conviction? Or should it be? Maybe not. Don't think that alone would, as it's not an overwhelming amount of evidence. There would meed to be more, supporting evidence than that. I know I wouldn't convict based on that alone. But, if she was found with the murder weapon in her possession, fingerprints on it, and at the scene, at the time of death, witnesses testifying about hearing an argument, loud noises, her running from the scene, maybe even the victims skin under her fingernails (no im not looking to make this a csi episode) then fuck yeah, I'd say she killed the victim.

Periphery
July 10th, 2017, 09:50 PM
Slavery is wrong. That's taking someone against their will, and forcing them to do things at/for someone else's benefit. But, after being convicted of a crime (in the USA you lose many rights after some felony convictions) and I mean this to be about very serious crimes like rape and murder, imo you lose those rights.



But do people who for example are guilty of child abuse dederve their rights? Are they equal to us or are they less?

Just JT
July 10th, 2017, 10:06 PM
But do people who for example are guilty of child abuse dederve their rights? Are they equal to us or are they less?

IMO, and I also know I'm in a fantasy world to. But it's how I feel/view stuff

But no, if someone is found guilty, (by whatever means determined as overwhelming evidence etc). No, they've lost those rights. Sorry.
People shouldn't be hurting other people. Especially kids. Kids are vulnerable. We all know that. And adults use whatever leverage they can to get whatever they want outa kids. That's not human sorry. It's just not right

If a dog bites you or your kid, or worse, kills your kid, what do you do with the dog?

Periphery
July 10th, 2017, 11:16 PM
IMO, and I also know I'm in a fantasy world to. But it's how I feel/view stuff

But no, if someone is found guilty, (by whatever means determined as overwhelming evidence etc). No, they've lost those rights. Sorry.
People shouldn't be hurting other people. Especially kids. Kids are vulnerable. We all know that. And adults use whatever leverage they can to get whatever they want outa kids. That's not human sorry. It's just not right

If a dog bites you or your kid, or worse, kills your kid, what do you do with the dog?

You did state you didn't like slavery because it would be like community service, and would take them against their will, thus taking their rights away. Sorry I'm just a bit confused here.

Just JT
July 11th, 2017, 04:38 AM
You did state you didn't like slavery because it would be like community service, and would take them against their will, thus taking their rights away. Sorry I'm just a bit confused here.

I am against slavery. But not against community service. And yes is someone does commit a crime like child abuse rape murder etc they should, some cases they do, lose their rights. IMO, they should lose their right to live. Yes they are less than us. They are less than human. Ther are not human. Is who I used the biting dog thing

Stronk Serb
July 11th, 2017, 05:24 AM
Nope can't do that either, it would break international laws.

Some countries break international law all the time and are just fine. Look at the US, China, the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia... Except the USSR, all of them are doing great.

Snowfox
July 11th, 2017, 05:38 AM
But then there is also aspect of cultural acceptance.
In some cultures some actions are frowned upon as well in another culture its totally accepted. There are many examples of this like eating beef in India vs everywhere else. Or like having sex with 9 years old kids in muslim world where its completelly normal and accepted cause their prophet did it. Also we could put many other things here like honor killings.
Also for some reason some occupations are publicly allowed to do things that when done by memeber of general population is frowned upon. Like being police and raping is usually seen as normal benefit of trade.

Periphery
July 11th, 2017, 06:58 AM
I am against slavery. But not against community service. And yes is someone does commit a crime like child abuse rape murder etc they should, some cases they do, lose their rights. IMO, they should lose their right to live. Yes they are less than us. They are less than human. Ther are not human. Is who I used the biting dog thing


Yes they'll be worth less especially on a social level, but public executions are barbaric. They are wrong. You see them happen in countries ruled by dictators, North Korea has them. They'll only make your country look bad. They may lose their rights as normal citizens of the state yes, but they are still human. Executing them out on the streets is too cruel even for them. The emotional impact on bystanders is also high, how would you feel if someone suddenly got shot out on the street?

Dalcourt
July 11th, 2017, 12:32 PM
Yes they'll be worth less especially on a social level, but public executions are barbaric. They are wrong. You see them happen in countries ruled by dictators, North Korea has them. They'll only make your country look bad. They may lose their rights as normal citizens of the state yes, but they are still human. Executing them out on the streets is too cruel even for them. The emotional impact on bystanders is also high, how would you feel if someone suddenly got shot out on the street?

I don't think that the emotional impact on bystanders would play much of a role in the USA.

Apart from that, I personally am against death penalty for whatever crime. I don't believe in the concept of revenge and that's basically all death penalty is about imo.
I don't wanna have someone's blood on my hands and I don't feel that any judge or jury should be able to decide having someone killed.
Imprisonment for life...that's a fair enough solution and it seems enough in many countries so why not everywhere?

Just JT
July 11th, 2017, 01:01 PM
Yes they'll be worth less especially on a social level, but public executions are barbaric. They are wrong. You see them happen in countries ruled by dictators, North Korea has them. They'll only make your country look bad. They may lose their rights as normal citizens of the state yes, but they are still human. Executing them out on the streets is too cruel even for them. The emotional impact on bystanders is also high, how would you feel if someone suddenly got shot out on the street?

What your describing are acts of terrorism, I'm talking about a planned event that would be known in advance, if a guilty verdict was handed down. So if people don't wana see it, don't be there.

I guess it'll come down to a difference of opinion. CUse o don't see them as being human beings. I see them as animals. And if an animal is biting attacking or causing a dangerous situation, it's put down. So that's how I feel.

mattsmith48
July 11th, 2017, 01:59 PM
I am against slavery. But not against community service. And yes is someone does commit a crime like child abuse rape murder etc they should, some cases they do, lose their rights. IMO, they should lose their right to live. Yes they are less than us. They are less than human. Ther are not human. Is who I used the biting dog thing

No matter what crime someone commits or how cruel it was, it doesn't make them less human and it doesn't mean they should lose all their rights.

Or like having sex with 9 years old kids in muslim world where its completelly normal and accepted.

You're mixing it up with the Vatican ;p

DriveAlive
July 11th, 2017, 02:52 PM
We walk a very thin line when we start using prisoners for work or military service or whatever else have you. it is not stretch of the imagination to see how minorities and the poor could be targeted for cheap labor.

Pedophiles cannot be cured. Rapists cannot be cured. Psychopaths cannot be cured.

Snowfox
July 11th, 2017, 03:05 PM
We walk a very thin line when we start using prisoners for work or military service or whatever else have you. it is not stretch of the imagination to see how minorities and the poor could be targeted for cheap labor.

Pedophiles cannot be cured. Rapists cannot be cured. Psychopaths cannot be cured.

Actually pedos and rapists can be cured chemically. I think its called chemical castration

DriveAlive
July 11th, 2017, 05:18 PM
Actually pedos and rapists can be cured chemically. I think its called chemical castration
Not cured, just rendered impotent. I cannot find the source, but I remember reading somewhere that this can often lead them to develop more violent tendencies as a way to compensate for their impotency.

Just JT
July 11th, 2017, 07:31 PM
No matter what crime someone commits or how cruel it was, it doesn't make them less human and it doesn't mean they should lose all their rights. You're mixing it up with the Vatican ;p

No, in my world, in my opinion, someone who does these things, no, there not human. Not sure what to call them, but not human

Actually pedos and rapists can be cured chemically. I think its called chemical castration

And you have some kinda proof that sexual offenders and pedos can be cured.....how...?!?!

Periphery
July 11th, 2017, 10:43 PM
What your describing are acts of terrorism, I'm talking about a planned event that would be known in advance, if a guilty verdict was handed down. So if people don't wana see it, don't be there.

I guess it'll come down to a difference of opinion. CUse o don't see them as being human beings. I see them as animals. And if an animal is biting attacking or causing a dangerous situation, it's put down. So that's how I feel.

What makes you any better than them though? There is a story to every murder, and taking away someone's humanity is wrong on a lot of levels. There is a place where they did this too, it's called Auschwitz. How are public executions that are planned any better than the "acts of terrorism" you mention, aren't they the same? Do we want to lower ourselves to their level?

Snowfox
July 12th, 2017, 01:59 AM
https://news.vice.com/article/australian-state-may-force-convicted-pedophiles-to-undergo-chemical-castration Just JT I think you asked something like this