Page 1 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 944
Location: Texas

17 Oct 2013, 3:41 pm

My feelings on this issue are pretty simple: the death penalty should be reserved for the most evil and unrepentant among us. Applying that can be difficult, due to a variety of factors...but I think most would agree a guy who broke into someone's home while they were away doesn't deserve to die.

People wrongly assume the death penalty is equal to murder, when its not. There's several differences, the biggest of which is a lack of arbitrary decision by the jury. When a psycho kills someone, its a personal choice, done for no other core reason than selfish greed. When a court is convened to decided if a criminal deserves death, many different alternatives are placed on the table, and twelve jurors must vote on the best course of action for all involved in the case.

Personally, I think an even more important issue than the death penalty is the current state of the American penal system. Prison needs to be a place that every criminal fears to go, so much that they'd no longer break the law out of desperation to avoid it. From what I've heard, so many convicts have it better on the inside than law-abiding citizens do on the outside, and I find that sickening. We need to take the TVs and conjugal visits away, along with time outdoors, books, and every other luxury. These people violated the rules of civilized society, and as such, they've forfeited their rights to be treated as decently as the rest of us. Prisons should be the equivalent of permanent isolation for the condemned, to the point they suffer as much as those they hurt or killed. Liberals cry foul about "cruelty", but what do they think earned the criminals their stay in prison?!


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

17 Oct 2013, 3:45 pm

Against it. While it may be tempting to chop the head of child molesters and murderers, feelings and politics are two different things--and how you feel about a person, does not justify killing them.



drh1138
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 498

17 Oct 2013, 3:51 pm

Against. I question its utility, its basis in anything other than revenge, and the notion that the government essentially lays claim to the life of a citizen. It is also extremely expensive.



nick007
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,059
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in the police state called USA

17 Oct 2013, 7:21 pm

I think it would be better to spend taxpayer money on social programs that can prevent/reduce violence instead of spending it to keep people locked u or on electricit gas or meds to kill em. Have tean centers in troubled neighborhoods to help them fro turning to crime, gangs or drugs, more & better rehab programs for addiction, more & better mental services so people can get psychatic help or counceling, have job placement services & money mangement services so people won't need to turn to crime to avoid being homeless or anything. Crime in general will go down so less tax money will be needed for prisons & police & the econemy will increase sense more people will be working & they''ll be paying taxes that could br reinvested into the crime prevention.


_________________
"I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem!"
~King Of The Hill


"Hear all, trust nothing"
~Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition #190
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ru ... cquisition


donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

17 Oct 2013, 7:22 pm

I'm against it and I don't understand why the popular sentiment is in favor of it. Makes me depressed how hateful and angry most people are on the inside.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

17 Oct 2013, 7:32 pm

I'm not even in favor of life in prison except in extreme cases. Yes a murderer might kill again, but I think that capacity is within most people. I'd say 10-20 years is fair, and they should be rehabilitated. Again unless they're a serial killer, clearly unremorseful or such.



VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

18 Oct 2013, 3:05 am

I've talked to people that spent time in jail and it doesn't sound easy to me.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Oct 2013, 3:08 am

Against it as ineffective, inefficient, incompetently and unfairly applied, and irreversible. I'm fine with the killing part, some people certainly deserve that, it's the uncertainty and ruinous expense parts that nix it for me.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Monolithe
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 228
Location: The realm of trolls

18 Oct 2013, 3:19 am

Nevermind - some of the post dissapeared



Last edited by Monolithe on 18 Oct 2013, 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rudywalsh
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 347
Location: Spain (Born uk)

18 Oct 2013, 12:13 pm

It shows how futile mankind is, the death penalty is a major contradiction straight out of the bible ”an eye for an eye“ It’s wrong to kill so we are going to kill you.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

18 Oct 2013, 12:44 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Against it as ineffective, inefficient, incompetently and unfairly applied, and irreversible.

This.

It doesn't reduce murder rates.
It is more expensive than imprisonment.
When mistakes happen (and they do happen), they can't be corrected.

I do also think there's a moral issue. Not hypocrisy, I just don't think killing is right, and you're removing the possibility of reform. I find it strange that those speaking in favour of it are also those who wear their Christianity on their sleeves when rehabilitation and forgiveness is a central theme of Christianity, particularly in the modern day.



FMX
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,319

18 Oct 2013, 1:27 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
It is more expensive than imprisonment.


That was news to me. I googled it and it does seem to be the case, surprisingly! Of course, the cost is not in the death penalty itself, but in all the extra legal proceedings designed to minimise mistakes. I'll admit I don't know the details, but it's hard to imagine those are always necessary. Does doubling the number of lawyers really ensure a better legal process? Also, this only makes sense if you consider death worse than life imprisonment, which I don't. At the very least those accused who agree with me should be allowed to "opt out" of this "extra" legal process.

The_Walrus wrote:
When mistakes happen (and they do happen), they can't be corrected.


This is a commonly-used argument, but it fails to consider the alternative. Life imprisonment can't be corrected, either. Yes, the wrongly convicted person might be freed even after serving 20 years of their life sentence, but that doesn't change the fact that most of their life has been taken away from them. It might have been kinder to kill them, after all.


_________________
CloudFlare eating your posts? Try the Lazarus browser extension. See https://wp-fmx.github.io/WP/


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

18 Oct 2013, 1:39 pm

FMX wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
It is more expensive than imprisonment.


That was news to me. I googled it and it does seem to be the case, surprisingly! Of course, the cost is not in the death penalty itself, but in all the extra legal proceedings designed to minimise mistakes. I'll admit I don't know the details, but it's hard to imagine those are always necessary. Does doubling the number of lawyers really ensure a better legal process? Also, this only makes sense if you consider death worse than life imprisonment, which I don't. At the very least those accused who agree with me should be allowed to "opt out" of this "extra" legal process.

The_Walrus wrote:
When mistakes happen (and they do happen), they can't be corrected.


This is a commonly-used argument, but it fails to consider the alternative. Life imprisonment can't be corrected, either. Yes, the wrongly convicted person might be freed even after serving 20 years of their life sentence, but that doesn't change the fact that most of their life has been taken away from them. It might have been kinder to kill them, after all.

If murderers would rather die than have life imprisonment, then they don't have to go through all their appeals. I know in America some are compulsory, but I don't think it is compulsory to keep appealing.

Have a look at the numbers that have their conviction overturned. There are diminishing returns, but there are still returns. Reduce the checks and you will execute more innocent people.

Of course, you can never have back time you spent in prison, but you can be given a large sum of money so you can live a life of luxury for the rest of your time. Kinder to kill them? I think that's ridiculous.



bookwyrm
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 53
Location: away with the rabbits

18 Oct 2013, 2:15 pm

I think the only arguement necessary against it is that miscarriages of justice do happen. If you have the death penalty someone innocent is going to get murdered by the state. Totally Unacceptable.



Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 944
Location: Texas

18 Oct 2013, 2:31 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I do also think there's a moral issue. Not hypocrisy, I just don't think killing is right, and you're removing the possibility of reform. I find it strange that those speaking in favour of it are also those who wear their Christianity on their sleeves when rehabilitation and forgiveness is a central theme of Christianity, particularly in the modern day.
Forgiveness does not equal the absence of consequences...and we as humans aren't nearly as forgiving as God. Some people who killed many have become truly repentant for their crimes, even accepting Christ while in prison...but does that mean we should set them free? How do we know their redemption is true, when we can't know their hearts as God does? There's a difference between honest repentance, and just looking for a "get out of jail (or hell) free" card.


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Oct 2013, 3:15 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Of course, you can never have back time you spent in prison, but you can be given a large sum of money so you can live a life of luxury for the rest of your time. Kinder to kill them? I think that's ridiculous.


Many states have laws on the books that effect, compensating the wrongly imprisoned $50,000-80,000 per year of incarceration (Texas, surprisingly, is at the higher end). Of course, prosecutors try to wiggle out of paying this by blocking the complete exoneration sometimes required to collect, an action for which I'd happily apply the death penalty personally.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson