The death penalty does not belong in civilised societies

Post Reply New Topic

What do you guys think?

I have to admit that I am glad I was born in a part of the world in which the death penalty has ceased to exist a long time ago. I am well aware of the fact that some people commit heinous and horrific crimes but to avenge the taking of human lives with
institutionalised murder seems primitive and barbaric to me. Besides, a judicial system is never flawless because that has proven to be impossible. One of the consequences of those flaws and misjudgements is that there are probably a fair number of innocent people who are being excecuted. I wonder how many times that has happened in the past and in the here and now.

This is only my personal point of view though, don't let that influence your opinion.

I don't think so. While it may be tempting to behead child molesters, it won't solve anything in the long run--nor will it serve as a deterrent. Two wrongs do not make a right. I understand that those bereaved by murders would like to see the murderers fry in Hell, but how you feel about someone is not a reason to kill them.

i would answer the poll, but the wording confuses me...

Yeah, I know.


Here is what it comes down to.

Yes means that you agree with the statement that the death penalty does not belong in civilised societies.
In other words; you are against the death penalty.

No means that you agree with the fact that there is such a thing as a death penalty.

In doubt means that you haven't formed a definite opinion yet.

Hard question. I put, in doubt.
I agree with what kurgan said...to a degree.
I have seen how sexual abuse can destroy peoples soul. I am tempted to think that such a sever penalty would act as a deterrent but not sure enough to say yes.

Oh, in that case I vote yes. An eye for eye leaves the world blind.

Besides which-

1- there is no evidence that the death penalty guarantees a comparitive decrease in crime or in any way an effective deterrence. Look in countries like the USA that does operate the death penalty, compared to other developed countries that don't.

2- You can very rarely prove with absolute certainty someone is guilty of a crime that warrants such harsh punishment. Innocent dead people can't appeal.

There is an argument that a life behind bars without hope of release is a worse punishment than death anyway.

There is a prison somewhere in the Russian tundra called Black Dolphin that serves as a locker for the very worst offenders. I would rather be dead than spend the rest of my life there.

I think I got confused by the wording too. Don't put double negatives in polls.

The death penalty seems like a fine idea in principle, but in the real world it exclusively gets used against the poor or the dark-skinned, mostly those who kill the light-skinned.

I think that the death penalty should be separated from skin colour. As far as I'm concerned this thread is purely about the fact that there is such a thing as the death penalty. Allthough I do think there more black- than white people ont death row in the United States. However, the USA is not the only country in which the death penalty exists to the present day.

What confuses me is that we nod, wink, and ignore destruction of people's lives but have a panic attack at the idea of a serial killer, serial rapist, or other variety of person who gets their thrill harming others being put away. There are things far worse than death that happen to people all the time and they're told to just buck up and not bother people with their situation.

While I won't say that only a pro-life person can be anti-death penalty or a pro-choice person be pro death penalty without being hypocritical it does confuse me when people who'd rip their shirts, beat on their chests, and lament the barbarism of the death penalty are just as adamantly passionate about the legal right to abortion. It makes this look like an issue more akin to "Ban smoking everywhere because I find it gross".

I'm somewhat indifferent to the death penalty as in - if it's too expensive to put certain kinds of people back in the ground due to appeals - fine, don't do it. In a way though whether it's a mild deterrent or even no deterrent at all probably doesn't worry me as much. Just to play devil's advocate here - if a person society can, say, forfeit their right to life, liberty, and meaningful pursuit of happiness by unfortuous circumstances and by the monopolistic competative aspect of human nature - why be prouccupied with playing mother-hen to quite deliberate psychopaths who know what they are, have every choice, and get a positive thrill out of victimizing others? It just seems like the misdirection of bleeding-heart sentimentality.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 17 Apr 2014, 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I did not limit my remarks to the US because they apply worldwide.

Here's another thing that we would absolutely need to get a lid on if we're going to consider keeping mass murderers around for the rest of their lives out of compassion:

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/ ... urt/nfZs6/

If they can send out kites to abduct, extort, torture, and murder just because they worked the angles enough to get a cellphone into prison and make their underlings do their work - they're almost as capable behind bars as they were on the street.

Russia shouldn't be a role model in terms of human rights.

Racism in Capital Punishment in Saudia Arabia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_pu ... #Criticism

Australia's Informal Death Penalty, also racist:

link

I've edited the poll options to make this clearer.

Eh, I think the death penalty is inefficient, but I am not dogmatically opposed to it. Why should I think that ending the life of an organism is inherently less civilized than locking it away for countless years?