# General Discussion > Opinions >  Death Penalty

## Mycernius

I can't find any specific thread on this, but it might be relavent. Today the US has excuted its 1000 person since the death penalty was introduced. See here Another reason is that two people on the forum have mentioned that they do not agree with the death penalty on recent posts. I wonder what the general opinion of most people on this forum is? I agree with the two who said that they do not agree with it. I find the idea barbaric and doesn't really address what has happened. I think a civilised society needn't kill off those that murder or commit treason. In some cases some of these people want to be excuted and become their own martyrs like Timothy McVeigh. I think it doesn't prevent violent crimes. Most criminals commit crimes thinking that they will not get caught. Unfortunately or fortunately most criminals are not as clever as they think. A deterent will not stop these type of people. There is also a risk of getting and exectuing the wrong person. I remember watching a TV programme several years ago, an Horizon on BBC2, about a man on death row. He maintained he was innocent right up to his execution. A week later a witness was found that proved that he was innocent. She was afraid to speak up at the time because she was black and feared reprisals. Now maybe this is a European or English view on this as a lot of European countries do not have a death penalty. See Here
I also find that sites anti death penalty are based on facts and figures and ones that are pro like to use emotional response.

----------


## Duo

Totally against it. I'm glad here in Europe we have permanently done away with it.

----------


## MeAndroo

> I also find that sites anti death penalty are based on facts and figures and ones that are pro like to use emotional response.


I can't help but wonder if that has to do which emotions a crime some would deem worthy of capital punishment evokes. Murder, rape, crimes like these really dig into the most primal and base emotions in people, so I'm not surprised pro-death penalty sites use it. It's usually pretty effective.

I'm against the death penalty, but for more reasons than how barbaric it is. I barely trust the government to get my mail to me on time, let alone kill a person.

----------


## lastmagi

I'm not sure, mostly due to lack of exposure to death-penalty-related news events/cases. I'm willing, though, to become better informed about the issue.

I will say, however, that I was utterly disgusted by Malaysia's execution of Nguyen Tuong Van (BBC Source Link. Actually, looking at recent news articles, I'm not sure Malaysia's government and policies really have anything great going for them.

----------


## Frank D. White

there is absolutely no doubt the person committed a brutal crime and should not ever be released, death is OK with me. Why should my taxes go to feed,clothe,provide medical care, (cable TV) , etc.. I'd rather spend my hard earned dollars on people who deserve help.

Frank

 :Okashii:

----------


## Genecks

oops accidentaly pushed for, i'm against.

It's just inhumane and a lot of other things. I rather people turn them into slave labor.

----------


## Sensuikan San

With the greatest respect, I do not think that the questions posed in the poll were sufficiently qualified. And surely, some qualification has to be present in a question of such importance.

I shall therefore qualify my answer.

(Sorry folks... but) I voted "in favour" of the death penalty.

With a very large, very obvious .... *"BUT"* .....!

My reasoning is this :

Occasionally, one comes across the really habitual, despotic, psychotic, depraved, unremorseful, disdainful, violent _animal_ among us - who we politely refer to as a "criminal".

The sort of person who, for example, delights in beating old ladies to death ... or repeatedly rapes (for fun, or money _via_ porn flicks ... or both ...) young children as young as eighteen months of age ... the sort of person who doesn't give a damn about the results of selling 'Crystal Meth' or 'Crack' or whatever to the ten-year olds at the local school as long as he or she makes a buck. The sort of person who will lure a fifteen-year old girl from a forum such as this one (yes!) and kidnap her, rape her repeatedly ...... you know ...

(Some of) these folks are beyond redemption!

They are filth. Scum. Not worth the effort!

Top 'em! Get rid of 'em.

*BUT!*
*
.... Don't get the wrong guy!

This is my qualification.

If the death penalty were to be imposed by (Judge) Sensuikan .... 

"Beyond all reasonable doubt" would not do it. (Unreasonable doubt .... is still ... doubt!)

It would have to be "Beyond any doubt at all"

I see nothing wrong with that at all.

So ... if you're 'caught in the act', recorded on video ..... or .... I suppose, nothing else ...... (even a confession can't be relied on ... !) ...... it would be "Good-Bye cruel world"!

....... and a bloody good riddance!*

ジョン

----------


## bossel

> there is absolutely no doubt the person committed a brutal crime and should not ever be released, death is OK with me.


Isn't there pretty much always at least some doubt?

----------


## Clawn

I am totally _against_ the death penalty. I think that the death penalty is just like saying murdering someone is okay just because they murdered someone.

It is the same as a popular old saying: An eye for an eye. But the only problem with that is, *everyone ends up blind.*

Also, it is morally wrong in my opinion, part of that coming from my Christian teachings that preach forgiveness.

P.S.-I would also vote for slave labor.

----------


## Sensuikan San

> Isn't there pretty much always at least some doubt?


Pretty much .... yes!

Sometimes .... no!

(Then ... _the axeman cometh_ ....!)

W

----------


## Tsuyoiko

I am totally against. I think Clawn put it best - executing a criminal is punishing murder with murder. I don't care how barbaric a crime is, to kill that person makes us no better than them. Regardless of whether they are capable of learning that lesson, it is the responsibility of a civilised state to try to rehabilitate criminals. So I believe in imprisonment, but I think prisoners should be treated humanely regardless of the severity of their crime, and I think they should pay for their own upkeep by working.

----------


## Mycernius

> there is absolutely no doubt the person committed a brutal crime and should not ever be released, death is OK with me. Why should my taxes go to feed,clothe,provide medical care, (cable TV) , etc.. I'd rather spend my hard earned dollars on people who deserve help.
> 
> Frank


But how much of your taxes go into the constant appeals for inmates on Death Row? Some of these can go on for years, and in some cases the offender has died of natural causes before the appeals process has been completed




> With the greatest respect, I do not think that the questions posed in the poll were sufficiently qualified. And surely, some qualification has to be present in a question of such importance.


I did think about making other chioces available, but then you could end up with a very long list, so I went for the KISS approach (Keep It Simple, Stupid). It is probably better for people qualify their responses on what can be a very complicated subject.

----------


## No-name

I voted not sure.

In the abstract, it is easy for me to be pro death penalty, but this month we are going to kill convicted four time murderer "Tookie" Williams in California. It is not abstract anymore. It is totally real. The guy claims to be founder of the Crips gang and claims to be rehabilitated. He has written childrens books designed to keep kids out of gangs and has been mentioned to the Nobel panel for a peace prize.

But he shotgunned a clerk twice in the back as he lay on the floor face down. He killed a husaband, wife and daugter in their house. If any man should die, it is the one that could do something like this.

Death penalty cases cost significantly more than the upkeep of one prisoner for life, even in maximum security. The death penalty also does not deter anyone from committing crimes. In the US, it's application is sporadic and random.


But on the other hand these are really really bad people who have done horrible things. It is also a valued tool to be used by prosecutors to get plea bargains, cooperation, confessions...

----------


## Sensuikan San

> ....I did think about making other chioces available, but then you could end up with a very long list, so I went for the KISS approach (Keep It Simple, Stupid). It is probably better for people qualify their responses on what can be a very complicated subject.


Yes ... now, I can see that. Your point is well made.

W

----------


## Sensuikan San

> I voted not sure.
> 
> In the abstract, it is easy for me to be pro death penalty, but this month we are going to kill convicted four time murderer "Tookie" Williams in California. It is not abstract anymore. It is totally real. The guy claims to be founder of the Crips gang and claims to be rehabilitated. He has written childrens books designed to keep kids out of gangs and has been mentioned to the Nobel panel for a peace prize.
> 
> But he shotgunned a clerk twice in the back as he lay on the floor face down. He killed a husaband, wife and daugter in their house. If any man should die, it is the one that could do something like this.


Precisely. My heart bleeds for him. Nice guy! He should go on writing childrens' books (and making a buck) whilst your tax dollars feed him.

Ask the friends and relatives of the dead family and the clerk how they feel.




> Death penalty cases cost significantly more than the upkeep of one prisoner for life, even in maximum security. The death penalty also does not deter anyone from committing crimes. In the US, it's application is sporadic and random.


Agreed. Agreed in all respects.

But this is not IMO a question of deterrence. The death penalty has probably _never_ (It's _absence_ certainly hasn't!) deterred anyone from crime. Just look at the eighteenth century - when you could be hung for stealing a bread crust!

No. This must be totally pragmatic, and a question of elimination! (Harsh ... but bear with me....).

i) Elimination of the possibility of the individual _ever_ repeating a heinous act (in or out of prison). Game over. No risk.
ii) Elimination of the horrendous cost of supporting a complete monster alive for the rest of their (perhaps totally unproductive) life.

But bear in mind ... the qualifications of my original post apply. This applies to the completely incorrigible individual who has been caught and convicted ... with no doubt _whatsoever_. Therefore the first line of this quote does not need to apply; those costs are usually associated with the plethora of appeals and legal costs/fees that go hand-in-hand with them! (Often at public expense.)

With _"no doubt whatsoever"_ - appeal would not come into the question.

Exit: Lots of lawyers making a buck on the deal.

What's the cost of actually killing (Yeah! That's what we're doing here, folks!) someone? The cost of a bullet, a few kilovolts, a squirt of gas.....? Fify bucks? Twenty? Ten? ..... $1.99?

This sounds _horrible_, I know. It is! _It's not nice._ It's not _supposed_ to be.

....but sometimes you just have to take a deep breath, look around at the world and say ....

... Y'Know ....!


Sadly,

ジョン

----------


## bossel

> Pretty much .... yes!
> 
> Sometimes .... no!


I have to go with Tsuyoiko & Clawn here, no justification for the death penalty holds enough water.

The only cases where there is absolutely no doubt would be when caught in the act. & even in those cases for me killing someone is only justified as direct self defence or in defence of others.

----------


## senseiman

I would be totally for it but for the fact that no justice system is anywhere near perfect and the chances of executing an innocent person are just way too high.

I don't really go for the whole "Its state sponsored murder" argument. Frankly when I read about the violence and barbarity in some of the crimes commited these days I think it would be totally OK to execute some of these guys. But then I'd rather see a hundred murderers get life sentences than see a single innocent person executed by mistake.

----------


## kirei_na_me

I'm totally against it. Period.

The government is doing the same thing as the killer. Premeditated murder. That makes them no better than the one getting put to death, in my eyes. Besides, it's no punishment. A lifetime in solitary is much harder for someone to deal with than simply being put to sleep.

Besides, the risk is too great that you're killing someone who isn't really guilty. At least it's getting better now with DNA testing and all. Just think of all the people who have been freed from death row over their innocence proven via DNA. What if those people had been killed? It's just awful to even think about it. And think about the innocent who have died before there was any DNA tests. 

The only time I justify killing someone is in self-defense. When you or someone you love's life is being threatened. Even then, I think it's better to inflict some non-fatal blow to stop someone, if at all possible. 

I just value life too much. I think it's horrible to even consider killing another human, no matter what they've done.

----------


## Clawn

> No. This must be totally pragmatic, and a question of elimination! (Harsh ... but bear with me....).
> 
> i) Elimination of the possibility of the individual _ever_ repeating a heinous act (in or out of prison). Game over. No risk.
> ii) Elimination of the horrendous cost of supporting a complete monster alive for the rest of their (perhaps totally unproductive) life.



I can see why you think that. But, what is to stop people wanting "revenge" because of that person's death. Say that your son, brother, husband, father, mother, or other close family member committed a terrible crime, would you feel that their life should end? Or, (as I think) would you rather see them doing labor every day just so they can _live_ in the worst place imaginable?

How about this then, if you killed the murderer, would he ever have a chance to feel remorse, to think to himself, "What in GOD'S NAME made me do that, I could be livin the good life, have a family. But no, now I'm stuck in this S*** hole for the rest of my life."

Death shows mercy, in my opinion, to those who wish to die. If a murderer knows he's going to die as soon as he kills someone, he doesn't have to worry about regret or remorse. He knows the game is over as soon as he's caught. If he escapes the law, then he's free. If he gets detained, the game ends. 

With the death penalty, these people can't lose. And what would _you_ rather play, a game you where you can't lose, or one where you probably will?

----------


## Martialartsnovice

Im for the death penalty. If a person were to rape, murder,etc. Then they should be executed

----------


## Revenant

The death penalty seems just a need to satsify the mobs urge for blood, or rather, a result of the anger the mob feels. I can understand pain and the anger it produces, but I fail to see how the death penalty actually relieves pain, and especially for those who lost someone close.

One girl, raped, was of course deeply hurt, she was angry, and wished to murder the man that had done this to her. But the guy had committed suicide two days after, and she was still hurt and angry. Angry enough to want to kill. To me, this seems to illustrate that the death penalty brings no relief to those who were deeply hurt.

The death penalty also doesn't seem to do anything to deter other murders. The person who kills in hot-blood isn't thinking far in the future. A man who finds his woman with another probably isn't thinking at all rationally, and are under the complete control of their current emotions. The cold-blooded killer simply feels that he must be more careeful.

As always, justice is just a way to protect people's rights to happiness, and that to me still includes the criminals conditions for happiness. Their freedoms might have to be severely limited for the safety of others, but ending their life will do nothing to protect the conditions for other people's happiness.

Lastly, how do we know that they could've made another choice? I believe that if free will exists, it is most definitely very limited. To add to that, are people who having grown up in hard conditions, end up being sociopathic. Is it actually their fault that they lack empathy? In another case, a tumor was found pressing against the frontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for inhibiting. So this man over time was losing control over his anger, ended up shooting three people, and then himself. The tumor wasn't discovered until autopsy.

There's so much we don't know that at least I think we shouldn't even be seriously suggesting the death penalty.

----------


## Hideki_Matsui_Beast

> I'm totally against it. Period.
> 
> The government is doing the same thing as the killer. Premeditated murder. That makes them no better than the one getting put to death, in my eyes. Besides, it's no punishment. A lifetime in solitary is much harder for someone to deal with than simply being put to sleep.
> 
> Besides, the risk is too great that you're killing someone who isn't really guilty. At least it's getting better now with DNA testing and all. Just think of all the people who have been freed from death row over their innocence proven via DNA. What if those people had been killed? It's just awful to even think about it. And think about the innocent who have died before there was any DNA tests. 
> 
> The only time I justify killing someone is in self-defense. When you or someone you love's life is being threatened. Even then, I think it's better to inflict some non-fatal blow to stop someone, if at all possible. 
> 
> I just value life too much. I think it's horrible to even consider killing another human, no matter what they've done.


I agree completely.

----------


## Morfos

> oops accidentaly pushed for, i'm against.
> 
> It's just inhumane and a lot of other things. I rather people turn them into slave labor.


Same here.  :Cool:

----------


## Kinsao

I'm totally against the death penalty.

----------


## Lacan

If an innocent is executed, shall we require death penalty for the judge and jury ?

----------


## Lacan

double post sorry

----------


## anjusan

Perhaps in the future scientist will perfect the cryogenic process and prisoners can be stored at a minimal cost to society... until then...

----------


## Sensuikan San

> I can see why you think that. But, what is to stop people wanting "revenge" because of that person's death. Say that your son, brother, husband, father, mother, or other close family member committed a terrible crime, would you feel that their life should end? Or, (as I think) would you rather see them doing labor every day just so they can _live_ in the worst place imaginable?
> 
> How about this then, if you killed the murderer, would he ever have a chance to feel remorse, to think to himself, "What in GOD'S NAME made me do that, I could be livin the good life, have a family. But no, now I'm stuck in this S*** hole for the rest of my life."
> 
> Death shows mercy, in my opinion, to those who wish to die. If a murderer knows he's going to die as soon as he kills someone, he doesn't have to worry about regret or remorse. He knows the game is over as soon as he's caught. If he escapes the law, then he's free. If he gets detained, the game ends. 
> 
> With the death penalty, these people can't lose. And what would _you_ rather play, a game you where you can't lose, or one where you probably will?


No, no.

You see, your argument to my way of thinking, actually _presupposes a need_ for revenge and/or punishment!

I'm not interested in that at all. I just want to get rid of garbage that has done harm! I'm not interested in wether or not a murderer or any other miscreant worthy of my death-dealing attention  :Liplick:  suffers or feels victimised in any way (if I did - I wouldn't propose the death penalty ... but all kinds of Mediaeval torture or something!).

I just want them ..... gone!

As for victims using the death penalty as "revenge" (which I agree, should not be the case. Especially if you've arrested the wrong guy!) ... then I would merely argue that victims' families do not sit on the bench ... and do not pass sentence; the courts do.

As I've stressed in each of my posts - I have no intention of running around "knocking everybody off" at the drop of a hat because they haven't paid their parking tickets! It would be an extreme measure reserved for absolutely confirmed, no brainer, no doubt convictions ... in cases of particular obscenity.

... but then ....! Into the trash can!

Perhaps you would see a lot _less_ people executed under this philosophy than you do now! (I believe that annually, the state of Texas executes more people than any other _Nation_ on earth! Several of these folks ultimately turn out to be innocent!)



ジョン

----------


## Sensuikan San

> Perhaps in the future scientist will perfect the cryogenic process and prisoners can be stored at a minimal cost to society... until then...


Ooooh! Deary me!

Sorry Anjusan ... but, really, isn't that an _even more barbaric_ answer than execution?

I can only suppose that it would allow one to say "I haven't _actually_ terminated someone's life!" .... just put 'em into a permanent coma and chucked 'em into a freezer for ..... a coupla hundred years ... ?  :Frown:  

A great conscience preserver I agree ... but .... uugh...!

W

----------


## anjusan

Well, I agree my thought was a bit simplistic... and it certainly wouldn't alleviate the court costs of trying to find out his/her guilt or innocence...

----------


## Mike Cash

Usenet recycle from July 2001:

The whole idea of socially sanctioned killing ought to have some tinge
of revenge/vengeance to it. Why? To maintain the basic humanity of the
society doing the killing, that's why. Seems a contradiction, doesn't
it?

I'd rather think that we as humans succumbed to the temptations of one
of our basic weaknesses and failings, the desire for vengeance, and
sanctioned killing than to think that we had removed that and replaced
it with cold, clinical, reasoned justification for engaging in the
ultimate means of removing an undesirable from our midst.

To me, there's no humanity in executing someone humanely.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't say we should let the pendulum swing
the other way and go back to drawing and quartering people or boiling
counterfeiters in oil. There's no humanity in tortuous executions
either. Hanging seems as near a reasonable middle ground as we are
likely to find. That being said, I do think Japan should change all
sorts of procedural things about the way it carries it out. Number one
would be to give up the short-drop-and-strangle-'em method and go with
the snap-the-neck method with drop distances calculated on body
weight. Number two would be to have set execution dates. There may be
exceptions, but it is hard to imagine anyone deserving the living hell
of spending decades in prison under sentence of death never knowing
when the boots tramping down the hall are coming to bring him
lunch...or to drag him to the gallows. Again, not for his humanity,
but for ours.

_break_

Why wouldn't I sympathize with the poor souls carrying out the
execution? Based on what I have read of what performing that task has
wrought on some of them and their families, I wouldn't wish it on my
worst enemy.

Perhaps you didn't catch that I was using the word "humanity" with a
different-than-normal meaning? I meant that lying someone down on a
gurney and injecting death-inducing chemicals into their pre-sedated
worthless hides is too devoid of the human passions which demanded his
death to begin with. Lethal injection is what you have done to a
beloved pet, amid tears and regrets. Done to humans, it is just an
effort to divorce ourselves as much as possible from rage, anger,
vengeance...the "flip side" of our humanity...the side we'd rather
pretend we don't have.

We lie the person down and inject them instead of placing a muzzle
next to their heads and pulling the trigger for precisely the opposite
reason we do the same to Fido when arthritis and infirmity overtake
him. We choose the same method of performing a task which is inspired
by opposite motives and emotions.

I agree with you in principle. I can accept that for the commission of
certain crimes against society one's life is forfeit. Notice that my
sole concern/objection is in the practicalities of having the guy die
without having to make someone else kill him.

----------


## Index

Welcome back mikecash, couldn't stay away?

----------


## Kinsao

Nice to see you here again, Mikecash!  :Cheerleader: 

Anyway, the reason why I'm against the death penalty is because it is paradoxical (not sure if that's the right word). You have this 'moral' standard that says 'it's wrong to kill someone' - and then... someone who commits murder... as punishment they are condemned to death? That doesn't make sense to me. If killing someone is wrong, then it's wrong whoever does it. To say otherwise is making like certain people have more of a right than otherwise to judge who should live and who should die, and I think that's very suspect indeed, to put it mildly. 

No, let's make 'life' imprisonment be for life, in cases of murder and for highly dangerous criminals, that way we are not being hypocrites, there is also the chance to reprieve the wrongly-convicted guy, and... actually you could say death is a more merciful punishment, in fact, if someone had killed someone I loved, I would get more sense of 'revenge' to think of them suffering than to think they were happily dead - I would rather be the one dead.  :Buuh:

----------


## Index

Well Kinsao, it is a double standard-the state has the right to determine when to take a life, but individuals don't.

----------


## Gaijin 06

> You have this 'moral' standard that says 'it's wrong to kill someone' - and then... someone who commits murder... as punishment they are condemned to death? That doesn't make sense to me. If killing someone is wrong, then it's wrong whoever does it. To say otherwise is making like certain people have more of a right than otherwise to judge who should live and who should die, and I think that's very suspect indeed, to put it mildly.


I am undecided on the death penalty. I don't think the arguments above are particularly valid though. In our society, we are bound by the laws of the land and be will punished if we break them.

The state has plenty of powers that indivduals don't, and that we would find morally wrong if an indivdual did them, such as

locking people up
extracting money from them (taxes)
requiring them to perform certain duties (jury service etc)
taking children away from their parents 

These are all powers the state has but would be morally wrong if we as indivudals excercised. So I don't think you can use this argument against capital punishment.

There may be other reasons, personally I think the burden of proof is a powerful argument given terminating someones life is pretty terminal and doesn't give us the chance to correct any micarriages of justice down the line.

Comes down to numbers at the end - I'd be happy to see 99.99% as a accurate conviction rate... then is 99.9% good enough? 99%? 95%? Hard to know where to draw the line.

----------


## Kinsao

The 'state' is made up of individuals. In the end it's a collective of individual people who come together to make a judgement on whether someone is going to live or die. And it's one individual who has the burden of administering the injection or working the trap door.




> locking people up
> extracting money from them (taxes)
> requiring them to perform certain duties (jury service etc)
> taking children away from their parents


These - like punishments for crimes, including the death penalty as punishment - are all things done by the state/collective for the (alleged) reason of the good of society as a whole and the majority of individuals within it (locking someone up because they are a danger to others, taking a child away from its parents because its parents are harming it, taking taxes in order to fund services for the state population...) The death penalty indeed falls under that argument, because of course it would be unthinkable to allow a dangerous criminal their freedom, whether now or even 30 or 40 years down the line. But what does the death penalty provide in the way of benefit to other individuals in society that can't be provided by a life imprisonment? The whole thing is to protect people. Keeping someone in prison stops them from going out and killing or harming anyone again. Period. 

I just feel that once you start to think of the 'state' as an entity separate from individuals, with its own powers, that becomes dangerous. I recognise that for practical reasons there are certain things in governance that have to be undertaken by a collective in order to work at all, but I still remain deeply uneasy about too much state control, and it pays to be very wary of the things that they already do control, even such things as jury service, the power of imprisonment, 'care' of children... and of course, taxes!  :Sou ka:

----------


## Mike Cash

> Welcome back mikecash, couldn't stay away?


Never said I was going to.

----------


## kirei_na_me

Yes! Mikecash!

----------


## kirei_na_me

> If an innocent is executed, shall we require death penalty for the judge and jury ?


Excellent question.

----------


## Anchyyy

> Totally against it. I'm glad here in Europe we have permanently done away with it.


Yeah that's really great. Even tho i'm against also, i sometimes think all this serial killers and men who raped women deserve death in some way. They destroyed someones live, someone died because of them. Anyway, prison for the rest of the life is an good idea too, as long as they don't excape.




> If an innocent is executed, shall we require death penalty for the judge and jury ?


That's why i'm against. You can't always be 100% sure you got the right person!

----------


## Reiku

> With the greatest respect, I do not think that the questions posed in the poll were sufficiently qualified. And surely, some qualification has to be present in a question of such importance.
> 
> I shall therefore qualify my answer.
> 
> (Sorry folks... but) I voted "in favour" of the death penalty.
> 
> With a very large, very obvious .... *"BUT"* .....!
> 
> My reasoning is this :
> ...



I voted no--but you make a good case.

My only problem is that I still wouldn't trust my government to follow that regulation--the police where I live regularly kill people while taking them into custody, and nothing is said or done about it aside from the ocasional questioning article in the left newpaper.

If the police are killing people unjustifiably, I certinly can't expect the rest of the judicial system to be more trustworthy.

On the other hand, it makes the death penalty a moot point if they execute you before you are ever even charged with a crime...

----------


## Brooker

Off with their heads!

----------


## GoldCoinLover

I have to agree with one of the persons above. If your punsihed by the law and murdering is wrong, then what gives the state to murder you?

my parents support it, so does my grandma (and shes deeply religious, and my pastor) it really makes me feel how barbaric, rude, and cowardly america is.

I just want to move to another country, maybe not japan, maybe sweden or something. ::sigh::

----------


## Brooker

I say, if you deprive someone of their right to live, you have forfitted your own right to live. What's the point in putting someone in jail until they die?

----------


## Lacan

I am an atheist but I still don't understand, isn't "In god we trust" an american motto

I thought god said:
DO NOT MURDER
and not
DO NOT MURDER*







*unless that ba$tard is a murderer himself

----------


## Lacan

I'm not against death penalty as long as the judge and jury guarantee with their lives the culpability of the sentenced person.

----------


## bossel

> I'm not against death penalty as long as the judge and jury guarantee with their lives the culpability of the sentenced person.


That sounds sensible, but then again, who would take their lives if they don't do it themselves?

----------


## Lacan

> That sounds sensible, but then again, who would take their lives if they don't do it themselves?


some other jury who garantees their culpability :Poh:

----------


## Smertrius

Totally against too. Sad to see that only 59% voted so.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

The death penalty serves no reasonable purpose.

----------


## Radegast

I totally FOR death penalty. Mankind should clear the ranks. I don't want pay taxes for life killers and etc. They should be destroy. It is favourably for all.

----------


## Inaki

> The death penalty serves no reasonable purpose.


And life imprisonment does? 

I don't see what so humane about keeping some murderer alive just to wait 'till he dies of natural causes.

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

Death Penalty is a good thing. If some sick maniac kills people just for enjoyment then he/she must be executed. Hope Russia will return such kind of punishment someday.

----------


## edao

Life is not precious, we have 6 billion humans and counting. We slaughter animals on an industrial scale for something tastey to eat. 

I think that contemporary Western Societies should allow the death penality for serious crimes. There should be conditions:

1. The individual can only be "put down" if they agree to it (eg life term they choose to die rather than rot in a cell.) After all it would be an infringement on their human rights not to give them the choice  :Laughing: 

2. They would have 12 months waiting period before the state goes ahead (in case they find god).

3. Only for crimes that have a 99% guilty prosecution (eg they were on camera killing somone or their fake moustache was found at the crime scene)

At the end of the day I think once you have commited certain crimes there can be no reversal back to a point of normality. If you have murdered people your never going to be safe to work in a local supermaket. Much of the reform of prisonsers is based on misplaced Christian ideology of forgiveness and the ability to 'change your ways'. Once your done certain things your a write-off there's no going back.

----------


## Reinaert

Capital punishment is sick.

No human has the right, nor the duty to kill another human.

But the main reason is, death sentence is too expensive.
It's cheap to put criminals in jail all of their life.
A human on death row is costing a lot of money.
Nobody wants to be responsible of a wrong verdict.

In the USA there were a lot of cases where death row people were set free after a new trial.

In other countries people are killed just because they are political enemies.
China, Iran and others.

----------


## toyomotor

Although I have voted against the death penalty in the poll above, there are certain circumstances where I believe that imposition of the death sentence is appropriate. The cases I refer to are ones in which there is *absolutely no question as to guilt.* In particular, the death penalty should be reserved for mass murder, torture or rape leading to murder and the murder of an infant.

----------


## LeBrok

> Although I have voted against the death penalty in the poll above, there are certain circumstances where I believe that imposition of the death sentence is appropriate. The cases I refer to are ones in which there is *absolutely no question as to guilt.* In particular, the death penalty should be reserved for mass murder, torture or rape leading to murder and the murder of an infant.


Why do you think that life of an infant is more valid or important that life of an adult?

----------


## Boss

> Although I have voted against the death penalty in the poll above, there are certain circumstances where I believe that imposition of the death sentence is appropriate. The cases I refer to are ones in which there is *absolutely no question as to guilt.* In particular, the death penalty should be reserved for mass murder, torture or rape leading to murder and the murder of an infant.


But why though...I mean what good would it do if, say, Holmes was executed? we know that the death penalty probably doesn't deter crime (so future mass murderers will be unaffected). We certainly know it is not rehabilitative (the person dies). So why support it even for the most heinous of crimes?

----------


## kamani

> But why though...I mean what good would it do if, say, Holmes was executed? we know that the death penalty probably doesn't deter crime (so future mass murderers will be unaffected). We certainly know it is not rehabilitative (the person dies). So why support it even for the most heinous of crimes?


The real purpose of it is not to correct but to punish so that justice is restored. For some crimes even the death penalty is too small of a punishment.

----------


## LeBrok

> It's cheap to put criminals in jail all of their life.
> A human on death row is costing a lot of money.


Only initial cost of judicial process is more expensive in death row cases. Final cost of incarceration for life and possibility of prisoner to strain justice system with countless appeals (they have a lot of time on their hands to play the system) is definitely much higher. One can only pray that prisoner is in good health otherwise medical costs can push the figure in stratosphere.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5409377_average-cost-house-inmates-prison.html

Typical cost of keeping a person in prison is 130.00 a day. That's almost 50 thousand a year. Times 40 years (life), that's 2 million dollars. Keep in mind that worse murderers are kept in maximum security prisons. That pretty much can double the cost to 4 million per prisoner for life. Add costs of initial trail, many appeals and retrials and we are at 5 to 6 million. 
Now, death row, trail and housing prisoner for some time, might run the bill 1 to 2 million.

Let's take very obvious case of Anders Breivik from Norway. He admitted and everybody saw what he did. There is no doubt of mistaken identity and scale of crime is horrific. 
Why would we keep him for life (21 years in Norway?) paying millions? On top of this, there is huge risk of him reoffending when released from prison. Heck, he is writing a book (perhaps new MeinKampf?), and he has already an audience of some radicals.
In such obvious situation, I don't have a problem with granting death penalty. In case of Breivik it is a must.

----------


## sherlockholmes

Death penalty is nonsense

----------

