Death Penalty

[Shienvien]

The accuracy of the law-enforcing system is still too negligible for death penalty to be risked.

[NixAyum]

I'm going to merge this with the old thread since there's really no reason to start a new one. If you saw the old one and wanted to bring the discussion back, bumping the old would be better than making a duplicate.

[MysticTiger]

I think the jail system needs to be reworked before I can say i'm for or against the death penalty. There is no reasons murderers should be going free because of "jail crowding". And the jail system is too lax already. I think, if you go to prison, you should be in a isolation room for the majority of your stay. Prison and Jail, as they are now, are basically a free room, hospital and food for a lot of people. And it's not a scary place to a lot of people who are frequent visitors. In fact, it's a show of pride to say you've gone to jail. And, It's really screwed up when Prisoners are treated better than law abiding citizens.

 

We need to stop having a jail system that works like an adult playground and more like a jail. No contact, basic foods, fees for any hospital use. Everyone stays in their own cell. And, constant watch and probation once they are released from prison for a while.

[Sorawind]

I find it downright immoral. Sure, that person supposedly killed someone else, but does two wrongs make a right? No.

 

I don't understand how we allow this. Someone could be a complete heartless killer and yet it doesn't give anyone a right to kill them, does it? Lockdown for life seems like a better fit punishment. Let them drown in boredom instead. It's less violent and probably has more morality. I believe in nonviolent punishment and life over death morality, so that's why I dislike the "death penalty" with such despision. I guess it's safe to say that it's one of the few things I hate. And believe me, I don't hate much. :/

That's too Lenient imo, they should be thrown in some Secluded hole with a toilet, and only get out to shower once a week.Fed 1 meal a day.

[demonicvampiregirl]

I'm with my dad on what he said before. If you receive the death penalty you have till the next Monday to appeal it and if you still get the death penalty you go that Tuesday.

 

There isn't a reason as to why they should be able to sit around until they are 60-70 years old and probably die from old age. If they did something bad enough to receive that why let them wait?

 

I think anyone who kills another purposely (not the ones that wind up in jail because of some accident that killed another I think that's happened), molesters and rapists should also go as well. If you are that sick to be able to do something like that you don't deserve to walk on the streets again.

 

May sound cold and cruel but I don't really think they deserve another chance because the victim never got a chance to live themselves. It was stolen from them.

Edited June 3, 2013 by demonicvampiregirl

[Delira]

Personally, I want to support the death penalty, but only in some very severe cases, such as serial murders/rapes, or school shootings or bombings.

Although, if you have the death penalty for them, where do you draw the line? If there's somebody that can still contribute to society, and regrets their crimes, then let them! Don't kill them, kill the guy that brought a gun to a preschool, and would do again if he could!

And even then, only in cases where there's absolutely no doubt that somebody's guilty.

[7Deadly$ins]

I'm with my dad on what he said before. If you receive the death penalty you have till the next Monday to appeal it and if you still get the death penalty you go that Tuesday.

 

There isn't a reason as to why they should be able to sit around until they are 60-70 years old and probably die from old age. If they did something bad enough to receive that why let them wait?

 

I think anyone who kills another purposely (not the ones that wind up in jail because of some accident that killed another I think that's happened), molesters and rapists should also go as well. If you are that sick to be able to do something like that you don't deserve to walk on the streets again.

 

May sound cold and cruel but I don't really think they deserve another chance because the victim never got a chance to live themselves. It was stolen from them.

A proper appeal takes a lot longer than that.

[MedievalMystic]

I don't tend to have a whole lot of sympathy and mercy for those that don't have any themselves. Period. Do I support the death penalty? Yes. For really hardcore cases, no doubt.

 

Serial killers..inhumans I refer to as 'other', like Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy, Manson, child molesters /killers, etc, etc, don't deserve to be stealing oxygen, and if it was up to me all those types would be taken out back and put in front of a firing squad. Nice and simple. Done. Good Riddance.

 

That's 'cruel' and 'mean', you say? No, that's actually merciful compared to what some very sick, twisted minds dish out. There are a whole lot of things a whole lot worse than a quick death, and the types I'm talking about are the masters that dish it, and laugh while they do it. I wouldn't give any rabid animal a second chance, nor would I want it to breath one second longer than necessary.

 

and regrets their crimes

 

Hardcore killers don't regret squat...ever... except getting caught. *shrug*

Edited June 3, 2013 by MedievalMystic

[siliconrose]

If I trusted the judicial system to apply the death penalty only to criminals who actually deserved it, I would consider it an acceptable punishment for a crime. However, I've been given ample cause not to trust the judicial system to come to the correct verdict, and thus I cannot in all conscience condone it as a punishment.

[shadowgrr]

I'm against of course.

1)the real people who commit a crime are outside the jail, they pay warrant and can easily escape, (don't forget what happened with the financial scandals)

2) Most of the prisoners have a troubled life and they are not well educated, if the society had took care of them, before they commit the crime nothing bad would happen. In fact, I think that jails should have programms of reintegration for prisoners in society.

3) At bad times of history like dictatirships many innocent people got tortuered and panished with death penalties because of their believings, and generally death penalties, hasn't associated with good thinks in history

4) The person might be innocent (we had the story of the "dragon" of Seih-Sou)

5) The goverment spends money for killing people in wars, reintegration doesn't cost this much

6) You are commitimg the crime that you accused him of (how educational is that to the pthers?)

[sparkle10184]

I am against the death penalty. Should certain people be allowed to decide who dies just because they're government officials/police/etc. ? If "we" kill a person because they committed a crime we are sinking to the same level as the criminal. Also, killing someone because they hurt/killed someone else is wrong. I mean really, that is what children do! Six year old one punches six year old two. Six year old two punches six year old one back. Seriously? Maybe the government just needs to grow up.

[DaniBoo]

I support the death penalty only if the person has taken the life of another.

 

Recently, a man named Tim Bosma was kidnapped and murdered in Ancaster, ON. I live in Hamilton, so it was very shocking and scary news to be hearing all of this going on. This innocent man lost his life, and where are his killers? Sitting in jail. Alive.

 

I can't believe that my government allows these people to live their lives, while the victim is dead. An eye for an eye. You take a life, someone takes yours.

 

 

[sparkle10184]

An eye for an eye. You take a life, someone takes yours.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi

 

I just read that the other day and what you said reminded me of it^^

[Syaoransbear]

Well I've never heard of a blind person committing murder so it sounds like a pretty good thing. :/

[sparkle10184]

Well I've never heard of a blind person committing murder so it sounds like a pretty good thing. :/

Mhhm, not sure if that was meant as a joke, but I think you missed the point. The quote means by killing someone who committed murder (an eye for an eye) you are doing no good. It may make you feel better in the moment but eventually it will have unwanted effects. By seeking revenge you are only adding onto the pile of violence. Each time someone is killed for their misdoings society becomes even more wrapped up in it's own revenge, and humanity is soon caught in a circle of pain and violence.

[Syaoransbear]

Mhhm, not sure if that was meant as a joke, but I think you missed the point. The quote means by killing someone who committed murder (an eye for an eye) you are doing no good. It may make you feel better in the moment but eventually it will have unwanted effects. By seeking revenge you are only adding onto the pile of violence. Each time someone is killed for their misdoings society becomes even more wrapped up in it's own revenge, and humanity is soon caught in a circle of pain and violence.

It was a joke.

[MedievalMystic]

It may make you feel better in the moment but eventually it will have unwanted effects. By seeking revenge you are only adding onto the pile of violence. Each time someone is killed for their misdoings society becomes even more wrapped up in it's own revenge, and humanity is soon caught in a circle of pain and violence.

 

No, actually, getting rabid monsters and predators off the streets, and seeing them dead, makes me feel better for all eternity, not just the moment.

 

Do I see giving these kinds of out of control animals a nice, painless lethal injection 'violent'? Not at all. That's a walk in the park compared to what they do themselves to their victims. To me, getting rid of them is doing the world a big, fat favor.

 

You may not think that's good, but I do. Imo, it has nothing to do with 'revenge' and everything to do with good old common sense. You don't pity proven monsters, you exterminate them, just like cockroaches.

Edited June 4, 2013 by MedievalMystic

[DaniBoo]

No, actually, getting rabid monsters and predators off the streets, and seeing them dead, makes me feel better for all eternity, not just the moment.

 

Do I see giving these kinds of out of control animals a nice, painless lethal injection 'violent'? Not at all. That's a walk in the park compared to what they do themselves to their victims. To me, getting rid of them is doing the world a big, fat favor.

 

You may not think that's good, but I do. Imo, it has nothing to do with 'revenge' and everything to do with good old common sense. You don't pity proven monsters, you exterminate them, just like cockroaches.

I couldn't agree more.

[Shienvien]

No, actually, getting rabid monsters and predators off the streets, and seeing them dead, makes me feel better for all eternity, not just the moment.  To me, getting rid of them is doing the world a big, fat favor.

The justice system is not incapable of making mistakes. Innocent men and women have been put to death before, and death is irreversible. Risking unjustly destroying an innocent individual is not worth exterminating a few true monsters. I agree with active self-defense (which can end up with the attacker dead in extreme cases) in case of actual necessity, but I do not agree with putting people who have already been pacified to death.

 

Besides, where do you draw the line? Is killing a person who has tormented the subject for years in a fit of anger enough to put the subject to death, or is the line more at killing half a dozen just for fun? Perhaps the person who raped a dozen and otherwise crippled a few others for life - but did not kill anyone - is more deserving of extermination than the one who accidentally killed a person who angered them?

Edited June 4, 2013 by Shienvien

[TikindiDragon]

I'd be less likely to support the death penalty if life actually meant life. Unfortunately in the UK we've got killers who are being released from jail (admittedly after some very long sentences) who would once have hung. There's only a very, very few who actually spend the remainder of their life in jail - "at least" 61 whole-life sentances have been handed out since 1993 scource. To put that in perspective I have found a record of some 4,800 convictions for murder in the same time period scource. There's several levels of sentencing in British law, but it is possible for someone guilty of murder to be given only a 15 year minimum sentance (12 years minimum if the defendant is under 18). Even if the 30-year minimum tariff is applied it still means that convicted murders are still being allowed back out. One of the men currently serving a whole life tariff is doing so because he was released from jail on parole and proceeded to kill again.

 

I'd much prefer life to mean life over the death penalty. But I'd rather see the death penalty than see convicted murderers released from jail.

[Shienvien]

But I'd rather see the death penalty than see convicted murderers released from jail.

I'd rather make sure that no innocent individual is accidentally murdered, and the law-system has ****ed that up before.

 

Some murderers honestly believe that they are doing the community a favor, you know, no matter how twisted their view of the world. If the law-system ends up deciding that someone is guilty of crimes severe enough for death sentence to applied, and that individual is post-mortem found out to have been innocent, all who supported the decision are no better than said murderers.

[Starscream]

They commit murders, get rid of them. Keeping them alive, fed and clothed in prison is not fair to the lives they took.

 

I'd consider this for drunks or other forms of impaired driving that takes lives too.

 

I mean, we do worse for less to dogs that maybe bite someone. Dogs who bite often get put down. These terrible humans get a jail term. Where as I do not actually like dogs, I see it as unfair - to a degree.

 

[Fuzzbucket]

The justice system is not incapable of making mistakes. Innocent men and women have been put to death before, and death is irreversible. Risking unjustly destroying an innocent individual is not worth exterminating a few true monsters. I agree with active self-defense (which can end up with the attacker dead in extreme cases) in case of actual necessity, but I do not agree with putting people who have already been pacified to death.

 

Besides, where do you draw the line? Is killing a person who has tormented the subject for years in a fit of anger enough to put the subject to death, or is the line more at killing half a dozen just for fun? Perhaps the person who raped a dozen and otherwise crippled a few others for life - but did not kill anyone - is more deserving of extermination than the one who accidentally killed a person who angered them?

I like you. I couldn't agree more.

[Odeen]

I would rather one hundred guilty parties go free than see one innocent person put to death.

 

That's about all I have to say on the subject.

[dark_kitsune]

I absolutely support it. As long as there is solid evidence that the person committed the crime, they should be killed. And none of this - wait on death row for 20 years B.S. Why the hell should my hard earned money be used to house, feed and care for the dregs of society when so many good people are suffering financially? And these people locked up...yeah, maybe they are in a cell, but they still have the ability to order hits on people, sell drugs - they get away with A LOT while behind bars.