Death Penalty

[7Deadly$ins]

I don't think I really like that system either. It asks people to decide to quickly to forgive or not. Some people take years to forgive, and if that's what they need then they should have that time. Being forced to "forgive" doesn't give the right closure if they weren't REALLY ready to forgive, but felt as if they had to.

[Crisis]

I'd give them probably one year to decide. But I mean, that's just my personal opinion.

[elderberrysyrup]

I don't support the death penalty. There's no point in killing people off for someone's closure. I think something's wrong when you gotta kill someone to feel like you had some 'closure' when your loved one dies, when someone's raped, whatever. Especially with the stigma, so many people are considered guilty before innocent rather than innocent before guilty. Especially with crimes like murder, rape, and child molestation, there's such a large stigma that it warps a court to be a 'prove your innocence' rather than 'prove your guilt'. Lady Justice doesn't sit on a throne of corpses.

[Crisis]

It may be ethically wrong, but I think unless you had a good reason for killing someone (such as self defense), then you blew your shot. You shouldn't to sit on death row for 40 years and be an unproductive leech.

 

ETA: Once again, this is purely opinionated, so I apologize if this offends you. I had no intentions of aggitating anyone.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Crisis

[JaziandCo]

To me it's less about revenge or closure and more about removing people who have proven themselves too violent for society. Outside of self defense or the protection of something physically in immediate danger, why should someone who has killed not have to face the consequences of their actions?

[*~Soren~*]

To me it's less about revenge or closure and more about removing people who have proven themselves too violent for society. Outside of self defense or the protection of something physically in immediate danger, why should someone who has killed not have to face the consequences of their actions?

Yes I agree with this. Personally I would lose a bit of my peace of mind if not for the death penalty. Criminals should be subjected to it as long as there is substantial evidence against them.

[elderberrysyrup]

To me it's less about revenge or closure and more about removing people who have proven themselves too violent for society. Outside of self defense or the protection of something physically in immediate danger, why should someone who has killed not have to face the consequences of their actions?

1. Isn't jailtime removing people from society?

 

2. Why isn't jailtime a consequence for their actions?

[*~Soren~*]

1. Isn't jailtime removing people from society?

 

2. Why isn't jailtime a consequence for their actions?

I know that wasn't really addressing me but anyway jailtime isn't as effective as the death penalty. The potential to be executed would have a greater psychological impact on would-be criminals through fear, and thus in a way its removing them from society before the crime is even committed by keeping them in line.

 

Also there's the issue of tax money, but I don't like to use that in an argument because the issue of money shouldn't really be what decides a person's fate.

Edited December 5, 2011 by *~Soren~*

[elderberrysyrup]

I know that wasn't really addressing me but anyway jailtime isn't as effective as the death penalty. The potential to be executed would have a greater psychological impact on would-be criminals through fear, and thus in a way its removing them from society before the crime is even committed by keeping them in line.

 

Also there's the issue of tax money, but I don't like to use that in an argument because the issue of money shouldn't really be what decides a person's fate.

1. Why are we terrifying our citizens? Why is scaring people into being good even a goal? Doesn't that tactic not even work anyways?

 

2. It already costs more to do the death penalty than it does to keep a man in jail until he dies.

Edited December 5, 2011 by soullesshuman

[*~Soren~*]

1. Why are we terrifying our citizens? Why is scaring people into being good even a goal?

 

2. It already costs more to do the death penalty than it does to keep a man in jail until he dies.

I don't really think of it as "terrifying citizens." Unless you plan to commit murder, it doesn't apply to citizens in general. And if you are criminally inclined, then a bit of intimidation is necessary to disincline a person.

 

Thinking about it a bit more, I'm almost not convincing myself. If a person is inclined to murder, they obviously aren't going to have their mindset swayed to begin with...

 

As far as the tax issue goes, I was really just going off on a tangent there, but if you were to chose between using your tax money to provide for murderers or to kill them, which would you choose?

[Sir Barton]

1. Why are we terrifying our citizens? Why is scaring people into being good even a goal?  Doesn't that tactic not even work anyways?

 

2. It already costs more to do the death penalty than it does to keep a man in jail until he dies.

Fear is a motivator. If people wouldn't commit heinous acts that wouldn't even be an issue. The criminal thinks nothing of terrorizing the populace so why shouldn't we aim to frighten them away from criminal behavior? Nothing is 100% effective but we also don't know how many crimes might already be prevented due to fear of being put to death.

 

Cost of putting people to death is only an issue because of the years of appeals that an individual on Death Row gets. That racks up court cost. If we fast tracked the process it would be much more cost efficient to put violent criminals to death instead of having them linger in prison on the tax payers dollar.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Sir Barton

[7Deadly$ins]

I just don't trust that the death penalty is a deterrent. I have never once in my life seen an actual, reliable source that supports it. It's just conjecture.

 

I'd be happy to analyze some sources if anyone wants to provide them.

[Silverwingwyvren]

This topic is still truckin along a? You guys in put helps with my essay in my government class.

[Sir Barton]

I have been in a great many Death Penalty discussions and never thought to ask this. The psychologist in me is peaked....

 

To those who oppose the death penalty, do you live in a area of the country,or in another country, where you feel reasonably safe when you walk out your door every day? We all know that we are never completely safe but can you say that you aren't worried about being shot while going about your normal routine? Would be happy to have the same question answered by those who support it.

 

For my part, no. While I refuse to live in fear, I know that tomorrow I could walk out the door and very easily wind up dead. There is not a day that goes by that I don't get a message from my family that someone has been shot on their street or around the corner. Most of this is over turf wars or drug deals that have gone bad. This may be the reason that I am willing to accept the occasional innocent being executed if it means that some of these animals are taken out in the process and make my family just a little bit safer. They are killing each other off as it is so why shouldn't the government be able to take them out and keep these career criminals from killing innocents who get caught in their cross fire?

Edited December 5, 2011 by Sir Barton

[Renorei]

I support the death penalty, but not because I believe it is a deterrent. I think it is a deterrent, but that's not why I support it. The reason I support it is simple--if you deliberately kill someone, you deserve to die. The only exceptions are soldiers following orders and prison guards responsible for executing murderers.

[Silverwingwyvren]

Thats the thing the next day is promised to no one, unforseen things befall us all.

 

The way this world is no where is safe, its false sense of security that gets most people killed. And most criminals kill out of fear of getting in trouble or they never intend to use the gun they have in the first place. Heck police are shooting kids with airsoft guns because they fear what isn't there, but you can thank the idots who made toy guns look like real ones.

 

The main things that has people getting killed or people killing others is fear, it human nature to fear something. So should those who killed someone out of fear and didn't really intend to kill the person really be put to death?

[Sir Barton]

That is called manslaughter. It is different from murder. "Murder requires either the intent to kill – a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought – or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation." Killing in fear is generally killing in self defense (perceived self defense). Killing over territory that you don't even own is something completely different. You didn't answer my question though. Do you live in an area that you feel safe?

Edited December 5, 2011 by Sir Barton

[Silverwingwyvren]

Not any more nope

 

where I use to live people set other peoples car on fire at 4 a.m, neighbors wives stabbed them with screw drivers, but no shooting.

[Sir Barton]

Well maybe then it's not our experiences that tint our views but I would like to know if you are the rule or the exception.

[Silverwingwyvren]

My Bad for my dumbness x3

 

I would like to know if you are the rule or the exception.

[TikindiDragon]

2. Why isn't jailtime a consequence for their actions?

Because a life sentence, 9 times out of 10, doesn't actualy mean life. That was something we were promised when the death penalty was abolished here in the UK (that life would mean life), and at this point in time there are people that would once have hung that have been released from jail.

[JaziandCo]

1. Isn't jailtime removing people from society?

 

2. Why isn't jailtime a consequence for their actions?

Sure, for a short term. Letting murderers out on parole is not exactly removing them from society, it's letting them back in. With life sentences being shortened, prisons being overcrowded, and non-violent offenders ending up in the same place as murderers and rapists to learn HOW to be violent, I don't think that's the best option.

 

If my consequence was to be thrown in jail for a little bit until I'm allowed to roam the street again so I can pick off my next victim, I'm willing to bet I would be totally okay with screwing with the system to let me out on good behavior. If I was going to be sentenced to a speedy death, I would think twice about killing someone.

 

1. Why are we terrifying our citizens? Why is scaring people into being good even a goal?  Doesn't that tactic not even work anyways?

 

2. It already costs more to do the death penalty than it does to keep a man in jail until he dies.

 

If we had no fear of negative consequences, the more lawless people would be significantly worse. I respect my neighbor and his property enough to not break into his apartment, shoot him, and steal his TV. If everyone could be like that, we would have no need for rules and laws.

 

It costs more because inmates sit on death row for years during countless appeals. That system has to go. If it was any faster, it would not be as expensive.

[The Evil Doer]

I don't support the death penalty. There's no point in killing people off for someone's closure. I think something's wrong when you gotta kill someone to feel like you had some 'closure' when your loved one dies, when someone's raped, whatever. Especially with the stigma, so many people are considered guilty before innocent rather than innocent before guilty. Especially with crimes like murder, rape, and child molestation, there's such a large stigma that it warps a court to be a 'prove your innocence' rather than 'prove your guilt'. Lady Justice doesn't sit on a throne of corpses.

So many are considered guilty instead of innocent and lady justice doesn't sit on a throne of corpses .... Hah, funny but we don't seem to be living in the same reality at all; in my reality 50 years ago the justice was a swift one while nowadays not only are the criminals assumed innocent but even more the whole system does everything possible to make sure they get declared innocent regardless of their guilt, you keep talking about how criminals are deemed guilty before the trial begins yet you seem to disregard the fact that 10% of the rapes get reported, even less get prosecuted..... During the trial it is the victim who gets abused by the system, criminals have so many rights, criminal get to walk over technicalities, get to walk because of "insanity" get to walk because of hard childhood, get to walk because the race card has been played, everything including the victim gets blamed for the crime these days, that is everything except for the actual criminal who made a choice to do the crime and when it's all said and done you too show more compassion for the criminal than for the victim itself, so I say yes the lady of justice sits on the throne of corpses the same corpses of victims who are still screaming for justice the flawed system failed to give them.... How about for once when vicious crime has been committed we actually concentrate on the actual victim instead of making the murderer into one ?

Edited December 5, 2011 by The Evil Doer

[Silverwingwyvren]

Well when you think about it, the cost of burial and creamation if the criminals family wants this. What if they can't aford certain things, throwing the body in the fire with out family concent is cruel, they already have to deal with the fact their dead.

 

Another reason the death penatly isn't a very good deterent is that man has learned not to fear dying, some of them really don't so saying I'll kill you if you kill some one else they'd laugh at you.

 

Also some of the methods used don't always work, some people are just that resistant to the lethal injection or can take more of an electric shock than people think or can take a bullet to the chest and stare you dead in the eye.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Silverwingwyvren

[DarkEternity]

I don't support the Death Penalty. It will just make it easier to get rid of people that the Government (e.g. US) view as 'threats'. Like Julian Assange. I'd bet my soul that the charges against him are politically motivated.

 

I'm not a fan of how easy it'd be to simply silence people with the Death Penalty enforced.

 

And moreover, it makes me uncomfortable. Accidents happen. You are talking as if only guilty people will be executed. If it 'doesn't apply to citizens in general' are you willing to take personal responsibility if an innocent person is killed by 'accident'?

 

What if you are the innocent person? It's not like you'll ever get a second chance of life because somebody 'accidentally' killed you. Plenty of people have been framed in history of committing murders and crimes they haven't committed. Frankly I don't want to be on the receiving end of the death stick, no matter HOW miniscule that chance is.

 

We can't all afford good lawyers/good protection. And what's to say the criminals themselves walk away free because they have connections?

 

What about tightening up legal loopholes? Fast tracking the court process won't happen if it's not funded... and the actual implementation of the Death Penalty will use up money.

 

I'm not interested in ending up as 'collateral damage'.

Edited December 5, 2011 by DarkEternity