Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Death Penalty. For or Against. Options · View
Guest
Posted: Friday, June 08, 2012 9:03:12 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,534
midnightraider61- I think you missed the point. This film has little/nothing to do with Texas itself or the jurors within a trial. As I said, it follows 3 men sentenced to death during the last weeks of their lives, with interviews and research. It was sad to me, and it made me re-think some strong opinions that I may have had before watching it.
Selynar
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2012 11:58:45 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 26
LadyX wrote:


Not necessarily.

I'm sure I'd feel the same if it was my child or loved one, by the way. But as another poster observed, there's sometimes a difference between what we feel in our vengeful hearts and what's best for society.


Vengeful, or what's best for society...

Let's examine that. Buddy gets stabbed multiple times, then raped, then cut up, then his body parts are raped, then eaten, and then mailed to the federal government while the assailant flees to a different continent.

Yep... "Best for Society" is to give him a chance to get out, and to pay to keep his ass alive.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2012 3:58:15 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Selynar wrote:


Vengeful, or what's best for society...

Let's examine that. Buddy gets stabbed multiple times, then raped, then cut up, then his body parts are raped, then eaten, and then mailed to the federal government while the assailant flees to a different continent.

Yep... "Best for Society" is to give him a chance to get out, and to pay to keep his ass alive.


That's completely misrepresenting the position of death penalty opponents, which you surely know as you type it. Nobody would recommend that the most violent and vile criminals every be allowed to hit the streets again.

A system that allows for parole regardless of the offense (if that's truly the case) is the real problem. You're a smart guy, you know this isn't a choice between being executed and being released.
Ryario_Darkstar
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:00:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 5/8/2009
Posts: 84
Location: The Throne of the Under World
Against. You could debate the cost. Maybe put them on a stranded island with no way of escaping, ie make sure all the trees are gone so they cant make rafts.
too bad they cant make a VR program where they have to see the effect of the crime through the victums eyes and make them live that all day everyday.
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:02:49 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,534
Ryario_Darkstar wrote:
Against. You could debate the cost. Maybe put them on a stranded island with no way of escaping, ie make sure all the trees are gone so they cant make rafts.
too bad they cant make a VR program where they have to see the effect of the crime through the victums eyes and make them live that all day everyday.


Or pick a piece of shit city and put a fence around it like in Escape From New York. Send them all there.
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:49:05 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,534
chefkathleen wrote:


Or pick a piece of shit city and put a fence around it like in Escape From New York. Send them all there.


fences can be cut, dug under etc. island in shark infested waters sound much better.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:54:16 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,534
Nope. Too many variables exist to administer the ultimate penalty.

Remember the movie with Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman, "Papillion"? Now, there the place for them. "Uh, how do I look?" McQueen said to Hoffman with his head stuck through the hole in the door.

Perfect. Now, THATS incarceration.

MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:04:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 543
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
If they are truly guilty of murder then I think they should be executed. They should forfeit their life.
crazyrico
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 3:10:21 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 1/23/2010
Posts: 3
I am solidly for the Death Penalty.

The argument that frequently get used about the Death Penalty being a deterrent to crime is usually used improperly by both sides of the issue. It deters future crimes by that individual, not by criminals in general. The key element required in convictions that can receive Death as a punishment is premeditation. That is, the individual in question thought about, planned, and executed a capital crime knowing full well the weight of their decisions. That is not a person I want able to do anything to anybody. I especially don't want them in prison for life where they can further their criminal career by taking the lives of other inmates or Corrections Officers.

As far as the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause, I'll use an argument that usually gets used at me against gun rights. Cruel and Unusual Punishment meant to the founders being drawn and quartered instead of a quick hanging or trip in front of the firing squad. Those methods of death were acceptable to the founders, who couldn't foresee the development of painless drugs to slowly stop the heart. At the time, life in prison was cruel and unusual, because with the recent "reformatory developments" one almost invariably went insane in solitary confinement.

I stand ready for rebuttal.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:43:40 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,534
Good idea. Let's bring back the firing squad.





Quote:
fences can be cut, dug under etc. island in shark infested waters sound much better.


Watch the movie. Then we can use that kind of fence.
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012 2:10:35 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,534
I am definitely for it. There are certain offenses that are so bad, so detrimental to the safety of society, that the offender should never be allowed to live in society again. So then it becomes a matter of why should society foot the bill for someone to live out their lives in prison? The way I see it, if you destroyed someone else's life (rape, murder, child molestation, armed robbery), you have lost the right to yours. Furthermore, I understand that there are a few people who are wrongly convicted, and if sentenced to death, would be sentenced to death needlessly. I also understand that this is a rarity and am willing to accept this as part of life.
Ruthie
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012 4:34:15 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,399
Location: United States
Here is a link to the Innocence List, a list of people freed or exonerated from death row. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

There are 140 names on the list. These are 140 people wrongly convicted for crimes and sentenced to death that were found to be innocent. The way prosecutors and politicians go out of their way to block any efforts to have inmates retried or to have new evidence submitted, there has to have been many people executed for crimes that they didn't commit.

I am against the death penalty for a variety of reasons, but the fact that innocent people are convicted of crimes is the major reason everybody should be against it.
enjoysex52
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012 6:13:20 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/9/2011
Posts: 29
FOR
roydz
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012 7:58:13 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 6/12/2012
Posts: 4
Location: United Kingdom
I can see both points of view on this matter.

For: If someone were to murder one of your relatives - heaven forbid your parents / brother or sister / even your children, I'd imagine that you'd call for their head as most people would. As the person who took their life didn't give them any choice in the matter. They in the UK what about the human rights, well if you kill ANYONE you've just lost your right as a human being.

Against: If someone was convicted for a murder and they were on death row, it then turned out that they were innocent and it the murder was linked to someone else who admitted to it then I can see why people are against it.

But what everyones got to consider is, you can only put so many people in jail and some of them will NOT be cured or even learn from their mistakes. Some of our goverments are getting quite soft and giving all these prisoners all the comforts of home ie games consoles, complete internet access, tv's etc

This is why most people who comit a crime think its more like a break and a holiday camp. As in the UK most of the time the sentence is not fully carried out and most only serve half of it then get released on 'good behavour'.
T_Elle
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:06:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/17/2012
Posts: 137
Location: Canada
MrNudiePants wrote:
I'm in favor of the existence of the death penalty, but not as it's administered now. First, it should only be considered if there's absolutely no chance that the guilty person has been wrongfully convicted. It should take overwhelming physical evidence, as well as a voluntary confession and psychological testing of the perpetrator before death is on the table. There should be absolutely no chance that the wrong party is put to death. Once that fact has been established, the convicted person should be put to death as humanely, and as quickly, as society can manage. Not for punishment, nor for revenge, but simply because our society has a duty to protect it's individual members from predators. We wouldn't think twice about putting down a rabid dog, or a cougar that's developed a taste for human flesh. Why would we give greater protection to an animal with true cognitive abilities, who knows what he's doing is wrong, but still does it because he simply wants to?

I've had dealings with several convicted killers, and they all share similar traits: they have little or no remorse for their victims, they killed for either monetary gain or for sheer sport, and they claimed they would not hesitate to kill again, for those same reasons.

Capital punishment has very little deterrence value, except where it counts. There has never been a murderer or rapist who went on to commit more heinous acts after being subjected to it.


Wow... this was probably the most cogent argument for the death penalty that I've ever heard. I've always been against it... always. Even after having a family member gunned down, walking in on a robbery in progress, I've still always been against it. To me, it was always a mark of progress, that in Canada, we don't execute our criminals. That line of yours, about why we'd give greater protection to an animal with true cognitive abilities, who knows what he's doing is wrong... that's going to stay with me for days.

I'm still going to say that I'm against the death penalty... but you've REALLY given me something to think about...
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:25:37 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,534
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Here is a link to the Innocence List, a list of people freed or exonerated from death row. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

There are 140 names on the list. These are 140 people wrongly convicted for crimes and sentenced to death that were found to be innocent. The way prosecutors and politicians go out of their way to block any efforts to have inmates retried or to have new evidence submitted, there has to have been many people executed for crimes that they didn't commit.

I am against the death penalty for a variety of reasons, but the fact that innocent people are convicted of crimes is the major reason everybody should be against it.


Only 140 in the whole country? Wow that's better than I thought. Not bad.
jaynelic69
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:32:31 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 9/5/2011
Posts: 19
I use to be for CP but I'm not any more because I learned more about the subject with classes I took. To tell the truth I think CP is wrong.

First of all there's two questions we should considered about the CP:First, is it ever morally permissible? Or, as I like to put it, should it ever be practiced anywhere? Second, even if it is permissible, are there reasons not to implement it in our current legal system?
Another problem with CP is Executing Innocents &.Unfair Administration
Executing the innocent is clearly unjust.
Three sites of possible uneven application:
1. By jurisdiction
2. By sex
3. By race
But I don't want to bore anyone but this is some of my reasons why I'm against CP. Another thought is do we as people have the right to take another person life and judge them? I feel that the CP is system that still has problems so why use something that does not work right.



phillip
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:20:59 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 2/7/2011
Posts: 32
Location: upststate new york
very opposed.

"Never Give Up".......Sir Winston Churchill
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:27:55 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,534
Any person that kills (not self defence.) should be killed.
I think that it is ridiculous that we (I am from the UK so I am talking about in England) do not have the death penalty.

People get a life sentence and get out for good behaviour. What the fuck is that?
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:15:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
jaynelic69 wrote:
I use to be for CP but I'm not any more because I learned more about the subject with classes I took. To tell the truth I think CP is wrong.

First of all there's two questions we should considered about the CP:First, is it ever morally permissible? Or, as I like to put it, should it ever be practiced anywhere? Second, even if it is permissible, are there reasons not to implement it in our current legal system?
Another problem with CP is Executing Innocents &.Unfair Administration
Executing the innocent is clearly unjust.
Three sites of possible uneven application:
1. By jurisdiction
2. By sex
3. By race
But I don't want to bore anyone but this is some of my reasons why I'm against CP. Another thought is do we as people have the right to take another person life and judge them? I feel that the CP is system that still has problems so why use something that does not work right.


I think we all agree that executing the innocent is clearly unjust and immoral. When you ask about morals, though, you enter a gray area where you have to take the situation into account.

Is killing another person moral? Usually, the answer is no. If I see an evil person about to commit a heinous act, would I be justified in using deadly force to prevent that heinous act? If I saw my wife or daughter about to get raped, should I be morally obliged to let it happen? If my own morals guided me to stop that rape using as much force as was needed, up to and including lethal force, would that lethal response be justified? What if it was a neighbor, or even a complete stranger? I believe that once someone steps into that arena, where they've decided that laws against rape and murder don't pertain, then they should reap whatever response is needful to stop them from committing their evil acts.

One of the biggest problems crime fighters face is recidivism. Criminals get caught and go to prison, only to be released a short time later. They commit more serious crimes, more often; until they get caught and go to prison again. How often does a rapist need to get caught before we realize that he's always going to pose a danger to society? How many murders; how many rapes could have been prevented if society had only recognized the threat posed by a particular person? In most cases, lifetime imprisonment would be a good answer.

In some cases, even lifetime imprisonment doesn't protect society from the ravages of a sociopathic criminal. I recall one man I had dealings with - he was a serial rapist who shot and killed a cab driver to save himself the cost of the fare. Sent to jail, and being tried for murder, this repeat offender spent the days of his incarceration hiding contraband bedsheets, tearing them into strips and braiding the strips into a rope. He then managed to loosen up the window of his cell, tied his rope to his bed, and escaped. Fortunately for society, one knot in his rope proved too weak. It broke, and he fell five stories to his death. If he had made good his escape, how many more women would he have raped? How many more people would he have killed?

The way we use the death penalty is clearly unjust. But the existence of a death penalty isn't. It's just one tool society can use to protect itself from monsters.

Ruthie
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2012 8:23:27 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,399
Location: United States
chefkathleen wrote:


Only 140 in the whole country? Wow that's better than I thought. Not bad.


There are 140 names on this particular list. That doesn't mean that is all the wrongly convicted people in the entire country. One wrongly convicted person is one too many.
Guest
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:42:36 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,534
CoopsRuthie wrote:


There are 140 names on this particular list. That doesn't mean that is all the wrongly convicted people in the entire country. One wrongly convicted person is one too many.


Not really. Unless you have a better system or can reform the one we have, that's the way it is. The death penalty is suppose to deter when it does not. Killing the ones that kill is the way humans react to the crime. It's the only way they/we know how to get the criminal off the street and out of the way. Until taxpayers pony up the amount it takes to keep the worst of society in prison for life, they'll get the needles. We have a guy on death row that murdered a family in 1988. He was finally sentenced in 1991 and his last appeal just ran out. This is fair? This is the way it's supposed to be done? Lawyers, food, housing, etc has been paid for by the taxpayers. What about the family he murdered? Where's their justice? I still think they should bring back the firing squad or hanging. All of these appeals and free rides are long overdue for a reform.
Warlock
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 3:12:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2012
Posts: 199
Location: Where I need to be right now, United States
I'm probably gonna catch a lot of heat for this.. but I favor the death penalty.. just not the clean sanitized "G" rated version after two decades of appeals and millions of dollars in tax payer monies.. the death penalty will never be a deterrent until we put the 'horror' back into the termination of life for persons who commit violent crimes..
xCindyx3
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:35:00 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Canada
Against. I think that most people would rather see a guilty man walk free then a innocent man be convicted, and because our justice system will never be perfect, we do NOT want to give an innocent man the death penalty. The death penalty goes against all of our basic morals and values as a society. There are many things that are temping about the death penalty, like if it is almost proven certain that they have committed the crime, but because of what I know to be right and wrong, I could not ever be for this capital punishment. I hope we never see this in Canada because I think that it is truly a breach on what we hold as a society to be moral and just.
CrazyTexan
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:23:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 8/13/2010
Posts: 97
Location: United States
I am absolutely, 100% in favor of the death penalty. Call me old school, but I believe in the old saying, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." I will agree with most people here that say the death penalty is not an effective tool for crime deterrent, but it guarantees that the executed will never commit another crime ever again. The death penalty should not be looked at as a crime deterrent, but rather an effective means of punishment against crimes that are absolutely horrendous in nature.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 8:31:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
xCindyx3 wrote:
There are many things that are temping about the death penalty, like if it is almost proven certain that they have committed the crime, but because of what I know to be right and wrong, I could not ever be for this capital punishment.


What if that "almost proven certain" is taken away? What if you have incontrovertible evidence, coupled with unimpeachable witnesses and a full confession of guilt? What if you know with absolute certainty that not only is the person guilty of a heinous crime like murder, but also if you incarcerate him or her, it'll just allow him to continue commit unspeakable acts of horror against his fellow inmates and the officers that are paid to keep him in prison? And that there will always be the chance that future legislators may decide to change the laws and commute his sentence? Or that he may carry out a successful escape, and once again be free to terrorize the citizens?

What then?

Milik_Redman
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 8:33:59 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4,411
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
Abstain. I do not claim to be wise enough to make such judgement. It may well be deserved or even necessary at times, but I would not endorse it.

β€œIt is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero


My New collaboration with Dirty _D is one I am extremely proud to offer:





Guest
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 9:16:43 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,534
[quote=KinkyLisa4rp]I am definitely for it. There are certain offenses that are so bad, so detrimental to the safety of society, that the offender should never be allowed to live in society again.
I agree with Lisa.
xCindyx3
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 10:20:02 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Canada
MrNudiePants wrote:


And that there will always be the chance that future legislators may decide to change the laws and commute his sentence? Or that he may carry out a successful escape, and once again be free to terrorize the citizens?

What then?


Again, I would rather see a guilty man walk free than an innocent man be charged and sentenced with the death penalty. The imperfection of every system guarantees one or the other.
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 11:13:47 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,399
Location: United States
chefkathleen wrote:


Not really. Unless you have a better system or can reform the one we have, that's the way it is. The death penalty is suppose to deter when it does not. Killing the ones that kill is the way humans react to the crime. It's the only way they/we know how to get the criminal off the street and out of the way. Until taxpayers pony up the amount it takes to keep the worst of society in prison for life, they'll get the needles. We have a guy on death row that murdered a family in 1988. He was finally sentenced in 1991 and his last appeal just ran out. This is fair? This is the way it's supposed to be done? Lawyers, food, housing, etc has been paid for by the taxpayers. What about the family he murdered? Where's their justice? I still think they should bring back the firing squad or hanging. All of these appeals and free rides are long overdue for a reform.


Are you saying that it's okay to execute wrongly convicted people? If it's okay for the government to kill people, why are you so upset when criminals do it?

With the system of appeals that we have it actually costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.

The only possible argument for the death penalty is for it's revenge value. It doesn't serve as a deterrent. We have had various forms of capital punishment down through history and it hasn't stopped people from killing one another. People kill in situations where their emotions are running wild. Most of them don't stop to think what the penalty for killing is.

The death penalty might serve some deterrent in crimes like political corruption. People in a position of public trust who take advantage of their jobs to enrich themselves by selling their vote to the highest bidder or judges and police officers who accept bribes to let crimes go unpunished might be less likely to accept those offices if the penalty for bribes and corruption was death. On the other hand, there's so much money in politics now that it might not.



Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.