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

Death Penalty. For or Against. Options · View
Selynar
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 4:45:25 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 26
Location: Canada
I bring this up because of Luka Rocco Magnotta, just apprehended in Germany. He was living in Canada where he murdered a student, cut him into pieces, and mailed him to parliament.

Now as one of the people that gets to pay for his life in Prison, I'm curious to peoples attitudes. There was an article in the Ottawa Sun, about statistics that were taken this year, and of the people who answered the questions 51% of the people are for bringing back the Death Penalty.

I am For.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 4:57:47 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
No.

It's not an effective deterrent for crime. And in order for it to become an effective deterrent, we'd either have to get a lot more sadistic with our technique, or execute way more people (and inevitably, even more innocent ones than we already do).

We're already executing innocent people accidentally, along with the criminals. There's no way to un-execute somebody.

It's more expensive to execute than to keep them alive. In order to change that equation, you have to eliminate some of their appeal rights. The same appeal rights that sometimes lead to innocent people getting exonerated before they get executed.

It lowers our justice system to the level of the criminal, setting a violent precedent. Bloodthirsty demonstrators outside of prisons on execution night should bring a sour taste to any reasonable person's mouth.

Life in prison achieves the same solution to the problem: preventing a certain criminal from menacing society any longer.

Death sentences aren't doled out equally. For a given crime, you may or may not receive the death penalty, depending on a DA's whims, how sensationalized your case has become, what state you're in, how good your defense attorney is, and -- yes, the stats don't lie -- what color you are.
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 5:16:47 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
I'm all in favor of an express lane for death row, with optional public broadcast. make the punishment fit the crime, not just "oh he can't menace society any longer" tell that to families targeted by gangs from within prisons. they can never bother society? please that's a fairly naive concept. a fellow i used to associate with did say he had no issues if he ever had to go to prison cause "its three hots and a cot. all you really need in life." rehabilitating prisoners is a meaningless chore with a revolving door. make it a one way trip and i'm fairly sure that people will be less willing to put others lives on the line because of their own.

as far as the wrongful convictions go, i have no argument there.

regarding cost, a fifteen cent bullet to the head works just as well as a cocktail of "pain free lethal injection". Which in regards to "punishment fit the crime" i am against because if you butchered someone, you should go through every single moment of waking fear and agony your victim went through in my opinion.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 5:31:19 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
Sprichler wrote:
I'm all in favor of an express lane for death row, with optional public broadcast. make the punishment fit the crime.....

regarding cost, a fifteen cent bullet to the head works just as well as a cocktail of "pain free lethal injection". Which in regards to "punishment fit the crime" i am against because if you butchered someone, you should go through every single moment of waking fear and agony your victim went through in my opinion.


The actual injection cocktail isn't what drives the costs, it's the time and the appeal process. If you want to take that away, and if you want to make the actual execution sadistic and public, then chances are you're either in opposition of your nation's constitution or you reside in an Islamist or third-world country. In the US, we're law-bound to not engage in any cruel or unusual punishment. If you're against that restraint, and favor a big voyeuristic bloodbath instead, then all I can say is that you and I have very different ideals for society.

Welcome to the Think Tank, by the way. Good to see new people in here. hello2
Selynar
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 5:32:12 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 26
Location: Canada
Right, but is it really cost effective?

"but projected costs for 2011-12 show numbers just under the $3 billion range." -Macleans Newspaper, had a link but it disappeared.

As of 2004, on average it cost $260 give or take a few sense, per day, to support a prisoner. That's $94,900 a year devotted to a prisoner. I don't even make half that and I'm a law abiding citizen, yet the amount we spend on them is that high?

I know that the Death Penalty is tricky, and should be reserved for those that are found irrevocably guilty. Bernardo, Homolka, The pig farmer guy, the colonel last year, this Magnotta kid. They were all caught, and there is no doubt about it being them they admitted it. So now we as citizens must shell out about $100,000 a year to support them... Also Canadian prisoners can collect any due money. Unemployment, Disability, Pension. And they make money every day. Not a lot, but they do make it.

So they bank about $25,000-$40,000 based on their previous career, at least for a year. from unemployment. The other two would net them less per year, but forever, and that sits in a bank collecting interest until they are out. Which is about 25 years for parole, during a life imprisonment.

Homolka, raped and murdered 3 young girls, on video, with her husband. She was released 12 years later, after copping a plea, and now has a husband, a dog, and 3 children. Now, should those children feel safe?

Why should either of them be released? Ever. Why should they still be alive. They took the lives of 3 girls under the age of 16, after torturing them on video.... and you can tell me that "cost effectiveness" is why they shouldn't be killed? Why people should continue to pay to keep them alive?

“The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases. The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).” (Kansas: Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections)"

So... the diffence of $970,000 is the difference between a death-penalty case and non death-penalty case.... based off 2004 statistics... That's 10 years. Lets go 11. Of a minimum 25 years, for parole, for the rest of their lives if not.

Seems more cost effective to bring it back.

Life in prison, with no chance for parole, achieves the same system... Canada doesn't have that. They're always eligible parole as long as they've served 25 years of a life sentence.

As for setting a violent precedent. "You kill someone, and you run the risk of being killed yourself" is a pretty damn good deterrent.... but that's just my opinion.

EDIT: I can't display the site, but just google that statement from macleans and its the first that pops up.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 5:35:45 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
Selynar wrote:


Life in prison, with no chance for parole, achieves the same system... Canada doesn't have that. They're always eligible parole as long as they've served 25 years of a life sentence.

As for setting a violent precedent. "You kill someone, and you run the risk of being killed yourself" is a pretty damn good deterrent.... but that's just my opinion.


The sentence in bold indicates the real problem, in my opinion. If you change that, then what's the difference between life in prison and execution, aside from a sated bloodthirsty public and victim's family?

As for the cost and whether it's really a deterrent or not, fair enough, though I think we could play the futile "your stats vs. my stats" game if we chose to. I won't. You seem like a fairly reasoned-out cat.

Welcome, by the way. glasses8
Selynar
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 5:40:20 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 26
Location: Canada
*laughs* We could, but those are the stats that I found during this discussion, I'm sure there are better and more accurate ones. But even if it only costs $50,000 per year to hold a prisoner, assume that it costs $1,500,000 for a death trial, as opposed to $500,000 for non death trial, and all that goes along with them, appeals and what not. I'm quite happy paying that $1.5mil because 20 years later, it breaks even. 21 years later we start spending more on someone who should be dead.

And thank you. ;)
Sensei
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 6:13:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/16/2012
Posts: 566
Location: United States
I am opposed to the death penalty on basic moral grounds. "Even for the likes of them...." and such like. Which is ironic because I have a basically conservative moral compass generally (which I'm sure makes me a distinct minority here).

That said, I don't think it's reasonable for either side to make cost:benefit analyses arguments. Justice is priceless.

My novel, The Society, is available now in the Kindle Store: http://www.amazon.com/The-Society-ebook/dp/B00BPF9U2I
Selynar
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 6:16:28 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 26
Location: Canada
You're right Sensei... but is it 'justice' Is it Just that a man or woman may kill, sometimes repeatedly, and have no real reprecussions? 3 meals, a job, school, a bed every night, the right to vote, leisure time.

I'm going to get a bit personal here, feel free to ignore it if you would like, and no I'm not looking for sympathy.

I'm poor, I know it. I have two jobs, to keep a roof over my head, and pay my bills. There are times where I don't eat, because I can't afford it, most of the time its one or two meals a day. Why should they live better than me? I work hard, and I follow the law.

Is that just?
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 6:18:01 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
LadyX wrote:


The actual injection cocktail isn't what drives the costs, it's the time and the appeal process. If you want to take that away, and if you want to make the actual execution sadistic and public, then chances are you're either in opposition of your nation's constitution or you reside in an Islamist or third-world country. In the US, we're law-bound to not engage in any cruel or unusual punishment. If you're against that restraint, and favor a big voyeuristic bloodbath instead, then all I can say is that you and I have very different ideals for society.

Welcome to the Think Tank, by the way. Good to see new people in here. hello2


note: i said optional public display of execution. my personal opinion aside, cruel and unjust punishment is absolutely something that people need to be protected from. i wouldnt say that a thief should have his hand cut off as a lesson. but a life deserves no less than a life. yes, i did go overboard on the "every moment of pain and terror bit" but as i said it was my opinion. it doesn't make it right. nor something that i would actually expect to be enforced. but i dont see how following eye for an eye makes it unjust.
Sensei
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 6:31:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/16/2012
Posts: 566
Location: United States
Selynar wrote:
You're right Sensei... but is it 'justice' Is it Just that a man or woman may kill, sometimes repeatedly, and have no real reprecussions? 3 meals, a job, school, a bed every night, the right to vote, leisure time.

I'm going to get a bit personal here, feel free to ignore it if you would like, and no I'm not looking for sympathy.

I'm poor, I know it. I have two jobs, to keep a roof over my head, and pay my bills. There are times where I don't eat, because I can't afford it, most of the time its one or two meals a day. Why should they live better than me? I work hard, and I follow the law.

Is that just?


Seriously? You cannot possibly, seriously or honestly think that life in prison is superior to your life of freedom.

My novel, The Society, is available now in the Kindle Store: http://www.amazon.com/The-Society-ebook/dp/B00BPF9U2I
Selynar
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 6:39:27 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 26
Location: Canada
Nope I don't think its superior, I asked if it was just. I work 50-70 hours a week, at two jobs to get by. That will change yes, but for now its what I have to do. My question was is it just that I have to work that hard, so that my hard earned money goes to supporting criminals?

Minor crimes I don't care, get in, do your time, reform, get out. even manslaughter. But first degree murder, should be death. I don't agree with paying to keep a killer alive. I'll pay to have him killed, but its not right that I have to work so he can survive. And that's exactly what it is. We pay taxes to support the corrections department.

Its not just. Honest, law abiding citizens working day by day to support killers. That does not fit the definition of "Just" anywhere.
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 6:41:02 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
Selynar wrote:
You're right Sensei... but is it 'justice' Is it Just that a man or woman may kill, sometimes repeatedly, and have no real reprecussions? 3 meals, a job, school, a bed every night, the right to vote, leisure time.

I'm going to get a bit personal here, feel free to ignore it if you would like, and no I'm not looking for sympathy.

I'm poor, I know it. I have two jobs, to keep a roof over my head, and pay my bills. There are times where I don't eat, because I can't afford it, most of the time its one or two meals a day. Why should they live better than me? I work hard, and I follow the law.

Is that just?


i gotta agree with Sensei on that, its not FAIR perhaps, but they are locked behind walls and doors. it sucks being poor, but you have the freedom to do what you want when you want within reason/work etc.
Edit:
after seeing what you posted, you should have perhaps clarified what you meant by supporting them.
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 6:41:58 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
I'm against death penalty. I believe that we have better choices like reclusion perpetua(lifetime imprisonment) which has a greater inflicting human punishment. The felon would actually suffer FOR A MUCH LONGER TIME if he will be imprisoned for lifetime. Rather than just killing him and suffer for just a very short time(or even just A MINUTE). But the bad thing about the reclusion perpetua is that, there could be a chance of being a fugitive/granting him a pardon. It wouldn't be more emotionally inflicting compared to the death penalty knowing that the felon's still alive. Nevertheless, I think lifetime imprisonment is more sufferable and unbearable for the felon considering the riot in the jail and waking up everyday in a secluded and isolated area which reminds him for what he did while he's away from his loved ones. IN THE END, BOTH CONTENTIONS HAS IT'S PROS AND CONS. It will still depend on you on how to weigh in the reasonings and arguments.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 6:48:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
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.
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 6:52:33 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
crypticneophyte wrote:
I'm against death penalty. I believe that we have better choices like reclusion perpetua(lifetime imprisonment) which has a greater inflicting human punishment. The felon would actually suffer FOR A MUCH LONGER TIME if he will be imprisoned for lifetime. Rather than just killing him and suffer for just a very short time(or even just A MINUTE). But the bad thing about the reclusion perpetua is that, there could be a chance of being a fugitive/granting him a pardon. It wouldn't be more emotionally inflicting compared to the death penalty knowing that the felon's still alive. Nevertheless, I think lifetime imprisonment is more sufferable and unbearable for the felon considering the riot in the jail and waking up everyday in a secluded and isolated area which reminds him for what he did while he's away from his loved ones. IN THE END, BOTH CONTENTIONS HAS IT'S PROS AND CONS. It will still depend on you on how to weigh in the reasonings and arguments.


this makes me sound a bit hypocritical considering my first post, but Suffering does not equal justice.
Buz
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 6:53:40 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 9,596
Location: Atlanta, United States
In theory I am for the death penalty. In actuality I am against it. Why?

There is no 100% guarantee that the government is convicting the actual guilty person.

In the USA approximately 100 prisoners, many that are death row inmates, are released from prison each year because new evidence proves they are innocent. Most have already served several years of their sentence before they are exonerated. Those figures do not include the approximately 1500 prisoners freed in the last 20 years because it was discovered that prosecuting attorneys made up evidence and committed fraud to convict them.

What is really disturbing is that these are statistics for the USA, which is probably in the top 3 justice systems in the world. So you can imagine how many innocent people are rotting in prisons around the world or worse have been executed for crimes they did not commit.

In the USA you are supposed to be considered innocent unless the government can prove you are guilty, if the jurors have any doubt they are supposed to vote not guilty. Throughout most of the world the opposite is true. If you are arrested you are presumed guilty unless you can prove otherwise.




Guest
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 6:56:31 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
Someone have mentioned the third-world country in this site. They have a misconception on the justice system of a 3rd world country. I came from the Philippines, considered as a 3rd world, but we don't have the death penalty instead we're implementing the reclusion perpetua. MS LADYX, I guess not all the 3rd world are practicing bestiality and unjust laws. Don't generalize it. We are now in a modern system and I do believe that every country today is embracing the more humane and DIPLOMATIC punishments,whether or not a POOR OR INDUSTRIALIZED country. I'm just making things clear.
Selynar
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 7:02:55 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 26
Location: Canada
cryptic you mentioned that the felon would suffer longer with life in prison... but I ask you this. Who cares? Why are we always looking at what it will do to the felon. What about the families? The ones that have loved ones that are taken away FOREVER, not 'may come back'.

It sounds vengeful but what else is there? How is leaving a killer alive justice?

And yes MrNudie, I agree. As with the examples I gave above those had irrefutable proof that those convicted were in fact guilty.

This last one, Magnotta. Killed a student, cut him up, had sex with the pieces, and mailed them to parliament... When he was caught in Germany, he tried giving fake names, but at the end he shrugged and said "Yeah, you got me." Can you tell me that he deserves to spend his life in prison? That justice was served to a family that can't even bury their son in one piece?
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 7:24:49 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
crypticneophyte wrote:
Someone have mentioned the third-world country in this site. They have a misconception on the justice system of a 3rd world country. I came from the Philippines, considered as a 3rd world, but we don't have the death penalty instead we're implementing the reclusion perpetua. MS LADYX, I guess not all the 3rd world are practicing bestiality and unjust laws. Don't generalize it. We are now in a modern system and I do believe that every country today is embracing the more humane and DIPLOMATIC punishments,whether or not a POOR OR INDUSTRIALIZED country. I'm just making things clear.


i do believe the identifying factor would have been Islamist nation. after over a decade of war in the middle east, and recent activity in africa (where things are much worse) that is the current prominent association with third world country for a majority of Americans. also, those nations do still practice cruel punishments as it is a part of their religion which is intertwined with their government. it is a generalization yes, but it wasn't inaccurate.
keoloke
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 7:28:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/12/2010
Posts: 597
Location: United States
Absolutely against it.

-If we use the death penalty.. We become them!

- All of the 15 plus years that it takes to convict a person, the family lives in hope to see that person one day executed, no closure for them. After a person is been executed, the member's family still go home empty handed and many with a bitter taste in their mouth, especially if the person hasn't been repentant even on those final moment of their lives.

- There can NEVER be a 100% proof trial procedure, therefore an innocent one maybe be paying the ultimate prize. Is happened!

- It's not cost effective.

- Leave the person in jail. Make them do real productive work for the society, not getting a degree. They will never need it. Very cost effective.

-If one day one of them would really break down, and live the rest of their prison life in that state... It would be worth better than an execution.

Choose n Practice Happiness

Life is simple; we are what we eat and what we read. Talk is superfluous.
Rembacher
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 7:59:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
Selynar wrote:

Life in prison, with no chance for parole, achieves the same system... Canada doesn't have that. They're always eligible parole as long as they've served 25 years of a life sentence.



They are always eligible for a parole hearing, but not necessarily parole. Serial killers like Clifford Olson, and presumably Paul Bernardo, never get parole because the parole board doesn't believe they are reformed. Clifford Olson died in jail serving his life sentence, and Paul Bernardo will die in jail too.

As for Karla Homolka, even if there was a death penalty she would be out of jail right now anyway. She's not out because of weak Canadian laws. She's out of prison because the police and prosecution at the time believed that she did her part as a somewhat naive woman under the control of an evil man. The prosecution cut a deal with her very quickly under that belief, in order to get more concrete evidence, and testimony against Bernardo. After the sentence was handed out, she was immune from being tried for the same crimes again, even after they discovered the videos that showed that she was a more than willing accomplice.

I'm against the death penalty for the same reason LadyX is against it. We can't resurrect the innocent people we killed. If Canadian politicians hadn't stepped in, Steven Truscott would have been one of those at the young age of 14. He still served decades in prison before being released and eventually exonerated, but that was better than having his life ended at 14 because of a misguided and narrow focused investigation. That will always be my number one example of why the death penalty shouldn't exist. Killing an innocent 14 year old is murder. So if we do it as a society, shouldn't we all be sentenced to death too?
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 8:16:21 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
I am against capital punishment.

Even though sometimes I truly feel like certain criminals have no right to live any longer for what they have done, when it comes down to it, I can't support it. In my eyes, the killing of any human is murder, no matter the justifications.

It is still horribly difficult for me to hear the stories of horrendous acts done by a person I know is still breathing the same air I am; sometimes I even wish them dead for a moment. But the more I think about, the less right it feels.
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 8:41:48 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
I'm totally for the death penalty in cases involving premeditated murder, rape and then murder, drug dealers and certainly for serial killers. Enough is enough! Why keep these sociopaths alive whe they have brought so much pain to the victims and their families? Keeping them looked up for life is a joke and the cost is seriously just too high. I would agree that in crimes of passion there is no thought given by the perp re the consequinces thus the death penalty is not always a deterrent. If it the law then carry it out to the fullest and impose the harhest penaty possible and rid the world of a totally useless human being!
LadyX
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 8:47:36 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
crypticneophyte wrote:
Someone have mentioned the third-world country in this site. They have a misconception on the justice system of a 3rd world country. I came from the Philippines, considered as a 3rd world, but we don't have the death penalty instead we're implementing the reclusion perpetua. MS LADYX, I guess not all the 3rd world are practicing bestiality and unjust laws. Don't generalize it. We are now in a modern system and I do believe that every country today is embracing the more humane and DIPLOMATIC punishments,whether or not a POOR OR INDUSTRIALIZED country. I'm just making things clear.


Bestiality? What does that have to do with the death penalty?


re: "Third World" generalizations: Point taken.

If I'd been more tactful, I would've said that while many Third World/developing nations still utilize the death penalty, they're trending away from it, as is most of the developed world. I've yet, however, to see an Islamist regime whose justice system applies punishments in humane ways.

Guest
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 8:53:29 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
There is a film put out by National Geographic that I watched in my criminal justice class titled "Death Row Texas". It follows 3 death row inmates in Texas as their executions draw near. It is not at all what I expected, in fact, had I not been in class, I would have cried. I think some of you would find it interesting. I suggest it :)
Guest
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2012 9:46:10 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
4, simple as that. No excuses. Everyone can grow to be sorry, but sorry. You kill life, then, toddles. Don't care if you found god, or learned the error of your ways. The one you killed, is dead, and you did not have any thought for that person or his/her family. F you, I'll even pull the switch, inject, or fire.
SirBunny
Posted: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 7:50:06 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/28/2012
Posts: 6,005
Location: KZN, South Africa
I'm for it. Ive had loved ones murdered and tho it will never bring them back, I would feel better if the murderers were'nt breathing. Ive gotton on with my life as one must, but everyday I remember.




Dirty_D
Posted: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 10:22:10 AM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,543
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
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.


hello1 hello1


sprite
Posted: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 10:24:39 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 20,285
Location: My Tower, Spain
Against. Reasons? see Lady X's post. Also, i don't believe that ANYone has the right to take a life for ANY reason unless it's truly self defense and there is no other choice. Put them in jail and never let them out. Ever.



Love not hate.
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.