The death penalty, do you support it?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Primordialous (1276 posts) -

Do you support it?

 

What do you think of it?

 

I'm personally for it if the suspect is proven guilty of murder. Murderers are the lowest form of scum on this planet. I honestly cannot see why someone would think that people who take lives deserves to live themselves.

#2 Posted by kingkong0124 (8710 posts) -

Yes, under certain circumstances

#3 Posted by Primordialous (1276 posts) -

Yes, under certain circumstances

kingkong0124

Elaborate, if you wish.

#4 Posted by konvikt_17 (22253 posts) -

i actually dont know where i stand on it.

#5 Posted by kingkong0124 (8710 posts) -

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

Yes, under certain circumstances

Primordialous

Elaborate, if you wish.

I get the whole "eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" type of thing, but that whole philosophy turns foolish when there's like 25 people getting killed by 1 person.

Hitler, for example, deserved the death penalty.

#6 Posted by heeweesRus (5609 posts) -

only for lemmings:cool:

#7 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
No.
#8 Posted by Michael0134567 (28651 posts) -

i actually dont know where i stand on it.

konvikt_17

Same.

#9 Posted by Primordialous (1276 posts) -

Think of Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter. He shot and killed 20 children. If he had not committed suicide, he would most likely have gotten the death penalty. Would you really want somebody like this to be kept alive? Anyone with a brain would say no.

#10 Posted by konvikt_17 (22253 posts) -

Think of Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter. He shot and killed 20 children. If he had not committed suicide, he would most likely have gotten the death penalty. Would you really want somebody like this to be kept alive? Anyone with a brain would say no.

Primordialous

you cant just base things off of one case.

#11 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -

Think of Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter. He shot and killed 20 children. If he had not committed suicide, he would most likely have gotten the death penalty. Would you really want somebody like this to be kept alive? Anyone with a brain would say no.

Primordialous
I wouldn't shed for a mass killer of kids, no. But a state that has the power to unconditionally murder its own citizens is far more dangerous than a few random civilian killers. Unwanted situation. I'm against the state killing people in all circumstances.
#12 Posted by MannyDelgado (1250 posts) -
I get the whole "eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" type of thing, but that whole philosophy turns foolish when there's like 25 people getting killed by 1 person. kingkong0124
Not really The same logic still applies to a choice of 26 eyes vs. 25 eyes as to a choice of 1 eye vs 2
#13 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
Not under any circumstances.
#14 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -
If its proved beyond any sort of doubt that the person did it, then I support it.
#15 Posted by themajormayor (25853 posts) -
Under alot of circumstances yes
#16 Posted by N30F3N1X (8002 posts) -

Do you support it?

 

What do you think of it?

 

I'm personally for it if the suspect is proven guilty of murder. Murderers are the lowest form of scum on this planet. I honestly cannot see why someone would think that people who take lives deserves to live themselves.

Primordialous

Because some people don't deserve to live, or rather, deserve to die. A murderer of rapists, thieves, usurer should get a prize, not a death sentence.

#17 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

No I don't.

#18 Posted by PannicAtack (21037 posts) -
Lolnope.
#19 Posted by Retro_Future (127 posts) -

Leaning towards no. I haven't really given it much thought lately. 

#20 Posted by Iszdope (10151 posts) -

No.

#21 Posted by PannicAtack (21037 posts) -

[QUOTE="Primordialous"]

Do you support it?

 

What do you think of it?

 

I'm personally for it if the suspect is proven guilty of murder. Murderers are the lowest form of scum on this planet. I honestly cannot see why someone would think that people who take lives deserves to live themselves.

N30F3N1X

Because some people don't deserve to live, or rather, deserve to die. A murderer of rapists, thieves, usurer should get a prize, not a death sentence.

Murder is an appropriate response to theft?
#22 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

[QUOTE="N30F3N1X"]

[QUOTE="Primordialous"]

Do you support it?

 

What do you think of it?

 

I'm personally for it if the suspect is proven guilty of murder. Murderers are the lowest form of scum on this planet. I honestly cannot see why someone would think that people who take lives deserves to live themselves.

PannicAtack

Because some people don't deserve to live, or rather, deserve to die. A murderer of rapists, thieves, usurer should get a prize, not a death sentence.

Murder is an appropriate response to theft?

I guess he took Boondock Saints a little too close to heart.

#23 Posted by Razor-Lazor (12762 posts) -
No. Life imprisonment is worse than death.
#24 Posted by N30F3N1X (8002 posts) -

Murder is an appropriate response to theft?PannicAtack

Not theft as in stealing snacks from a crowded bar of course, but rather theft as in massive fiscal frauds.

#25 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
With respect to a society that cannot maintain incarceration of dangerous criminals who could threaten the lives of it's citizenry, yes, I wholeheartedly support it, as no criminal should be capable of breaking the law once caught and tried. In a society with the ability to keep a dangerous criminal incarcerated, I oppose it out of the reasoning that no guilt is 100%, even with DNA evidence. Ethically, the death penalty is not something I would support, as the state given the above circumstances, should not be capable of determining the death of a citizen. Emotionally, I freely admit that I support the concept of revenge and a victim pursuing action against the person who wronged them. Legally, it isn't right, but that implies the person taking revenge gets caught.
#26 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151458 posts) -
[QUOTE="Zeviander"]With respect to a society that cannot maintain incarceration of dangerous criminals who could threaten the lives of it's citizenry, yes, I wholeheartedly support it, as no criminal should be capable of breaking the law once caught and tried. In a society with the ability to keep a dangerous criminal incarcerated, I oppose it out of the reasoning that no guilt is 100%, even with DNA evidence. Ethically, the death penalty is not something I would support, as the state given the above circumstances, should not be capable of determining the death of a citizen. Emotionally, I freely admit that I support the concept of revenge and a victim pursuing action against the person who wronged them. Legally, it isn't right, but that implies the person taking revenge gets caught.

I find your ideas more scary than the state determining death. Anyway no I don't. I understand it's use but I don't like the idea.
#27 Posted by Treflis (11575 posts) -

No, and thankfully I live in a country that's against it.

And why would you ask, three simple reasons.

1. Having to be in prison for a large portion of your life if not for the rest of your life is more of a punishment then simply killing them off.

2. Depending on the degree and circumstances, You could rehabilitate those convicted as several more often then not regrets killing another person more so then doing time because of it.

3. It completely removes the chance that you kill a person who could've been innocent.

 

And it cheaper to give life in prison compared to death sentences

#28 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151458 posts) -

No, and thankfully I live in a country that's against it.

And why would you ask, three simple reasons.

1. Having to be in prison for a large portion of your life if not for the rest of your life is more of a punishment then simply killing them off.

2. Depending on the degree and circumstances, You could rehabilitate those convicted as several more often then not regrets killing another person more so then doing time because of it.

3. It completely removes the chance that you kill a person who could've been innocent.

 

And it cheaper to give life in prison compared to death sentences

Treflis
1. Depends. Some people actually like prison believe it or not. There are those who can't make it when released that try to get caught again. 2. And those for whom rehabilitation does not work? 3. DNA makes that less and less likely. 4. It's not he death sentence nor the execution that are more costly...it's the appeals process.
#29 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7807 posts) -
I do not support it. Expensive, not a deterrent, and guilt is never 100%.
#30 Posted by Rich3232 (2754 posts) -
No.MrPraline
#31 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -
[QUOTE="Zeviander"]With respect to a society that cannot maintain incarceration of dangerous criminals who could threaten the lives of it's citizenry, yes, I wholeheartedly support it, as no criminal should be capable of breaking the law once caught and tried. In a society with the ability to keep a dangerous criminal incarcerated, I oppose it out of the reasoning that no guilt is 100%, even with DNA evidence. Ethically, the death penalty is not something I would support, as the state given the above circumstances, should not be capable of determining the death of a citizen. Emotionally, I freely admit that I support the concept of revenge and a victim pursuing action against the person who wronged them. Legally, it isn't right, but that implies the person taking revenge gets caught.

You do realize that while the State carries out the sentence, it is a jury of peers that sentence someone to death right?
#32 Posted by Aljosa23 (25130 posts) -

No. It's pointless with 0 positives and the only people for it are bloodthirsty savages.

#33 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
I find your ideas more scary than the state determining death.LJS9502_basic
You find it scary that I do not find it emotionally abhorrent that people would want to get revenge for a wrong made against them? Have you been unassociated with humanity your entire life? Revenge doesn't imply killing someone, nor am I against the legal ramifications of revenge and vigilante justice.
#34 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
You do realize that while the State carries out the sentence, it is a jury of peers that sentence someone to death right?WhiteKnight77
A jury that is selected by the prosecution and defense to best stereotype their client for a successful case. A state justice system, whether appointed by a government (i.e. a judge) or a jury of peers selected by the lawyers, does not have an ethical right to determine the death of another human being due to the inability to prove guilt 100% (i.e. and possibly execute an innocent person).
#35 Posted by InEMplease (6343 posts) -

No.

"Let's punish the murderers by murdering them."

Just doesn't sit.  It's also more cost effective.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

#36 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151458 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I find your ideas more scary than the state determining death.Zeviander
You find it scary that I do not find it emotionally abhorrent that people would want to get revenge for a wrong made against them? Have you been unassociated with humanity your entire life? Revenge doesn't imply killing someone, nor am I against the legal ramifications of revenge and vigilante justice.

[QUOTE="Zeviander"] Emotionally, I freely admit that I support the concept of revenge and a victim pursuing action against the person who wronged them. Legally, it isn't right, but that implies the person taking revenge gets caught.

I'm just to leave this right here.....
#37 Posted by InEMplease (6343 posts) -

Think of Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter. He shot and killed 20 children. If he had not committed suicide, he would most likely have gotten the death penalty. Would you really want somebody like this to be kept alive? Anyone with a brain would say no.

Primordialous

Hello, I have a brain.  Keeping him in a cell for the rest of his life to think about the atrocity he has committed is way worse than death.

#38 Posted by Inconsistancy (8091 posts) -

No. There's a chance that you can get it wrong, and that's not a chance that should be taken. And it's more expensive than indefinite incarceration.

"Justice" system, not "vengeance".

#39 Posted by GreySeal9 (24499 posts) -

3. DNA makes that less and less likelyLJS9502_basic

Yet there is still a chance of error and if there is even a small chance of error, it makes more sense to err on the side of avoiding executing inoccent people. After all, the death penalty is in no way neccessary, so it's not really worth the risk.

4. It's not he death sentence nor the execution that are more costly...it's the appeals process.LJ

Regardless of the reasons for the costs, those costs still exist, making the dealth penalty the less cost effective option.

#40 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151458 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] 3. DNA makes that less and less likelyGreySeal9

Yet there is still a chance of error and if there is even a small chance of error, it makes more sense to err on the side of avoiding executing inoccent people. After all, the death penalty is in no way neccessary, so it's not really worth the risk.

4. It's not he death sentence nor the execution that are more costly...it's the appeals process.LJ

Regardless of the reasons for the costs, those costs still exist, making the dealth penalty the less cost effective option.

But both my points are correct...
#41 Posted by GreySeal9 (24499 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] 3. DNA makes that less and less likelyLJS9502_basic

Yet there is still a chance of error and if there is even a small chance of error, it makes more sense to err on the side of avoiding executing inoccent people. After all, the death penalty is in no way neccessary, so it's not really worth the risk.

4. It's not he death sentence nor the execution that are more costly...it's the appeals process.LJ

Regardless of the reasons for the costs, those costs still exist, making the dealth penalty the less cost effective option.

But both my points are correct...

I didn't say your statements were not correct. I'm simply saying that those statements don't really work as an argument in favor of the death penalty, however correct they may be.

#42 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151458 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Regardless of the reasons for the costs, those costs still exist, making the dealth penalty the less cost effective option.

GreySeal9

But both my points are correct...

I didn't say your statements were not correct. I'm simply saying that those statements don't really work as an argument in favor of the death penalty, however correct they may be.

They weren't intended to be used a such.:|
#43 Posted by GreySeal9 (24499 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] But both my points are correct...LJS9502_basic

I didn't say your statements were not correct. I'm simply saying that those statements don't really work as an argument in favor of the death penalty, however correct they may be.

They weren't intended to be used a such.:|

Ah, ok. I just assumed they were because of the particular post you responded to.

But anyway, what I've never understood is why some people (not you) think it's neccesary to have a death penalty even in spite of the risk of killing innocent people and the added costs. What makes the death penalty so valuable that killing innocent people and spending more money is desirable?

#44 Posted by InEMplease (6343 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I didn't say your statements were not correct. I'm simply saying that those statements don't really work as an argument in favor of the death penalty, however correct they may be.

GreySeal9

They weren't intended to be used a such.:|

Ah, ok. I just assumed they were because of the particular post you responded to.

But anyway, what I've never understood is why some people (not you) think it's neccesary to have a death penalty even in spite of the risk of killing innocent people and the added costs. What makes the death penalty so valuable that killing innocent people and spending more money is desirable?

Blind revenge.

#45 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151458 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I didn't say your statements were not correct. I'm simply saying that those statements don't really work as an argument in favor of the death penalty, however correct they may be.

GreySeal9

They weren't intended to be used a such.:|

Ah, ok. I just assumed they were because of the particular post you responded to.

But anyway, what I've never understood is why some people (not you) think it's neccesary to have a death penalty even in spite of the risk of killing innocent people and the added costs. What makes the death penalty so valuable that killing innocent people and spending more money is desirable?

Sometimes it's okay to just poke at an argument without needing to be vested in the position. I don't know. I'm just not for the death penalty in general. I don't like abortion and I'd be a hypocrite to be for the death penalty....though there are those that do hold that double standard. I just like to have more integrity than that.
#46 Posted by GreySeal9 (24499 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] They weren't intended to be used a such.:|LJS9502_basic

Ah, ok. I just assumed they were because of the particular post you responded to.

But anyway, what I've never understood is why some people (not you) think it's neccesary to have a death penalty even in spite of the risk of killing innocent people and the added costs. What makes the death penalty so valuable that killing innocent people and spending more money is desirable?

Sometimes it's okay to just poke at an argument without needing to be vested in the position. I don't know. I'm just not for the death penalty in general. I don't like abortion and I'd be a hypocrite to be for the death penalty....though there are those that do hold that double standard. I just like to have more integrity than that.

I'm not into that myself, but different strokes and all that. 

But props for actually taking the sanctity of life seriously unlike some prolifers.

#47 Posted by lostrib (37708 posts) -

As long as the person is removed from society for the rest of their life, I support whatever method is the cheapest

#48 Posted by Slashless (10097 posts) -
No because: 1. Costs more to kill them then to keep them alive. 2. Wrongful convictions. 3. This is the 21st century.
#49 Posted by --Anna-- (4493 posts) -

Yes, kill them all...and let God  separate the innocent.

#50 Posted by Lord_Omikron666 (4768 posts) -

Don't know, and don't really care whether these criminals are incarcerated or given the death sentence.