The death penalty, do you support it?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#151 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150376 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] False equivalency fallacy. A jailed person is still alive, and has a chance. One killed never does.

Has a chance for what? To be caged and removed from society? Some things that can happen to inmates...death, either natural or violent, loss of family, loss of revenue, saddled with convict if they are released and thus unable to get good jobs, learning only trades that increase criminal prosecution possibilities...ie criminal activities, or of course, being in jail for life. I don't know about you...but I don't see that as a chance or a positive for an innocent person. Quality of life is important.

Yes quality of life is important, and I don't know about you. but being dead is not really a good life. It's not even a life.

Neither is being in jail....nor having one's livelihood deprived because of a felony stigma.
#152 Posted by Rich3232 (2754 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Has a chance for what? To be caged and removed from society? Some things that can happen to inmates...death, either natural or violent, loss of family, loss of revenue, saddled with convict if they are released and thus unable to get good jobs, learning only trades that increase criminal prosecution possibilities...ie criminal activities, or of course, being in jail for life. I don't know about you...but I don't see that as a chance or a positive for an innocent person. Quality of life is important.

Yes quality of life is important, and I don't know about you. but being dead is not really a good life. It's not even a life.

Neither is being in jail....nor having one's livelihood deprived because of a felony stigma.

Which goes away once you become exonerated.
#153 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150376 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] Yes quality of life is important, and I don't know about you. but being dead is not really a good life. It's not even a life.

Neither is being in jail....nor having one's livelihood deprived because of a felony stigma.

Which goes away once you become exonerated.

WTF? So you think that the courts are going to continue to look at evidence for convicted individuals? That doesn't even make sense. You get sentenced...you do your time...unless you have some compelling evidence that the courts didn't follow procedure....you spend your sentence in jail.
#154 Posted by Rich3232 (2754 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Neither is being in jail....nor having one's livelihood deprived because of a felony stigma.

Which goes away once you become exonerated.

WTF? So you think that the courts are going to continue to look at evidence for convicted individuals? That doesn't even make sense. You get sentenced...you do your time...unless you have some compelling evidence that the courts didn't follow procedure....you spend your sentence in jail.

Yea...... I never said otherwise? It's on the lawyers to present any new evidence or w/e for the prisoner. The point being, the prisoner still has a chance to be exonerated, the killed prisoner does not.
#155 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150376 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] Which goes away once you become exonerated.

WTF? So you think that the courts are going to continue to look at evidence for convicted individuals? That doesn't even make sense. You get sentenced...you do your time...unless you have some compelling evidence that the courts didn't follow procedure....you spend your sentence in jail.

Yea...... I never said otherwise? It's on the lawyers to present any new evidence or w/e for the prisoner. The point being, the prisoner still has a chance to be exonerated, the killed prisoner does not.

That's not how appeals work. They don't retry the case. They look into the procedures of the prior court.
#156 Posted by harashawn (27599 posts) -
If a killer doesn't have the right to decide who lives and dies, why should anyone else? It's really the same thing as far as I'm concerned.
#157 Posted by Rich3232 (2754 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] WTF? So you think that the courts are going to continue to look at evidence for convicted individuals? That doesn't even make sense. You get sentenced...you do your time...unless you have some compelling evidence that the courts didn't follow procedure....you spend your sentence in jail.

Yea...... I never said otherwise? It's on the lawyers to present any new evidence or w/e for the prisoner. The point being, the prisoner still has a chance to be exonerated, the killed prisoner does not.

That's not how appeals work. They don't retry the case. They look into the procedures of the prior court.

Which includes introducing new evidence that may have changed the proceedings of the trial.
#158 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150376 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] Yea...... I never said otherwise? It's on the lawyers to present any new evidence or w/e for the prisoner. The point being, the prisoner still has a chance to be exonerated, the killed prisoner does not.

That's not how appeals work. They don't retry the case. They look into the procedures of the prior court.

Which includes introducing new evidence that may have changed the proceedings of the trial.

No no it doesn't. Appeals courts only look at cases where they is an issue with the court procedure. Not new evidence.
#159 Posted by harashawn (27599 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That's not how appeals work. They don't retry the case. They look into the procedures of the prior court.

Which includes introducing new evidence that may have changed the proceedings of the trial.

No no it doesn't. Appeals courts only look at cases where they is an issue with the court procedure. Not new evidence.

Right. There is a famous case in Canada in which a lawyer deliberately withheld evidence. There was not retrial after this evidence was discovered.
#160 Posted by Rich3232 (2754 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That's not how appeals work. They don't retry the case. They look into the procedures of the prior court.

Which includes introducing new evidence that may have changed the proceedings of the trial.

No no it doesn't. Appeals courts only look at cases where they is an issue with the court procedure. Not new evidence.

Yes, they can if the evidence was suppressed. Otherwise, they would file a motion for a new trial.
#161 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150376 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] Which includes introducing new evidence that may have changed the proceedings of the trial.

No no it doesn't. Appeals courts only look at cases where they is an issue with the court procedure. Not new evidence.

Yes, they can if the evidence was suppressed. Otherwise, they would file a motion for a new trial.

I'm sorry but you're not understanding what the appeals process is....
#162 Posted by BossPerson (9445 posts) -

only for traffic and parking violations

#163 Posted by Nuck81 (5837 posts) -
People who support the death penalty but oppose abortion are hypocritical trash, and vice versa
#164 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4165 posts) -
[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] It's common sense. If a man wi willing to spend thousands of dollars on sex, why wouldn't a sexual devient take it for free? Funny how rape is only about power when do many date rapes occour where the girl has no idea what is happening and there is no physical force besides sexual penetration. Not sure about your circle of friends but when mine go out to the bar on a Friday night, they are all hoping to get laid. Problem is, some sick people take this to extremes. It should be pretty clear to most men, who experience the 'male kind' of sexual desire firsthand and to women who are the targets of that desire, that men are willing to do a lot of things to get laid the consentual way. Lying is not uncommon, nor is uninvited touching in bars and at concerts. Why is it so hard to imagine that a man would be capable of going beyond mental force to use physical force to satisfy the strong desires he has? If you think I'm making this up that rape is not always about power, I suggest you look up the article called An Interplay of Individual Motivations and Sociocultural Factors Predisposing Men to Acts of Rape in Kenya. The people they studied were convicted rapists in jail. 72 guys were interviewed face-to-face.Rich3232

You are serioulsy just pulling stuff out of your ass

He does that quite a bit. Seems to think that his logic/anecdotal evidence beats all others, even the studies/research/etc of experts in those fields.

Says the guy who ignores all evidence that drugs are bad for you like some weak ass female on happy pills.
#165 Posted by Rich3232 (2754 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

You are serioulsy just pulling stuff out of your ass

Murderstyle75
He does that quite a bit. Seems to think that his logic/anecdotal evidence beats all others, even the studies/research/etc of experts in those fields.

Says the guy who ignores all evidence that drugs are bad for you like some weak ass female on happy pills.

Anecdotal evidence are the worst kind of evidence when you're trying to make broad statements.
#166 Posted by The_Lipscomb (2187 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="Murderstyle75"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] He does that quite a bit. Seems to think that his logic/anecdotal evidence beats all others, even the studies/research/etc of experts in those fields.

Says the guy who ignores all evidence that drugs are bad for you like some weak ass female on happy pills.

Anecdotal evidence are the worst kind of evidence when you're trying to make broad statements.

I swear I've never seen Rich ever make the claim doing drugs is not bad for you in every way possible lol. What? Also, different drugs do different things.. Can't say that all drugs are bad for you and clumped them all in the same sentance.. That's way to broad.
#167 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4165 posts) -
So crack cocaine evidence is unreliable?
#168 Posted by The_Lipscomb (2187 posts) -
So crack cocaine evidence is unreliable?Murderstyle75
Crack is one of the worst drugs out there.. Something I would never take.
#169 Posted by Rich3232 (2754 posts) -
So crack cocaine evidence is unreliable?Murderstyle75
Which one? I almost never claim that drugs are completely harmless, less harmful maybe, but never completely harmless.
#170 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4165 posts) -
No but when I was going at it with somebody else last night who claimed if he wants to do 20 lines a day, he should be allowed to, you jumped into the thread with your legalization stuff. Legalization of marijuana could be alright if you don't mind your government lacing it with poisonous chemicals like they do tobacco but aside from that, I don't think any narcotic should be legal including the pharmecuticals that currently are. But now back to the topic at hand, nobody can tell me that nobody rapes for sexual pleasures.
#171 Posted by Rich3232 (2754 posts) -
[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"]No but when I was going at it with somebody else last night who claimed if he wants to do 20 lines a day, he should be allowed to, you jumped into the thread with your legalization stuff. Legalization of marijuana could be alright if you don't mind your government lacing it with poisonous chemicals like they do tobacco but aside from that, I don't think any narcotic should be legal including the pharmecuticals that currently are. But now back to the topic at hand, nobody can tell me that nobody rapes for sexual pleasures.

lol. One of the problems with illegal drugs is the fact that you don't know what it might have been laced with. I believe that all drugs should be legalized, but that is for another thread. As for rape....rape is rarely about sexual pleasure, it's more about control and domination. The guys get off of that.
#172 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Since re-instating the death penalty in the late 1970s the state of Illinois executed 11 men, and exonerated 13 who were later proven to be innocent of the crime they were convicted for. Do people really have faith in the government to not execute innocent people?

#173 Posted by Ninja-Hippo (23426 posts) -
1) It accomplishes nothing 2) It costs a ridiculous amount of money 3) If even one person is wrongfully executed by the state, the criminal justice system loses all moral authority It's one of the dumbest aspects of law I can think of.
#175 Posted by chestmaster1989 (15 posts) -
Only if it's done in a badass style.
#176 Posted by shadowkiller11 (7954 posts) -
Nope, as I said before, You're giving criminals an easy way out and if they're innocent then you killed them.
#177 Posted by Commander-Gree (4929 posts) -

No, I don't. And not because I don't believe that some people deserve to be dead, but rather I don't think it is the role of the state to execute its citizens and more importantly there is always the chance of innocence. I don't believe having a death penalty is worth it if even one innocent person has been executed and undoubtedly it has happened before.

#178 Posted by ferrari2001 (16821 posts) -
No. Only time it should be used is if there is no other way to protect the general population.
#179 Posted by chrisrooR (9026 posts) -
I like the idea of it, but the thought of it being allowed also allows for INNOCENT people to die. I don't support it. I don't believe the state has the right to take someones life.
#180 Posted by DarkGamer007 (6024 posts) -

I do not support the Death Penalty, it is ineffective as a deterrent and is more expensive than other sentences due to the legal process needed to be absolutely sure that someone is guilty of a crime, and even then people still end up on Death Row only to be discovered innocent from further evidence. It would be terrible to spend twenty years in prison, only to be found innocent of the crime you were charged with committing, but you can be released from prison and financially compensated for such occurrences, there is no correction for death.

#181 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3794 posts) -

No, it costs 10x as much as life in prison.

As a fan of money, i oppose wasting it on that system.

#182 Posted by sukraj (22177 posts) -

yes

#183 Posted by DaBrainz (7628 posts) -
I do not support murder even if its sanctioned by the government.
#184 Posted by J-man45 (11043 posts) -

No, it costs 10x as much as life in prison.

As a fan of money, i oppose wasting it on that system.

MakeMeaSammitch

I don't have a source to back this but I'm fairly certain you have this completely backwards. Prisons are run on taxpayer money, and the more and more our prisons get clogged up with criminals, the more money they suck away.

#185 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

No, it costs 10x as much as life in prison.

As a fan of money, i oppose wasting it on that system.

J-man45

I don't have a source to back this but I'm fairly certain you have this completely backwards. Prisons are run on taxpayer money, and the more and more our prisons get clogged up with criminals, the more money they suck away.

The death penalty is many times more expensive than simply housing an inmate for life. The reason for the cost is due to the necessary appeals process and also the fact that death penalty trials themselves tend to be very expensive, often times running into the millions of dollars.

#186 Posted by Nuck81 (5837 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

No, it costs 10x as much as life in prison.

As a fan of money, i oppose wasting it on that system.

J-man45

I don't have a source to back this but I'm fairly certain you have this completely backwards. Prisons are run on taxpayer money, and the more and more our prisons get clogged up with criminals, the more money they suck away.

It's not the care of the prisoner that is expensive, it is the cost of the multiple trials, investigations, man hours, and other costs of the court process that is mandatory in Death Penalty cases that drives up costs.
#187 Posted by Boston_Boyy (3914 posts) -

I believe there are honestly people who do deserve it.  That being said the Libertarian in me is totally uncomfortable with giving the government that sort of power, so i'm going to have to say no for that reason.  Even if a decision could be reached with 100% certainty, I find something deeply unsettling about a government being allowed to involuntarily end the life of a person who no longer poses an imminent threat to anyone.  

#188 Posted by PonchoTaco (1976 posts) -
Yup, I do.
#189 Posted by Intrinsic29 (35 posts) -

I think that the desire for revenge or retribution is caused wholly by malevolent values and that if you value life and the well being of others, and you are without malevolent values, you will merely want to remove dangerous people from society and not cause them to suffer unnecessarily. If an argument could be made that the most efficient way to remove murderers (or any other type of dangerous people) from society was to kill them, then I would be interested in hearing it but I haven't yet. As it stands now, the appeal process required by the death penalty is ridiculously expensive compared to life imprisonment and there are still instances of people being killed who are found innocent later.

#190 Posted by Flubbbs (2975 posts) -

yes im all for eradicating scum.. i wish they would bring back other methods.. injection is too boring

#191 Posted by leeveeu (3399 posts) -
I support it.
#192 Posted by cfstar (1979 posts) -
Depends on a lot of factors.
#193 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

yes im all for eradicating scum.. i wish they would bring back other methods.. injection is too boring

Flubbbs

Not entertaining enough for you?

#194 Posted by Palantas (15321 posts) -

Not really. Too many people have been found not guilty due to various evidences. I am highly skeptical of the legal system, particularly when it comes to executing a person.

#195 Posted by Swanogt19 (24159 posts) -

i actually dont know where i stand on it.

konvikt_17
This. I see where it can be a good thing. However I don't know how it would be regulated.
#196 Posted by Palantas (15321 posts) -

This thread would have benefitted from a poll.

#197 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -

I believe there are honestly people who do deserve it.  That being said the Libertarian in me is totally uncomfortable with giving the government that sort of power, so i'm going to have to say no for that reason.  Even if a decision could be reached with 100% certainty, I find something deeply unsettling about a government being allowed to involuntarily end the life of a person who no longer poses an imminent threat to anyone.  

Boston_Boyy
Agreed.
#198 Posted by Ncsoftlover (2111 posts) -

state sanctioned first degree premeditated murder should have no place in civilized societies, though in other societies, such as China, Iran, Bangladesh, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, United States of America etc, it seem to have such endless popular support that rationality just won't come in. I'm not worried about whether they'll abolish death penalty or not, because in time they will, it's inevitable, I'm just a little embarassed for these countries when they finally do abolish it.

the fact that this is an ongoing argument is pretty sad in itself.

#199 Posted by mccoyca112 (5433 posts) -

Personally, I like the idea of them sitting in a cell for the rest of their life more.

#200 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

Yes, because our prisons are too full, and many are in for life.  I'd rather die than serve a life sentence in prison.

 

And murder isn't as bad you think, there are worse crimes.