The death penalty, do you support it?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Primordialous
#1 Posted by Primordialous (1313 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.

Avatar image for kingkong0124
#2 Posted by kingkong0124 (8329 posts) -

Yes, under certain circumstances

Avatar image for Primordialous
#3 Posted by Primordialous (1313 posts) -

Yes, under certain circumstances

kingkong0124

Elaborate, if you wish.

Avatar image for konvikt_17
#4 Posted by konvikt_17 (22378 posts) -

i actually dont know where i stand on it.

Avatar image for kingkong0124
#5 Posted by kingkong0124 (8329 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.

Avatar image for heeweesRus
#6 Posted by heeweesRus (5492 posts) -

only for lemmings:cool:

Avatar image for MrPraline
#7 Posted by MrPraline (21351 posts) -
No.
Avatar image for Michael0134567
#8 Posted by Michael0134567 (28651 posts) -

i actually dont know where i stand on it.

konvikt_17

Same.

Avatar image for Primordialous
#9 Posted by Primordialous (1313 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.

Avatar image for konvikt_17
#10 Posted by konvikt_17 (22378 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.

Avatar image for MrPraline
#11 Posted by MrPraline (21351 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.
Avatar image for MannyDelgado
#12 Posted by MannyDelgado (1187 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
Avatar image for Ace6301
#13 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
Not under any circumstances.
Avatar image for NEWMAHAY
#14 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3824 posts) -
If its proved beyond any sort of doubt that the person did it, then I support it.
Avatar image for themajormayor
#15 Posted by themajormayor (25503 posts) -
Under alot of circumstances yes
Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#16 Posted by N30F3N1X (8600 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.

Avatar image for Guybrush_3
#17 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

No I don't.

Avatar image for PannicAtack
#18 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
Lolnope.
Avatar image for Retro_Future
#19 Posted by Retro_Future (118 posts) -

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

Avatar image for PannicAtack
#21 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 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?
Avatar image for Guybrush_3
#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.

Avatar image for Razor-Lazor
#23 Posted by Razor-Lazor (12763 posts) -
No. Life imprisonment is worse than death.
Avatar image for N30F3N1X
#24 Posted by N30F3N1X (8600 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.

Avatar image for Zeviander
#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.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#26 Posted by LJS9502_basic (161758 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.
Avatar image for Treflis
#27 Posted by Treflis (13287 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

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#28 Posted by LJS9502_basic (161758 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.
Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#29 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (9336 posts) -
I do not support it. Expensive, not a deterrent, and guilt is never 100%.
Avatar image for Rich3232
#30 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -
No.MrPraline
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#31 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 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?
Avatar image for perfect_blue
#32 Posted by Perfect_Blue (29837 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Zeviander
#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.
Avatar image for Zeviander
#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).
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#36 Posted by LJS9502_basic (161758 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.....
Avatar image for Inconsistancy
#38 Posted by Inconsistancy (8094 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".

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#39 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 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.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#40 Posted by LJS9502_basic (161758 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...
Avatar image for GreySeal9
#41 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 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.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#42 Posted by LJS9502_basic (161758 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.:|
Avatar image for GreySeal9
#43 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 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?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#45 Posted by LJS9502_basic (161758 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.
Avatar image for GreySeal9
#46 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 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.

Avatar image for lostrib
#47 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Slashless
#48 Posted by Slashless (9525 posts) -
No because: 1. Costs more to kill them then to keep them alive. 2. Wrongful convictions. 3. This is the 21st century.
Avatar image for --Anna--
#49 Posted by --Anna-- (4613 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Lord_Omikron666
#50 Posted by Lord_Omikron666 (4838 posts) -

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