I was having an argument with my friend yesterday, about whether death should be used as a form of punishment. I say that death penalties shouldn't be allowed.
But I want to hear from other people, so what's your opinion?

I think the dealth penalty is perfectly fine. In fact, I feel that it should be the minimum for those convicted with murder. My views are weird and would never be accepted by any government, though. For me, it's all an eye for an eye.

If you kill one person, you're killed.
If you kill many people, you're tortured and then killed.
If you torture one person, you're tortured for the same length of time and with the same outcome.
If you torture many people, you're tortured for as long as every person combined.
If you rape someone, you're raped and confined.
If you steal, everything is taken from you.
If you damage someone else's property, your property is equally damaged.
et cetera, et cetera.

I think the dealth penalty is perfectly fine. You get what you deserve for what you do. Again, though, I think that the death penalty is too good for serial killers. If you've killed a fuckton of people, you shouldn't just die and get off the hook - you should get tortured in jail and forced to be confined until you're killed or die of other causes.

I have no problem with the death penalty if done correctly, however, the problem has been in many cases, people that were jailed for a crime they didn't commit have been given the death penalty and where can you start to fathom the horror this has caused for the families and the strenuous effort given that makes no difference to the person that actually perpetrated the crime? It's pathetic, really.

The death penalty, and whether it should be given should be on a case-by-case basis. Every case is different, and every little detail matters. For example, I would feel no shame about having James Holmes getting the death penalty. He let police capture him after doing this horrible shit.

However, there's also the nagging matter of the death penalty being given in cases where the criminal has mental problems. This may be a bad example, but why should you kill a person for the deeds they've done if they can't help it? If they're a danger to society, by all means keep them locked and under surveillance, but giving the death penalty in a case like that may be too far.

I have mixed thoughts on the matter, so I dunno how this helps whatever. It just seems wrong, but wrongly right to do, except when it's so wrong it shouldn't be done.

I know that makes no sense, but neither does killing a person for whatever reason, so there you go.

D'aw, would've been a great discussion on Main :'(

Really? Could I repost this under Main or is that not allowed here ..?
See but the problem with 2, is that if someone rapes another person, making their punishment rape, who would be the one performing the punishment? All they're doing is committing the same crime the person did, except that it's "justified". Not to mention there's the guilt you'd feel, just after you raped someone, no matter how appropriate the punishment was deemed to be.
And also, in 3 (sorry I don't know how to do that link thingy that goes to the reply you're referring to), there's the matter of innocent people receiving the death sentence. Imagine if someone was accused for, lets say, murder. He gets the death sentence. About 5 years down the track, the discover evidence that proves him innocent. Now what? How would the family feel, knowing that their son or daughter or father or whatever, was practically murdered as punishment for a crime they didn't even commit?

Less prisoners eating up my tax money the better. In fact, I'm all for lowering the bar for the death penalty.

>>5 If it's five years down the track, he probably wouldn't be dead yet. Prisoners usually stay on death row for many years before they're actually executed. And if the investigators fuck up, they fuck up. If the person's dead by then, so what? It's not like you can do anything about it then. Compensate the family, give your sorries, and then move on.

It's not a "crime" if it's "justified," and guilt wouldn't play any sort of a part if you get the right people to do it. When you rape someone, you're hated, even in jail. There are plenty of people who are willing to rape, abuse, or even kill known rapists without feeling any sort of sympathy.

>>5 Discussion threads are allowed in the Main board. It's a bit late now though. Just keep it in mind, discussion threads are okay on Main.

>>7 What I meant by, "he gets the death penalty", was that he was killed right then and there (I know that's unrealistic, but bear with me). Or if it was 10 years down the track, whatever. The point is, if he was in fact innocent, he would've been let out of jail, alive and free. Where as the death penalty gives little room for authorities to screw up. I don't think death is an appropriate form of punishment, because what does it do? All it does is harms the family. What's the criminal going to learn? How is he going to feel guilt, or remorse, or learn to never make those mistakes again? Sure, it will get rid of the problem, but it's not really fixing the problem. The criminal has no right to take someone's life, but if we do so as punishment, aren't we being just as bad? Do we have the right to take someone's life?
I can see where you're coming from, and I certainly have some tendencies towards the "eye for an eye" saying. I just don't think it's right to HAVE the right to sentence people to death. But that's just me.

>>9 Do you think that criminals learn from jail? Plenty do, but how many others just leave jail and repeat the same crimes? Many. We're not being just as bad if it's justified. You can't kidnap someone, but the government can trap someone in jail. It's the same thing, except done by different people, and that's all that we're talking about here. Do you think that judges, investigators, police men, and the judicial area of the government in general is just as bad as a kidnapper? No, because that's the law. So how could you consider them muderers for killing someone in the name of justice?

By that mentality, you're implying that self-defense is just as bad as attacking someone. You know, that mentality that school systems have - if someone hits you and you hit them back, you get suspended. Do you agree with that? Do you think that you shouldn't fight back? You should lie there on your back and let them beat the shit out of you, and when they're done, you should just let them walk away, right? Because that's the mentality that you're suggesting we implement. You're saying that men who kill and rape shouldn't be hurt back at all. Instead, they should be kept in a small cell, given recess, and allowed to eat three meals a day. You're saying that it's okay that some of them can watch TV, draw, read, write, and do the basics as they please. You're saying that it's alright for them to contact their families. You're saying it's perfectly fine for them to have relationships with other inmates or even people outside of the jail. You're saying it's alright if they work in jail or even get an education. You're saying that giving them a life is perfectly fine no matter how many lives they've taken.

How is that punishment?

>>10 I am not implying self-defense is just as bad as attacking someone, and I certainly don't think you should get suspended for being provoked into a fight. It all depends on the circumstances.
But I don't really have any solid grounds on this argument, so I'm going to drop this now before I embarrass myself. While I was reading your response, it got me thinking about things like, "Would I want someone as horrible as Hitler dead?" and of course my immediate response was OF COURSE HE MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. And seeing as that contradicts my argument ... Yeah, thanks for that, you've really cleared my head up a bit :)

>>11 Nah, circumstances don't matter at most schools, at least around here. Whether you were provoked into it or if you were defending yourself, it doesn't really matter to them. It doesn't even matter if it made contact. Automatic suspension for throwing a punch or kick, which is stupid, but w/e. Schools are that way here =o=

And alright :O

Barabi had another debate on here? That's not a shock.

Based on my experiences, this is what I think. Do you know how much of our tax money is paid to keep people alive in prison because they were sentanced life in prison instead of the death penalty? If someone has killed someone, confessed, got life in prison, and escaped, then I'd be pissed. The only time there I'd be okay with that is if it was self-defense, but they shouldn't be in prison in the first place.

I've seen things happen to people I care about, and I've seen what they go through when the person doesn't pay for what he did. I've seen my friends feel guilt for something that they aren't sure that happened, just because someone didn't get sent to jail for their crimes. It drive's them mad. I'm not saying that the death penalty is good, but I most certainly don't want someone walking on the streets if they've killed someone, and I don't want to be paying to keep them alive in prison.

There is one problem that I have with the death penatly as it stands today. People have to wait for their turn to be put to death, or however you word it, and are taken care of and alive until then. I don't want my hard earned money keeping some convict alive. I especially don't want it to go to pay for a convict's medical bills when they're fighting a deadly disease, only to have them killed a week later.

I also don't want a killer alive in prison for the rest of his life because he's killed someone, just to have him escape. If you can take care of them without taking money out of my pocket and keep them in a place where you are 100% sure that they won't escape, then I'm fine with them staying alive. If you can't, well then we only have one choice now don't we? I personally don't want to be in control of whether or not someone dies. I'd go crazy if I knew that I played some part in a human killing another human, even if it's just because I voted for someone who support's the death penalty.

A human killing another human is wrong to me, but I also don't want to think that someone who's killed someone is alive, I'm paying for them to be alive, and they have a chance of escaping. I'm kind of torn between these choices, so I'd have to go with the idea from before.

If I don't have to pay for them to be kept alive, and there is no chance of escape, then send them there. Maybe colonize an island with criminals or something.

well it depends on why if its for murrder than i strongly agree but they hafe to have sollid prove and i belive a life for a life unless in self defence or the defence of othere but look at it this way a govener just let out a million prisoner out of prison most should die in my belief becuse they even get tv know it littery pay to do crime so yes i agree it should be used more often in a case with muderur and solid prove becuse i dont want to suffer if they get out and drug dealingg is just as bad cus that kills inocent peaple too

For reasonable cause such as murder, yes. And no death row for more than a month once you've been sentenced. Sounds harsh, but hey, it's a good deterrent.

If they are a murderer, rapist, child molester, arsonist (basically the type who are shown on Criminal Minds), yes. I'm anti-abortion but pro-capital punishment

>>12 Are you serious? That's screwed up, what kind of schooling system is that! How are kids supposed to learn from that? Around here if you're provoked into a fight, they just let you off with a warning or a lecture about violence and what not, they don't punish you for self-defence.

>>13 Yeah I see your point, there are heaps of things to consider on both sides of the argument. And now that I've heard all of your opinions (mainly Barabi's lol), it's kind of impossible for me to stick to one side with confidence.

I really think the death penalty is a justified thing (not just because I'm living in Texas), but keeping them in prison so long before hand is a bit outrageous.

A lot of people can look at prison as really just an easy thing; you get free food, you don't have to work, free room and board, and there are even classes in prison. If someone is being held in a prison to be put to death, then why waste all the money that goes into prisons on people who are going to die anyway.

A lot of people I know thing that lethal injection is humane and how they should be killed, but really doing the same thing by firing squad would not only be quicker, it would be cheaper, and they don't have to prepare things like they have to do for lethal injection. If they were bad enough to be giving the death penalty why give them a humane death, and why put it off for so long?

More often than not, people who are convicted to death know there ins and outs of the law, so they know the consequences that are going to be given to them.

The way I see it is if you're not smart enough to be able to get away with your crime, then you don't deserve to live, simple as that.

>>17 It's the same schooling system I had. If you were in a fight, even defending yourself, you got suspended. It was bullshit.

Btw, I'm also pro public hanging.

>>19 I mean that shit's brutal to watch. If I was thinking about killing someone and then watched a murderer hang, I'd stop thinking about that shit quick.

For me, it depends on the situation because if some people wont stop because they are in prison. Life sentence is actually a privilege because they could or should have been put to death....

me too im bored

I believe some people are beyond rehabilitation, but the death penalty is an imperfect solution. If you do not allow the death penalty to be appealed, many will be unjustly put to death. If you do allow it to be appealed, those sentenced to death will appeal it for as long as possible regardless of their guilt. And if there is some technological breakthrough which can prove the innocence of someone sentenced to death many years after the fact (like DNA did), it's too late.

As somewhat of a utilitarian, I don't like the concept of life in prison either. Why should an evil person be housed and fed at great expense to the state for the rest of his life? But right now there is no better solution. Maybe in the future there will be a treatment for the mental sickness that causes people to rape and kill.

some people cant be rehabilitated and are crazy. Some people need to die.

>>24 But those people are still human, no matter what the fuck is wrong with them. It wouldn't be right to just kill someone off like that.

I believe that the death penalty is a form of nothing but justice. If a man kills someone...NO MATTER HOW INSIGNIFICANT THE VICTIM MAY BE, he deserves nothing but death. Sure, they are human...But so was the victim. To take a life, you must give your life, as I say. Well...Thats my opinion.

But that logic meets an obstacle when it comes to serial murder. If you took lives from more people, how is your one life going to be enough (to repent) for all the victims' lives? It's impossible.

>>25 Yes, those people are still human, but so are their victims. If it's wrong to take human life, isn't it wrong to let someone live, who is a risk to other human lives? If the person had some sort of mental condition, then sure, put them in rehabilitation. But if they don't benefit from it, and they continue to commit their crimes, it would be wrong to let them continue living, if they cause so much harm to other people.

>>27 That's the issue here :/ I'm not all for torture, but when I think about someone like Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, I can definitely justify torture as a punishment.
If there isn't a stronger punishment placed on people who have killed many people, than people who have killed just one, what's stopping a criminal from thinking, "Well, I may as well kill 1000 people instead of just 1, because I'm going to die either way."

I think death penalties should be allowed. Before you go all 'ragetrain' on me, I want to explain why. Of course, death penalties must not be used on just anybody. They should be applied to criminals or terrorists who have earned a life long sentence. If one takes many lives, they at least should repay with their own. Putting them in cells would just take up space. If the crime is monstrous enough, however, a death penalty would be applicable even if the crime isn't life long. When they get out, they'll just do the same. Sometimes you just have to put facts before morals.

Okay, I'll put my two cents into this one.

I support the death penalty. Now, I'm not saying every person who kills someone should get the death penalty, it should all be according to circumstances. First, there should be absolutely no doubt that it is the same person who committed the crime. I seriously mean no doubt. Second, the circumstances of the death must be know. If some idiot shot someone in panic and is genuinely sorry and can prove it, then they shouldn't be killed. Also, it should be up to a jury. This should not be "Big Brother" deciding who lives and who dies. It should be a decision made by everyday people. People who have no stakes in whether this guy lives or dies. In this case it would be by a majority decision rather than all or nothing.

Okay, I gave you what I think. No, the death penalty will never be a perfect system, how could it be? There will always be mistakes. After all, no matter how you look at it, we're only human.

I find the death penalty repulsive.

The fact that human beings feel the need to kill others for something completely unrelated to them fails to impact me. If it doesn't affect you, then you shouldn't care. When our species as a whole decides that it needs to take life to simply fill out an emotional agenda, that sickens me.

When you get right down to it, these people are killing others simply to make themselves feel better. Worst of all, they're doing it publicly. We have scores of people clamoring behind who they think was right, simply by following popular media or a flimsy rumor. Hell, they celebrate it, saying "that bitch deserved it" or "I hope he rots in Hell." (As if dying weren't enough).

It's not a simple thing these people are playing with, it's someone's life. And even with all the searching humanity has done, we still can't find a way to measure a life.

People glue themselves to their televisions to watch these sorts of things, like it's some kind of reality TV show. They don't see the person on the podium as a person, they see them as a act of barbarism, and nothing more.

No one cares who they were. No one cares what lead them to do what they did. And yet we still find comfort in slaughtering them, even publicly declaring how "just" and "righteous" the act was. Since when was murder a good thing? When did we forget about something tangible, something real: A life?

And yet, it goes on. People are continually killed day after day, left alone from their own actions. What's truly pitiful is the people who were wrongly accused of being there. (Jury's these days are getting more and more stupid).

Now, what about the guilty ones? The ones that "deserve" to die? Personally, I prefer giving people choices, not forcing a choice down on them. So, offer them this: work for the good of the public until you die, or take the quick way out and use the injection. Those who choose to repent will be used to do menial (but important) manual labor in service to the public under surveillance on a private plant, and the others choose to die.

This way, society gets back the money used to fund their survival, and prisoners still have an option. (Note that even if they work, they're going to continue working until they die, so same end result).

There's no reason to murder someone over a chemical emotional imbalance. A life is tangible, and can most certainly be used.

Better than Jail in my opinion.

I agree with both >>30 and >>31, there should definitely be a death penalty, but it's hard to draw the line as to who gets the punishment. It all depends circumstances and other factors, I guess.

>>32 So basically, what you're saying is, if someone dies, and it's completely irrelevant to the authorities, they should just let it go? They should let the murderer run free, just because they weren't personally related to the victim?

No, when we get right down to it, we are NOT just killing people to make others feel better. Criminals are being sentenced to death, because they have proven to be a serious threat, and will most likely continue to do so. This is a very hard topic to debate about, since it's not exactly "black and white". But in this case, I am going to have to disagree with you here.

When a serial killer goes out to murder, he should know the consequence. He should know how valuable a life can be, and he should know the doom he would bring upon himself, if he ever took one, even worse, many. They should know that. And if they don't, well, there is clearly something wrong there. They should be prepared for the punishment, the publicity, and there is no excuse for something as bad as murder. I value a human life as well. But when you say the death penalty is just as bad as murder, try telling that to the thousands of people who have died, as a result of murder.

I agreed at first of your idea of criminals having a choice, but either way, the result is the same. And I don't think it's right to allow criminals to choose their own punishment. Putting them on a private plant could allow them opportunities to escape, and I don't think the manual labour they would be doing would be equivalent to the money needed to keep them alive.

And not all serial killers have killed people over a chemical emotional imbalance. There are many people out there, who get an crazy kick out of taking a life, and there's really nothing that can be done to help them, except death.

>>34
I'll note which parts I'm responding to, simply to make everything a bit clearer.

Paragraph 1:
No, I'm merely saying the authorities shouldn't hold a grudge. They're supposed to be keepers of the law, and when they involve themselves personally things get overlooked and muddy. Not that they should let them go (certainly not) but that they should be impartial.

Paragraph 2:
Ah, but we are. Ever see a grieving family? Believe me, they want nothing less than the absolute worse they can do to the convict. Almost all involved want to do so, even. And if they're a threat, then why not imprison them? Either way, the public's never going to see them again.

Paragraph 3:
Yes, people should very well know the punishment for their actions. Publicity should be regulated though, because over-publicity can lead to an unfair trial. Hell, we even have laws against over-publicized trials. When the media takes too avid an intrest in a trial, it affects the jurors, and leads to a retrial later. For the last part, at the end someone dies, so it's all the same to me. (Try telling the families of an accused that they were accused and killed wrongly: Oops.)

Paragraph 4:
The choice is merely different means to the same end. (Exactly the point). Besides, if the security were high enough, the chance to escape would be comparable to that of the injection failing (which it does on the rare occurrence). Manual labor (depending on what they're doing) earns the country a large workforce. They can work on whatever resource we need, with little to no extra money spent. Besides, they're already making license plates, so this would be more of an adjustment, not as much a completely new idea.

Paragraph 5:
True, there are people who do kill over a various amount of reasons. Although, I don't really believe anyone is un-help able, just that we've given up trying to help them. Still, at this point that's a personal opinion, which can't be backed up with any empirical data.

I do respect your opinion, however. People have different views, and as such it's always difficult to decide what to do based on a lot of conflicting viewpoints when it comes to something like this.