Okay. So, we're having a debate tomorrow and this is our topic. But first, I want to know your opinions about this. Do you agree or disagree on death penalty?

Is this about the smuggle of drugs in Indonesia by foreigners and of the same race? Or just about death penalties...

Just about death penalties.

Okay

I disagree with death penalties ..

"So, we're having a debate tomorrow and this is our topic."

This is personal. This doesn't belong on Main.

If you outlined pros and cons and asked others for their opinions and why, then it might be kay on Main, but u would first need to ask for permission.
Please delete this.
And everyone else, please don't reply to a thread that does not belong...
/sage

I believe we can let this slide. If the OP didn't have given out the information that he was having a debate, this would have been an agreeable post. So I vote this thread be valid here in Main.

And by the way, doesn't 'personal' mean personal life/relationship problems? Otherwise, shouldn't every thread be in 'personal'? Magnolia, I think you're a bit too strict in the forums. Besides, the real Dollars are meant to be moderated by it's members, right? Everyone here is equal, right???

I also disagree, i believe that every human has a right to live, sure the death penalty is given to criminals, but that doesn't mean that you have to take their human rights.
If they have done something unforgivable, just lock them away for a life time.
Now, some people deserve punishment, so lock them away. That's my opinion.

The Death penalty or capital punishment is neither effective nor efficient, it is terminal and juridical mistakes happen more often than they should. Furthermore, most European and American countries (with one very famous exception) have abolished it because it collides with the idea of human dignity, introduced by German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant argues that human beings don't have a 'value' like objects do, but something else, an inalienable human dignity that one cannot be put in relation to each other / they cannot be compared. The Human Rights we have today derive from this concept and they state that, no matter what you have done, you can not be taken away the right to live. This is a very abstract, but important way to think about capital punishment. Because proponents will argue that, by commiting a certain crime, you have given up your human rights - Which is impossible and if you catch someone saying that, call them out on it.

However, if your debate tomorrow asks for more practical arguments:
a) The death penalty is a deterrent to future murders.
-> Back in the day when capital punishment was legal in England, it wasn't unlikely that pickpockets would get caught and hanged. This was a public event and there were often times many people watching. Since 'the audience' was distracted, there would also be an unusual high number of pickpockets stealing something.
What I want to illustrate is the fact that it doesn't work. People who commit murder do so on impulse most of the time, they will not think about the consequences. Plus, the story above illustrates that even if they don't commit it on impulse, it's not very effective...

b)Juridical mistakes
Happen all the time and since capital punishment is terminal, you cannot revoke it.

c) Cost-efficent
Data on this is mixed. Though some claim that it is cheaper, at least in the US the legal expenses for a case that could end with a capital punishment sentence are way higher.
Furthermore, many people would argue that a society should prefer spending more money, instead of killing its citizens.


There is a very, very good essay on this topic by french philosopher Albert Camus called 'Reflections on the Guillotine', which is just fantastic but also difficult to obtain. I'd suggest it as further reading, if the topic interests anyone personally. Plus: Amnesty International, if you want to do something about capital punishment and torture, everyone's welcome :)
Furthermore, I also don't think this is personal information per se, anyone can have a debate on politics anywhere, I vote this thread to be valid here in Main.

Last, but most definitely not least:
Abolish the death penalty. Now.

Lemme try that again.

"So, we're having a debate tomorrow and this is our topic."

This is personal. This doesn't belong on Main.

If you outlined pros and cons and asked others for their opinions and why, then it might be kay on Main, but u would first need to ask for permission.
Please delete this.
And everyone else, please don't reply to a thread that does not belong...
/sage

I agree with death penalties. Some people shouldn't exist in society. Locking someone away for life doesn't mean that the world is rid of his crimes. He can continue to inspire his vicious thinking from behind bars. Death penalties are great motivators for the others to think straight too.
Can you even think about letting Osama Bin Laden live? If he were locked up, would his followers stay silent? It would cause only additional trouble for the society.
Then comes the question of judgement. Honestly, giving someone a death penalty is something harder than words can describe, but this thread being a debate on the penalty itself I don't have to talk about that, heheh! :D

>>12 >>13 Holy fucking shit. If you people are so intent on answering a thread that doesn't belong, can you at the very least click Sage so that it's easier to clean the board??

/Sage

>>11 Magnolia, this is the only place you can answer to my questions. If you aren't answering my questions, your current reputation shall start to deteriorate. If you lose face, then no one will listen to you, and the forum will lose a good, active moderator, and no one wants that (including me) So please answer, Magnolia.

>>15 Are you serious?

You bumped it again?

What questions??

Hurry up and say something.

"And by the way, doesn't 'personal' mean personal life/relationship problems? Otherwise, shouldn't every thread be in 'personal'?"

If we follow your reasoning, you're saying that 'Main' should be posts that are not personal at all. Most threads here start because of some personal reasons, right? I think a debate on death penalty in main is perfectly acceptable.

May I also ask why you are so mad?

Frustrated. Because if you read the FAQ you would know why I'm saying this belongs in personal. She's asking help for a debate.

She or he is only asking for discussion only for today.

you think I'm being too strict? Then why do you think these things get permasaged?

I don't even know why am here. I recently spoke with a mod and I told them that I would never try and clean up Main again. And just because of this shit that's why. Losing face? Why the fuck would I care about that? Who are you guys to me??

Have fun with this. Just take it. Continue your 24hour discussion. I wasn't saying that this topic does not have POTENTIAL to be on main... I was just saying that the OP introduction to the discussion needed to be better.

Buuuut fuck it. I'm going to bed early. Peace out~

"Frustrated. Because if you read the FAQ you would know why I'm saying this belongs in personal. She's asking help for a debate."

I'm just pointing out that this thread is okay to be in Main. Because, it is a debate on Death Penalty.

"She or he is only asking for discussion only for today."
But the discussion between the others can continue forever.

"you think I'm being too strict? Then why do you think these things get permasaged?"
Not every thread that YOU have deemed /sage'd isn't permasaged by the mods.

"I don't even know why am here. I recently spoke with a mod and I told them that I would never try and clean up Main again. And just because of this shit that's why. Losing face? Why the fuck would I care about that? Who are you guys to me??"

You seemed to be a good moderator. That's why you shouldn't lose face. If we guys don't mean anything to you, then maybe you should consider leaving the Dollars. I know maybe that's going too far. But, isn't the Dollars something more than strangers?

Finally, my apologies for whatever inconveniences that I've caused you, and for the irrelevancy of the last few posts to this current thread.

>the real Dollars are meant to be moderated by it's members
lol what real Dollars? The one in the anime? Because that's not real, here we have rules.

>Everyone here is equal, right???
No

>If you aren't answering my questions
Literally who the fuck are you?
No one has to answer your questions when they are outlined for you in multiple threads.

>your current reputation shall start to deteriorate
Why do people care about a reputation?
Why would anyone care about a reputation over the internet?

>If you lose face, then no one will listen to you
What face do you have? Who are you to make these claims?

Kannon; if you want a reason why this thread shouldn't be here,
I'll give you one.

The OP of the thread is absolute shit.

>>22 Don't worry, Maggie.
I won't lose respect for you. :^))

/sage because OP is a faggot

The thread will probably stay, but I'm sticking with my opinion about the OP being a total eyesore.

>Okay. So, we're having a debate tomorrow and this is our topic.
We aren't here to do your homework, kid.

>Do you agree or disagree on death penalty?
I agree with death.

I acted immature and out of place. My apologies.

I agree if it concerns only rapists.

I agree

Yes, but only if the crime is murder, rape or anything greater. Another condition would be sufficient evidence. If it is clear that the person is the real culprit, then death shall be a fitting penalty. But the problem with this system is that when a person is executed, the process is irreversible. Whereas in life imprisonment, if a person was wrongfully judged, he can be released into society again. In short, death penalty would only be favorable if the investigation was flawless. It should only be used if the conditions are favorable enough.

I agree, if the crime is rape, murder, or something like this.

"Hey, let´s kill those criminals instead of trying to help them become an acceptable part of society." bullshit

Hey, let's kill a man, to show another, that killing people is wrong!
Wait what...

[We used to have a thread debating capital punishment, but I can't find it :\ This seems to be happening a lot lately. Were a bunch of old threads deleted?]

Imho, the death penalty is perfectly fine, but I think there should be worse alternatives. An eye for an eye. If you murder someone, you should be killed back, sure. But I also think that if you make someone paralyzed, the same should be done to you. If you rape someone, you should be raped. If you put someone into a coma or vegetative state, you should be put into a simulated one. If you torture someone, you should tortured worse back.

But that also goes to petty crimes like robbery and vandalism. If you steal from someone, you should have your home / money confiscated. If you vandalism someone, your home should be vandalized. Too bad the gov't would never go that far lol

Anyway, someone that has done particularly terrible things should never be allowed to, "become an acceptable part of society." We have enough people in society as it is. There's no reason to be jumping through hoops to rehabilitate major criminals. The money you're spending there could be spent building a better society in more logical ways, like by investing it in education and fixing the foster system.

>>34
Do You even know the words compassion, or mercy? I thought, that the times, when people was saying "eye for an eye" are long gone... It's a good motto rather for animals, than humans...

In England we abolished capital punishment in 1969, and we are still doing fine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/

>>35
You speak as if humans aren't animals. An eye for an eye is perfectly reasonable and fair. 'Compassion' and 'Mercy' are just unstable inventions of human ideology, exactly the same as an eye for an eye. Your 'Mercy', Anti-Hero, is currently in the way of the mental growth and progression of others as they critically think and view the ideas of others. Your comment has become a distraction for this board, and your use of the words 'mercy' and 'compassion' without any backing evidence behind them will likely cause some viewers of this post to hesitate when thinking of this subject, as many can be swayed by baseless thoughts that align themselves with what those individuals have been brought up to think. So please, bring your 'mercy' and 'compassion' back once you have solid reasons to back them. I will be eagerly awaiting your return.

Oh well, i don't want to change anyone's mind, coz it'd be useless. It's just mine personal point of view. But anyway, If 'mercy' and 'compassion' are just 'unstable inventions of human ideology', then what? You mean, the world would be a better place without these inventions? Do U think, that everyone should just take care of their own business?

If they commited a serious felony then i agree. murderers should die the way they murdered somneone.

You know, at first I was totally for the death penalty until I learned a little bit about it in my criminology class. It's actually not all that great, it costs a lot more money than it should, and it doesn't help the victim's family whatsoever. One of the worst things about the death penalty is if the subject is falsely accused. Then we put an innocent man to death for a crime he did not commit. There's a lot of debate on the death penalty... very good topic choice here.

The death penalty should really be used on super big, extreme cases for serial killers, and child killers/child rapists. Otherwise as said, it costs too much time. Also Alex, nothing helps the victim's family.

They get arrested, free roof to live under, 3 meals a day. They get killed, still no closure. The families don't know what they want to come out from it.

And too much money.

I think it would make sense to a lot of people at the time, but it takes too much time and energy. The death penalty seems to be a good answer, but it really isn't.

Death penalty is so controversial....I disagree because it doesn't help the victim's family and, mainly, because can kill innocent people(by false accusations....)....as Thiamor said, I think that the death penalty is only for big crimes
Good topic!

Kira is righteous. That is my opinion on the death sentence.

I disagree with death penalty. It's just one thing that takes too much time like >>43 said. Also there can be innocent people involved. Loved ones would get involved too if someone they care gets hurt. If it's a trivial crime, it's not worth it. Besides, killing some criminal who did something bad would also mean doing something bad, so that just makes you and the criminal equally bad.

>>46 Yeah, no one really has the right to determine if someone dies, and that includes the law.

I don't believe anyone should have the right to say who lives and dies, but I can understand how in some cases it would be necessary.

look i can see both sides and sadly things in this world aren't black or white. Honestly tha pros are more than the cons and make so much more sence (for example by taking the life of a killer we become killers ourselfs). But it's just some crimes are too much to forgive and forget and some criminals are just unable to become a functioning part of society again and restraining them until they die is to costly . So where i want to get is that under some extream cirquimstances i am unable to disagree

"killing some criminal who did something bad would also mean doing something bad" etc.

Then do you think it's criminal for a victim to kill their attacker when being assaulted in the act in self-defense? Do you think they should be charged with murder for saving their own lives?

No? Most people don't.

But then what about all the victims who didn't get the chance to save themselves? Should we just let their murderers live because the victim failed to defend themselves? "Oh, sorry, guess the man you killed couldn't reach the knife in time. Too bad. You're free to live now."

>>35 "Do you even know the words compassion, or mercy?"

No. But more importantly, do you think the victims never asked that of their attackers?

>>25 Thanks mate. :) Seems like ur right and this is gonna stay.

>>34 So it's not just me, right? These threads are disappearing.
>>50 Woah...Wooooooah. That was deep.
I don't have much of an opinion on the matter. On one hand, there will always be the chance of executing an innocent man. I am more concerned with the difference in sentencing between white and nonwhite criminals, and also improving our judicial system and technology so that gathering evidence will result in the arrest and charging of the right person. I'd also like more research done into mental institutions for the criminally insane, and if the results in such institutions actually correct the mental instability of these criminals, or they just shove a bunch of pills in their hands and hope for the best, or if they are forever instituted. Only with these things corrected would I allow the death penalty to go into place.

>>51 This, I agree with. The criminally insane need proper treatment and often aren't getting it. That needs to be properly investigated and taken more seriously, as do the prejudices in the legal system, as does the entire "innocent until proven guilty" concept.

People need to stop being charged based on circumstantial evidence. Equally so, the general public needs to shut the fuck up because they're a huge part of this. A verdict is a verdict. Even if you "KNOWWWWW THEY'RE GUILTY!!! IZ SO OBVOUS!!", if there isn't enough proof to convict, then there shouldn't be a conviction. You can't bully the legal system into taking the basic human rights that every citizen has just because you don't like the defendant.

>>50
Nah... I see, that You're trying to act like cold-hearted badass, nice ^-^
Well anyway, 'do you think the victims never asked that of their attackers?'... So what You mean is, basically, that we shouldn't feel compassion, because they didn't feel it? An eye for an eye? Well great, but then how can we say, that we're better people then they are?

>>53

Cuz we didn't kill an innocent person begging for their life? That logic doesn't really make sense. Timothy McVeigh was given a death sentence for bombing an IRS building (which also had a children's daycare). He admitted to it, we have all evidence that he did it, and he repeatedly stated that he regretted nothing.
Killing murders, especially mass murders like McVeigh do not turn us into crazy, conspiracy theorist child killers.

>>53 I'm not trying to "act" like anything; just sharing my beliefs :\ Don't ask about 'em if you're just going to be disrespectful the second you don't like what you hear.

In my opinion, nobody is better than anybody. I'm no better than a mass murderer just because my morals are different. But we have a society to take care of with bigger problems ahead, and we can't waste our time babysitting people who break its rules to that degree unless they have a legitimate health concern that caused them to do so, such as cases with the criminally insane.

You know, I'm ashamed I didn't hare this video with you guys sooner.
John Oliver is a very good speaker and brings up good topics to debate on, such as the Death Penalty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kye2oX-b39E
I'm still not sure whether I'm convinced or not.

I see so many flaws in a lot of arguments.

Isn't there such a concept as 'innocent until proven guilty' to prevent innocent from being executed? Until enough evidences are gathered, the person should not get executed. This itself also contains flaws where the smart murderer tries to get rid of all evidences to remain scot-free.

Death penalty acts as a deterrence to prevent people from committing those unforgivable crimes(drug trafficking), terrorism(mass killing) or intentional murder(debatable)). There’s a saying where the end justifies the mean. Those crimes are too overboard and should not be forgiven. Drugs trafficking allow the manifestation of the drug effect on people which caused so much problems to the society (family broken, some even kill to get drugs, you get what I mean). Terrorism often involve the loss of lives of innocence who get caught in the blast, many people cannot forgive their act. If the sanctity of live is so valued, the killer who seek to take away the live of the victim disregard his/her rights of live and his/her valuable live. Can you really grant this person, who disallowed others’ chance to live, a chance to live?

Just as all types of Right may not be perfect, Human Rights are not flawless too and can be abused by criminals to escape their deserved punishment. In fact, Human Rights are too ideal to follow by the Letter of law rather than spirit of Law (interesting topic – follow strictly what the law says or follow the intended reasons behind what the law was set for). The Human Rights was set to protect those being oppressed in the past with little valid reason. I believe that’s what the creator intended to, and not to allow true criminals to abuse the creator’s words.

Killing the criminal cost more money than life-long imprisonment? If you factor in the cost of food, water, sanitary system, electricity, salary of prison guards used to keep them shut in for a life-time, the amount of money spend just keep flowing exponentially when more and more criminal are sentenced life-long imprisonment.

>>10 People are more happy to pay criminals to keep them alive than killing them? Well, it works the same concept as Welfare-states do where around 40%(Read about Italian Welfare State) of your income disappear out of your income to feed the others. Not everyone can be that happy to get "rob" off their hard-earn money right and statistics shown little improvement in unemployment for welfare state concept.

>>34 It is a fact that a lot of countries set torture as illegal means of punishment. Death penalty is more benevolent than torture. Torturing the criminal is so much worse as it’s a living hell of the sane criminals (idk about extreme masochist?) whereas the concept of death can be viewed differently from individuals due to the ending of live in a short time. If you abolish death penalty then what kind of punishment do extreme crimes get? If you get the same level of punishment for stealing something as one who did terrorism, isn’t that unfair for the one who commit a lower level of crime?

Speaking of the case about ‘mercy’ and ‘compassion’, giving them death penalty instead of torturing them already has some element of mercy (lower spectrum of mercy). There is no total mercy (highest spectrum) in mankind because we are not the almighty god (another debatable topic if you like). Humans are imperfect.

‘People who kill to judge the one who killed are also wrong themselves’. Sure, they are wrong themselves but this is a way of protecting the citizens for the greater good. In comparison of quantity of wrong-doers, people rather have 1 wrong-doer (executers) than to have a dozen wrong-doers (multitudes of killers roaming free). If given the choice to save 1 man or ten thousands, most sane people would save the ten thousands. It’s the same logic. Furthermore, the executors themselves are regulated in the eyes of the law and not roaming freely outside killing whoever they want. Isn’t that logical?

Dear moderators, this post is not considered personal in my view as this discussion is involving a global problem and philosophy. Furthermore, why let such interesting topic to be hidden in the Personal section?

People claiming we don't have a right to says who lives and who dies? You know who says those things? People who have not had a loved one murdered, or raped. While it doesn't really help the family, NOTHING will, but most families are still happy to see them die. You can't tell me that not a single family has felt a smidgen of satisfaction.

The fact is, nothing helps families because the action itself cannot be undone. Their family member is dead, or raped, etc. Also the fact of the matter is we CAN choose who lives and dies, since we already do so regardless of personal opinion towards a law.

>>32 You can't help everyone, not everyone wants to be helped.
Don't be a fool.

>>33 Read that one of those websites, did ya? Good for you.
But killing isn't wrong, unjustified killing is wrong.

>>35
>humans are not animals
Whoa, schools these days.

There are people in this thread that honestly believe the whole "lol we kull ppl 2 show ppl dat kullin bad 1Lke=1prayer" bullshit.

I dislike it a lot.

I believe the last British executioner said something along the lines of "the only thing the death penalty ever achieved was revenge". That's all it is, revenge. Yeah, you may want revenge, but hatred and revenge are part of a vicious, never-ending cycle that we would just play a part in. Some people are too despicable, I'll admit, but many people can be reformed, and that's the point of the justice system, reformation. Not punishment, as it seems to have become. Yes, there has always been punishment involved and rightfully so, but criminals were supposed to be assisted in becoming better members of society.

On top of this, there will always be wrongful convictions, no matter how much people talk about "innocent before proven guilty", and what are we supposed to do if we kill the wrong person? Go up to their mum and say, 'oh, sorry, we killed your child but it turns out they were innocent. We dropped the ball, sorry again, bye now.'

To do it in the heat of the moment is one thing, but to detain someone and organise their death is entirely another. Besides, there are worse things than death. And I've seen the deterrent argument used. If that were true, surely there'd be only a small amount of crime in those areas where the death penalty is used, right? Wrong. Most criminals fully intend to get away with it and fully expect they will succeed. I'm guessing people advocating execution for this reason are the same people who would tell us to stop research into nuclear fusion so we can build more bombs as a "deterrent".

>>61 wrong
It's not just revenge, it's also prevention.

>hatred and revenge are part of a vicious, never-ending cycle
Yea, it's called the cycle of life. Watch the Lion King, you nerd.

I disagree

>>61 Rehabilitation, reformation, whatever, is just one reason that the justice system exists, and in my opinion, it's a courtesy that shouldn't be extended to murderers. People who intentionally, knowingly, and maliciously kill other people have, in my eyes, given up their right to life.

Having said that, I don't think we should kill them. You say that rehabilitation is an important aspect of the justice system, and you're right. But punishment is a bigger, more obvious part of it, and it overshadows most of the other goals inherent in the justice system's existence. And I think that keeping them alive is a much harsher penalty than death. Shove them not in prison as it exists now, but in a fucking hole somewhere, lumped in with a bunch of animals just like them. Give them the bare necessities to survive, and nothing else. And let them tear each other apart.

Course, then there's the problem of people being wrongly convicted. But that's a whole different issue.

This doesn't necessarily pigeonhole me on either side of the argument, though. So I'm... for? Kinda.

Yeah. Fuck murderer's. Burn them all. Alive.

I don't think death penalty is the solution for a crime. It's like- after you take the criminal's life, so what? What happens? It doesn't replace the crime he/she committed right? So why bother? Just lock him/her up in jail for as long as he live. That'll do.

I strongly agree.

I think it depends on the crime. Drug smuggler or robbed a bank? Nah just throw them in jail. Serial killer or child predator? Yep death penalty with no looking back.

Death penalty should be present in every country but it should only be applied in extreme cases.

i dont like the death penalty tbh i think its not gonna help anything... just because someone is a criminal doesnt mean that there arent people who love them and that can cause problems

I'd only disagree because, like what the others said, there's always a chance that an innocent man would be wrongly convicted. Other than that, I'd really like to enforce this on our country.

You all talking about death penalty in indonesia??

>>65

It costs more to keep them in prison for life than to kill them. While the latter costs a lot, it's not as much, and not just that but our prisons are pretty much overcrowded as it is.

>>72 This is completely incorrect.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/

It costs about ten times more to kill them than keep them alive in prison. The sequence one has to go through to sentence someone to death is so incredibly wasteful. It's not just the drugs that add up the monetary cost. Remember, you have to still keep them alive until they're processed through, and that process costs more than it would keeping them alive for the rest of their life. In theory, it should be less, but the way the system is it really isn't.

>>73 Interedting. That's still a fault with the system though, not the principle. It still costs signicantly less to stone or shoot someone than to keep them alive for decades.

>>73

People are too scared to do the cost-effective approach and just murk the fuckers who deserve it. So instead they let them live out their days just like any other convict, and even giving them their last meals of their choosing, and then a fucking pain free (for the most part) way out. All of which builds up the prices because they choose to go about it this way.

Instead they should speed up the process it takes to convict them with the death penalty, and do not let them live like everyone else leading up to those days. If they get the meal of their choice, that should be the extent of their kindness. Then they should be shot.

They are being killed for a reason. Them needing to be shown kindness is way passed it's expiration date.

^

^

Firstly, every human being has two rights: of living, and of freedom. It is the State's duty to protect the life and the liberty of its citizens, NECESSARILY BOTH. So, if the State kills its citizen, it is not valid: the basic condition is deturped.

Killing a criminal would not erase their crime(s), nor the sorrow and angst of the victim's family and friends, it would only perpetuate a cycle of hate and revenge.

If death penalty served as an exemplary punishment, it wouldn't be necessary killing so many: after the first one, everyone would understand.

And after all, you presume everyone would be judged equally and had the same opportunities in life, what isn't true, obviously. People of color, poor, immigrants... Do you think they receive the same treatment as white rich people? Mike Brown was an innocent boy shot disarmed. James Eagan Holmes was found guilty of killing 12 people and wounding 70 and was arrested without being wounded.

I don't disagree with the death penalty, I don't believe that life is a fundamental human right and that everyone is entitled to live, and somehow I was forced into Amnesty International by my fucking law class.

I say death penalties should not occur. Every life should be considered sacred, and should not be taken

And why would you think someone has more rights to live than others? Even a criminal (and I guarantee you, most of them are not criminals for choice) has the right to live, the more cruel the crime is. I absolutely despite rape, and I think it's pretty fair to castrate, mutilate and stone them, but I have no right to kill or hurt them, as no one else has, I would become as guilty as the criminal. This is going back to lex talionis, nah dude.

Disagreed. Death penalty does not solve anything. If there is a criminal who's charges have already been proved, then he will be detained. So he has no more impact on society. Why kill him? People need rehabilitation and re-education, not penalties. They do not work after the damage is already done.

Disagree. Why would people even agree to that? Its just rude and sad for the person and their family. People are even blamed for something that didnt do and sentenced to death! Thats why i really hate places with death penalty.

i disagree even though itll be a good way to impose fear over bad people

there are some criminals not all that have crossed a line where there is no return such as Hitler so kind of agree

Disagree. They should rot in prison before dieing

Agree. Prisons aren't bottomless pits, bad people have to go /somewhere/. What happens when they're all full and no more can be built?

I don't know if the death penalty is right or not, but every country has it's laws and punishments, so if you break those laws then you must face the punishment without complaining.

I don`t particularly like the death penalty, but Justice must be met, break the rules, and order shall be served...

I believe some crime rates would go down. If you were to kill someone and get caught, you took a life. Why not get the same done to you? It just doesn't make sense to me that you can kill a person or more, and just get into jail but still get to live. I could go on, but I would have you ready a lot. No one really wants that.

I could say I agree, I could also say I don't. I personally don't care if the death penalty is there or not because at this moment, it doesn't effect me in any way. Criminals vary from people with mental disorders to ones who do it for sheer lust. Every criminal has their reasons whether it's a bad one or not and in the end every human is different. Should it be there? Yes, because it punishes those who commit crimes. But in the end I say no. This is because all humans are different. Who has the right to state killing others is wrong? Humans are a strong and weak species because of the thing we call emotions. Our emotions cause us to take decisions which in reality are inefficient such as killing other humans, but that is who we are, we can't change the fact we have emotions. And because of that nobody has the right, or power to determine whether something should be accepted. Killing another human because they committed a crime is in the end just another opinion, you are killing them because you believe they done wrong. When people ask if something is right or wrong, I ask, does it matter?

I think it is like a bomb. Something that should be want but never use.

I think it depends on the crime they did

I would agree more or less, because of the heinous crimes happening these days.

I think it'd send a strong message to criminals if the death penalty was a sentence that happened more often than not. People committing serious crimes would know that there are much greater consequences to their crimes than just jail time.

Yes and no... Yes the people in jail who take life should receive equal but only if they willingly took the life for the sake of evil. Some kill out of necessity, others by accident some mentally ill, many send foul intent in hopes they commit suicide.... some even don't kill at all but are accused of a crime they never committed and then they die.......... So if you kill for the sake to kill then yes.......Even a solider of good nature must survive....war hate and blood happen, it's even one way that economy can make money.......There is more to the world then meet's the eye....let alone that the eye can even see....

if her/his crime is soo bad that even can make thousand people death or "want" to be death for something like money then of course he should get death penalty i really confuse how can someone more choose money than people lifes..

I think that it just needs to be done sometimes.

i dont want to think of death. its all over. Cant we just all LIVE FOREVER!!!

What about suicide? I've been thinking about it lately.... Why are people punished for nothing and end up dying because that feel a need to do that... This world is a really really bad place.... You can't even love without being replaced... Sometimes people just want to die for being in this shithole of a society because no one understands them. In my head, capital punishment happens even when you dont even know. As you could be reading this, someone could be dying because someone broke the person... I don't even know.. I need mental help.

>>101 Unfortunately it's in the human nature to yearn for more, and as long as that yearning exists people will hurt themselves and others. But you know what really makes a person? Not their relationships, not who they are, it's their experiences leading up to the end of their life. The people who experience pain throughout their lives are the ones who will truly understand this because unlike other people they will live a rich life because happiness would not exist without sadness.
Make a post about this in 'personals' and tell us about what's going on if you want and maybe we can make you feel better.

i dont like the idea of suicide but i believe if you have the stomach to kill unless there is no other choice, you should be ready to die its that simple
for example serial killer kills a bunch of people because he wants to he/she should die,
but if a person is threatening your life or the life of a loved one and you kill them you should live

I think we should distinguish...

If involving heinous crimes like murder, rape and attended by modifying circumstances then I think death penalty is the right penalty to impose.

Otherwise, death is an excessive penalty. For an instance if a person will commit robbery (larceny for westeners), then imprisonment for several years is appropriate.

^

I agree with 104.

The thing about death sentences is that people don't have the chance to have a change a heart. Also, death sentences end the life of someone that could be a good person. They should give people more chances before killing them, really because life is to short. I don't agree with these death sentences, they could just imprison them or help prisoners recover. Really, killing people is a crime in the first place.

But, what if that person killed someone else? >>107 Do they deserve to live? they themselves killed someone. Which in turn ended a life. So do they deserve the right to redeem themselves? that's the question.
The death penalty should not be given lightly but should be one given in extreme cases.

Hmm honestly, if they're given a second chance but do end up offending again (but only for a crime worthy of a death sentence) then they should be. In saying that what gives someone the right to take another persons life. Essentially it's an undeniable fact that they have also committed murder, I just feel it's a bit contradictory.

As civilized human beings, we should completely demolish the use of the Death Penalty, as it is a barbaric concept. I'm sure you'd be offended to be put in the same category as mass murderers like Ted Bundy, but they're both planning pre-meditated murders.

>>110 then why not only kill mass murderers?!?!?

There are gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood that still run criminal activities even while in prison.
I think if it's in this case, they need the death penalty because of the power they hold in the drug trade and putting targets on people's heads in AND outside the jail.

Where do they have a lote of problem with gangs in prison ?
In the US

Where do they charge a lot of poeple with the death penalty ?
IN THE US.

>>112 That's not the solution to everything.

The death penalty is used for a couple of things. One to make an example out of some people. Two to make overpopulation not possible. (I know there are wars yet it is still possible) The death penalty should be allowed for where to this. "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." -Hammurabi's Code 282

>>113 Excuse me, I never said it was.

Prisons are incredibly corrupt, to a point where they can potentially be the epicenter of drug trade coming in and out of the US.

The Aryan Brotherhood, despite a lot of its leaders and member residing in prison, still have a lot of influence over their members on the outside. What would solve this besides the death penalty or perpetual solitary confinement?

I disagree.Someone might deserve it but you have no rights to take someones life.Just let shit rot in prison barely having food and water its worse than death!

>>116 That's called prison abuse which is ALSO considered inhumane, so your point is invalid.

My thing is, I'm talking about one of America's largest and most violent gangs that glorify racism and still do dealings and murder in prisons and with the help of members, outside of prison too.

You guys don't get it. If someone is trying to kill you, is it "inhumane" to kill them? No.
If someone possess a threat to society EVEN WHEN INCARCERATED...is it inhumane to kill them? No.

Think of Hitler. If he had not killed himself and was captured by the Allied Forces, put to trial, and executed, would you have read this in your history book and think, "Oh, that's so inhumane"?

>>114 For the first thing, read previous comments it's been said and proven numerous times that prison is not a deterrent for crime.

The second thing you said didn't even make any sense. Look at the rate of people put on death row and the number of people born.

But, and eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, ne~?

I actually like Magnolia's point. (And Kanra's too ^_^ hahaha XP -but if you look at the world, in some way, it's already blind (or perhaps just my country *sigh*))

The (only) thing I dislike about death penalty is that there's no turning back for those framed people. Well, it's true that the time spent in prison can't be returned, but it is in no way near the level of the life taken by death penalty.
Also, as from what I've read/researched, there are some, if not many, cases wherein the criminal/suspect have not been put into trial fairly, or not at all, and then subjected to death penalty. (e.g. there was one overseas worker that killed his employer because he was being abused (accg. to him) and was put into trials not being able to explain the situation very well (because he wasn't familiar with that country's language). In the end, he was executed. <<I'm not sure where I've read this one, it's been months already.)

>>117 If someone tries to kill you the usage of the violence is only legitimated on the instant by the immediate threat.

Gang offences are not immediate threats, and asking for the death several months afterwards is just useless.

The justice is not a bare instrument of revenge.

Btw, do you have the exact figures of recidivism and carceral crime before wanting to kill everyone ?

>>120
>>Gang offences are not immediate threats, and asking for the death several months afterwards is just useless.

I don't think you read the comments before that one >>112 & >>115.

If you had, then I don't know how else to explain that the death penalty for such infamous gang members are acts of self defense for society's sake.

>>Btw, do you have the exact figures of recidivism and carceral crime before wanting to kill everyone?

Are you guys incapable of reading? I never said I wanted to "kill everyone". These gang members I'm speaking of, especially one of the leaders of the Aryan Brotherhood is in jail for life. But while he's STILL ALIVE he's still making dealings and putting hits out on people. Even incarcerated they remain a danger to other inmates and even people outside of prison.

>>119 That's why I think the death penalty shouldn't be given to just anyone. Whether it was first or second count murder I think it's those guys that should have 25-life. I don't even think the Boston Bomber Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev should've gotten the death penalty. But serial killers/rapists like Ted Bundy and official leaders of violent gangs that still conduct criminal activity behind bars are a cancer on society. If Jim Jones hadn't committed suicide, I think he would definitely not so much deserve, but need the death penalty. The Beltway sniper attacks by John Allen Muhammad as well (because he was the leader and the other was an easily influence teen- just like the Boston Bombers).

That's why I had brought up Hitler earlier, I am specifically speaking of people who are undeniably not psychologically fit to live the rest of their life in or outside of jail without harming others.

I agree with Magnolia. The death penalty is not something that should be placed carelessly. It should be reserved for the most dire situations and even then, should be carefully considered. Each and every person on this planet deserves a shot at a normal and peaceful life. If that means life in prison, then so be it, but nobody truely deserves to die. Death was not a power created to be used by humans. It is simply a ragged and horrible truth that surrounds us all. Who does or doesn't die isn't up to us. It never has been and it never will be. But if one person is deemed psychologicly unfit for living in society and is a continous threat to the lives of many, then I believe that the death penalty is completely and utterly justified.

That being said, I mostly disagree with the death penalty since deciding the life or death of a person is not a naturally given power to humans. However, if it is necessary to ensure the safety of many then I believe it to be justifiable.

i agree with Tsuki's first point but i believe that if someone has done something evil and wrong then they shouldnt be given a chance at a normal life but left behind bars till they die a natural death. otherwise you are giving them an easy way out. also i believe it would be easier to do that if prisons didnt have things like tvs. i understand that probably not all prisons are like this, but for some people theyre better off in prison, not in the context that theyve done something wrong but that some prisons are so cushy they have a better quality of life there, that ist what prisons exist for though.

I think its depend on the situation.

Pedophiles and cereal killers should get death penalty.

>>127 yeah, cereal killers. So are you going to die for eating cereal?

.