Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
There's a lot of "dead weight" in our society that has never committed a crime. What "needs to be done" with them?
Are You Against the Death Penalty and Why?
- Thread starter foxtrot3d
- Start date
- Status
There's a lot of "dead weight" in our society that has never committed a crime. What "needs to be done" with them?
Vermillion
Banned
As long as one innocent can be executed, it's not worth it.
Also, we're better served focusing on rehabilitation, and making sure that innocents don't go to prison in the first place.
Also, we're better served focusing on rehabilitation, and making sure that innocents don't go to prison in the first place.
I think the elephant in the room from that post is we should have a baptism by fire for all of those who do not contribute to society in anyway.
The points made in this post do not reflect the stance of the author
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Fury Sense
Member
Revenge is not a sufficient reason for death.
vs
Death is not a sufficient form of revenge.
thisisneogaf
vs
Death is not a sufficient form of revenge.
thisisneogaf
GrandHarrier
Member
For it. At some point there needs to be justice for the murdered. That justice does not include the killer ever going free and, in some particularly heinous cases, a continued lease on life.
I'm against it.
State sanctioned murder is still murder, whether people try to legitimate it or not. It's ugly, barbaric and down right hypocritical. Not to mention, it's a waste of tax dollars. Also, since the system isn't flawless, there will people who will be executed for a crimes they did not commit. How we can enable that situation to even happen is baffling, to say the least.
It's an ancient practice that doesnt' solve anything.
State sanctioned murder is still murder, whether people try to legitimate it or not. It's ugly, barbaric and down right hypocritical. Not to mention, it's a waste of tax dollars. Also, since the system isn't flawless, there will people who will be executed for a crimes they did not commit. How we can enable that situation to even happen is baffling, to say the least.
It's an ancient practice that doesnt' solve anything.
Yes, these miscarriages of justice are why I'm against it. Better 99 persons go not dead than 1 innocent die.
Murder is a specific term for a type of malicious killing, separate from justified homicide, manslaughter, etc.
Murder is a subset of killing, as stated above me.
Yes, clearly. For example, a police officer does not murder an individual pointing a gun at them the same way a solider is not murdering the enemy. I think everyone can recognize the difference between murder and killing. And while I myself am not religious the Ten Commandments understood this concept, despite the general belief the actual commandment is "Thou Shalt not Murder" not "kill." Afterall, there is plenty of killing in the Bible most of the times by God's own insistence, though that is a different debate altogether.
HUELEN10
Member
So you are saying that killing and murder are the same thing? Why? I asked that prior, but for me, it's different. It would be like saying getting fired and getting laid off is the same thing. That's just my opinion. Why do you think it is the same thing?
Agreed. A murder does end with someone getting killed after all.
Spieler Eins
Member
It's a medieval procedure and has no place especially in 1st world countries.
rudieboy77
Member
Another thing I find interesting about the State wanting to kill convicted killers. The State will send soldiers to war to kill many people, a good portion of which just have the misfortune of being in the wrong place. So killing is wrong unless it isn't?
If by taking the killer's life you were able to give it back to the victim, like the stolen goods, then you'd have a point.
A more fitting example would be: Someone trashes your car. The court orders the culprit's car be trashed in the same fashion.
eye for an eye sillyness, because nobody gains nothing from it.
Devolution
Member
Bad enough soldiers kill people in war, it seems pretty barbaric to put people to death. If you kill them for killing someone else, it just seems oh I dunno, petty is the best word I can come up with right now. Yes they're probably a piece of shit who doesn't deserve life but I'm not the one to make that choice and I don't believe anyone else is either.
CadetMahoney
Member
In a society where you can carry guns, death penalty isn't a big surprise to me.
Murder is a legal term with a legal definition, it's more about what ppl feel.
Look at the contentious abortion issue for example where the legal definition of murder isn't the main issue as much as what ppl "feel" about it. The death penalty is also similar in this regard.
I just like seeing "pro-lifers" who are against abortion but for the death penalty. If anything for the juxtaposition of the moniker they self-identify as.
Murder is a legal term with a legal definition, it's more about what ppl feel.
Look at the contentious abortion issue for example where the legal definition of murder isn't the main issue as much as what ppl "feel" about it. The death penalty is also similar in this regard.
I just like seeing "pro-lifers" who are against abortion but for the death penalty. If anything for the juxtaposition of the moniker they self-identify as.
I can agree with the sentiment of it being the same thing because intentionally killing someone who poses no immediate threat to anybody has no difference between regular murder apart from the legality of it.
I am against the death penalty because I am against taking of a life. But I sit here and wonder what is the difference. Because those that currently exist currently on "death row" and life long prisoners should suffer. And not have the same privilege of someone that was in there for some lesser crime like robbing a store.
I understand that prison for the most part is there for not only punishment but also for rehabilitation. And regardless they are still humans. And I am ok with them having basic rights and also some form of entertainment such as tv and internet etc.
But for those that like I said are lifelong terms, or worse set to be put to death (rapist and pedos imo needs to be put in this group too) should be stripped of any entertainment and be afforded only the most basic of needs. Here is your cell, and here is one meal a day. Now rot in your cell and you wish there was a death penalty.
TLDR: Death Penalty should be replaced with life in a cell, with no stimulant or interaction. You get your cell, and basic food. Now rot.
I understand that prison for the most part is there for not only punishment but also for rehabilitation. And regardless they are still humans. And I am ok with them having basic rights and also some form of entertainment such as tv and internet etc.
But for those that like I said are lifelong terms, or worse set to be put to death (rapist and pedos imo needs to be put in this group too) should be stripped of any entertainment and be afforded only the most basic of needs. Here is your cell, and here is one meal a day. Now rot in your cell and you wish there was a death penalty.
TLDR: Death Penalty should be replaced with life in a cell, with no stimulant or interaction. You get your cell, and basic food. Now rot.
But then you'd run out of state-sanctioned executioners too quickly!
Buttermilk
Member
So you believe none of them would kill again?
dorkimoe
Member
For it.
The united states has an insane amount of people sitting on death row and in prison. If they are without a doubt guilty, execute them. We are wasting money and resources and prison space letting these people just sit there and rot away. Honestly if my choice was life in prison or death, i would take death. How is that a life? Its a joke, youre just wasting space and rotting away
The united states has an insane amount of people sitting on death row and in prison. If they are without a doubt guilty, execute them. We are wasting money and resources and prison space letting these people just sit there and rot away. Honestly if my choice was life in prison or death, i would take death. How is that a life? Its a joke, youre just wasting space and rotting away
because money and space are so limited in the USA?
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
I'm against it on principle. It's an irreversible action in a fallible system. I'm also strongly opposed on a personal conviction that it is a barbaric and horrible practice.
Again, I don't understand what you are getting at. I was merely pointing out that "justice" and "revenge" can have the same outcome but that does not mean that they are the same. My example was probably a bad one but I just typed the first one I could think of.
Regardless, I will say that Gaf has caused me to examine my position further a good point was brought up about how sending someone to prison for life also "removes them from society" and thus what purpose does killing them serve. This is a very valid point and yet I still support execution. I believe it simply stems from a belief that there is something inherently unjust in allowing a particularly heinous individual to continue living while his victims are forever dead. I wouldn't call this belief "revenge" but I can understand the arguments that it is.
At the end of the day I believe that the State does have the ability to take an individuals life, as a big believer in the social contract I believe that we have empowered the State to do just that when an individual steps too far out of line with the rest of society.
CadetMahoney
Member
I heard death penalty costs more money than Life in prison because the insane lawyer fees and the re-trials or whatever it's called. Plus how long does it take to execute them from being arrested?
Malicious, unlawful killing.
Not the people administering the punishment, obviously.
I take it you didn't read dozen of posts in this thread show that it's cheaper to not have death penalty because of dizzying amount of money required to put someone on a deathrow.
The vast majority of them wouldn't, especially after having been through a truly rehabilitative justice system. More importantly, no one has the ability to predict how and when the supposed innocent people will die. You can't punish people for things you think they will do.
Then I hope they're held to task should the state change its mind about the law.
First off, as already discussed many times before, imprisonment is less expensive than execution. Secondly, we have no way of ever knowing if someone is truly guilty without a doubt.
You would choose death over life in prison because it frees you of having to live with the consequences of your actions. You're actually proving the "against" side's point. Death is not an appropriate punishment if sitting in a cell for the rest of your life scares you enough to wish someone would end your life.
TekGryphon
Banned
I'm an American and I'm against the death penalty because of American conservatives.
So long as our law enforcement are being driven by money and bigotry - I can't trust how arrests are made.
So long as our judges and prosecutions are being driven by money and bigotry - I can't trust how cases are handled.
So long as the south is over-run with bigotry - I can't trust the verdicts of jury trials.
In short, there's not one aspect of the American justice system I trust (as an upper class, straight, white male no less) and so I do not trust it to decide whether a person lives or dies.
So long as our law enforcement are being driven by money and bigotry - I can't trust how arrests are made.
So long as our judges and prosecutions are being driven by money and bigotry - I can't trust how cases are handled.
So long as the south is over-run with bigotry - I can't trust the verdicts of jury trials.
In short, there's not one aspect of the American justice system I trust (as an upper class, straight, white male no less) and so I do not trust it to decide whether a person lives or dies.
I wonder if Mao or Stalin broke any laws.
I wonder if war criminals deserve a death penalty.
empty vessel
Member
This is true. It is a paradox that convicted murderers are the least likely of all prior offenders to commit a homicide in the future (it's been studied). I think killing a human being is rarely intended or undertaken when one is in a good frame of mind. Most homicides aren't committed by psychopaths but are reactions that occur when particular stressors are placed on people who have untreated mental health problems or when in the midst of a particular toxic situation that is occurring in their life comes to a head. Often the decision to kill is a snap judgment. Often drugs have influenced (and impaired) decision-making. Sometimes its brain damage that has. Sometimes mental retardation.
I'm not saying that. The difference between the two depends on the situation. In this case however, I absolutely think that they both are interchangeable with one another because I am of the belief that deliberately taking a person's life is murder. Just because the state sanctions it doesn't make it any less so. Tell you what, think about how many innocent people there are who have been exonerated throughout the years. Now imagine how many there are that have been killed by the state. Is it worth killing innocent people for the sake of revenge?
State sanctioned homicide? Rather, legalized murder.
It takes more money to kill someone than to let them sit in prison.
Its a myth that it costs less with the death penalty.
Places with the death penalty have a higher murder rate than those with the death penalty too. Some speculate that the psychology is if the state says that its okay, then so the people.
Buttermilk
Member
Yet you want to not punish them for something you fear the state might do? if we can save just one innocent life, just one, by killing anyone who commits murder don't we have to sentence any convicted killer to death? That's a pretty radical statement but I hear the exact opposite statement which is just as radical from people against the death penalty.
So who dies for Guantanamo? Or are kidnapping and torturing acceptable warcrimes?
Skid 4 Dead
Member
I'm indifferent. On one hand I don't like the idea of man eliminating everything that doesn't fit in their perfect little world. On the other hand we have quite the population, just sayin'.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." - Gandalf the grey
We'd be better off making the capital punishment be life as a soldier instead of death. There's no usefulness in just snuffing out a life. This way at least we could get something out of them, and I certainly don't approve of men deciding that they are the authority on whether someone else lives or dies, except in some extreme cases.
We'd be better off making the capital punishment be life as a soldier instead of death. There's no usefulness in just snuffing out a life. This way at least we could get something out of them, and I certainly don't approve of men deciding that they are the authority on whether someone else lives or dies, except in some extreme cases.
That's a false equivalency. Killing many people is much more radical than killing no people. Obviously, steps should be taken to prevent innocent people from being harmed, but these steps have to be appropriate for each individual felon. However, I consider simply killing someone to be a lazy and reckless way of accomplishing that. At best.
- Status