Future PhaZe
Member
I don't have an opinion either way. I do think locking someone up for decades is a worse fate than death and arguably unconstitutional. It's by any definition cruel and unusual imo.
Are You Against the Death Penalty and Why?
- Thread starter foxtrot3d
- Start date
- Status
my previous post stated DNA convictions or confessions, so I am not sure why you are saying anything about "wrong people"
DNA can be tampered with or otherwise contaminated.
Confessions are false many times. Many people on death row later exonerated confessed to the crime.
Try again.
Kano on the Phone
Member
Please elaborate on how locking someone up is more cruel than ending their life. Especially given that some portion of people convicted will be falsely convicted.
You know that confessions aren't infallible, right? False confessions can and do happen.
benjipwns
Banned
Hellraizah
Member
So the debate is :
Death penalty
VS
Rehabilitation
I think we should look at it this way :
How many innocent people were wrongly killed with death penalty?
VS
How many innocent people were wrongly killed by someone who got out of jail after being rehabilitated?
That should give us a good clue about which is more damaging to society
Death penalty
VS
Rehabilitation
I think we should look at it this way :
How many innocent people were wrongly killed with death penalty?
VS
How many innocent people were wrongly killed by someone who got out of jail after being rehabilitated?
That should give us a good clue about which is more damaging to society
OldKentuckyShark
Member
On a case by case basis, sure. But overall, abolishing the death penalty will result in deaths that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. I brought it up as a counterargument against the argument that nothing good can come from the death penalty.
Fuck yes, someone on the exact wavelength as myself. Could not of said it better myself.
Octavion Rex
Banned
Why are you so dense?
I'm against it because I think that if the punishment fits a death penalty, I'd much rather have them spend life in prison. It also tends to save money for life imprisonment vs. death penalty. It also has the added bonus of at the least ensuring that we are not executing innocent people
.
I know that we still falsely imprison people
benjipwns
Banned
If the state has absolute authority to determine who is and is not fit to live in society and thus can kill that person there is no such thing as a social contract. Contracts require two (or more) willing and able parties.
OldKentuckyShark
Member
So the debate is :
Death penalty
VS
Rehabilitation
I think we should look at it this way :
How many innocent people were wrongly killed with death penalty?
VS
How many innocent people were wrongly killed by someone who got out of jail after being rehabilitated?
That should give us a good clue about which is more damaging to society
I don't think that's at all accurate. I'm pretty sure most people on here who are against the death penalty aren't against life imprisonment. Everyone should be aware that there are people that simply can't be rehabilitated. Hence life imprisonment. The argument is whether or not some of those lifers should instead be put to death.
Its an important question in your hypothetical justice system.
Kano on the Phone
Member
You avoided Cyan's question as well. I'd like to know your answer to that too.
Jaffaboy
Member
The point of punishment is so that people learn a lesson and work towards redeeming themselves. The death penalty is just an easy way out, with the only benefit being a tiny break from tax payers. Having to spend the rest of your life in prison is a far worse punishment, and can make people consider and reflect on their actions. Also, having even one innocent put to death is a travesty. Just because you're in prison doesn't mean you don't have human rights. The death penalty in my eyes is a violation of this.
However, I find it ridiculous that things like the death penalty exists, but you can't choose to die through euthanasia in most countries. Withholding the option is a violation of human rights just as much as condemning an innocent person to death. If you think life is too sacred to go out peacefully and you want to suffer painfully then leave me out.
However, I find it ridiculous that things like the death penalty exists, but you can't choose to die through euthanasia in most countries. Withholding the option is a violation of human rights just as much as condemning an innocent person to death. If you think life is too sacred to go out peacefully and you want to suffer painfully then leave me out.
Spring-Loaded
Member
Yup, this is true justice. And the more elaborate and creative the punishment, the more justiceful it is.
What kind of punishment options do you think the government should provide the families of victims? You can send your ideas to me through PM; we can share.
OldKentuckyShark
Member
A lot of people seem to think that life in prison is a worse sentence then death. I disagree. I think most people in jail for life would disagree. I'd say this is indicated by the fact that most people in jail for life haven't killed themselves, meaning they would rather be in prison then dead. At the very least, they've got 3 meals a day, people to talk to, time outside, and books to read. All things I'd say that someone who, say, blew up several elementary schools, doesn't deserve.
They dont have a lot of that stuff if they are in solitary or at some of the more infamous federal prisons.
Octavion Rex
Banned
This is what I meant.
I had a counselor who was from South Africa or close to that. He told us how a man came into the house at night and slaughtered his parents. He and his sister were at a boarding school during this time. The police captured the guy. They then sent the man and the two siblings out on the lake with a cement block tied to the mans legs. They had the choice to toss him over or forgive him. My counselor wanted to toss him over, but his sister calmed him down and they talked with the man the whole day, just floating out on the lake. They shared their stories and about Jesus. The man was so overcome that he couldn't stop crying. The two ended up forgiving him and meeting the man in jail regularly. They mentored the man through their faith and he converted to Christianity. Eventually becoming the prisons Chaplin. Now they meet him every year on holidays, eating and drinking from the same table. (yes, this is a true story)
This is why I posted that. To show that love and forgiveness save lives and continually change the world.
This is the craziest thing I've read all year. Damn....
Spring-Loaded
Member
mistuhcahlos
Member
I'm for the death penalty with money being the primary reason. If someone in their mid 20's or 30's gets a life without parole sentence, taking into account their medical expenses when they become elderly, it would cost the state much more to keep them alive. Also, just because someone is behind bars does not mean they cease becoming a threat. A young corrections officer in my state was strangled to death with a telephone cord just two years ago by an inmate that had a life sentence. These kind of predators also prey on other inmates that will eventually be released back into society.
Why do you think that body count is the only relevant statistic? Because in a very draconian police state you could have a very low body count!So the debate is :
Death penalty
VS
Rehabilitation
I think we should look at it this way :
How many innocent people were wrongly killed with death penalty?
VS
How many innocent people were wrongly killed by someone who got out of jail after being rehabilitated?
That should give us a good clue about which is more damaging to society
ramuh
Member
Hmm. You don't have to sign a contract to be a part of the social contract. You are born to a country that has a set of law/punishment etc. If that doesn't fit you bill you could leave. Or better yet, elect officials who share your affinity so you can do things in the legislative world to get those laws you don't like changed. That argument can be used to say that I didn't agree to pay the Government my taxes, do I enjoy the benefit of those taxes? Then I'm in a contract. It's an obtuse argument. The point is we elected our officials throughout our Government's life who deem Federally that Executions can fit the crime and if convicted can go through appeals an then be executed.
Octavion Rex
Banned
I do understand, I agree with you. This is true justice in every form. This guys story is just incredible.
old
Member
Yes.
- there is always the possibility that we might execute an innocent person which would make us all murders and heavily outweighs executing a 1000 guilty people.
- it endangers more innocent people because it encourages murderers to take more lives if necessary to not get caught and to not surrender knowing that they will die anyways. Eliminating the death penalty is less about the current murderer and more about future murderers. It empowers us to promise them that if they stop their rampage and turn themselves in that no harm will come to them.
- there is always the possibility that we might execute an innocent person which would make us all murders and heavily outweighs executing a 1000 guilty people.
- it endangers more innocent people because it encourages murderers to take more lives if necessary to not get caught and to not surrender knowing that they will die anyways. Eliminating the death penalty is less about the current murderer and more about future murderers. It empowers us to promise them that if they stop their rampage and turn themselves in that no harm will come to them.
benjipwns
Banned
Well, unless the "social contract" states that I can't.
The problem with the notion of a "social contract" is that there are no limits to it, it is undefined, only one party can change or even interpret the terms and the other party has no matter of "legitimate" recourse.
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise
http://about.usps.com/publications/pub300a/pub300a_tech_021.htm
This for me.
Save it for those cases where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt. Like Martin Bryant in Australia in 1996.
Who defines when there is absolutely no doubt?
Angelus Errare
Banned
Well from this thread, I have learned that my state has the power of life or death over its denizens…which means they really can't complain when cops execute people randomly.
benjipwns
Banned
Hey, they signed the social contract. Should have hired a lawyer to look it over first.
100 witnesses and the fact that he confessed to the murders?
What about other cases? Would just a confession be enough or just the witnesses?
ShironRedshift
Member
Firmly against. There's no purpose that can be fulfilled by the death penalty and the death penalty alone, and killing people when it's not absolutely necessary, when we have other options we can utilize that achieve the same ends, makes us no different from those proposed to be executed, aside from just the schoolyard mentality of "B-but he did it first!", entirely ignoring that in both cases one is able to remove any shred of sympathy or empathy for their target, followed by proceeding in that target's execution, resulting in them having much more in common with each other than not. The whole thing just makes zero sense to me and I find the entire concept deplorable.
Romars202129
Member
Eh, I think I'm for it...
If only because it seems a hella lot more humane than life in solitary...
Oz really made that shit look like hell...
If only because it seems a hella lot more humane than life in solitary...
Oz really made that shit look like hell...
benjipwns
Banned
The amusing or depressing part is that one of the purposes of a codified law and established legal system is to eliminate people taking justice and retribution into their own hands with things like gang/clan/revenge killings. Instead we're all supposed to submit to the system for the benefit of stability and security. So we put the criminals through this elaborate and expensive process just to wind up killing them for revenge in the end.
Doctoglethorpe
Member
It solves absolutely nothing, don't really need another reason.
ShironRedshift
Member
Eh, you can be against both though. I'm against not only the death penalty, but also solitary confinement and being incarcerated for life with no chance of parole, myself. They're all terrible for their own reasons, IMO.
Romars202129
Member
If Oz taught me anything, it's that there is no simple solution to the prison system. Shit is fucked left right and center.
If there was any one right answer, I'd say bring back penal colonies. Australia turned out alright [save for the natives]
MisterFalcon
Member
So the debate is :
Death penalty
VS
Rehabilitation
I think we should look at it this way :
How many innocent people were wrongly killed with death penalty?
VS
How many innocent people were wrongly killed by someone who got out of jail after being rehabilitated?
That should give us a good clue about which is more damaging to society
A study was done into all the death row inmates whose death sentence was invalidated in 1972 as a result of a Supreme Court decision in Georgia vs Furman.
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1612&context=llr
They found that in the 558 inmates they studied killed four prisoners and two prison guards in jail and one person after release. Four of the 558 had their convictions overturned at a later moment.
The study was made in 1989, the year Kenneth McDuff was paroled so the numbers do not include the 9, possibly 14 women he killed after being released.
Jesus H Christ. This is NOT true, it's been brought up many times in this thread. It's cheaper to NOT have a death penalty because of legal cost.
- Status