Death Penalty - for/against?

People that comit certain act deserved to die but I am 100% against the death penalty

To support the death penalty you must have total faith in the judicial system of that state from top to bottom. There is not a state on the planet that I would give such powers to
 
Against! Not going to waste time listing reasons as those who are for can't be swayed and those against are already on board.
 
I support it in cases where we're 100% sure the guy did a vile crime. Video, DNA, internet bragging about the crime, etc. Proof of the crime has to be held to the highest of standards, the crime must be terribly bad. If all that's met, frickin stab the guy to death in a back room. No reason to draw things out or feed the guy for 50 years, just get rid of him.
 
I support it in cases where we're 100% sure the guy did a vile crime. Video, DNA, internet bragging about the crime, etc. Proof of the crime has to be held to the highest of standards, the crime must be terribly bad. If all that's met, frickin stab the guy to death in a back room. No reason to draw things out or feed the guy for 50 years, just get rid of him.
saying this implies you accept a lower standard for imprisonment for other crimes. Everyone sentenced to prison should have no reasonable doubt of guilt.
 
saying this implies you accept a lower standard for imprisonment for other crimes. Everyone sentenced to prison should have no reasonable doubt of guilt.

It is how it is right now. I'm not trying to comment or making implications about the current system's treatment of crimes w/o death penalty.
I'm just saying that whatever benchmark there is right now, it needs to be raised a great deal if the death penalty is to be considered. Guilty without any doubt whatsoever.

Disregarding any arguments of insanity, I present this example of a person I don't want to feed for 50 years:
james-holmes-320.jpg
 
don't really care either way, although it's pretty asinine that the State proves that murder is the ultimate crime/wrong, by......killing you.

wait, what
 
Completely for. I never can understand how someone supports military action which kills people often citizens and innocents via drone strikes among other things. And then is simultaneously against the death penalty. The key is to make sure it is not used to liberally like in China and to make sure the person is guilty. Dylan Roof is a prime candidate for the death penalty because we know he did it and so do the videos, witnesses, himself and the evidence.

Wrongful executions are also largely a thing of yesterday and occur more at the state level. That is why I like the idea of the Federal Government having the power more than individual states. I also think as the world's superpower in this increasingly unstable world it is not wise to do away with the death penalty. It would be terrible if the Federal Government did away with its right to carry out necessary force and justice against terrorists and sick human beings.

I am also of the opinion that ultra liberal nations that do not have it are rife with a weird self harming morality and have turned their back on a principle which is in accordance with nature's laws and human history. I am not a fan of torture but since ending a life to save a life can be justified. I also, feel that capital punishment is moral but should be carried out in extreme cases and should not be too easy to impose. The benefits are in ending a wicked persons life, and thereby preventing them from hurting or obstructing others, it also can offer comfort to a family to know they are gone. And lastly it is one of the few times an eye for an eye can be applicable.
 
I think it should be used more frequently, like for breaking and entering into people's homes, very corrupt politicians, corrupt cops, child molesters, violent rapists, etc.

It should absolutely never be used unless there is absolutely no doubt about the guilt. And, once the guilty party is identified, the execution should take place that very day. No expensive chemicals or lethal injection- just firing squad and toss them in the ocean.

I'm in complete agreement. The world is simply better off without certain people who intentionally harm others. No need to make a big deal out of it, just get rid of them quickly and efficiently. They're worthless.

If there's any doubt and they want to live, put them in the general population instead to serve out their sentence. It's not worth wasting resources dragging the process out either way.
 
1) It's objectively more expensive to handle and administer executions than it is to put someone in prison for life
2) The same can be said for people who are not in jail for life; it's more a critique on the prison system
3) Those people aren't usually on Death Row

If you want to argue that death penalties should be administered more quickly and efficiently, I'm not sure how you do that without increasing the likelihood of executing innocent people.

Most Pro-Death Penalty arguments come from an emotional place. A horrible person does something horrible and should be punished in an extreme fashion. It's an emotionally satisfying response. There's not a lot of utility beyond that.

Humans are emotional beings and the same anti-death penalty arguments come from an emotional place. In fact if you wanted to take a purely 'scientific' natural world view you can see how animals of the same species kill one another for certain incidents. From that natural standpoint the death penalty is righteous. Time to go live with the wolves and sheep stay away. But of course you may not like this response even though it's true so you will reference humans and their concept of "morality" and higher purpose and invent a reasoning for how we can play god and decide on who is fit to die and who is not. Then you must ask why support your state to begin with is it capable of providing needs for human emotions to better quality of life?
 
don't really care either way, although it's pretty asinine that the State proves that murder is the ultimate crime/wrong, by......killing you.

wait, what

You are making a presumption of the mission statement here.

Anyways, what do you want to do to the guy? "Feed him fried chicken and grool for 50 years"? That doesn't make a much better mission statement. Or how about "Force him to live with the sickest of all humanity for 50 years, with no hope of freedom". Is that noble? Take your pick, or write your own punishment and mission statement! There is no obvious way to deal with the trash heap of humanity. Feed them or kill them, either way it's far from clear logic.
 
Personally I dont understand how you can support it. Wrongfull convinctions happen all the time and death can't be overturned. Even for that reason alone I don't understand how you can support it.

Furthermore, it's proven that doesn't stop peopee from doing crime, so basically the detterent effect is non-existent.

What are the pro aguments? How can you explain it to yourself supporting something that you know has such flaws?


I'm pro-life.
 
I support it in cases where we're 100% sure the guy did a vile crime. Video, DNA, internet bragging about the crime, etc. Proof of the crime has to be held to the highest of standards, the crime must be terribly bad. If all that's met, frickin stab the guy to death in a back room. No reason to draw things out or feed the guy for 50 years, just get rid of him.

That's the problem though, you can almost never be 100% sure that's the person who did it.

My biggest issues with the death penalty are as follows...


1. Reliable convictions. We can't ensure that the police got the wrong man. Innocent people have been put to death, that's a fact. So we can't say it can't happen because it has. I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone. It has to be horrible being innocent on death row.

2. It's not a deterrent to others who will commit similar offenses. Statistically, having the death penalty doesn't stop the worst of the worst.

3. It's too fucking expensive. We spend too much money. It's cheaper to put someone in jail for live than to kill them.

4. Keeping them in jail for life is a harsher punishment than death. Once we kill them, the punishment is over for them. They can no longer suffer in prison for their crime.

4. It's racist. Minorities are way more likely to be sentenced to death than whites for the same crime in the same place.


I just think since we can't be 100% sure of their guilt, the government shouldn't be in the business of murdering others. I think a better punishment for those criminals is to isolate them in a tiny cell for 23.5 hours a day. The other half hour they get to into an empty room with the ceiling gone. They never see another human again. Everything is done through the hole in their door. Every meal is the exact same. They are only allowed access to educational, legal, and religious reading material. The only humans they see are a medical professional and their lawyer, and that's done through the hole in their door. Something like that completely removes their tgreat to society, but gives us the chance to find innocent people when technology improves.
 
In theory, I am for it.

In practice, I am against it.

I have read to much about about falsified FBI testimony, and our broken criminal justice system to support it today.

I just don't think you are paying attention if you support the death penalty with the sourced atrocities available for anyone that wants to open their eyes.
 
I am for it, not to concerned about wrong convictions these days.

How many people on death-row are truly innocent? Don't most of them have a long criminal history? And that is just the stuff they got busted for. Not really concerned to much about a guy with 10+ robberies getting the needle for a crime he didn't do.

But I understand the arguments against it in general, I just think you do a certain crime the only option would be to get the death penalty.
 
Child rapists should be first on the list for the death penalty in my opinion.
 
Against. If we always got the bad guy then I would be for it but we've had so many people on death row who were innocent your pretty much a POS if you support that system.
 
In theory yes, with the landscape of our justice system no.
 
In theory, I am for it.

In practice, I am against it.

I have read to much about about falsified FBI testimony, and our broken criminal justice system to support it today.

I just don't think you are paying attention if you support the death penalty with the sourced atrocities available for anyone that wants to open their eyes.
Same here. I am "for it" in the hypothetical sense when it's 100% proven you have not only committed the act, but absolutely feel no remorse and will most likely do it again - also as a population control measure for the worst of criminals, like child rapists, etc. . But the world isn't black and white, and it's hard to trust the judicial system with such power.
 
Back
Top