Death Penalty - for/against?

Seinfeld had a great joke about this.

JERRY: People like the idea of revenge. Have you ever heard the expression 'The best revenge is living well' I've said this, in other words it means supposedly the best way to get back at someone is just by being happy and successful in your own life. Sounds nice, doesn't really work on that Charles Bronson. kinda level. You know what I mean, those movies where his whole family gets wiped out by some street scum. You think you could go up to him, 'Charlie forgot about the 357 what you need is a custom-made suit and a convertible. New carpeting, french doors, a divan. That'll show those punks.'

Why can't you have both revenge and the fly gear?
 
Last edited:
Again and again. ..
1....there are many crimes where the person is 100% guilty through DNA and video......like child porn, anyone on tape doing such things should be killed.
2....only rich countries can keep people In prison for so long...the salaries, pensions,food, heat and medical are ridiculous.
3. It's not wrong to kill evil people, line drawn the people asking to spare the lives of evil people are even worse. How can anyone ask for the protection of people who commit horrible crimes and ask for no death penalty...these are people who think money and protection come from thin air.
You be liberal with your money you go broke.
You be liberal with sex you get a disease.
You be liberal with evil people you get repeat offenders out on the streets and not in jails
 
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?

It certainly does stop people from committing crimes. I've never seen or heard of a corpse re-offending.

Death sentences are heavily reviewed as every bleeding heart tries to stop the execution.

The reason it doesn't have a deterrent effect is that it is so seldom used.

I'd like to see it expanded. States have three strikes laws where 3 felonies lands you in prison for life. I believe in second chances but not three. Make it 2 strikes and you're dead. Most criminals that get caught for a crime have already committed several that they weren't caught for.
 
For. Big time. Against all the red tape behind it, driving costs up tremendously.
 
Last edited:
Against it in all cases.
 
This is a key issue. Many, like myself, do not believe the state should be given power to kill people and especially citizens. But even if you do believe that killing people is per se okay if they deserve it, there is the issue of wrongful convictions that will never disappear due to the human element (false confessions, false witness statements, tampered-with evidence, corrupt or prejudiced judges, naive juries, bad defense attorneys, withholding of evidence by DAs wanting to 'win' the case).

@panamaican is of the opinion that while all that is true, killing innocents is not as bad as not having the death penalty because the death penalty serves a useful purpose and from a strictly utilitarian perspective, those who are innocent simply have had bad luck (I am paraphrasing and spinning this, obviously, so feel free to reiterate your position @panamaican). Personally, I disagree because I simply do not know of any evidence how the death penalty has lead to better situations as opposed to those in countries without it. If someone could hook me up with a large-n study of family traumatization and happiness that shows relatives are significantly happier with than without the death penalty, I might reconsider that aspect.

That's not quite my position. My position, insofar as we're discussing the innocent, is that we're never going to eliminate incarcerating innocent people. Once you accept that, I don't see the value in determining the effectiveness of the policy based on the possibility that an innocent might become the victim. If eliminating the unjust punishment of innocents is truly the deciding factor then all forms of punishment should be removed.

Obviously, no one is saying that. They only mention this "wrongful conviction" argument when we're discussing the death penalty. Sure, the finality of the d.penalty separates it from other forms of punishment. But, regardless of the actual punishment, a wrongfully convicted man who dies behind bars is no better off than a wrongfully convicted man who gets death. I just can't limit my opinion on it to those occasions where 1) a man is wrongfully convicted; and 2) said error is noticed and repaired prior to him losing a significant chunk of his life because of it. If you lose 30 years of your prime years to prison, getting out at 60 because someone finally realized it is small consolation if everyone else in your pre-incarceration life has moved on.

Strengthen the front end to minimize false convictions, not weaken the back end.
 
I'm for it. Instead of abolishing the death penalty due to possible wrongful convictions, maybe we should instead clean up the justice system to do more to eliminate wrongful convictions.
 
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.


Really?
 
SOME conservatives claim that the government cant be trusted to operate the DMV or schools, but do claim that it can be trusted with which citizens to execute. weird.

they're also often evangelical....even weirder.
 
Against it in all cases.
Right up until someone you care deeply for experiences rape, torture and murder at the hands of some depraved asshole. Then, the smart money is on you having a torch and pitchfork in your hands.
 
I'm for it. Instead of abolishing the death penalty due to possible wrongful convictions, maybe we should instead clean up the justice system to do more to eliminate wrongful convictions.
This is the smart play here.
 
Im against it, murder is wrong in almost any context. The goverment is always fucking shit up.

I watched teh documentary "into the abyss" and the big ol Texan who was in charge of executions really opened my eyes.
 
Nay. Far too many innocent people are convicted of crimes for me to believe innocent people aren't executed.
 

yes, more like several violent felonies. Only issue of course would be that the real murders would still be free. But in theory those people are not the problem for me, when it comes to wrongfully convicted.
 
Against it for a variety of reasons. Two pragmatic reasons to oppose it are the clear incidences of wrongful convictions and the demonstrated bias in sentencing.
 
Right up until someone you care deeply for experiences rape, torture and murder at the hands of some depraved asshole. Then, the smart money is on you having a torch and pitchfork in your hands.
So what? If someone I cared about were tortured and murdered I would be inclined to do the same to them. That emotional response doesn't mean much and we shouldn't be forming policy on fear.
 
So what? If someone I cared about were tortured and murdered I would be inclined to do the same to them. That emotional response doesn't mean much and we shouldn't be forming policy on fear.
I think that's exactly where you're wrong. Criminals even considering doing this should be shaking in their boots thinking about the consequences. There should be a big stick for offenses like this. They shouldn't be sitting in comfort, playing video games and giving interviews like that asshole in the Netherlands that shot 50 people.

And hey, that's fine. You want to treat these people with kid gloves and your side is able to convince people that the death penalty isn't the answer? Then pony the fuck up and use YOUR money to keep these waste of oxygen scumbags alive, fed and healthy for the rest of their lives, a consideration their victims sure as hell didn't get. Because I don't want to spend one cent on it. Place a box in the 1040EZ form that indicates you want to spend your own money doing this. Because I would rather set those dollars on fire than see them support people like the BTK killer and the like.
 
Last edited:
I think that's exactly where you're wrong. Criminals even considering doing this should be shaking in their boots thinking about the consequences. There should be a big stick for offenses like this. They shouldn't be sitting in comfort, playing video games and giving interviews like that asshole in the Netherlands that shot 50 people.

And hey, that's fine. You want to treat these people with kid gloves and your side is able to convince people that the death penalty isn't the answer? Then pony the fuck up and use YOUR money to keep these waste of oxygen scumbags alive, fed and healthy for the rest of their lives, a consideration their victims sure as hell didn't get. Because I don't want to spend one cent on it. Place a box in the 1040EZ form that indicates you want to spend your own money doing this. Because I would rather set those dollars on fire than see them support people like the BTK killer and the like.


You do understand that it's cheaper to keep someone in isolation for life than to execute them? That's just based off the standard trial costs. The death penalty isn't the answer because historically it's been applied to innocent people. Would you want that to happen to you or one of your friends? I wouldn't. Besides that, sticking someone in prison for life without parole is a way worse punishment that taking their life away. In prison, they suffer daily. Once dead, they are done suffering. Plus it gives everyone the chance to find innocents that slipped through the system.
 
I think that's exactly where you're wrong. Criminals even considering doing this should be shaking in their boots thinking about the consequences. There should be a big stick for offenses like this. They shouldn't be sitting in comfort, playing video games and giving interviews like that asshole in the Netherlands that shot 50 people.
So, what, regular torture sessions? Periodic starvation? Should we hire some experts on flaying people? How big of a stick?

Place a box in the 1040EZ form that indicates you want to spend your own money doing this. Because I would rather set those dollars on fire than see them support people like the BTK killer and the like.
We all pay for things we don't agree with. Welcome to democracy.
 
Back
Top