Death Penalty - for/against?

[Byron Carter]

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?

People too often think of the perpetrators perspective. Let's try thinking of capital punishment from a father's perspective. Or a mother, sister, child of the victim, etc.

Imagine someone snatches your 5-6 year old daughter from your back-yard while your wife is doing the dishes, and you're at work. Your wife is loosely keeping an eye on her, in a upper middle class neighborhood. She knows all the neighbors, never been a crime anywhere nearby. Wife looks down at the trash can for a moment to throw a rag away, and some monster snatches the girl, runs to a neighbors shed a few houses down.

He proceeds to rape her, while she feebly screams for help, her little voice not loud enough to break through the shed. Your wife is panicked, looking everywhere for her. Now, the girl is young, too young to understand sex, rape, etc. She's just terrified, screaming for YOU.

A neighbor hears the cries, and she runs to open the shed. The rapist slashes the little girls throat, and runs off. She dies, of course. DNA evidence left behind, eye-witness, finger-prints.

As a father, you have to go to court for months, possibly years while this sick fuck laughs in the courtroom. In the county jail, he stabs another inmate to death over commissary. He's placed in confinement, while in confinement, he's throwing piss and shit on the officers. Every time the officers have to cell-extract him, it's costing the tax-payers money, since the Supreme Court ruled that all inmates must be provided full health care by the state.

So, while this guy has done an unimaginable crime to end up in jail, he's still causing pain. He's ruining lives, careers, costing millions, and even harming people. He doesn't disappear into a vacuum when sent to jail.


And he hasn't even been sentenced yet.


Over the next 30-40 years, that father has to go to sleep knowing that the monster who killed and raped his little girl is still breathing. Still reading books. Still watching TV. Masturbating. Ordering canteen items, exercising. Laughing.



Is that fair? Is that justice?





Alternative? Swift trial, and a swift execution. This monster will cause no more pain. No more suffering, and the victims families can sleep well at night.









And by the way, this story is true. And there are many, many more like it.


Monsters don't stop hurting people just because they are behind bars.

 

[rpn453]

Not only am I for it... I think it's an easy and relatively painless out . . .

It doesn't have to be.

 

[silicavaginitis]

People too often think of the perpetrators perspective. Let's try thinking of capital punishment from a father's perspective. Or a mother, sister, child of the victim, etc.

Imagine someone snatches your 5-6 year old daughter from your back-yard while your wife is doing the dishes, and you're at work. Your wife is loosely keeping an eye on her, in a upper middle class neighborhood. She knows all the neighbors, never been a crime anywhere nearby. Wife looks down at the trash can for a moment to throw a rag away, and some monster snatches the girl, runs to a neighbors shed a few houses down.

He proceeds to rape her, while she feebly screams for help, her little voice not loud enough to break through the shed. Your wife is panicked, looking everywhere for her. Now, the girl is young, too young to understand sex, rape, etc. She's just terrified, screaming for YOU.

A neighbor hears the cries, and she runs to open the shed. The rapist slashes the little girls throat, and runs off. She dies, of course. DNA evidence left behind, eye-witness, finger-prints.

As a father, you have to go to court for months, possibly years while this sick fuck laughs in the courtroom. In the county jail, he stabs another inmate to death over commissary. He's placed in confinement, while in confinement, he's throwing piss and shit on the officers. Every time the officers have to cell-extract him, it's costing the tax-payers money, since the Supreme Court ruled that all inmates must be provided full health care by the state.

So, while this guy has done an unimaginable crime to end up in jail, he's still causing pain. He's ruining lives, careers, costing millions, and even harming people. He doesn't disappear into a vacuum when sent to jail.


And he hasn't even been sentenced yet.


Over the next 30-40 years, that father has to go to sleep knowing that the monster who killed and raped his little girl is still breathing. Still reading books. Still watching TV. Masturbating. Ordering canteen items, exercising. Laughing.



Is that fair? Is that justice?





Alternative? Swift trial, and a swift execution. This monster will cause no more pain. No more suffering, and the victims families can sleep well at night.









And by the way, this story is true. And there are many, many more like it.


Monsters don't stop hurting people just because they are behind bars.

Time to ride the lightning!

 

[rpn453]

You do understand that it's cheaper to keep someone in isolation for life than to execute them?

It doesn't have to be.

 

[silicavaginitis]

It doesn't have to be.

How much is a single round of .308?

 

[Byron Carter]

How much is a single round of .308?

A tall tree, and a short piece of rope.

The rope is reusable.

 

[silicavaginitis]

A tall tree, and a short piece of rope.

The rope is reusable.

You're right,it would be more "green"....wouldn't want to piss off our liberal friends.

 

[BisexualMMA]

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?

Take all the money that has been saved by not having Ted Bundy alive for all these years on the taxpayers' dime. What program do you want to take it from to have fed and housed Ted Bundy?

 

[Milgrim]

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 would kill them myself. But that's not the death penalty, is it? (rhetorical question)

The justice system is not, and should not be, on par with a deeply personal desire from revenge stemming from great sadness and anger.

I stand by my statement. I don't agree with the death penalty under any circumstances. No qualifier. I respect your right to hold a different opinion. People of good conscience can disagree. But if you try to say that I don't really believe what I say I believe, then you are arrogantly, ignorantly wrong.

 

[Byron Carter]

I would kill them myself. But that's not the death penalty, is it? (rhetorical question)

The justice system is not, and should not be, on par with a deeply personal desire from revenge stemming from great sadness and anger.

I stand by my statement. I don't agree with the death penalty under any circumstances. No qualifier. I respect your right to hold a different opinion. People of good conscience can disagree. But if you try to say that I don't really believe what I say I believe, then you are arrogantly, ignorantly wrong.

So why do we not allow the government to kill on behalf of those who are too meek to do so in the case of capital punishment, yet we allow the government to kill in the context of law enforcement and war?

What makes carrying out the duty and tradition of execution any different from waging war, or protecting its citizens in any other way?

 

[Milgrim]

So why do we not allow the government to kill on behalf of those who are too meek to do so in the case of capital punishment, yet we allow the government to kill in the context of law enforcement and war?

What makes carrying out the duty and tradition of execution any different from waging war, or protecting its citizens in any other way?

We could debate the point for hours without convincing each other. In the end, all we would demonstrate is that we have different values. So, how about you and I just agree on that and skip the noise?

 

[Byron Carter]

We could debate the point for hours without convincing each other. In the end, all we would demonstrate is that we have different values. So, how about you and I just agree on that and skip the noise?

Are you also against the military or police killing people?

I'm genuinely curious.

Where do you draw the distinction?

 

[Bukowski82]

It doesn't have to be.

I'm with you...

 

[Bukowski82]

We could debate the point for hours without convincing each other. In the end, all we would demonstrate is that we have different values. So, how about you and I just agree on that and skip the noise?

No, it's not a 'we agree to disagree... You got destroyed. People called you on it. That's all there is to it.

 

[Bukowski82]

I would kill them myself. But that's not the death penalty, is it? (rhetorical question)

The justice system is not, and should not be, on par with a deeply personal desire from revenge stemming from great sadness and anger.

I stand by my statement. I don't agree with the death penalty under any circumstances. No qualifier. I respect your right to hold a different opinion. People of good conscience can disagree. But if you try to say that I don't really believe what I say I believe, then you are arrogantly, ignorantly wrong.

You can stand by your statement all you'd like, though I'd recommend that you don't after you essentially ended your own argument right off the bat admitting that you'd want to exact deadly revenge.

The fact is that should be the case... and only when you dig deep and imagine yourself as the family of a victim that has had these horrific things done do you agree with me 100%. Only to quickly try and be the guy that is reasonable. lol, you're an idiot. These animals should be put down... And that's not out of line with what you've said. At this point, you're simply discriminating against people who've actually been in that situation and didn't have the means to carry it out.

 

[Bukowski82]

Are you also against the military or police killing people?

I'm genuinely curious.

Where do you draw the distinction?

Byron, he already completely destroyed himself with his first sentence... Only to try to tell others how to behave in a similar situation. "Yes, I would exact revenge, but you shouldn't." lol, it's ludicrous. And frankly, he should be ashamed of himself.

 

[Byron Carter]

Byron, he already completely destroyed himself with his first sentence... Only to try to tell others how to behave in a similar situation. "Yes, I would exact revenge, but you shouldn't." lol, it's ludicrous. And frankly, he should be ashamed of himself.

I think everyone is in agreement, that revenge is desired and fair. Like you said, he even stated it himself.

Now, from a strictly emotionless, logical point of view: Does the state have a right, or duty, to kill?

I think any sane and fair-minded person would agree yes. The state has a right to kill. The state kills people in a premeditated fashion every single day with predator drones, military excursions, no-knock warrants.

I can't even fabricate a distinction. I just want him to provide any reason at all as to why it's OK for the state to kill in the above scenarios, but not to put down a deranged killer?

 

[Bukowski82]

I think everyone is in agreement, that revenge is desired and fair. Like you said, he even stated it himself.

Now, from a strictly emotionless, logical point of view: Does the state have a right, or duty, to kill?

I think any sane and fair-minded person would agree yes. The state has a right to kill. The state kills people in a premeditated fashion every single day with predator drones, military excursions, no-knock warrants.

I can't even fabricate a distinction. I just want him to provide any reason at all as to why it's OK for the state to kill in the above scenarios, but not to put down a deranged killer?

I just didn't want you to get trolled that essentially already agreed with us... But fantastic post, Bud.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Firmly in favour of it.

People complaining about the wrongful convictions: fix your legal system.

 

[Milgrim]

You can stand by your statement all you'd like, though I'd recommend that you don't after you essentially ended your own argument right off the bat admitting that you'd want to exact deadly revenge.

The fact is that should be the case... and only when you dig deep and imagine yourself as the family of a victim that has had these horrific things done do you agree with me 100%. Only to quickly try and be the guy that is reasonable. lol, you're an idiot. These animals should be put down... And that's not out of line with what you've said. At this point, you're simply discriminating against people who've actually been in that situation and didn't have the means to carry it out.

Byron, he already completely destroyed himself with his first sentence... Only to try to tell others how to behave in a similar situation. "Yes, I would exact revenge, but you shouldn't." lol, it's ludicrous. And frankly, he should be ashamed of himself.

You're just being argumentative. My point is that it is NOT the same thing. My point is that the guiding force of justice should be something more than a primal desire for revenge. This is a pretty simple point and I think you are smart enough to get it, even if you don't agree with it.

Anyway, you seem passionate about this issue. My advice would be to make a rational point rather than misrepresent what I am saying and calling me names. Otherwise, you just discredit yourself and your position.

I think everyone is in agreement, that revenge is desired and fair. Like you said, he even stated it himself.

Now, from a strictly emotionless, logical point of view: Does the state have a right, or duty, to kill?

I think any sane and fair-minded person would agree yes. The state has a right to kill. The state kills people in a premeditated fashion every single day with predator drones, military excursions, no-knock warrants.

I can't even fabricate a distinction. I just want him to provide any reason at all as to why it's OK for the state to kill in the above scenarios, but not to put down a deranged killer?

Thank you for being thoughtful and reasonable in your response.

The desire for revenge is fair and reasonable, but that doesn't mean that acting on it is the right thing to do. There are a number of reasons for that, but from a societal perspective, one of the most fundamental is that justice requires due process. If I can make a subjective decision that I have been wronged and that killing someone is an appropriate response, then anyone can.

So, if my family were victimized as in the example, I do not claim that I would have the right to exact revenge. I am just admitting that I probably would anyway.

You're absolutely right that the state should be above that and be logical and emotionless. Does the state have the right and duty to kill? Sometimes, yes. But all of the examples that I would give of it being necessary are cases where there is no other option and in all cases where a criminal has been apprehended and isvin the justice system, there are other options.

Again, I am fine if you disagree. I respect your right to hold a different opinion. And in another time and place, I would be happy to have a coversation with you about the details and specifics, but as demonstrated above, it's not really possible to have a reasonable discussion about these things on Sherdog, which is why I don't generally post in these threads and why this will be my last post in this one.

And now Bukowski will twist my words and call me names because he'd rather try to convince us all he's a badass that have a thoughtful conversation. Have at it, big guy!