Death Penalty... For or against?

[Jack Handy jr]

I know I'm not breaking any new thread ground with this one. so no I didn't use the search function.

Just wanted to get you guys take on the James Holmes Verdict. I wanted him to get the Death Penalty because all the evidence showed that he wasn't "crazy" just a heartless evil killer.

But I got to thinking ....If I was on Holmes jury would I really have voted for him to be executed?

What say you? and what's your stance on Capital punishment for people like Holmes in general.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/0...ath-penalty-for-theater-shooter-james-holmes/

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Too expensive.

Doesn't deter murder

Too imperfect. ( innocent people get executed)

Too inefficient. ( took 12 years to execute mcveigh)

As a Vulcan would say, it's illogical.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

I'm not willing to sacrifice even a single innocent life just to satiate peoples desire for revenge. It's a backwards and indefensible practice and if you look around the world at who's doing it we should be embarrassed to be in such company.

 

[KnightTemplar]

In cases like Holmes, yes, I'd support the death penalty. For the, "average" murderer, no way. Too many mistakes have been made. I would only support the death penalty in cases were guilt has been proven not beyond reasonable but any doubt.

 

[HereticBD]

100% for the death penalty in cases where guilt is 100%.

 

[MANIAC123]

Against.

Life in prison is a worse punishment in my opinion. It is also too expensive and government should not decide when or when not to kill people.

 

[Jack Handy jr]

Too expensive.

Doesn't deter murder

Too imperfect. ( innocent people get executed)

Too inefficient. ( took 12 years to execute mcveigh)

As a Vulcan would say, it's illogical.

yeah man I think that's my biggest issue with it esp with the innocence project finding so many dudes were wrongfully convicted

 

[jamiehunter]

I'd be for it in cases where it's 100% the person is guilty if it wasn't for the cost to execute somebody and how long it takes.

 

[Jack Handy jr]

In cases like Holmes, yes, I'd support the death penalty. For the, "average" murderer, no way. Too many mistakes have been made. I would only support the death penalty in cases were guilt has been proven not beyond reasonable but any doubt.

You know man I followed that case pretty closely and my craphouse psychologist take on Holmes was that this whole thing was calculated. I think he was only seeing a shrink to validate his "I'm crazy" defense after he did what he meticulously calculated, and designed to do. which was a mass killing.

and then for him to not off himself like most of these mass shooters and just sit there waiting to be arrested...yeah that s.o.b was crazy but not Adam lanza crazy he was just evil and imo opinion needs to be put down

 

[PolishHeadlock]

I don't have a problem with it morally but it doesn't make sense pragmatically.

 

[oldshadow]

For it in certain cases and this most likely would be one of them.

 

[Jack Handy jr]

100% for the death penalty in cases where guilt is 100%.

man I 'm pretty much the same way but this innocence project is finding a lil too much wrong doing or shotty detective work. I think if it's a capital offence DNA evidence should be the delineating factor whether to state sanction off a guy. eye witnesses, coerced confessions, just too much iffy work in a lot of these convictions.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-imprisonment

 

[picasso]

Against. Too much of a chance innocent people could (and have been) put to death.

It should be considered for the killings of police/detectives, witnesses, or inmates/correctional officers. They are the only times it may possibly be considered a deterrent.

 

[ripskater]

The death penalty is more humane than locking them up for life.

Also, it gives the accused the chance to get right with God before his time is up.

 

[7437]

man I 'm pretty much the same way but this innocence project is finding a lil too much wrong doing or shotty detective work. I think if it's a capital offence DNA evidence should be the delineating factor whether to state sanction off a guy. eye witnesses, coerced confessions, just too much iffy work in a lot of these convictions.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-imprisonment

Not a good idea, DNA evidence gets faked to get convictions all the time.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/19/nation/na-briefs19.4

 

[HelloJapan]

Too expensive.

Doesn't deter murder

Too imperfect. ( innocent people get executed)

Too inefficient. ( took 12 years to execute mcveigh)

As a Vulcan would say, it's illogical.

Decent summation imo.

Only in two cases do i believe in it:

1) Psychopaths
2) Pedophiles

Next to zero effective treatment with these two criminal types.

 

[Jack Handy jr]

The death penalty is more humane than locking them up for life.

Also, it gives the accused the chance to get right with God before his time is up.

yeah Rip kinda reminds me of when Johnny Utah finally slapped the cuffs on Bodie "you know I cant handle a cage man!"

seriously I couldn't do life without the possibility of parole. that's why I watch all the First 48, CSI, and CSI new Orleans I can find.

If I ever have to ghost somebody I want to get away with it.

 

[HereticBD]

man I 'm pretty much the same way but this innocence project is finding a lil too much wrong doing or shotty detective work. I think if it's a capital offence DNA evidence should be the delineating factor whether to state sanction off a guy. eye witnesses, coerced confessions, just too much iffy work in a lot of these convictions.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-imprisonment

Oh' yeah, but when I say 100% I mean 100% which there is still such a thing as. It would be a very small pool of people. Holmes for instance, should be killed.

 

[Jack Handy jr]

Not a good idea, DNA evidence gets faked to get convictions all the time.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/19/nation/na-briefs19.4

wait what?!?

 

[TSO]

Too expensive.

Only because of the endless bureaucracy. Killing can be as cheap as pushing someone off a cliff. Cliffs are free.

Doesn't deter murder

It sure does. Most murders are committed by people that have done so more than once. Killing them prevents 100% recidivism rates.

Too imperfect. ( innocent people get executed)

Too inefficient. ( took 12 years to execute mcveigh)

These are really critiques of the current system than they are arguments against it.

As a Vulcan would say, it's illogical.

Actually logic would dictate that if you have a way of stopping someone from killing again, than it's perfectly logical to take that action. Killing that person being 100% effective at doing this is the most logical solution to the given problem.

The problem with vulcan "logic" is that Roddenberry didn't understand logic, so couldn't write them as having it effectively as seen by his removal of emotion which in and of itself is illogical.