Death Penalty... For or against?

I don't agree with it. As much as we've come to understand DNA and other methods of proving people guilty there are always the outliers, and there have been plenty of examples of people exonerated after they'd been executed. It's just not worth it. I feel like the appeals process for inmates on death row probably costs more than just feeding and housing them for their life in prison.
 
Death penalty is sometimes too less, that's why life imprisonment is best. He will be killed in just one shot where as if he's sentenced for life time then he would be living a hell of a life daily.
 
Snoopi said:
Death penalty is sometimes too less, that's why life imprisonment is best. He will be killed in just one shot where as if he's sentenced for life time then he would be living a hell of a life daily.
Click to expand...

Inb4 'luxury jails' 'argument'
 
Medusas Weave said:
Then okay, we are going to be CONSISTENT then.
If what you are saying is true, I would bet money there are more innocent people in jail that are not on death row than on death row

By your EXACT LOGIC we should not punish anyone due to the fact that one innocent person cannot be punished.

We would have to FREE everyone in jail according to your absolute dumb as fuck logic.

Or, do you want to admit you have a shit argument that even you know is too stupid to apply consistently???


ps- how many innocent victims of crime are there in the world? funny how we can have innocent people be victims of criminals no problem but yet we are so worried about innocent people in jail to the point of compromising justice.
Click to expand...

wtf are you talking about ? im confuse right now.

the statement that i make clearly meant that we must prioritize not punishing innocent rather than punishing people who are guilty of crime.

that is why there is also another saying that goes like this "innocent until proven guilty"

no matter how bad the criminal punished, the victims would still suffer the loss, but if you punish an innocent person, now you have more victims.

that is why i am against death penalty, innocent people get jailed still can be set free and compensate for being punish unjustly.

but if innocent people get death penalty there is absolutely no way to bring them back and now way to compensate the unjust treatment they receive.
 
Personal experience has made me an avid fan of retributive justice.
 
I'm all for removing limbs of violent repeat offenders...


Just how dangerous can a man with no arms be? My only gripe with the death penalty is that it's not consistent from state to state. Needs to be nation wide or not at all.
 
In favour of it.
It might not deter anyone, but the criminal in question certainly won't be hurting anyone ever again.

The rest of the justice system needs an upgrade, though, to uphold a moral death penalty.
 
PrinceOfPain said:
In favour of it.
It might not deter anyone, but the criminal in question certainly won't be hurting anyone ever again.
Click to expand...



Nothing you couldn't achieve with life imprisonment, thus a kinda weak argument.

I love how people want to do away with the appeals process. Bet those are the same clamoring for their constitutional rights when it comes to arms.
 
PrinceOfPain said:
Except you don't have to feed, clothe and house dead people.
Click to expand...

The cost argument has been debunked countless times. Killing people in a democracy is more expensive.

If you kill people right after sentencing, now that's different. Better even: Kill them right after apprehension. Those would be "cheap and quick" solutions but they are incompatible with democracy and rule of law which OF COURSE includes checks and balances and appeals processes.

There is NO "quick and cheap" solution for the death penalty outside of authoritarian states. There literally is no other argument for the death penalty other than openly admitting you just want to have some fuckers put down because you are convinced - knowing it will not be true in all cases - they are guilty.

The argument by proponents that "the problem is not the death penalty, it is the criminal justice system" with regard to 100% determination of guilt is only partially correct. Since there are human beings involved who always will remain fallible and corruptible, you will never get a perfect criminal justice. This is EXACTLY why you cannot have a measure that is not reversible. Life imprisonment can be ended and even if you stole lifetime from an innocent convict, you can compensate them for it and they can live the rest of their lives in freedom. Even if that rest of their lives is only a few years, who are you to say that their life is over anyway?

It's truly an American specialty how otherwise rational thinkers get carried away when debating death penalty and guns. I'm guessing it's a tradition thing.
 
JDragon said:
The cost argument has been debunked countless times. Killing people in a democracy is more expensive.

If you kill people right after sentencing, now that's different. Better even: Kill them right after apprehension. Those would be "cheap and quick" solutions but they are incompatible with democracy and rule of law which OF COURSE includes checks and balances and appeals processes.

There is NO "quick and cheap" solution for the death penalty outside of authoritarian states. There literally is no other argument for the death penalty other than openly admitting you just want to have some fuckers put down because you are convinced - knowing it will not be true in all cases - they are guilty.

The argument by proponents that "the problem is not the death penalty, it is the criminal justice system" with regard to 100% determination of guilt is only partially correct. Since there are human beings involved who always will remain fallible and corruptible, you will never get a perfect criminal justice. This is EXACTLY why you cannot have a measure that is not reversible. Life imprisonment can be ended and even if you stole lifetime from an innocent convict, you can compensate them for it and they can live the rest of their lives in freedom. Even if that rest of their lives is only a few years, who are you to say that their life is over anyway?

It's truly an American specialty how otherwise rational thinkers get carried away when debating death penalty and guns. I'm guessing it's a tradition thing.
Click to expand...

Then I guess I'm in favour of an undemocratic application of the death penalty.
Also, I'm not American, and I'm not obsessed with guns, so you can put those talking points back in their box.
 
PrinceOfPain said:
Then I guess I'm in favour of an undemocratic application of the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I just believe that those who have this stance have not thought it through.

If we do away with appeals processes for murder, why should we have them for lesser crimes? That would significantly streamline the system overall.

And why would we even have a third power? Is it not enough if the state attorney determines what happened and renders a sentence?

Hell, why even involve the suspect? The GDR shot people in the neck from behind without them knowing they were to be executed.

Also, I'm not American, and I'm not obsessed with guns, so you can put those talking points back in their box.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am aware. Not all of those points were directed at you.
 
K1levelgrappler said:
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.
Click to expand...

gPE89_zps92ki7szp.gif
 
JDragon said:
I just believe that those who have this stance have not thought it through.
Click to expand...

Oh, I've thought it through. We probably just have different values, or at least we prioritise them differently.
Is normal.

JDragon said:
If we do away with appeals processes for murder, why should we have them for lesser crimes? That would significantly streamline the system overall.
Click to expand...

That is a good question.

JDragon said:
Hell, why even involve the suspect? The GDR shot people in the neck from behind without them knowing they were to be executed.
Click to expand...

Well, if there's been an exhaustive investigation, and guilt has been determined, then that sounds like a pretty humane way to do it when compared to leaving someone sitting on death row for years, awaiting execution.

Have there been studies performed to determine the psychological impact on the accused (and his/her family) of, say, five years on death row?


JDragon said:
Oh, I am aware. Not all of those points were directed at you.
Click to expand...

Ah, my apologies.
 
Throttlehead said:
What problems?
Click to expand...

The problems with false convictions getting overturned later down the road. With the death penalty, a falsely convicted person has completely lost the opportunity to salvage some of his/her life.

Additionally, I suspect that people don't continue investigating the guilt of the dead with the same zeal as the guilt of the living. So fewer false convictions will be identified prompting fewer inspections of the overall system.

That said, I still support the death penalty and think that it should be carried out far earlier than it currently is.
 
Last edited:
Definitely for.

Some people and some crimes deserve nothing less.
 
I am all for it.
the lengthy and expensive process of getting one is not the problem of death penalty per se, it is the fucked up system.
there should probably be a little higher standards for getting one, but once getting it, it should be done within a week.
pretty much anything that gets you life in prison should warrant a death penalty.
 
Pem123 said:
100% against.
Click to expand...

not even for these guys
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-home-invasion-20140730-story.html

or this human POS

http://abcnews.go.com/US/las-vegas-family-massacre-arrested-suspect-bryan-clay/story?id=16245448

Pem I'm sure you have your reasons. maybe you're very religious I can respect that if that's the case. but if a rabid animal kills a human shouldn't that animal be put down? in some cases like people getting killed by sharks, and alligators the animal is just hunting or acting on it's innate prey drive.

then you get these hunters go out and kill a bunch of bears or cougars that may not have been responsible for the attack.

Humans have no such excuse. so in my opinion if found guilty of certain crimes beyond any shadow of a doubt they should be executed. esp if there's DNA evidence like the attack on the Martinez family in the second link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,091
Messages
55,467,219
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top