Death Penalty... For or against?

[Thurisaz]

So you are cool with the death penalty as long as lynchings are fair game?

As long as justice is served.

 

[Adamant]

For it.

 

[Adamant]

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.

Keeping someone in prison for life is WAY more expensive than the death penalty.

 

[andnowweknow]

Keeping someone in prison for life is WAY more expensive than the death penalty.

Nope.

http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

 

[Cid]

Against. Sure a lot of people deserve to die but I don't trust the system to be infallible.

I find it funny that the most hate your incompetant government society in the western world is the only one that still has it.

 

[Adamant]

Nope.

http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

In terms of the horrid legal processes, yeah, I can see the expense. But if we could reform it in a way where if you get the death penalty, you have a maxiumum of 3 years to challenge it (and a law which guaranteed that you could be heard in that amount of time, and another law which states the subsequent process couldn't be drawn out more than a year) that would cut costs a whole lot. In other words, it needs to be done in a way where if you're convicted, the process is expedited and you're put to death relatively quickly.

Life in prision means food, water, all those man-hours of working guards watching you, needing to build new facilities, upkeep on current facilities, etc. It's expensive too.

I am absolutely for the death penalty, as in the act of ending the guilty person's life, but I'm not for the process which draws it out 25+ years.

 

[ChainFlow]

In terms of the horrid legal processes, yeah, I can see the expense. But if we could reform it in a way where if you get the death penalty, you have a maxiumum of 3 years to challenge it (and a law which guaranteed that you could be heard in that amount of time, and another law which states the subsequent process couldn't be drawn out more than a year) that would cut costs a whole lot. In other words, it needs to be done in a way where if you're convicted, the process is expedited and you're put to death relatively quickly.

Life in prision means food, water, all those man-hours of working guards watching you, needing to build new facilities, upkeep on current facilities, etc. It's expensive too.

I am absolutely for the death penalty, as in the act of ending the guilty person's life, but I'm not for the process which draws it out 25+ years.

Did you read the links Jack Handy jr posted about the innocent people that have been rescued from death row?

All of them were only found to have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death AFTER 3 years had passed.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

For it. It was not designed to save money,I'm not sure how money became any part of the argument. It's purpose isn't to be a deterrent. It's purpose is to give the ultimate punishment to pieces of shit.

 

[Adamant]

Did you read the links Jack Handy jr posted about the innocent people that have been rescued from death row?

All of them were only found to have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death AFTER 3 years had passed.

As is, it's a fucked up system. In addition with overhauling the death penalty, to expedite it, the whole rest of it needs to be reformed as well. Comprehensive.

 

[andnowweknow]

In terms of the horrid legal processes, yeah, I can see the expense. But if we could reform it in a way where if you get the death penalty, you have a maxiumum of 3 years to challenge it (and a law which guaranteed that you could be heard in that amount of time, and another law which states the subsequent process couldn't be drawn out more than a year) that would cut costs a whole lot. In other words, it needs to be done in a way where if you're convicted, the process is expedited and you're put to death relatively quickly.

Life in prision means food, water, all those man-hours of working guards watching you, needing to build new facilities, upkeep on current facilities, etc. It's expensive too.

I am absolutely for the death penalty, as in the act of ending the guilty person's life, but I'm not for the process which draws it out 25+ years.

If you're really worried about the cost of housing people, wouldn't it be prudent to put your energy into getting non violent offenders out (IE, drug abusers)? Seems to me that concentrating on death penalty cases or capital punishment in general would be counterproductive if the cost of the prison system is what bothers you.

 

[grimballer]

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Ppl in a civilized society should not stoop to the level of the criminal.

Killing him won't bring the love ones back, so the best thing to do is lock him up for a long time.

 

[grimballer]

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.

If he's truly guilty n you didn't execute an innocent man.

Also if it was god will for him to kill, aren't you going against what god intended?

 

[HereticBD]

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Ppl in a civilized society should not stoop to the level of the criminal.

Killing him won't bring the love ones back, so the best thing to do is lock him up for a long time.

Pretty sure confining someone in a cage is criminal behaviour as well. There is no high ground with punishment.

 

[Jack Handy jr]

These cases are messed up because these guys got killed then were found to be innocent. but I'm still for capital punishment, if DNA, and reliable detective work can assure culpability of the accused. this list is still effed up.

http://listverse.com/2010/01/12/10-convicts-presumed-innocent-after-execution/

 

[grimballer]

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

Gee, don't you think it's important to make sure the guy you are executing is actually guilty?

I'm sure if you were wrongfully convicted of a crime, you would like as much of that bureaucracy as possible.

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

You argue like a child.

Killing shoplifters n drunk drivers will also prevents 100% of recidivism, is that something to consider?



The bottom line is the system you advocate doesn't solve the problem.

Ppl will still kill regardless.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

I don't like the government deciding if someone lives or dies. I think it's ultimately up to the civillians to make that call.

I'm for the death penalty in the most extreme situations. I do think taking another's life should carry the risk of you losing your own as well as long as the evidence is overwhelming and the people will it.

I don't want someone locked up for life getting 3 meals a day, a shower and costing tax payer money if for example they broke into a home and killed and rape a family. There should be very little remorse for someone like that.

 

[llperez22]

for it, but only for obvious no doubt in guilt situations. There are plenty of those types of cases where the death penalty would be mighty fine. Just yesterday a guy handcuffed and killed 8 poeple including 6 children and his ex girlffriend. He was already a convicted crminal with priors. Please dont tell me you believe that killing that piece of shit is wrong.

 

[TSO]

Gee, don't you think it's important to make sure the guy you are executing is actually guilty?

That is not an issue with what I posted.

I'm sure if you were wrongfully convicted of a crime, you would like as much of that bureaucracy as possible.

Appeal to emotion. I really want to be a billionaire, but my feelings don't and shouldn't change things that effect others.

You argue like a child.

Killing shoplifters n drunk drivers will also prevents 100% of recidivism, is that something to consider?

I almost fell out of my chair reading the irony here.

The bottom line is the system you advocate doesn't solve the problem.

Ppl will still kill regardless.

Tell me how a system that kills every offender of a crime doesn't solve recidivism? That's what the punishment side of the judicial system is for. Not the prevention of the crimes that took place but the crimes that they might commit in the future.

 

[TSO]

Pretty sure confining someone in a cage is criminal behaviour as well. There is no high ground with punishment.

The whole long term incarceration part of the judicial system is illegal and outside the scope of our governments power.

 

[Rod1]

Everyone dies at one point or another, so unless we are using horrible killing methods as way of punishment, then i dont see its purpose. Plus there are innocents getting killed even in the US, i wouldnt want to know about poorer countries.

Let them die in prison.