Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?

Serenity said:

I would expect nothing less of you. That's just how you roll. Reading comprehension is not your strong point. Never has been, never will.

Click to expand...

Hummmm, coulda swore I saw the word "unfortunately" used a couple times.

Once again, taking the life of a murderer will never be an equal trade for someone i love.

Click to expand...

Ok then, your argument is that the DP should not be used because it's not an equal trade. I'd assume you think the same as prison, so does that mean you oppose prison as well? Really, if we just blithely dismiss the victim with an "oh well, nothing we can do about that now", then no punishment should ever be imposed since no punishment will actually ever bring the murdered back,

Lord beer me strength.

Sorry, I'm missing how that's an answer to my questions. I do like beer though.

X Factor said:

See, and I think exacting the highest possible price for killing someone else does uphold life. Failing to do that indicates belief that the life of the victim is worth less than the life of the killer.

Click to expand...

When you drop a $100 bill, do you take a single out of your pocket and burn it?

Against it. Since the justice system isn't perfect innocents might end up being accused as guilty and executed, and then there's no return. In the case of locking an innocent up the justice system can always compensate the person for the injustice done to him.

I am opposed to capital punishment for several reasons.

First and foremost, I think that life imprisonment without parole is more of a deterrent. I think it is a form of premeditated murder from a moral viewpoint, and not befitting a country that values human rights. We are one of only a hand full of despotic nations left that still uses capital punishment.

There are some crimes so monstrous and some criminals so dangerous that the only way to insure they will never commit a crime again is to kill them. I think the standards of proof in a death penalty case need to be considerably higher than in one where it is not on the table though.

Voltaire X said:

Wrong:

1. Costs way more than keeping the prisoner in prison for life
2. Is used to cases where there is reasonable doubt of the prisoner's guilt (Troy Davis)
3. Is proven to not deter violent crime or crime in general
4. Is disproportionately given to minorities

There is no positive effect of executing a prisoner other than the emotional satisfaction some people get from knowing the prisoner is killed.

Click to expand...

1.) this is a problem with the system, not the DP
2.) your opinion, and ALL law penalties have at times gotten it wrong, again this is a problem with the system not the DP, should we scrap all laws too? of course not
3.) this is a false statement, some countries states the dont have the death penalty have lower crime, some also have higher :shrug: if you have conclusive evidence id love to read it and then i would just show you clips of people saying they fear the death penalty and its a factor in why they dont do crime. My point is it hasnt been proven and is a false statement, what could be argued is HOW MUCH of a deterrent it is but it could NEVER be said that it isnt one one at all.
4.) again another problem with the system and not DP

X Factor said:

Hummmm, coulda swore I saw the word "unfortunately" used a couple times.

Ok then, your argument is that the DP should not be used because it's not an equal trade. I'd assume you think the same as prison, so does that mean you oppose prison as well? Really, if we just blithely dismiss the victim with an "oh well, nothing we can do about that now", then no punishment should ever be imposed since no punishment will actually ever bring the murdered back,

Click to expand...

This is not an attempt to honestly debate but rather you just going out of your way to be intentionally obtuse so as to argue against a misrepresentation of what the person is saying instead of what they're ACTUALLY saying.

The poster is stating that the death of someone who murdered their family member is not an "equal" trade in regards to the loss of their loved one. As such, there's not some magical 1:1 ratio where their death is equal to your family members death and therefore you're somehow, in some twisted way, being "pro-life" by killing the person and winding up with 2 people dead instead of 1.

Because its not equal in such a bizarre and ****ed up way, killing the person would not qualify as being "pro-life" to that person.

Killing the perpetrator doesn't return the person that died to life...it just kills another person. To them, since there's no some kind of equal trade between the two, then attempting to say that one death justifies the other death and thus its actually PRO-Life is ridiculous.

And I agree. I support the death penatly but its ****ing ridiculous to suggest that it is a "pro-life" stance. It kills someone. Doesn't matter the reason. Aren't we always told the reason doesn't matter with abortions, it just matters that you're killing. Suddenly somehow the reason DOES matter here though, and one can be PRO-life by ending a life? Yeah, that doesn't work. You're Pro-Life in specific circumstance. There's nothing wrong with that, but its absolutely laughable that you're trying to suggest instead you're actually consistantly pro-life.

I get that you think that by having the deterrent of the death penalty it saves lives. That said, it doesn't change the fact that it also actively, by choice not simply by circumstance, KILLS people which is unequestionably not a "pro-life" stance.

Viktyr Korimir said:

When you drop a $100 bill, do you take a single out of your pocket and burn it?

Click to expand...

Losing one type of money means losing another type of money is Pro-Not losing money! SUCCESS!

I'm against the death penalty. It's not a deterrent, I don't believe justice should be revenge, it's failure mode is that innocent people are executed by the State (which has happened), it's more expensive than housing a man for life (and I guess it damned well should be, so maybe I'm not mad about that one), there's really no need for it in our modern society.

YEA: As for why.... please show me an executed criminal who has ever cost the taxpayers more money after he was executed, or who has gone on to commit another crime of any type.

I support the Death Penalty. I acknolwedge it can make mistakes; I do think that's the minority and I think essentially that on the grand scale of things the benefits far, far outweight the occasionally things that slip through the cracks. Would it be absolutely horrible if it as someone I loved that was one who slipped through the cracks? Absolutely...but that's taking it from an emotional stand point. I view it in the same way that I would support killing an innocent child if it meant saving 100 people. Its not a good thing, it may not be a moral thing, its definitely not a happy thing, or something I'd want to do myself or want to have happen to my child...but when I make myself remove that emotional twinge and just think honestly from a macro stand point it just makes sense.

Now, that said...I would much rather simply create a step up from the normal life sentence which would be Life Solitary and replace the death penalty with that. Or perhaps something like "Hard" Life where you may still have some interaction with people but your lifestyle within the prison is far more barebones...no access to TV/computer, no access to books, significantly reduced time in the yard, etc. Essentially an even worse experience than even normal life in prisonment for those crimes that would normally be worthy of the death penalty. The reason I say this is because due to the ridiculous issues regarding appeals and such the cost is actually greater to put a prisoner to death then to keep them alive for life, I think the harsher type of penalty would act as the greater type of deterrent you'd lose without the death penalty, and it'd fix the issue of it not being reversable.

Ikari said:

I'm against the death penalty. It's not a deterrent, I don't believe justice should be revenge, it's failure mode is that innocent people are executed by the State (which has happened), it's more expensive than housing a man for life (and I guess it damned well should be, so maybe I'm not mad about that one), there's really no need for it in our modern society.

Click to expand...

you are correct that it is NOT a deterrent. statistics absolutely prove that. what's left is vengeance.

Zyphlin said:

I support the Death Penalty. I acknolwedge it can make mistakes; I do think that's the minority and I think essentially that on the grand scale of things the benefits far, far outweight the occasionally things that slip through the cracks

Click to expand...

That means innocent people die at the hands of the State. It's a very harsh failure mode. And if you push it too hard, the failure rate goes up. The model of our system was to REDUCE the amount of innocent people in jail/being punished by the State. That's why all burden of proof is on the State, not the individual. I don't find that currently the death penalty fits with that model.

What benefits are derived from the death penalty that aren't derived through proper incarceration?

liblady said:

you are correct that it is NOT a deterrent. statistics absolutely prove that. what's left is vengeance.

Click to expand...

You say that as if there's something wrong with Vengence/Justice.

liblady said:

what's left is vengeance.

Click to expand...

Which I do not view as a proper attribute of justice.

Tigger said:

You say that as if there's something wrong with Vengence/Justice.

Click to expand...

Vengeance is not compatible with justice.

liblady said:

you are correct that it is NOT a deterrent. statistics absolutely prove that. what's left is vengeance.

Click to expand...

statistics do not prove that at all, they make it open to debate of HOW MUCH a deterrent it is but it is a deterrent.
There are people that say they fear the death penalty so they dont do certain crimes as long as those people excists it could be argued that it IS a deterrent.


BUT i admit NEITHER side should talk in absolutes because either absolute will make you wrong
also vengeance is an opinion. and YES some people want that but not all.

Ikari said:

Vengeance is not compatible with justice.

Click to expand...

I totally disagree. In many cases Vengence is the only reasonable form of Justice, and if the Government fails to impose it, then it is up to the victim or their family/friends to take it if necessary.

Sig said:

Are you for or against capital punishment?

State your reasons.

Click to expand...

Not for it. The justice system should be about safety, the death penalty is about revenge and arrogance. I'm not interested in either.

theplaydrive said:

Not for it. The justice system should be about safety, the death penalty is about revenge and arrogance. I'm not interested in either.

Click to expand...

thats on opinion and others have the opinion it is about safety

not saying either is right or wrong just saying

Why I'm against the death penalty:

Executions cost more than life in prison.
The innocent may be wrongly executed.
Is not a deterrent; crime rates have not gone down.
Life in prison also guarantees no future crimes.
Killing is wrong.
Many Death Row inmates were convicted while being defended by court-appointed lawyers who are often the worst-paid and most-inexperienced and least-skillful lawyers.
Violates international human rights laws.
No longer practiced in most sophisticated societies.
Promotes killing as an OK solution to a difficult problem.
Death sentences are handed down arbitrarily, not in a fair manner.

Tigger said:

I totally disagree. In many cases Vengence is the only reasonable form of Justice, and if the Government fails to impose it, then it is up to the victim or their family/friends to take it if necessary.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Justice requires the absence of emotion. Cold logic used to weigh evidence and decide if one has violated the rights of others. Vengeance is bred through emotion and thus open to all the pitfalls emotion brings. It has no place in proper Justice.

Jryan said:

Why I'm against the death penalty:

Executions cost more than life in prison.
The innocent may be wrongly executed.
Is not a deterrent; crime rates have not gone down.
Life in prison also guarantees no future crimes.
Killing is wrong.
Many Death Row inmates were convicted while being defended by court-appointed lawyers who are often the worst-paid and most-inexperienced and least-skillful lawyers.
Violates international human rights laws.
No longer practiced in most sophisticated societies.
Promotes killing as an OK solution to a difficult problem.
Death sentences are handed down arbitrarily, not in a fair manner.

Click to expand...

since many others have been addressed i wanted to talk about this one
life in prison SOMETIMES stops future crimes it most certainly does not gurantee it, a lot of time inmates commit crimes IN PRISION drugs, weapons, assult and more murder, some times guards etc.

also what "life in prison" are you talking about. Sometimes life can be 25years with chance of parole in 7 or 13 etc. and sometimes these people commit crimes again when they get out.

also murder rates are the lowest they have been in 40 years :shrug: numbers wise, percentage wise it maybe some of the lowest ever, id have to check