Poll: How do you feel about death penalty?

[llamastorm.games]

I think it is the duty of humans to strive together for the betterment of mankind. Any advocate of the death penalty, to me, is as bad as the person they would sentence.
We as normal functioning members of society should be above killing of any kind (unless it's to protect yourself from immediate dangers).
I am also totally against the physical punishment of anyone, like all the calls to castrate sex offenders and any other example you see plastered for the masses to lap up on social media websites...

 

[Storm Dragon]

I believe that, in extreme circumstances, the death penalty is warranted. If someone gleefully and unrepentantly murders a dozen people, and there is no doubt that they did it, that person deserves death.

 

[Grace_Omega]

I don't agree with the death penalty because the risk of executing an innocent person is simply too high. If you send someone to jail you can rectify that, and even in the case of a life sentence you'll have the rest of the person's life to potentially realize your error, but an execution can't be taken back. If you believe that this isn't a sufficient reason to abolish the death penalty, you must then explain what function it's serving that's important enough to sacrifice innocent lives to it.

The Innocence Project has exonerated 18 people on death row, and we're talking about a small group of people working largely in one area of the world only since 1989. That means people *have* been wrongly executed in the US alone, and will continue to be wrongly executed all over the world. The only way to stop this is to simply scrap the idea completely.

My other, secondary objection is the motive behind execution. I believe that the justice system should serve two functions: rehabilitation and deterrence. What it should not be is a system of punishment whereby the law-abiding public can pat themselves on the back and take vicarious satisfaction in believing that criminals have been made to "pay" for their crimes, which in most cases appears to be the only function the death penalty actually serves. That sort of ugly retribution dehumanizes us and is unworthy of who we are and what we can be. We deliberately hold ourselves back by indulging in it.

 

[doomspore98]

I don't agree with the death penalty simply because I think murdering an innocent person (which has and will happen) is too much of a price to pay when giving life in prison is still a perfectly valid way of convicting criminals. If you convict an innocent person, the innocent person can potentially be released. But if you kill an innocent person, that person can never be released ever. It doesn't matter how vicious a person is or how remorseless they are, their death is not worth the death of an innocent human being.

 

[csoloist]

Support it. Long term incarceration is stupid and expensive, hang them immediately after trial.

I'm also pro-abortion and all for assisted suicide and euthanasia. Ugly things like these are acceptable to me when they're pragmitic and/or socially useful. IMO more laws should have practical rather than philosophical bases.

 

[Vanorae]

I strongly oppose it. I personally feel like every single person is redeemable and I don't think there's a single human being on earth that deserves to be killed. The justice system should serve not only to punish crime but to prevent it, you're not preventing anything by murdering people for the very crime of killing.

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

The state does not have the right to kill people. If you support the death penalty, you are saying that you are okay with the state having the power to take a person's life.

When one says "Well, it's okay in SOME cases," I don't accept that. While there are certainly grey areas in many situations, I feel that saying that is an effort of avoidance to any type of moral commitment. You either think it's okay to kill defenseless** people, or you don't. This way, the person can support something they fundamentally agree with, whilst keeping somewhat of a clear conscience.

**When a person is executed, they have long been incapacitated due to incarceration. They no longer present much of a threat, and thus killing them, in my mind, amounts to murder. Defense against an immediate threat is a different matter entirely.

 

[Pikey Mikey]

I'd say yes, in the extreme cases, like Breivik for example. Those kinds of people, who are never going to change and (in his case at least) admitted doing it, just plant a couple in their chest and call it (or something). Now, I realize this probably sounds heartless/cruel, but it's just my opinion and you are all free to disagree with me, it's your right to do so.

EDIT: Or, as I just read the word in the earlier posts;
Make the life-sentence AN ACTUAL LIFE SENTENCE, not just 20 years or whatever the hell it is (I think it's 20-something here in Sweden). Because there should never be a need for "consecutive life-sentences".

 

[klaynexas3]

I feel it should exist only for those too dangerous to be allowed to live. For instance, maybe a small warlord in some drug country gets captured. It's obvious that his armies will attempt to free him, and it'd be far more dangerous to keep him alive in a cell than to simply kill him and deal with the chaotic backlash of his underlings. So, simply finish him off. Basically, anyone with access to a personal army. I know it's not a circumstance commonly thought of, but I feel that all possible scenarios should be considered when looking at certain laws and/or punishments. As for individuals without access to a small army, at most rotting in prison for the rest of their lives without chance of parole.

 

[Vegosiux]

It isn't just the money, it's the fact they're basically being rewarded for what they did.

That's just a hollow and dishonest piece of rhetoric. If you truly believe that life in prison is a "reward", and that it's better than life outside it, why don't you go and commit a crime and be set for life without a worry? I mean, you do seem like you consider yourself a pragmatist to me, and to a pragmatist, that would be the only reasonable course of action.

Let me guess...because you actually know that's the entire "reward" rhetoric is not true, right?

And besides, being put on a stand and used as a punching back for anyone who can spare five bucks doesn't seem like much of a "reward" to me in the first place. So! My suggestion not only pays for them, it also makes their life a living hell (being punched in the face all the time kind of doesn't sound like a pleasant life).

Any other reasons you want them killed?

Have you even read the article?

Yes.

Or are you questioning that murdering and raping a pregnant woman deserves harsh punishment that may or may not include agony?

Punishment "may or my not include agony". It either does, or it doesn't, I don't see why you're asking me if I'm wondering if there's a punishment that does and doesn't, at the same time, include agony.

To quit toying with words, though, as I said before...SOURCE. PLEASE. Emotional arguments simply aren't going to cut it and you know it. So I'm still waiting.

And just to be clear: If you even try to pull the old "Oh so you want to give bad people a chance to do more bad things" strawman, I'm going to report you.

Jesus Christ, you're serious about that, are you?

Maybe. Or maybe I'm just trying to get a point across that this isn't about you. That's the problem with "justice". Everyone has an opinion on it, and everyone thinks their particular opinion is superior to all the others, and that differing opinions can only be held by "evil (or different flavor of 'bad') people".

And well, as I talked in the other thread, if you're upset over how one particular case is being handled and want to actually do something about it as opposed to just act all upset and indignant on the internet, there's always a way to contact the people who are responsible for that case.

Just remember that there's no reason for anyone to think you being the final arbiter of life and death is necessarily a good idea and your criticism might be ignored or dismissed. But unless you actually voice it at the people who hold the power here, it's not even going to be heard.

I think shouting at people you want to hear something is better than shouting into an echo chamber and hoping those people happen to pass by.

http://io9.com/5916677/why-you-probably-wont-experience-your-own-traumatic-death

Happy now?

It's interesting, but I suppose we use different definitions of "instantly".

 

[Sledgimus]

Pretty much this. If people want to be psychopaths and murderers that is their own choice

People choose to be psychopaths? Riiiiiiight.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils, for example in defense of yourself or others. I have yet to hear any good argument for why killing someone who is already in prison is a good idea. And it is beyond me how anyone can think letting a government kill it's own people under any circumstances is a good idea.

 

[ThreeName]

I am all for the Death Penalty. I think it is not used enough. Im sick of hearing about someone who gets convicted of 1st degree murder getting a sentence of Life instead of Death. Why should tax payers have to pay for them for the rest of their lives when they should be suffering the same fate as their crime?

It actually pisses me off.

Because it costs more to put them on death row than keep them incarcerated for life.

 

[Fireaxe]

Dislike the death penalty, too many people have been put to death when they weren't actually guilty.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

This sums it up quite right
People in prison should pay for their stay there, i am sure some do, but how many is anyones guess

 

[Caiphus]

Because it costs more to put them on death row than keep them incarcerated for life.

How do you figure that?

Because the costs of appeals and extra court time are substantial, and usually (depending on the country in question, one imagines) end up costing more than it would have to keep the criminal in prison for the rest of his life:

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/criminal-law-review/issues/v03-1/Cost-of-Death-Penalty.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/09/22/death-and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/

 

[Tsun Tzu]

The only argument worth any merit, is that innocent people might get executed in the place of the actual criminal.

I believe that certain crimes are of such depraved nature and telling of a sick soul, that killing them would actually be doing both them and society a favor.

Pretty much this. I can't support it if there's any chance an innocent person might be killed, but that's my only reason for opposing it, not some moral position that the taking of life is always wrong.

Exactly my position on the subject.

Just had a pages long discussion on this in another thread...ugh.

 

[LadyLightning]

Death for murderers and castration for sex offenders. Those are things we need to do but can't.

The sentencing of criminals is not about punishing the guilty, it's about ensuring that the guilty are prevented from visiting further harm on the innocent.

Prisoners can escape. Corpses cannot.
Prisoners must eat food provided by your taxes. Corpses must not.
Prisoners can murder the guards who imprison them. Corpses cannot.



HOWEVER!

Until we can clean up our "justice" system, the death penalty isn't feasible. There are just as many innocent people sentenced as there are guilty people pardoned, because the facts involved in the case simply aren't held in as high regard as they should be during trials and investigations. It's less about finding out if the defendant is guilty and more about finding out which lawyer can tell the most lies, make the most appeals to emotion, without getting caught committing perjury. Else, how would OJ Simpson have been acquitted? It was even found later that he was indefensibly guilty - there was no chance that he could have been innocent, yet that monster of a man was protected by the statute of limitations. It wasn't until he did something ~else~ that they were able to lock him up.

 

[Lord Doomhammer]

I support the death penalty for a couple of scenarios. But Ultimately I think we need to rethink our use of it and prison in general. Namely because I don't like the definition we use for the penal system.

Here's the way my brain works. Prison, and the death penalty are all about removing people from our society that don't fit in with the established way our society works. But we approach the penalty as a punishment for a crime, not as a solution to the problem.

The way I think it should work, at least at some point, is really more of a three stage system based on the severity of the infraction and the plausibility of reintegration into society of the individual. For instance, robbery (or other first offense crimes) should probably continue to be a crime where prison/rehabilitation is the solution. But then we get into territory where I think the system does not work because we can only re-incarcerate someone for repeat offense, or a failure to reintegrate into society. So repeat offenders or offenders with more severe infractions just keep coming back. This is where I would put in an intermediary step between incarceration and execution for very serious crimes (murder, rape, manslaughter, things like that). I would do what the British did, and send them away from our society. Preferably to somewhere like Somalia where there is no acting government to reject the person. Thus avoiding the problem of offending people by state execution or allowing them to become a burden on society by paying for them to be in prison or returning them to society where they can offend again.

As for execution, I think it needs to be kept around for some scenarios. An offender who simply lacks the ability to be changed. Someone truly deranged or insane. Someone like charles manson or some truly sick sociopath. Someone who doesn't just not fit with our society, but does not fit with humanity at large, a war criminal, a monster.

 

[Dragonlayer]

I fully support it.

I say, if someone violates the human rights of another, their own are forfeit.