Poll: How do you feel about death penalty?
- Thread starter Rattja
- Start date
I didn't know Germany had the death penalty. Last time I checked it was abolished in 1949. And 1987.Chaosritter said:
And of course, you are right and they are wrong, because...reasons?
Seeing as this is stuff I'm actually quite interested in, how this works on the neurological level, might you have a few things to read up on that talk about it? Like, you know, a more in-depth analysis of just what happens to/with the brain in such a case?
Nah, you'd likely just have your position challenged by people who think otherwise.samaugsch said:
No, I'm not, and I don't feel the slightest shame in it.Chaosritter said:
If money is your concern, just put them up on a podium and charge every person 5 bucks if they want to punch them in the face and 20 bucks if they want to kick them in the groin. 8 hours a day of that, and they'll pay for themselves quite quick that way.
And that is a fact, and not an opinion? Source, please.
Yes, please. You stepped up as if you know what you're talking about. I, on the other hand, don't, and would like some further insight I hoped you could provide.
I'm not the one with the burden of proof here.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
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.Chaosritter said:
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?
Yes.
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.
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.
It's interesting, but I suppose we use different definitions of "instantly".
People choose to be psychopaths? Riiiiiiight.Chaosritter said:
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.