Poll: How do you feel about death penalty?

[TakerFoxx]

In most cases, I'm against it, except in cases of crimes of extreme cruelty in which we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we got the right guy. Take that guy, forget his name, who went to jail for raping a girl, served his sentence, got released, and almost immediately raped and murdered another girl and then called up the girl's mother to taunt her about it. People like him, who rape and murder for no other reason than their sick enjoyment and are proud of the fact, I would not shed any tears for should they get executed.

 

[viscomica]

I think that since it's impossible for my own country to establish the death penalty (because of a series of international treaties about human rights) that there's no point in worrying about it. That being said, criminal law is not about punishing people, contrary to popular belief. And there's no evidence that death penalty dissuades murderers and the like from committing horrific crimes (since most of them have a mental condition; statistically speaking), rendering death penalty obsolete and pointless.

I disagree- I think you'll find that criminals who have the death penalty rarely, if ever, commit repeat crimes.

I'd love to read studies on that. But as a law student specialized in human rights I think all humans (no matter how heinous their crimes are) deserve human rights. That being said, criminals should be condemned, obviously, but the Hammurabi code should be long past us. The "an eye for an eye" saying should no longer be a reality in modern societies.

 

[PhoenixRoss]

My problem with it is the fact that death is irreversible and humans make mistakes. People being wrongly convicted is not a rare occurrence, and the fact that they could be wrongly executed does not sit well with me.

 

[Naeras]

Even a single case of someone innocent suffering the death penalty means the system will have flat-out murdered someone. I think that'd good enough reason to write off death penalty already there.

 

[the December King]

I used to be pro-death penalty, but lately, i've been thinking about it.

And i don't think the government should have the right to kill someone and i would never trust my government with that.

I do feel, that prisoners with life sentence would be forced to work for their living though.
Instead of being fucking blood-sucking parasitic leeches on the tax-payers...

Hey, well put, Stormeris. I wish I'd seen this post before I had commented.

 

[lacktheknack]

No from me.

I read a research paper that found putting people on death row cost more than standard life imprisonment, due to higher likelihood of pleading innocence, higher security, death row's waiting list being decades long, and other things.

 

[spartan231490]

I approve. Some criminals can't be rehabilitated and they should be executed.

 

[babinro]

I'm very much against death penalties in general.

This topic has come up recently in Diablo 3 as people apparently miss running back to their corpses and losing millions of experience. I don't get it. A game should promote fun as much as possible. Dying in game is a mental punishment and one that often costs some amount of time / efficiency loss.

In my opinion, games should have survival rewards rather than death penalties. In addition, they should utilize concepts from Kirby Epic Yarn or the recent Mario games whenever possible. Let a game of ANY skill level have a shot at experience all of the games content.

I also think games should offer multiple difficulties or modes. Give people their Hardcore mode and punishment based challenges as a means of creating replay value. People will go back and play the game if it's a strong enough product.

 

[DANEgerous]

To people that watch or read Dexter he is on the Chaotic/Lawful Good/Evil where does he lie? Frankly I find him absolute chaos and absolute good. I mean he finds killers that want to kill again an kills said killer. FANTASTIC! So would I! Objections to him being evil or lawful or lawful being the only way permitted are the only ways I see escaping the Lawful "Dexter justice system" if you will but I adore the "Dexter justice system" if you have killed and are likely to kill again then killing you saves lives or negates loss of life. Literally from an objective position this is a fact. So... in the end if I object I in some degree approve of murder. Yes I know that it is not realistic and that it is hypothetical but still a valid experiment in philosophy.

 

[Chareater]

I don't think anybody has the right to choose if somebody lives or dies, sure if they are a threat to society then remove them from society (e.g. Jails) But killing? I just think life is a basic right that nobody has the right to take away.

 

[Robert Marrs]

I'm 100% for the death penalty for certain crimes. There is no reason we should be spending tax dollars to house criminals who have life sentences. Honestly I feel like the process should be sped up as opposed to doing it 10 years later and spending even more money on appeals and lawyers. The only problem is the American justice system is not perfect. There are too many prosecutors who care more about just winning a case than actually serving justice. Thanks to DNA some of those people are now being released from jail but when you have people hiding evidence and offering other prisoners reduced time if they lie in court its really just not safe to have a death penalty.

If we start holding the people who do this accountable and get rid of the buddy system mentality that exists between judges, prosecutors and the police that has them looking out for each other instead of serving the people that problem might get solved. When or if that does happen I would 100% support an expediated death penalty in place of life without parole along with a more rehabilitative attitude towards non life serving inmates. Some people can be helped and some european countries have proven that trying to help prisoners instead of punishing them is very effective but if someone is never going to be allowed in society again there is no point in keeping them around. I look at it the same way I look at someone being brain dead on life support. They are not actually living at that point they just exist and YOU are paying for that existence.

 

[Zontar]

Way to against it. The state has no place nor the competence in saying who gets to live and die. Oh, there are people who are just so evil we need to do it? Then given them life in prison with no possibility of parole, if what they did was really that sick and twisted one of the other inmates will get to them faster then a planned execution would. Besides, life without parole is just an execution in it's own means, only without the intense plain all forms have been demonstrated to have and with a much longer time with the bastard behind bars.

 

[Qvar]

I'm not ok with it (uncertainity, reinsertation, bad choices, unequal life opportunities...), unless we are talking about rapists. The more I talk about that the more I feel like I would strangle them with my own hands if necessary.

Of course, as has been pointed out already, the proof required for that should always be absolutely irrefutable. No 2 or 3 witnesses. That's something that requires DNA, witnesses, and some type of recording, to say the least. And revoking the sentence as soon as some of the proof used is found faulty. Not that shitty moves the US are known for.

 

[zegram33]

You want to try rehabilitating these fuckers? Go nuts. But while you piss years of therapy and tax dollars on trying to "rehabilitate" a man who just took away some kids' fathers or wives' husbands, I'm not going to shed a single goddamn tear as monsters like this get put in a casket with a nameless grave.

sorry, but it costs WAAAAY more to execute someone than it does to imprison them forever, cuz of al the crazy retrials etc they get

personally, I'm anti death penalty because I cant think of any type of law that wouldn't be one hell of a slippery slope in terms of how much evidence was acceptable.
and basically...
As I see it, the death penalty should be allowable, HOWEVER
if it is later proven that the man/woman killed was innocent, the judge who decided on the death penalty, MUST face the death penalty. no re-trials, no loopholes, if he killed an innocent man, then since society has already said that's a crime punishable by death....theres only one option to avoid making a mockery of the societies values.

and that way, a judge would have to be either really sure or really outraged at the crime