Poll: How do you feel about death penalty?

[zegram33]

The historical precedent really derives from the fact that only the state (or a monarch etc.) has the right to kill someone. So a murderer has usurped the state's right over its own citizens and thus is punished by the state.

correct me if I'm wrong (and I may well be) but I don't think a state has the right to murder someone without evidence?
so If a multiple murderer (or hell, a multiple rapist, or torturer, or other kind of genuine sicko)is given the death penalty, its not because only the state has the right to rape or kill people without trial, because the state DOESNT have those rights (at least in the UK, the state doesn't have the right to kill people....at all, to my knowledge)

But thinking about when the UK got rid of the Death penalty brought up an interesting question.
If someone does horrific things because of genuine mental illness (some sort of congenital mental disorder or what have you) is that actually there fault? At what point do we say "that person isn't acting of their own free will"?

I mean obviously, if someone does something from this, they need to be separated from people they could hurt for the rest of their lives, but killing them in cold blood has got to be morally wrong, surely?

but then going on from that....wouldn't you say that anyone who murders or rapes is "insane"? I would, without a doubt, say that anyone who lacks basic human empathy has at the least, a serious mental disorder, so Is anything they do due to that enough of their fault that they should be killed?
imprisoned, in the interest of protecting others, absolutely.
killed?
I cant see it.

I realise thata rgument is controversial as hell, but still.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The only reason I have for opposing it is that an innocent man might bla bla bla. But oh well. The needs of the many right? Yes?

Spoiler

I'd support death penalty in Argentina in a heartbeat. Fry those loogans.

as if there wasnt enough dead bodies of innocent people on the bottom of the Río de la Plata...

You know what of the military regime my family and countrymen endured from 1976 to 1983, and how does an unconstitutional dictatorship spawned from a military coup d'état that resulted in state terrorism and the forceful disappearence of 30,000 people compare to a democracy that might legally sanction the death penalty for people charged and prosecuted for a crime, please?

 

[Flatfrog]

Which is why I like the way we have it here in Kansas. While the death penalty is still on the books, no one has gotten it for over 60 years, and your average murder (ie, you kill one guy) will net you a "Hard 50", 50 years imprisionment, or if you outlive that, life.

Er... 50 years, or if you outlive that, life? What does that even mean?

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

In a world were a person that killed 75 people (Anders Breivik) can claim human rights because he was given a PS2 instead of a PS3 and will be released in 20 ish years. Then yes, i agree with the death penalty. He was caught red handed. Kill him and save the tax payers, and families of the dead, paying for his keep. Now the death penalty shouldnt be used for every one, just those that are 100% guilty and proven as such.

Personally im sick of human rights for criminals, it pisses me off. Criminals should get zero rights. Why dont we the people sue the criminals when they want to be released. Seems the Human Rights act is only used for criminals when us normal people should sue them for fucking up our lives.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

I am overall anti-death penalty. There are many reasons for this: overly expensive, ineffective as a deterrent, unnecessary given that modern high security prisons are all but inescapable, possibility of innocence, and good old respect for human life. Life in prison or even solitary should be more than enough for just about any crime and to prevent any further danger to society

However, I hesitate to want it removed from the books completely. There is the possibility that at someone will come along than can continue to do harm to society from behind bars, whether through connections to organized crime, terrorist groups, fanatics, or any other means, in which case I think the death penalty would be appropriate. I would rather have it as a possibility, just one that is never used. I still probably wouldn't vote against it being outlawed,though.

EDIT:One pro death penalty argument that is often overlooked but has some merit is its use as a legal bargaining chip. There is evidence that the death penalty can be very useful to criminal prosecutors in making plea deals in criminal cases, offering to remove the possibility of a death sentence(sometimes among other things such as a lesser charge or reduced sentencing) in order to get a guilty plea and allowing the trial to be resolved much more quickly and efficiently

 

[Reaper195]

I'm all for the death penalty, but it should only be for the most fucked up people. If a dude murders another dude over a video game, jail for the rest of your life. If a dude rapes and murders another dude because they enoyed it, death penalty. And unlike the bullshit in most other countries, that doesn't mean years of trials, appeals and then a few years in jail. They will be tried as soon as possible (Fairly, of course), and if found guilty, they will be taken out back and shot in the head (Front or back, their decision) immediately.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

The only instance where death penalty is viable is when life long incarceration is not viable or if the person mere existence carries considerable risk to the public. These would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The death penalty is more then a consequence to breaking law and order, it is a deliberate act of vengeance by a state. There are a few problems with that...

*The decision is often influenced by emotions. Idealistically Law should be impartial and justice should reflect that. Obviously this isn't possible given the human elements that operate these systems. So the extent to which "Law" can punish someone should be restricted.

*The state determines the laws and the punishments of said laws. By supporting the Death Penalty you are putting a killswitch in the hands of those that govern. Now I'm not coming at this from a paranoid perspective, I don't believe many countries (in the west at least) would abuse this. However, I strongly oppose that degree of power in a governing body (the power to kill that is), purely on ideological grounds (though the threat of abuse is a possibility, even if improbable). This is the same power Dictators and Totalitarian governments have.

I once heard someone suggest a "democratic death penalty", where the public vote on its use in a case by case basis. I think that is a far worse idea.

*Many Countries that support the death penalty, enforce it under cases of Treason. Since the Snowden case I've been especially disconcerted about this fact. Treason is implicit protection of the governing powers. If a person can be accused of treason for revealing damaging information to a public under corrupt governance, the power to execute under these conditions is a terrifying display of Orwellian control.

On top of all that, I feel much of modern crime and punishment still operates under an archaic "Good vs Evil" ethical code. I don't believe in such a black and white breakdown of anything related to society, this includes criminals. There are influences acting on these people that make them become what they are.

The Death Penalty, in this light, is as good for society as a lobotomy is to a mentally ill patient.

 

[OneCatch]

Personally im sick of human rights for criminals, it pisses me off. Criminals should get zero rights. Seems the Human Rights act is only used for criminals when us normal people should sue them for fucking up our lives.

So, it should be ok to torture any convicted criminal to death? Not a no limits fallacy because you said 'zero rights'.

Also, the ECHR bans various forms of discrimination, demands judicial integrity (without which how do you determine who's eligible for your torture?), and codifies a whole range of democratic ideals. Yeah, a lot of it was on the statute book anyway, but in that case it hardly matters does it? Either the decision is beneficial, or you must blame the original domestic law anyway.
For the cases in which the ECHR has superseded domestic law, in as many cases it's been, at least here in the UK, abuse victims using the Human Rights Act to supercede domestic regulations that have prevented their cases from being investigate. It's been used to protect the privacy of citizens from an intrusive media, and to protect media outlets from gagging clauses and censorship.

It's not just used by criminals wanting bigger rooms and the vote.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

The whole POINT of this system is that to hand down the death sentence rather than life imprisonment, a judge has to be BLOODY sure of the evidence as presented.
yes, if the evidence he was given was wrong then he can die, but for that situation to have happened, he would already have killed an innocent man in cold blood (or had him killed, which is legally the same thing).
The fact the criminal justice system is hugely fallible is....kinda the whole point, this system is about making sure the death penalty remains confined to cases where the judge is absolutely certain that the convicted party is guilty.

Perhaps you missed the part where I explained how those cases DON'T FUCKING EXIST? For the reasons I very carefully explained?

There's no such thing as 100% probability, in real life there's basically never even 99% percent probability when it comes to courtrooms.

The circumstances you're suggesting don't exist. At the very best they exist in such absurdly rare circumstances that basing a law on them would be completely idiotic.

absolutely certain

What the fucking hell do you think this means? The criminal system isn't infallible, no sane person would ever risk their life on it, especially when they have pretty much no incentive to.

I can sort of see why this would be a nice thought for you, but if this system where real no one would ever be punished with the death penalty, because no one sane would give it to someone and bank on the american fucking criminal justice system, and any judge who did should be immediately fired for suicidal overconfidence.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Personally im sick of human rights for criminals, it pisses me off. Criminals should get zero rights. Seems the Human Rights act is only used for criminals when us normal people should sue them for fucking up our lives.

So, it should be ok to torture any convicted criminal to death? Not a no limits fallacy because you said 'zero rights'.

Also, the ECHR bans various forms of discrimination, demands judicial integrity (without which how do you determine who's eligible for your torture?), and codifies a whole range of democratic ideals. Yeah, a lot of it was on the statute book anyway, but in that case it hardly matters does it? Either the decision is beneficial, or you must blame the original domestic law anyway.
For the cases in which the ECHR has superseded domestic law, in as many cases it's been, at least here in the UK, abuse victims using the Human Rights Act to supercede domestic regulations that have prevented their cases from being investigate. It's been used to protect the privacy of citizens from an intrusive media, and to protect media outlets from gagging clauses and censorship.

It's not just used by criminals wanting bigger rooms and the vote.

What are you on about torture? Human rights are food, water, healthcare and place to sleep and no torture etc. There are killers that say getting no porno mags are against their human rights. Far as im concerned if you commit a crime you lose your rights as a human and get just basic human rights which. We innocents humans just working and living have the human right to not be killed, robbed or abused. Criminals have lost that right. Which is why the death penalty should be used for those that commit the worse kind of crimes, like the guy that shot 77 people and was caught and proven 100% that he did it. Criminals can rot.

 

[Dimitriov]

The historical precedent really derives from the fact that only the state (or a monarch etc.) has the right to kill someone. So a murderer has usurped the state's right over its own citizens and thus is punished by the state.

correct me if I'm wrong (and I may well be) but I don't think a state has the right to murder someone without evidence? so If a multiple murderer (or hell, a multiple rapist, or torturer, or other kind of genuine sicko)is given the death penalty, its not because only the state has the right to rape or kill people without trial, because the state DOESNT have those rights (at least in the UK, the state doesn't have the right to kill people....at all, to my knowledge)

You're not wrong, but I think you may have missed my point. Where a state has the legal right to put someone to death it is by the very definition not murder. You just asked whether "a state has the right to murder someone without evidence?" No, they generally do not.

In the first place because it is not murder. Murder by definition is an unlawful slaying of a person.

In the second place because where there are death penalties they exist as part of a justice system's sentencing. In most countries, and certainly in western countries, there is a long history and precedent that requires an evidence based trial before any sentencing. However, in somewhere like North Korea, the state may very well be allowed to kill one of its own citizens without any real evidence. At least according to law.

Doesn't necessarily make it a good thing, or mean that you, I, or any particular individual would agree with it. But it does mean it is legal, and that it is inappropriate to refer to a state sanctioned execution as murder (except, of course, in extreme cases where the state did not in fact follow the laws).

 

[BOOM headshot65]

Which is why I like the way we have it here in Kansas. While the death penalty is still on the books, no one has gotten it for over 60 years, and your average murder (ie, you kill one guy) will net you a "Hard 50", 50 years imprisionment, or if you outlive that, life.

Er... 50 years, or if you outlive that, life? What does that even mean?

EDIT: Actually, I just look up stuff on the "Hard 50." I thought it was just a "50 years, but since you are 18 and will thus walk out of jail instead of dieing of old age, you get a life sentance", the Hard 50 is just a mandatory minimum of 50 years in jail. I got confused because it usually comes with a life sentence (since the Hard 50 is given for Pre-Meditated murder and similar crimes.)

 

[zegram33]

[quote="Use_Imagination_here" post="18.842787.20740828]

"I can sort of see why this would be a nice thought for you, but if this system where real no one would ever be punished with the death penalty, because no one sane would give it to someone and bank on the american fucking criminal justice system, and any judge who did should be immediately fired for suicidal overconfidence."

you really aren't getting this are you?
THAT IS MY POINT
there shouldn't be a death penalty, because if there was, it would have to have at LEAST these restrictions to remain ethical.
and if it had those restrictions, it would never be used.
so the death penalty cannot be implemented ethically.

and @Dimitriov, I see your point

 

[Silvanus]

No system can guarantee 100% accuracy. And, the second the state has put an innocent to death, it is guilty of murder-- it's no better than the guilty people it has judged.

Even against the guilty, the hypocrisy still grates. So, I'm against the death penalty, absolutely.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I'm against it since it can be used wrongly like the recent example of that mother getting the death penalty just because she had tried to snuggle concaine into Indonesia. The only reason why she got that punishment (since her lawyer predicted her getting several year sentences before the final verdict) to they wanted to make an example of her to the other snugglers out there since concaine smuggle is common in Indonesia. Even then she is not drug dealer or anything like that in person as the reason why she had those drugs in the first place was she took part in a sting operation!
Even then given the proper criminal a quick death seen nothing when compared to the life long bordom in their confident or whatever they had hole up as the real punishment (true bordom/nothingness is hell).

 

[OneCatch]

Personally im sick of human rights for criminals, it pisses me off. Criminals should get zero rights. Seems the Human Rights act is only used for criminals when us normal people should sue them for fucking up our lives.

So, it should be ok to torture any convicted criminal to death? Not a no limits fallacy because you said 'zero rights'.

Also, the ECHR bans various forms of discrimination, demands judicial integrity (without which how do you determine who's eligible for your torture?), and codifies a whole range of democratic ideals. Yeah, a lot of it was on the statute book anyway, but in that case it hardly matters does it? Either the decision is beneficial, or you must blame the original domestic law anyway.
For the cases in which the ECHR has superseded domestic law, in as many cases it's been, at least here in the UK, abuse victims using the Human Rights Act to supercede domestic regulations that have prevented their cases from being investigate. It's been used to protect the privacy of citizens from an intrusive media, and to protect media outlets from gagging clauses and censorship.

It's not just used by criminals wanting bigger rooms and the vote.

What are you on about torture? Human rights are food, water, healthcare and place to sleep and no torture etc. There are killers that say getting no porno mags are against their human rights. Far as im concerned if you commit a crime you lose your rights as a human and get just basic human rights which. We innocents humans just working and living have the human right to not be killed, robbed or abused. Criminals have lost that right. Which is why the death penalty should be used for those that commit the worse kind of crimes, like the guy that shot 77 people and was caught and proven 100% that he did it. Criminals can rot.

I'm not quite getting this. You lose your rights as a human, but get basic human rights? Isn't that a tad contradictory? Human rights are basic rights. They are the ones which we afford to everyone. The right not to be tortured, the right to fair trial, the right to religion, etc. That's why I mentioned torture - a hypothetical person with 'zero rights' could be tortured entirely freely, or detained without trial, or killed.

There are aberrations whereby people attempt to use human rights legislation inappropriately, but they are few and far between, and almost always fail.

Anyway, by your response it would appear that you don't oppose the provision of certain rights - food, water, healthcare and place to sleep and no torture etc - to all humans, and that we thus agree on a little more than I initially thought. But I'd nonetheless I'd caution against describing your position as one of 'zero rights for criminals' when you agree with them being afforded certain rights and protections.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I'm against it for the simple reason that I think criminals should be made to suffer and there is no suffering in death.

 

[Lopende Paddo]

Against, You can't expect other country's to stop using murder (through stoning firing squad etc) as an punishment if you as a country still kill people "humanely" yourself.

not to mention the points others bring up in mass above (wrong convictions, cultural retardation etc).

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Personally im sick of human rights for criminals, it pisses me off. Criminals should get zero rights. Seems the Human Rights act is only used for criminals when us normal people should sue them for fucking up our lives.

So, it should be ok to torture any convicted criminal to death? Not a no limits fallacy because you said 'zero rights'.

Also, the ECHR bans various forms of discrimination, demands judicial integrity (without which how do you determine who's eligible for your torture?), and codifies a whole range of democratic ideals. Yeah, a lot of it was on the statute book anyway, but in that case it hardly matters does it? Either the decision is beneficial, or you must blame the original domestic law anyway.
For the cases in which the ECHR has superseded domestic law, in as many cases it's been, at least here in the UK, abuse victims using the Human Rights Act to supercede domestic regulations that have prevented their cases from being investigate. It's been used to protect the privacy of citizens from an intrusive media, and to protect media outlets from gagging clauses and censorship.

It's not just used by criminals wanting bigger rooms and the vote.

What are you on about torture? Human rights are food, water, healthcare and place to sleep and no torture etc. There are killers that say getting no porno mags are against their human rights. Far as im concerned if you commit a crime you lose your rights as a human and get just basic human rights which. We innocents humans just working and living have the human right to not be killed, robbed or abused. Criminals have lost that right. Which is why the death penalty should be used for those that commit the worse kind of crimes, like the guy that shot 77 people and was caught and proven 100% that he did it. Criminals can rot.

I'm not quite getting this. You lose your rights as a human, but get basic human rights? Isn't that a tad contradictory? Human rights are basic rights. They are the ones which we afford to everyone. The right not to be tortured, the right to fair trial, the right to religion, etc. That's why I mentioned torture - a hypothetical person with 'zero rights' could be tortured entirely freely, or detained without trial, or killed.

There are aberrations whereby people attempt to use human rights legislation inappropriately, but they are few and far between, and almost always fail.

Anyway, by your response it would appear that you don't oppose the provision of certain rights - food, water, healthcare and place to sleep and no torture etc - to all humans, and that we thus agree on a little more than I initially thought. But I'd nonetheless I'd caution against describing your position as one of 'zero rights for criminals' when you agree with them being afforded certain rights and protections.

If i was in control i would send those criminals that ***** about our prisons (im English) i would send to middle east prisons for a week. An see what they think then. Its sickening to think they get free education etc when normal non criminals dont get that. Criminals should get basic rights only. I say get rid of human rights laws, they are abused and not what they were intended to be.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

For everyone saying 100% does not ever exist - you are wrong. It exists, it's rare but it exists.

For example: someone is hauled in for suspicion of multiple murders, a serial killer, and there's enough evidence for a trial and his lawyer advises him that he's probably going to lose that trial and maybe face the death penalty - and that guy turns to the prosecutor and says "Okay, tell you what, I'll let you know where X amount of bodies are stashed if we settle on life-imprisonment instead." That is 100% That guy killed all those people. For sure. He's bargaining with the bodies.

Or cases of mass shootings where the police apprehend the shooter in the act, or directly after, gun in hand, bodies all around. That is 100% That person did those crimes without any question what-so-ever.

Or - as I mentioned in a previous post - when people are arrested literally surrounded by evidence of their crimes - body parts in their freezer, lampshades made of human skin, wearing someone's head as a hat, whatever. That is 100%

It is rare, but it happens sometimes that things are very, undeniably, clear cut.

Now, I'm all for considering lesser options in cases of less than 100% clarity of the facts, but let us not pretend that things are never, ever, clear cut. I mean, if you're against the death penalty even then - that's your position and you are entitled to it, but don't say we're never capable of being sure of things.