Three really good reasons to abolish the death penalty

[Meta Like That]

I'm sure people who have had their loved ones brutally murdered would have a difference of opinion. Not sayin I'm one of those people, but just saying. Kind of a hazy line between revenge and retribution when it comes to stuff like that. Sometimes life without parole isn't enough.

 

[asinann]

I think the death penalty needs to be expanded to include such things as treason during peace time and for extreme cases of rape/child molestation (serial rapists and people that molest infants.)

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Overcrowding? What are you, some kind of nazi nut?

And it doesn't matter, as long as one innocent man dies, it means capital punishment doesn't work.

Weeeeeelllllll....... I had a proper argument written about it, but it crashed, and im pissed off about it but here it goes.

I dont mean over crowding as kill of everyone, I mean as the ones who have zero chance of leaving that prison outside of a box.

Think about it, it would be cheaper to do, as they would dont have to feed them, if they use the lethal injection, its Humane and painless for them, no nasty consciounce on the executioners head, it was safe, and reletevley painless.

There, im not pro death, just defending my topics, and keeping peoples perspectives open.

It actually costs less for the state to keep a person on a life sentence then it does to execute them.

Also, about the "humane and painless" lethal injections:

From Wikipedia:

On December 13, 2006, Angel Nieves Diaz was not executed successfully in Florida using a standard lethal injection dose. Diaz was 55 years old, and had been sentenced to death for murder. Diaz did not succumb to the lethal dose even after 35 minutes, necessitating a second dose of drugs to complete the execution. At first, a prison spokesperson denied Diaz had suffered pain, and claimed the second dose was needed because Diaz had some sort of liver disease. After performing an autopsy, the Medical Examiner, Dr. William Hamilton, stated that Diaz's liver appeared normal, but that the needle had been pierced through Diaz's vein into his flesh. The deadly chemicals had subsequently been injected into soft tissue, rather than into the vein. Two days after the execution, Governor Jeb Bush suspended all executions in the state and appointed a commission to "consider the humanity and constitutionality of lethal injections".

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Surely using that mentality, all it takes is one wrongly accused innocent person to be sent to jail to render the whole law as broken?

Maybe you're right, but it's much easier to apoligize to someone who's just spent the last 10 years in jail for no reason than it is to someone who's just been executed.

 

[SharPhoe]

Call me stupid, but I think that anyone, if properly rehabilitated, can still return and function in society after serving a fitting sentence.

Ok ill call you stupid. (maybe not stupid per se more misled or optimistic) In a prison population there are 4 main groups of convicts.
1. Innocents - These people are not guilty and had faulty trials.
2. The remorseful guilty - they did commit their crimes but feel guilty and wish to make amends.
3 The crazies - they did it but were not in control of their actions. (may include mentally ill)
4. Sociopaths - They commit crimes because they like them and are generally beyond help because they either don't want to be helped or its just their nature.

Only the last group "deserve" the death penalty but the major problem is sorting out them from the rest. If a solution to that can be found then they should be removed from society for the greater good.

...OK, I probably should've seen that coming, wording that the way I did.

I had actually completely forgotten about sociopaths. It's a shame, but if some people truly are completely beyond saving and can't function in regular society ever again, it probably is for the best that they stay locked up. Maybe not for life, but at least until they can no longer pose a viable threat to society.

 

[Frizzle]

I am for the death penalty, as I believe that certain crimes should be punishable by removing your defective genes from out pool. That being said, I think other things could be done with the people that should be put to death.

Cheap labor. Make the guys that fuck up, do things that need doing. A lot of people that get put in jail ARE skilled at one task or another. My parents used to tell me that people in jail made license plates. Not sure if that's true, but if it is, then good. They should also do things like repair government owned structures.
Got a statue that needs cleaning, or a park that needs a deliterizer? Call Asshat #23452 and make him clean that crap up.

A lot of these guys have it better IN jail than they did OUT of jail. Books, excercise, food, and even cable TV. Even the U.S. Military makes you pay for all of those, save exercise. So make them work. Hell, give them the choice! A- you work 6 days a week doing things for the city. B- We kill you. Pick one.

The only problem is that the government actually uses it as a way to get revenge on people... Which sucks.

I mean, if you're going to destroy their lives anyway, then you might as well kill them (not that I think that you should kill them).

If you live in the US of A: I feel bad for you. That whole system is pretty messed up, to quote Rage Against the Machine- "Some of those that work forces, are the same that burnt crosses."

The system isn't really that bad. It's infinately more helpful, than it is hurtful. That being said, everyone knows it's not perfect. Unless there's some high profile thing going on, "revenge" isn't really a reason people are put to death. Unless by "revenge", you mean "people who dicked up BAD and need to be dealt with."

 

[Frizzle]

Which do you think is worse though, keeping someone against their will

Surely using that mentality, all it takes is one wrongly accused innocent person to be sent to jail to render the whole law as broken?

Maybe you're right, but it's much easier to apoligize to someone who's just spent the last 10 years in jail for no reason than it is to someone who's just been executed.

Which do you think is worse though, keeping someone against their will, for an entire decade, or killing them? Either way they've lost their life because if a fault of someone else. You can't say "oh, it's only 10 years". That's a long f'n time to be kept away from society, and then to just be pushed out there one day, your record ruined, owning nothing in your life, having nothing to do. The world today changes too fast.

What's life in prison? 50 years? 10 is plenty to mess up your life for good. Especially if you didn't do anything wrong. Is it perfect? No. I would truely feel bad that an innocent person died, and the guilty got away. At some point though, you have to weigh things.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

I am for the death penalty, as I believe that certain crimes should be punishable by removing your defective genes from out pool. That being said, I think other things could be done with the people that should be put to death.

Cheap labor. Make the guys that fuck up, do things that need doing. A lot of people that get put in jail ARE skilled at one task or another. My parents used to tell me that people in jail made license plates. Not sure if that's true, but if it is, then good. They should also do things like repair government owned structures.
Got a statue that needs cleaning, or a park that needs a deliterizer? Call Asshat #23452 and make him clean that crap up.

Ok, the first part of your post seems like a thing a nazi would say, and it's rendered completely moot if the criminal in question already has sons.

The second part however I completely agree with.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Which do you think is worse though, keeping someone against their will, for an entire decade, or killing them?

I still think the first option is much better.

 

[quiet_samurai]

I agree with the death penalty, just not the way the USA implements it. The only crime in my state that warrants the death penalty is aggravated first degree murder, although regular first & second degree are still in the same class of felony, they are not death penalty worthy. So saying that I think the death penalty should be decided by the victim's loved ones. Sounds like a huge burden, but I'm willing to bet most people who would be given that chance would take it seriously. Many people would see it as a form of retribution, but lets not kid ourselves, that's basically what it is in the end.

Also if execution is sentenced , whether by my proposed method or the one that is currently used, I think it should be carried out swiftly. Not the next day mind you, because I believe in appellation. But i think it's stupid that a person will sit in prison for 20 years wasting tax money only to be killed at the end of the road. Spending money on a condemned individual just seems pointless. I also don't see why it should cost a state a vast amount of money to carry it out when the cost of a bullet is only around 90 cents and does the job.

Someone above me said that it's not a deterrent, that's just bullshit. Maybe if they brought back public executions you would change your mind.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

So saying that I think the death penalty should be decided by the victim's loved ones.

That's possibly one of the worst ideas ever.
By doing so you would transform the legal system in a bunch of family vendettas, which pretty much defeats the whole purpose of a legal system in the first place.

 

[CosmicJester21]

Though it's hard to make a good argument for the death penalty I am for it
I'm a fan of eye for an eye justice

 

[jasoncyrus]

So saying that I think the death penalty should be decided by the victim's loved ones.

That's possibly one of the worst ideas ever.
By doing so you would transform the legal system in a bunch of family vendettas, which pretty much defeats the whole purpose of a legal system in the first place.

Indeed, a better way to use families in the legal system would be that once the offender is sentencedto the death penalty by a jury of his peers, the family gets to execute him via a wide choice of weapons.

 

[quiet_samurai]

So saying that I think the death penalty should be decided by the victim's loved ones.

That's possibly one of the worst ideas ever.
By doing so you would transform the legal system in a bunch of family vendettas, which pretty much defeats the whole purpose of a legal system in the first place.

That's assuming the legal system has nothing wrong with it in the first place.

 

[Frizzle]

I am for the death penalty, as I believe that certain crimes should be punishable by removing your defective genes from out pool. That being said, I think other things could be done with the people that should be put to death.

Cheap labor. Make the guys that fuck up, do things that need doing. A lot of people that get put in jail ARE skilled at one task or another. My parents used to tell me that people in jail made license plates. Not sure if that's true, but if it is, then good. They should also do things like repair government owned structures.
Got a statue that needs cleaning, or a park that needs a deliterizer? Call Asshat #23452 and make him clean that crap up.

Ok, the first part of your post seems like a thing a nazi would say, and it's rendered completely moot if the criminal in question already has sons.

The second part however I completely agree with.

Haha, okay it does sound a little sadistic. Basically, if you're just going to be a 100% hinderence to society, and not contribute in any helpful fashion what-so-ever, then you should be put to death. Think of it as a legal extension, to natural order. If there's a crazy wolf running around biting the crap out of the rest of his pack for no reason, they're gonna kill him. So in this case, that criminal is our crazy ass wolf.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Indeed, a better way to use families in the legal system would be that once the offender is sentencedto the death penalty by a jury of his peers, the family gets to execute him via a wide choice of weapons.

That's it, you're obviously just trolling for attention, if you haven't got a serious opinion on the subject just don't post.

That's assuming the legal system has nothing wrong with it in the first place.

Well, it sure as hell ain't gonna get any better with your suggestions.

 

[Frizzle]

So saying that I think the death penalty should be decided by the victim's loved ones.

That's possibly one of the worst ideas ever.
By doing so you would transform the legal system in a bunch of family vendettas, which pretty much defeats the whole purpose of a legal system in the first place.

That's assuming the legal system has nothing wrong with it in the first place.

I'm going to have to agree with SCAM on this one. Loved ones let personal feelings get in the way. We have a legal system so feelings (theoretically) can be taken out of the equation, and a logical solution can be applied to the problem.

 

[Trivun]

Personally I agree with the death penalty and I think that the current state of the criminal justice system here in the UK has gotten so bad that we need it just to revert the damage. There are some people who don't deserve to live for the crimes they commited. That said, you make some very good points and there is a major flaw especially with the 'innocent people killed' argument. I have to say I agree with your reasoning, although it won't change my views as there may be ways (I'm not sure exactly what though) of working around and avoiding these problems. However, I suppose an acceptable alternative would be to get rid of the death penalty (or here in the UK never reinstate it), and then simply increase the penalties for serious crime. Like for murder, a life sentence should always mean staying in jail for the rest of your life, with no parole. Now THAT would be a deterrent...

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I'm very much against the death penalty in any circumstance.

This. Call me stupid, but I think that anyone, if properly rehabilitated, can still return and function in society after serving a fitting sentence.

Ok ill call you stupid. (maybe not stupid per se more misled or optimistic) In a prison population there are 4 main groups of convicts.
1. Innocents - These people are not guilty and had faulty trials.
2. The remorseful guilty - they did commit their crimes but feel guilty and wish to make amends.
3 The crazies - they did it but were not in control of their actions. (may include mentally ill)
4. Sociopaths - They commit crimes because they like them and are generally beyond help because they either don't want to be helped or its just their nature.

Only the last group "deserve" the death penalty but the major problem is sorting out them from the rest. If a solution to that can be found then they should be removed from society for the greater good.

I would argue that groups 2, 3 and 4 should all have the death penalty at least considered in their cases. Depends on the crime. For example, if a guy killed 18 babies and appeared genuinely remorseful, is that enough to give him the right to continued life of any kind? What if somebody went insane and killed their entire family? Does the fact that they are now insane absolve them from any responsibility? Who is at fault for the deaths, if not this insane man? Then there's the matter of sociopathic killers and rapists, who absolutely deserve death. Life imprisonment really does nothing to people who already refuse to be a part of polite society and/or enjoy any part of it.

I'm not supposing that I'm absolutely right and everyone else is absolutely wrong, but isn't it better to kill a lot of people who deserve it and a few who don't, rather than spare a lot of killers/rapists/sociopaths and save a few innocents? What makes these innocents any more special than all the others that die in wars/famines/droughts/diseases and so forth? And what about the innocents that already died to the killers and sociopaths? Does it make sense that the killer should live (after being convicted and caught), while the victims are dead?

Just throwing some thoughts out there.