On the judge scenario, nobody deserves death. Not for the moral reason, but for this reason; if a guy committed triple murder in cold blood, death is too easy of an exit for him. I will make sure he spends the rest of his life in a three by three cell.
When does someone deserve death?
- Thread starter Torrasque
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd suggest the opposite, no death penalty, but instead of blowing tons on solitary for prisoners who are a danger to themselves, offer a simple, painless injection for those who have decided they've had enough of life imprisonment.
It's then their choice, and they'll save the state money if they choose to end their sentence early.
I'm against the death sentence, all the time we have tabloid journalism. I know I bring up my hate of this in nearly every damn post I make, but when we have angry mobs smashing a pediatrician's home up because they thought he was a paedophile, and others condemned to constant suspicion because a newspaper can link them to murders for no better reason than a teacher's students think he's 'weird', then I don't trust a jury made up of the public to judge a man's innocence.
It's then their choice, and they'll save the state money if they choose to end their sentence early.
I'm against the death sentence, all the time we have tabloid journalism. I know I bring up my hate of this in nearly every damn post I make, but when we have angry mobs smashing a pediatrician's home up because they thought he was a paedophile, and others condemned to constant suspicion because a newspaper can link them to murders for no better reason than a teacher's students think he's 'weird', then I don't trust a jury made up of the public to judge a man's innocence.
I think no one deserves death, but it all depends on the moment.
If a man has a knife and is threatening you or a loved one, I would try to not kill him, but if I have to, I will.
but hopefully that never happens
If a man murders people and Im in-charge of his case, a life sentence in prison.
If a man has a knife and is threatening you or a loved one, I would try to not kill him, but if I have to, I will.
but hopefully that never happens
If a man murders people and Im in-charge of his case, a life sentence in prison.
Ending someones life should always be the absolutely last solution, excluding cases where the person themselves wants to die, in which it becomes a whole different issue.
"An eye for an eye, just makes the whole world blind"
-Pretty sure it was Ghandi who said that
"An eye for an eye, just makes the whole world blind"
-Pretty sure it was Ghandi who said that
wtf... ?Noelveiga said:
I want you to say whether you think there are some people that deserve death or not, and if so, what kinds of people they are.
I don't give a shit how you kill them, so long as if you say "yes they deserve death" then they die.
Morbid teenage crap? What the fuck =|
two and a half years for murdering a person, but shooting a bird or deer is death penalty, i value human life 10 fold more then animal, i know that pisses a lot of people off it should be the other way. (imo i don't disagree with hunting, even though i have never been doing it i don't own a gun or take part in fox hunting).The7Sins said:
I'll tell you who deserves death, people who wish to die, those who suffer agonizing pain and want to end it all but lack the ability to end their own life. People who have terminal illnesses should have the right to take their own life without it affect life insurance or pension payments to their loved ones. Give people in that situation the right to go out on their terms.
With capital punishment, simply put It shouldn't ever be used because if there is even the remotest chance that an innocent person could be put to death then capital punishment should not apply (which is why in most western societies it has been stopped). For those people who have no chance of rehibiltation such as agressive peadophiles, they are mentally ill and thus should be locked up with no chance of release as they will always be a risk to the world.
With capital punishment, simply put It shouldn't ever be used because if there is even the remotest chance that an innocent person could be put to death then capital punishment should not apply (which is why in most western societies it has been stopped). For those people who have no chance of rehibiltation such as agressive peadophiles, they are mentally ill and thus should be locked up with no chance of release as they will always be a risk to the world.
I do not believe in the death sentence or killing in general. Especially since I live in Texas, there have been cases where we've killed the innocent. When we kill innocents, what does that make us? Only when they commit terrorism should they be killed (like Osama Bin Laden) or in other cases where there is no other option to take them down.
UK: England
They don't, they only need to die if you can save an innocent life (well as innocent as you get) or multiple lives from killing the person.
The few for the many basically.
Hell, i'd sacrafice my life for someone else in an instance.
They don't, they only need to die if you can save an innocent life (well as innocent as you get) or multiple lives from killing the person.
The few for the many basically.
Hell, i'd sacrafice my life for someone else in an instance.
can i just say that you are, in my opinion an insane sociopath? sorry if i offended you ^.^The7Sins said:
OT; no-one ever deserves to die because death is unquantifiable in that the results of death are not generally agreed upon. life in jail however is quantifiable and therefore is a perfect punishment for the more serious offences like murder. One more thing; Why is rape such a big deal? I mean it is terrible and all but i dont think it should be put anywhere near the level of murder.
My optinion is that there are some (albeit *very* few) actions that might make a person "deserve" a death sentence BUT do I think a death sentence should ever be served? Hells no.
Even trials when a case is proved "beyond reasonable doubt", mistakes get made, and death is irreversible. Furthermore, I disagree with putting a person on "death row" (as per USA) for several years - not only are you inflicting anguish on them but they have nothing to lose and behave irrationally and often violently (beyond the behaviour of those with life imprisonment sentences) and others may get hurt in the meantime. If you intend to kill them, further tormenting them is both pointless and inhumane.
Then there's the fear factor. If I was accused of a death-penalty crime I very well might confess whether I was guilty or not if it meant I'd get imprisonment instead. Which would be a good thing if I were guilty, but if I were innocent the real criminal escapes to continue his spree at will.
If you absolutely *insist* on having a death penalty, give them an appeal; if that fails then make sure it's carried out within a week. Take them to a quiet room for an interview with a preacher of their choice and a last meal, note their final words then get it done quick and painless. Blindfold then a pair of .22 rounds to the back of the head - whole thing takes 20 seconds, rather than painstakingly strapping them down, carefully inserting an IV shunt, etc. No need to wait around or drag it out. Alternatively use the lethal injection as is, but render the prisoner unconscious with sedatives for the entire affair. And FFS don't have a sodding audience, for everyone's sake. Unnecessarily humiliating for the prisoner (see above point re: torment), and disturbing for those who watch. Unless I'm very mistaken that sort of sh*t will haunt you for years, or it bloody well should.
As for killing in defense of self or others, that's often unavoidable so I'm fine with it, to some extent (for example there are situations where I would do it, albeit with hesitation and probably remorse). A trained professional (SO19, SWAT, etc) should exhaust all other options first; anyone else should obviously have some slack but only if someone is actually under threat - housebreakers don't count if they're not armed, I reckon most would leg it as soon as they realise they're about to be caught, especially if they see you're armed; B&E is one thing, assault (or murder) is another.
As for myself, my policy would be to put 'em down as efficiently as possible but leave them breathing - that's why I did a bit of martial arts; if I get mugged I'd happily trip the bastard, maybe break his arm or choke him out, then GTFO. Any of the manoeuvres I know would heal in no more than a few months. Of course this relies on being in a country with halfway-sensible firearm control, so I'd be screwed in the USA - I'd just hand over my wallet like a little b*tch 'soon as I saw any kind of firearm.
Location - UK (in case you hadn't guessed).
TL;DR:
Self-defense aye, Death penalty nay.
Even trials when a case is proved "beyond reasonable doubt", mistakes get made, and death is irreversible. Furthermore, I disagree with putting a person on "death row" (as per USA) for several years - not only are you inflicting anguish on them but they have nothing to lose and behave irrationally and often violently (beyond the behaviour of those with life imprisonment sentences) and others may get hurt in the meantime. If you intend to kill them, further tormenting them is both pointless and inhumane.
Then there's the fear factor. If I was accused of a death-penalty crime I very well might confess whether I was guilty or not if it meant I'd get imprisonment instead. Which would be a good thing if I were guilty, but if I were innocent the real criminal escapes to continue his spree at will.
If you absolutely *insist* on having a death penalty, give them an appeal; if that fails then make sure it's carried out within a week. Take them to a quiet room for an interview with a preacher of their choice and a last meal, note their final words then get it done quick and painless. Blindfold then a pair of .22 rounds to the back of the head - whole thing takes 20 seconds, rather than painstakingly strapping them down, carefully inserting an IV shunt, etc. No need to wait around or drag it out. Alternatively use the lethal injection as is, but render the prisoner unconscious with sedatives for the entire affair. And FFS don't have a sodding audience, for everyone's sake. Unnecessarily humiliating for the prisoner (see above point re: torment), and disturbing for those who watch. Unless I'm very mistaken that sort of sh*t will haunt you for years, or it bloody well should.
As for killing in defense of self or others, that's often unavoidable so I'm fine with it, to some extent (for example there are situations where I would do it, albeit with hesitation and probably remorse). A trained professional (SO19, SWAT, etc) should exhaust all other options first; anyone else should obviously have some slack but only if someone is actually under threat - housebreakers don't count if they're not armed, I reckon most would leg it as soon as they realise they're about to be caught, especially if they see you're armed; B&E is one thing, assault (or murder) is another.
As for myself, my policy would be to put 'em down as efficiently as possible but leave them breathing - that's why I did a bit of martial arts; if I get mugged I'd happily trip the bastard, maybe break his arm or choke him out, then GTFO. Any of the manoeuvres I know would heal in no more than a few months. Of course this relies on being in a country with halfway-sensible firearm control, so I'd be screwed in the USA - I'd just hand over my wallet like a little b*tch 'soon as I saw any kind of firearm.
Location - UK (in case you hadn't guessed).
TL;DR:
Self-defense aye, Death penalty nay.
I have always believed that if you kill someone, you deserve to die. A life for a life. No one has the right to kill another person in cold blood in my eyes. Self defense is a whole other story. But going out and killing some person warrants you the death penalty. I would not give you another month to live after being convicted, as I don't believe that you would deserve it.
The only problem I have with death penalties is when you aren't 100% sure. If there is any doubt about it, I'd toss you in a cell for the rest of your life. Which is the problem I have with it. If there's not solid 100% evidence that you did it (And I mean caught you on camera sort of way), then I would forgo the death penalty.
The only problem I have with death penalties is when you aren't 100% sure. If there is any doubt about it, I'd toss you in a cell for the rest of your life. Which is the problem I have with it. If there's not solid 100% evidence that you did it (And I mean caught you on camera sort of way), then I would forgo the death penalty.
well, i'm from germany, and i think, whatever you do, you don't deserve to be executed. This whole "an eye for an eye"-mentality is really not leading us anywhere good, and no one should play god and take a life.
on the option that a person threatens me or someone i care about, i would not hesitate to shoot them. Self defense, right?
so, to summarize: killing in self defense: yay! killing as a punishment? nay!
on the option that a person threatens me or someone i care about, i would not hesitate to shoot them. Self defense, right?
so, to summarize: killing in self defense: yay! killing as a punishment? nay!
Kill them... Kill them all. Heinous crimes deserve heinous punishment. You cut someones head off? You get decapped. You put 23 rounds into somebody? Call out the firing squad. You brutally raped a woman and then strangled her to death? Well... I won't go there. Basically I would the whole eye for an eye route.
Location: Northeast Ohio
Location: Northeast Ohio
If somebody kills somebody, they don't deserve death.
You can't take a life for a life. However if said person killed two people +, then that would be grounds of execution. They'd deserve death, as they've taken people's life them self. If they disregard life so much, then it's incredibly hypocritical to not expect death on themselves.
There are other things I think constitute a death sentence, but I can't be bothered to go into them.
You can't take a life for a life. However if said person killed two people +, then that would be grounds of execution. They'd deserve death, as they've taken people's life them self. If they disregard life so much, then it's incredibly hypocritical to not expect death on themselves.
There are other things I think constitute a death sentence, but I can't be bothered to go into them.
The death penalty is what separates a civilised society from a barbaric such.
I do not believe there are any circumstances under which the organised and deliberate execution of a human being is acceptable.
Location, Sweden.
I do not believe there are any circumstances under which the organised and deliberate execution of a human being is acceptable.
Location, Sweden.
There was a news thing a while back about this Vietnamese 15-year old guy that brutally killed a seven year old girl with a rock for her money so that he could spend it in an Internet cafe. That's when I'd say someone deserves a bullet through the eye.
Death is rarely an acceptable punishment for anything. Killing somebody in self-defence...well, that's perfectly acceptable. Unless you're some kind of superhuman who CAN immobilise somebody non-lethally, outright killing somebody is often our only option. If you're on the street, and somebody comes at you with a knife, and all you have at hand to defend yourself with is a brick, you're not going to know how to do this non-lethally, and your only option would be to cave their head in.
That's acceptable. That's death as a preventive measure - ie what justice should be about. Unless the defendant is frothing at the mouth and attempting to eviscerate the jury, there is no reason for a formally instated death penalty. Soulless as it sounds, people CAN be fixed. Provided there was no reason for the killing, the killer will take effort to fix, but it is possible.
Yes. The family will be upset that their relative has not been 'avenged'. Okay, they say that their killer hasn't been brought to justice, and is still walking the streets. Even if it was a self-defence killing, the family will want punishment. Aw, hell, the family would want punishment if a guy survived an attack by their relative, and some bad press came their way. Look at the Amanda Knox trials and her release. She's been released on the basis that she was innocent, and when she decides to go on the route to popularity and fortune after her ordeal, Kercher's family are denouncing her for profiting off their daughter's death. It's almost as though nobody cares for justice, they all just want the opportunity to 'avenge' their child.
But, to stay relevant, people don't just kill. Something snaps inside them. Something is wrong. Nobody thinks that killing is okay...not when they're in their right state of mind. This is why there needs to be a rehabilitation scheme that finds the problem AND fixes it, rather than just incarcerating them with other, like-minded people.
That's acceptable. That's death as a preventive measure - ie what justice should be about. Unless the defendant is frothing at the mouth and attempting to eviscerate the jury, there is no reason for a formally instated death penalty. Soulless as it sounds, people CAN be fixed. Provided there was no reason for the killing, the killer will take effort to fix, but it is possible.
Yes. The family will be upset that their relative has not been 'avenged'. Okay, they say that their killer hasn't been brought to justice, and is still walking the streets. Even if it was a self-defence killing, the family will want punishment. Aw, hell, the family would want punishment if a guy survived an attack by their relative, and some bad press came their way. Look at the Amanda Knox trials and her release. She's been released on the basis that she was innocent, and when she decides to go on the route to popularity and fortune after her ordeal, Kercher's family are denouncing her for profiting off their daughter's death. It's almost as though nobody cares for justice, they all just want the opportunity to 'avenge' their child.
But, to stay relevant, people don't just kill. Something snaps inside them. Something is wrong. Nobody thinks that killing is okay...not when they're in their right state of mind. This is why there needs to be a rehabilitation scheme that finds the problem AND fixes it, rather than just incarcerating them with other, like-minded people.
A much more interesting question is, what does "deserve" mean anyway?
I strongly believe no creature, human or otherwise, should be exposed to painful stimuli if it can be avoided, no matter what he/she/it may have done. Killing... well, I do eat meat sometimes, but I am strongly against killing humans for any reason (including self defence in cases where you could have defended yourself adequately without lethal force).
EDIT: The post just above mine has it right.
I strongly believe no creature, human or otherwise, should be exposed to painful stimuli if it can be avoided, no matter what he/she/it may have done. Killing... well, I do eat meat sometimes, but I am strongly against killing humans for any reason (including self defence in cases where you could have defended yourself adequately without lethal force).
EDIT: The post just above mine has it right.