When/Where do you guys think the Death Penalty is justified, if ever?

RRilef

Dangerfield Newby
Jan 5, 2009
319
0
0
I oppose it. There is no need for it when we have jails which believe it or not are cheaper in the long run. Occasionally an innocent gets put to death, and as someone stated earlier, there is no way to make up for it.

On top of that there is the moral implications, evil can never be done for the sake of good.

Just one exception, when there is no other way to contain the individual, it can be done as self defense as a last resort.
 

bodyklok

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,936
0
0
Disaster Button said:
bodyklok said:
Disaster Button said:
I'm just wondering, for all you peeps who support the death penalty, if you're sentencing them to death then you're essentially committing murder too.
Murder is defined as one human killing another, so yes, yes they are. Does that mean it's always wrong, no, no it does not. Murders not nice, but I can still support it up to a point. Even evil can be used for good, and vice versa.
Disaster Button said:
So shouldn't that mean you get sentenced to death also?
Really by that logic shouldn't every soldier who's fought in a war get the death penalty?
I did say there was an exception
What? No you didn't, not that it matters much.

Disaster Button said:
the soldier are (for the most part) defending a country from people who could kill a lot of people inside that country
Well one could argue that if you kill known murder (e.g. someone who committed genocide) your stopping them from killing anyone else.
 

goatzilla8463

New member
Dec 11, 2008
2,403
0
0
I dunno really. To be honest, I really wouldn't mind getting someone's blood on my hands if they had done something to break the law.

Jails can't contain everyone.
 

Disaster Button

Elite Member
Feb 18, 2009
5,237
0
41
bodyklok said:
Disaster Button said:
bodyklok said:
Disaster Button said:
I'm just wondering, for all you peeps who support the death penalty, if you're sentencing them to death then you're essentially committing murder too.
Murder is defined as one human killing another, so yes, yes they are. Does that mean it's always wrong, no, no it does not. Murders not nice, but I can still support it up to a point. Even evil can be used for good, and vice versa.
Disaster Button said:
So shouldn't that mean you get sentenced to death also?
Really by that logic shouldn't every soldier who's fought in a war get the death penalty?
I did say there was an exception
What? No you didn't, not that it matters much.

Disaster Button said:
the soldier are (for the most part) defending a country from people who could kill a lot of people inside that country
Well one could argue that if you kill known murder (e.g. someone who committed genocide) your stopping them from killing anyone else.
I actually did say there was an exception, in the original post, infact I actually said that the death penalty can be acceptable, imo, if you know the murderer is going to commit more murders regardless of punishments.
 

bodyklok

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,936
0
0
Disaster Button said:
bodyklok said:
Disaster Button said:
bodyklok said:
Disaster Button said:
I'm just wondering, for all you peeps who support the death penalty, if you're sentencing them to death then you're essentially committing murder too.
Murder is defined as one human killing another, so yes, yes they are. Does that mean it's always wrong, no, no it does not. Murders not nice, but I can still support it up to a point. Even evil can be used for good, and vice versa.
Disaster Button said:
So shouldn't that mean you get sentenced to death also?
Really by that logic shouldn't every soldier who's fought in a war get the death penalty?
I did say there was an exception
What? No you didn't, not that it matters much.

Disaster Button said:
the soldier are (for the most part) defending a country from people who could kill a lot of people inside that country
Well one could argue that if you kill known murder (e.g. someone who committed genocide) your stopping them from killing anyone else.
I actually did say there was an exception, in the original post, infact I actually said that the death penalty can be acceptable, imo, if you know the murderer is going to commit more murders regardless of punishments.
Well in that case we're in agreement.
 

AmrasCalmacil

New member
Jul 19, 2008
2,421
0
0
Monkfish Acc. said:
Serial murder, rape, and child molestation.
Y'know. The usual.
This, if there's definate evidence, if there's a chance of a miscarriage of justice then capital punishments should not be used.

For more minor or non-violent crimes I'm perfectly for the Elizabeth Fry approach.

It's either that or put the murderer's and rapists in a special prison where all the stairs are greased, as far as I'm concerned.
 

Disaster Button

Elite Member
Feb 18, 2009
5,237
0
41
bodyklok said:
Disaster Button said:
bodyklok said:
Disaster Button said:
bodyklok said:
Disaster Button said:
I'm just wondering, for all you peeps who support the death penalty, if you're sentencing them to death then you're essentially committing murder too.
Murder is defined as one human killing another, so yes, yes they are. Does that mean it's always wrong, no, no it does not. Murders not nice, but I can still support it up to a point. Even evil can be used for good, and vice versa.
Disaster Button said:
So shouldn't that mean you get sentenced to death also?
Really by that logic shouldn't every soldier who's fought in a war get the death penalty?
I did say there was an exception
What? No you didn't, not that it matters much.

Disaster Button said:
the soldier are (for the most part) defending a country from people who could kill a lot of people inside that country
Well one could argue that if you kill known murder (e.g. someone who committed genocide) your stopping them from killing anyone else.
I actually did say there was an exception, in the original post, infact I actually said that the death penalty can be acceptable, imo, if you know the murderer is going to commit more murders regardless of punishments.
Well in that case we're in agreement.
Yeah in this, and other extrme cirumcstances, otherwise I don't support it.
 

Lonko

New member
Jun 3, 2009
54
0
0
Disaster Button said:
I'm just wondering, for all you peeps who support the deaht penalty, if you're sentencing them to death then you're essentially comitting murder too. So shouldn't that mean you get sentenced to death also?
Sorry, but that argument fails because murder is a legal term, and execution is, legally, not murder. I know murder isn't just a legal term, but in this sense it should only be used as one, I think.

I'm actually adamantly opposed to the death penalty on principle, for a whole number of reasons that include "killing is wrong", "two wrongs don't make a right" and so on.
 

mikecoulter

New member
Dec 27, 2008
3,386
0
0
Wadders said:
LOLZ, that rapist thread got locked as it just became a breeding ground for sadistic fantasies... I sense this may go the same way?
There was a rapist thread? D:

What is this place coming to? :(
 

Neonbob

The Noble Nuker
Dec 22, 2008
25,564
0
0
I'm quite for it. Any time that one person kills another, and it is proven beyond a doubt, then the killer should be offed. This may not be the most sensitive of thoughts, but my train of logic leading to this belief goes as follows:
We, as a society, have made rules governing accepted behavior.
By killing someone, an individual has decided that the rules laid down do not apply to them.
Because they have willingly rejected our collection of rules, they have, in effect, decided that they no longer wish to be a part of our society.
Killing them removes them completely from the society they spurned.

Plus, I don't like the idea of keeping murderers alive for the rest of their lives.
 

ThreeWords

New member
Feb 27, 2009
5,179
0
0
I support the death Penalty, but only on theoretical terms

If you had an infallible, supremely wise, incorruptible, and possibly omniscient person to decide who deserved it, then yes, it would be good to hand out death to those who deserve it.

However, no human being is immune to corruption or error, and it is too much to risk killing the wrong man or giving the power over life and death to someone who you cannot truly rely on

Neonbob said:
We, as a society, have made rules governing accepted behavior.
By killing someone, an individual has decided that the rules laid down do not apply to them.
Because they have willingly rejected our collection of rules, they have, in effect, decided that they no longer wish to be a part of our society.
Killing them removes them completely from the society they spurned.
Isn't that somewhat like the idea of outlaws? It used to be (and might still be) that if you broke the law and don't come to court, you would be declared an outlaw, and the law wouldn't apply to you. Anyone to beat you up, steal your stuff burn down your house and kill you without fear of punishment

I prefer that, because it seems like a more democratic version of the death penalty
 

Jamess

New member
Jun 9, 2008
45
0
0
ThreeWords said:
I support the death Penalty, but only on theoretical terms

If you had an infallible, supremely wise, incorruptible, and possibly omniscient person to decide who deserved it, then yes, it would be good to hand out death to those who deserve it.

However, no human being is immune to corruption or error, and it is too much to risk killing the wrong man or giving the power over life and death to someone who you cannot truly rely on
I agree here. Sometimes death is the only option, but it should be the last resort.
 

Neonbob

The Noble Nuker
Dec 22, 2008
25,564
0
0
Disaster Button said:
I'm just wondering, for all you peeps who support the death. penalty, if you're sentencing them to death then you're essentially committing murder too. So shouldn't that mean you get sentenced to death also?
Not really. I see it more as doing a service for the rest of humanity.
Still, in my perfect world, people would be killed in the manner that they killed. There would be a complete psycho in the prison whose job would be to kill anyone who went for...creative kills, in the same way. The mundane murders would just be put down the normal way.
ThreeWords said:
Isn't that somewhat like the idea of outlaws? It used to be (and might still be) that if you broke the law and don't come to court, you would be declared an outlaw, and the law wouldn't apply to you. Anyone to beat you up, steal your stuff burn down your house and kill you without fear of punishment

I prefer that, because it seems like a more democratic version of the death penalty
Huh. It might be...I just thought it made sense in my head, honestly.
 

Zombie_Fish

Opiner of Mottos
Mar 20, 2009
4,585
0
0
I stand against the death penalty:

"We're going to punish a killer. By killing them."

It just sounds hypocritical in my opinion.
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,647
0
0
More than one first degree murders, and only when we know they did it. But if they killed kids, life sentence. You would be suprised to know that most prisoners have honor as well, you kill a kid, or your a pedo, they will fuck you up for as long as your there.
 

lordofthepickle

New member
Apr 14, 2009
70
0
0
If you read "the audacity of hope" by Barrack Obama then you should find his views on the death penalty, which are that if a community agrees on it then it has the right to deliver the ultimate punishment. In my opinion, if someone is truly a threat to society they will remain a threat until death (rehabilitation my ass). I dont agree with current methods though, we should give bodies to medical science.
 

dontworryaboutit

New member
May 18, 2009
1,410
0
0
Crimes committed against me.

Serious answer: My argument against the death penalty has nothing to do with the criminal, but rather the executioner. Think about them. Their job is to kill other humans. Either this will fuck them up immensely, or they're the type of person who enjoys it and should probably be in the chair themselves.
 

Jursa

New member
Oct 11, 2008
924
0
0
Anyone who has committed a very serious crime several times and it has been proven by psychologists that the person simply can't change.
 

Gather

New member
Apr 9, 2009
492
0
0
It might sound an odd point of view but I do support the Death Penalty however it should only be offered as a choice. I know, it may sound odd but I'm mostly thinking about the cost of keeping a person imprisoned for 30+ years. If you were to lose 30 years of your life, not only will you be costing the government a pretty penny a year in Jail but out of jail you might still take cash away from the government because you have trouble adjusting.

Give a person a choice for the death penalty, odds are they won't take it but there will be those few that do,