A murderer is evil, yes. But are we really going to stoop to their level and kill them? Killing of any form cannot be justified. I am 100% against the death penalty. I'm also against euthanasia whether it's a human or an animal.
However, abortion, I can't say anything about that, because I can't get pregnant (intersex) so I have no right to say it's illegal.
I don't get the "more expensive" part. How is shooting someone in the head more expensive then providing life functions for someone for another 50 years?
I'm not bound by religion, so as a concept I can be OK with it, but only with all of the following circumstances: A) the crime or crimes was/were heinous and premeditated, B ) the trial was fair, C) there is little to no sign of remorse or desire to reform on the part of the perpetrator (after impartial, professional eval), and D) that the method of execution is as brief and humane as possible.
Oh, and a few other conditions: that every capital case feature speedy and professional detective work, sufficient evidence, unbiased actors, and policies that are applied fairly.
So in other words, it's the 'in practice' part I have heavy and sincere reservations about, especially when it comes to holding the state accountable for demonstrating above conditions A through D. Doing so can take a prohibitive amount of time, willingness, and expense. This has much to do with the overall glut of criminal cases having to pass through the courts in proportion to the available resources, as @BigBlindMax mentioned. A defense also needs to be competent. And while I think there are many in law enforcement and forensics who are extremely professional and want to find the truth in capital cases, mistakes can happen. And what about the age of the perp? There can be a lot of potentially confounding factors.
Then there’s the issue of bias that continues to plague all levels of the justice system. I support efforts to measure and address any form of bias, but again, they come with costs, are often slow to effect meaningful, positive outcomes, and are political minefields.
So maybe because of the current weaknesses in the justice system, and weaknesses that are just part of being in a human society, capital punishment should be off the table. Maybe it's too much power for an dysfunctional authority to have. And is the state really delivering justice by executing someone, or is it vengeance, and can it be both?
But let me stop here to say that I admit to not having the experience to know the depth of anguish over losing a loved one to a monster, or to be a victim of any manner of capital crimes. It's difficult for me to consider criminal cases I read about in school featuring soul-crushing child abuse, and not lose the will to argue against putting the perpetrator(s) down like a mad dog (given that state proved their case beyond reasonable doubt). Timothy McVeigh is one case I just can’t honestly say I feel sorry about, I don’t care how he felt about Waco. The Boston Marathon bomber is another. This level of shit is enraging, and I get that anger is partly why the justice system exists, but it still makes you angry. I can philosophize all day about the morality of the death penalty, but I can’t be truly sure what I’d think if it were me or my loved ones.
Murderers, Rapists, Pedophiles, Human Traffickers, Terrorists, and drug dealers, deserve the death penalty.
Thieves, instead of sitting i… moren jail, need to be put to the chain gang. Instead of sitting in jail getting three meals a day, they should working their assess off serving the public, paying their debt to society.
Thank you, I read it but it doesn't make sense. Now I'm not an english native talkr so I can miss things, but I don't see how you can be in favor of death penalty because "my bill is too high" and in favor of a rule of form which will avoid death penalty to be sentenced in every case.
I honestly dont really understand what your trying to say but the fact is that it does take alot of money to house prisoners whinch comes from tax dollars whinch means it comes out of my pocket. now I cant speak for anyone else but I dont want my money taking care of criminals so yeah if that means having a serial killer or a rapist or a child molester or outright murder get killed im all for it.
Thank you, I read it but it doesn't make sense. Now I'm not an english native talkr so I can miss things, but I don't see how you can be in … morefavor of death penalty because "my bill is too high" and in favor of a rule of form which will avoid death penalty to be sentenced in every case.
considering how im all for fairness, if a person is killed unjustly I would have the people who cared about the person who was killed decid… moree the fate of the one who's guilty this is pretty much fair in my eyes. so yeah in a sense im for the death penalty mainly because of all the taxes that go into trying to maintain prisons and such.
Murderers, Rapists, Pedophiles, Human Traffickers, Terrorists, and drug dealers, deserve the death penalty.
Thieves, instead of sitting i… moren jail, need to be put to the chain gang. Instead of sitting in jail getting three meals a day, they should working their assess off serving the public, paying their debt to society.
please explain to me the flaws in my system and the jury dosent have a say its the family who wanted the person dead for the crime commited so its the the family that gets killed.
please explain to me the flaws in my system and the jury dosent have a say its the family who wanted the person dead for the crime commited so its the the family that gets killed.
Oh, I thought you were referring to people who were killed unjustly by execution.. I thought your idea was a punishment for an unjust conviction.
My bad.
Too expensive. Besides, the worst of the worst deserve worse than a humane death, and the wrongly convicted deserve a chance at release. It isn't that I'm a pacifist, I just think life in prison is a more flexible/efficient punishment.
Pro. I'd like to get even with child killers, rapists and serial killers. I'd hurt them slowly, then go Joker like on them. We need to do as China did, hundreds of years ago, quick death penalty settings. Life in prison is like giving them hero status.
A lot of the pro-death penalty arguments seem to contain "(insert crime here) deserves to die". To be honest, that's not really much of an argument. The important question to ask is if the death penalty is effective in deterring future criminals or not. Doing an execution in the most humane way possible behind closed doors isn't going to deter anyone. If you want to deter people with the death penalty, you'd better bring back public executions with medieval methods (which is obviously just not gonna fly in today's society, and nor should it). Really, defending the death penalty by saying that "so-and-so deserves it" isn't really an argument.
Against. Correction and rehabilitation where possible. Otherwise life imprisonment. Solitary confinement for those who pose a particular risk. But no death penalty.
A lot of the pro-death penalty arguments seem to contain "(insert crime here) deserves to die". To be honest, that's not really much of an a… morergument. The important question to ask is if the death penalty is effective in deterring future criminals or not. Doing an execution in the most humane way possible behind closed doors isn't going to deter anyone. If you want to deter people with the death penalty, you'd better bring back public executions with medieval methods (which is obviously just not gonna fly in today's society, and nor should it). Really, defending the death penalty by saying that "so-and-so deserves it" isn't really an argument.
Oh, I thought you were referring to people who were killed unjustly by execution.. I thought your idea was a punishment for an unjust conviction.
My bad.
Hmm. That really depends on the circumstances honestly. All I can say is that some do, some don't. I'm too lazy atm to go very much in detail so I'll just leave some examples.
Deserve: Terrorists, serial killers, people hell bent on causing death and grief
Don't deserve: framed convicts, rapists, kidnappers, robbers (the last three should be sent to something to help change them for the better if possible)
It is a stupid system you are advocating and let me point out why.
So..a person is found guilty by a jury...as you stated the person found guilty will then have their fate decided by the family of the victim. However..if at a later date...evidence proves the executed person was in fact innocent...you then advocate for the family of the wronged man...to pass judgement on the family members of the first victim?
Your system is so flawed that I am driven to believe that your ideas are just pulled from an orifice without any thoughts given to outcomes and likely retribution scenarios.
please explain to me the flaws in my system and the jury dosent have a say its the family who wanted the person dead for the crime commited so its the the family that gets killed.
If that's true, would it truly be the right and just thing to let an accused offender rot in jail for the rest of their lives, just to find out, 50 years later, they were being set free? All because of a crime they didn't even commit. If I was accused of something I didn't do and sentenced for life, I'd much rather be executed for it. A sentence for 5 years? Even 10 years? Now that's a different story.
I'm pretty against the death penalty, if what they did was so bad might as well let them just rot in jail instead of giving an easy way out.… more Also false info false accusations and being set up and to be "legally killed" for something you didn't do isn't right.
That's exactly how I read it. With his system it's entirely possible that the family of the "unjustly" executed would be executed, fur unjustly executing someone, only to be executed. Then after more evidence that possibly contradicts the last family's unjust execution might be able to unjustly execute them! All of this, in turn, could create mass executions and would look something like this: you can be executed for an apparent unjust execution only for another family to execute you unjustly, who then get executed as well for an unjust execution, so on and so forth. Damn, that's a fucking shitty system and thank God his ideas have not been implemented into society.
It is a stupid system you are advocating and let me point out why.
So..a person is found guilty by a jury...as you stated the person foun… mored guilty will then have their fate decided by the family of the victim. However..if at a later date...evidence proves the executed person was in fact innocent...you then advocate for the family of the wronged man...to pass judgement on the family members of the first victim?
Your system is so flawed that I am driven to believe that your ideas are just pulled from an orifice without any thoughts given to outcomes and likely retribution scenarios.
Absolutely against, I see no gain in just killing people instead of trying to rehabilitate. Of course the prison system is already really focused on punishment and has hardly any rehabilitation programs so this is a far-off hope it seems.
just because you feel its flawed dosent mean it isnt fair whinch is the main the thing my system displays you talk about me not knowing about ceratin outcomes yet you displayed no example of said outcomes to come y our argument to my system is invalid.
It is a stupid system you are advocating and let me point out why.
So..a person is found guilty by a jury...as you stated the person foun… mored guilty will then have their fate decided by the family of the victim. However..if at a later date...evidence proves the executed person was in fact innocent...you then advocate for the family of the wronged man...to pass judgement on the family members of the first victim?
Your system is so flawed that I am driven to believe that your ideas are just pulled from an orifice without any thoughts given to outcomes and likely retribution scenarios.
Stoop to their level? Is executing a criminal who butchered three kids the same thing? Some people have no right to continue living in this world if all they did is take somebody else from it.
A murderer is evil, yes. But are we really going to stoop to their level and kill them? Killing of any form cannot be justified. I am 100% a… moregainst the death penalty. I'm also against euthanasia whether it's a human or an animal.
However, abortion, I can't say anything about that, because I can't get pregnant (intersex) so I have no right to say it's illegal.
Hmm. That really depends on the circumstances honestly. All I can say is that some do, some don't. I'm too lazy atm to go very much in detai… morel so I'll just leave some examples.
Deserve: Terrorists, serial killers, people hell bent on causing death and grief
Don't deserve: framed convicts, rapists, kidnappers, robbers (the last three should be sent to something to help change them for the better if possible)
Obviously if you didnt do something and you were locked up for life that would be horrible, but if I was arrested for life for something I didnt do, Id much rather be in jail and hope that one day they will find proof it wasnt me, than die for something I didnt do.
If that's true, would it truly be the right and just thing to let an accused offender rot in jail for the rest of their lives, just to find … moreout, 50 years later, they were being set free? All because of a crime they didn't even commit. If I was accused of something I didn't do and sentenced for life, I'd much rather be executed for it. A sentence for 5 years? Even 10 years? Now that's a different story.
Comments
A murderer is evil, yes. But are we really going to stoop to their level and kill them? Killing of any form cannot be justified. I am 100% against the death penalty. I'm also against euthanasia whether it's a human or an animal.
However, abortion, I can't say anything about that, because I can't get pregnant (intersex) so I have no right to say it's illegal.
Shooting someone in the head isn't how people in the U.S are executed. It's usually lethal injection, and some states still use the electric chair.
Tough issue. Scroll bomb inc
I'm not bound by religion, so as a concept I can be OK with it, but only with all of the following circumstances: A) the crime or crimes was/were heinous and premeditated, B ) the trial was fair, C) there is little to no sign of remorse or desire to reform on the part of the perpetrator (after impartial, professional eval), and D) that the method of execution is as brief and humane as possible.
Oh, and a few other conditions: that every capital case feature speedy and professional detective work, sufficient evidence, unbiased actors, and policies that are applied fairly.
So in other words, it's the 'in practice' part I have heavy and sincere reservations about, especially when it comes to holding the state accountable for demonstrating above conditions A through D. Doing so can take a prohibitive amount of time, willingness, and expense. This has much to do with the overall glut of criminal cases having to pass through the courts in proportion to the available resources, as @BigBlindMax mentioned. A defense also needs to be competent. And while I think there are many in law enforcement and forensics who are extremely professional and want to find the truth in capital cases, mistakes can happen. And what about the age of the perp? There can be a lot of potentially confounding factors.
Then there’s the issue of bias that continues to plague all levels of the justice system. I support efforts to measure and address any form of bias, but again, they come with costs, are often slow to effect meaningful, positive outcomes, and are political minefields.
So maybe because of the current weaknesses in the justice system, and weaknesses that are just part of being in a human society, capital punishment should be off the table. Maybe it's too much power for an dysfunctional authority to have. And is the state really delivering justice by executing someone, or is it vengeance, and can it be both?
But let me stop here to say that I admit to not having the experience to know the depth of anguish over losing a loved one to a monster, or to be a victim of any manner of capital crimes. It's difficult for me to consider criminal cases I read about in school featuring soul-crushing child abuse, and not lose the will to argue against putting the perpetrator(s) down like a mad dog (given that state proved their case beyond reasonable doubt). Timothy McVeigh is one case I just can’t honestly say I feel sorry about, I don’t care how he felt about Waco. The Boston Marathon bomber is another. This level of shit is enraging, and I get that anger is partly why the justice system exists, but it still makes you angry. I can philosophize all day about the morality of the death penalty, but I can’t be truly sure what I’d think if it were me or my loved ones.
TL;DR: Yes, but no. No, but yes.
And what will happen to the ones who were legally having their jobs and paid for it, replaced by working thieves?
Good Luck to find a jury who actually want to do this. That or death penalty will never be sentenced, which is quite dumb since you're for it.
did you even read my post I said that if I did make those rules I would do that. why dont you read someones post before making stupid comments.
did you even read my post I said that if I did make those rules I would do that. why dont you read someones post before making stupid comments.
Thank you, I read it but it doesn't make sense. Now I'm not an english native talkr so I can miss things, but I don't see how you can be in favor of death penalty because "my bill is too high" and in favor of a rule of form which will avoid death penalty to be sentenced in every case.
I honestly dont really understand what your trying to say but the fact is that it does take alot of money to house prisoners whinch comes from tax dollars whinch means it comes out of my pocket. now I cant speak for anyone else but I dont want my money taking care of criminals so yeah if that means having a serial killer or a rapist or a child molester or outright murder get killed im all for it.
Gonna kill the whole jury? That hardly sounds practical or fair.
"One a these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong."
please explain to me the flaws in my system and the jury dosent have a say its the family who wanted the person dead for the crime commited so its the the family that gets killed.
Few years ago I was against. Changed my mind. Telltale community convinced me that sometimes it's a right thing.
Oh, I thought you were referring to people who were killed unjustly by execution.. I thought your idea was a punishment for an unjust conviction.
My bad.
no problem glad I cleared it up for you.
Too expensive. Besides, the worst of the worst deserve worse than a humane death, and the wrongly convicted deserve a chance at release. It isn't that I'm a pacifist, I just think life in prison is a more flexible/efficient punishment.
Pro. I'd like to get even with child killers, rapists and serial killers. I'd hurt them slowly, then go Joker like on them. We need to do as China did, hundreds of years ago, quick death penalty settings. Life in prison is like giving them hero status.
A lot of the pro-death penalty arguments seem to contain "(insert crime here) deserves to die". To be honest, that's not really much of an argument. The important question to ask is if the death penalty is effective in deterring future criminals or not. Doing an execution in the most humane way possible behind closed doors isn't going to deter anyone. If you want to deter people with the death penalty, you'd better bring back public executions with medieval methods (which is obviously just not gonna fly in today's society, and nor should it). Really, defending the death penalty by saying that "so-and-so deserves it" isn't really an argument.
Against. Correction and rehabilitation where possible. Otherwise life imprisonment. Solitary confinement for those who pose a particular risk. But no death penalty.
To be fair, there are other valid arguments in support of death, besides deterring crime.
That's what I understood too aha
Hmm. That really depends on the circumstances honestly. All I can say is that some do, some don't. I'm too lazy atm to go very much in detail so I'll just leave some examples.
Deserve: Terrorists, serial killers, people hell bent on causing death and grief
Don't deserve: framed convicts, rapists, kidnappers, robbers (the last three should be sent to something to help change them for the better if possible)
Who said I was talking about the U.S?
It is a stupid system you are advocating and let me point out why.
So..a person is found guilty by a jury...as you stated the person found guilty will then have their fate decided by the family of the victim. However..if at a later date...evidence proves the executed person was in fact innocent...you then advocate for the family of the wronged man...to pass judgement on the family members of the first victim?
Your system is so flawed that I am driven to believe that your ideas are just pulled from an orifice without any thoughts given to outcomes and likely retribution scenarios.
If that's true, would it truly be the right and just thing to let an accused offender rot in jail for the rest of their lives, just to find out, 50 years later, they were being set free? All because of a crime they didn't even commit. If I was accused of something I didn't do and sentenced for life, I'd much rather be executed for it. A sentence for 5 years? Even 10 years? Now that's a different story.
That's exactly how I read it. With his system it's entirely possible that the family of the "unjustly" executed would be executed, fur unjustly executing someone, only to be executed. Then after more evidence that possibly contradicts the last family's unjust execution might be able to unjustly execute them! All of this, in turn, could create mass executions and would look something like this: you can be executed for an apparent unjust execution only for another family to execute you unjustly, who then get executed as well for an unjust execution, so on and so forth. Damn, that's a fucking shitty system and thank God his ideas have not been implemented into society.
[removed]
Absolutely against, I see no gain in just killing people instead of trying to rehabilitate. Of course the prison system is already really focused on punishment and has hardly any rehabilitation programs so this is a far-off hope it seems.
just because you feel its flawed dosent mean it isnt fair whinch is the main the thing my system displays you talk about me not knowing about ceratin outcomes yet you displayed no example of said outcomes to come y our argument to my system is invalid.
Stoop to their level? Is executing a criminal who butchered three kids the same thing? Some people have no right to continue living in this world if all they did is take somebody else from it.
Seems like supporting the death penalty is an unpopular opinion.
[removed]
This isn't a popularity contest.
Never said it was. I'm just saying it's unpopular.
I guess there's a lot of idealists here.
While I don't support the death penalty, I do believe some people deserve to die. Rapists, in particular, being one of those people.
Well thats an opinion.
Obviously if you didnt do something and you were locked up for life that would be horrible, but if I was arrested for life for something I didnt do, Id much rather be in jail and hope that one day they will find proof it wasnt me, than die for something I didnt do.
killing calls killing