Do you support the death penalty?

[AdamWW]

Curious to know people's reasons for/against.

I'm torn on the subject...

On one hand, I hesitate to feel governments should be granted the right to take people's lives, because it seems like it becomes a slippery slope.

On the other hand, clearly some people - like mass murderers - are 100% guilty and really should never be allowed to be free ever again. In those cases, I would have zero issue with them being removed from the earth.... I'm just not sure how to work that into a government system in a modern country.

To complicate things further, though, governments send people to war and in many cases that kills innocent people in addition to guilty parties like terrorists... so in a sense, I'd feel slightly hypocritical for being against the death penalty for fear of government overreach when I totally admit I have no issue with killing terrorists which inherently involves the hand of government say-so.

What are your thoughts?

[EliKoehn]

Curious to know people's reasons for/against.

I'm torn on the subject...

On one hand, I hesitate to feel governments should be granted the right to take people's lives, because it seems like it becomes a slippery slope.

On the other hand, clearly some people - like mass murderers - are 100% guilty and really should never be allowed to be free ever again. In those cases, I would have zero issue with them being removed from the earth.... I'm just not sure how to work that into a government system in a modern country.

To complicate things further, though, governments send people to war and in many cases that kills innocent people in addition to guilty parties like terrorists... so in a sense, I'd feel slightly hypocritical for being against the death penalty for fear of government overreach when I totally admit I have no issue with killing terrorists which inherently involves the hand of government say-so.

What are your thoughts?

Provided that there are thorough and fair trails, I'm not against it for the worst of capital crimes.

You said it yourself, many of the people in this category have taken the innocent lives of (potentially many) others, so why should theirs be enshrined with legal impunity?

For less than the most serious of offenses, I think it's too drastic. For instance, in Singapore, possession of drugs results in the death penalty... That's draconian, IMO.

EDIT: While I think it should be reserved for people who have taken the innocent lives of others, I do think it should be executed more swiftly. As it is, convicted death-row inmates often live on for decades on taxpayer dollars in prison cells long after their sentence has been finalized, and that frankly defeats the point, if the determination has already been reached that they are to be fairly executed.

[paulinkansas]

Some countries have what is called a "summary execution". You are found guilty in court, escorted out of the court and executed within 60 minutes. I'm OK with that.
Some people deserve to live the rest of their life in solitary confinement until they die of old age. That in itself is a punishment. I'm OK with that.

If I had to be offed, I would want a firing squad to shoot me with my own guns. In a few days I'm getting an M1 Garand that I ordered. That's what they use in firing squads. Kind of ironic.

[AdamWW]

Provided that there are thorough and fair trails, I'm not against it for the worst of capital crimes.

You said it yourself, many of the people in this category have taken the innocent lives of (potentially many) others, so why should theirs be enshrined with legal impunity?

For less than the most serious of offenses, I think it's too drastic. For instance, in Singapore, possession of drugs results in the death penalty... That's draconian, IMO.

EDIT: While I think it should be reserved for people who have taken the innocent lives of others, I do think it should be executed more swiftly. As it is, convicted death-row inmates often live on for decades on taxpayer dollars in prison cells long after their sentence has been finalized, and that frankly defeats the point, if the determination has already been reached that they are to be fairly executed.

The most common argument I have heard against swift enforcement of capital punishment is that evidence may surface to exonerate the convicted.

That does make sense in SOME cases, yes, but I also feel like some circumstances are so cut and dry that no future evidence could ever change it.

I mean if someone walks into a school, kills dozens of people on camera, pleads 100% guilty, and threatens that they'll just do it again if they're ever let out... has zero remorse... I don't see that as a crime that could possibly be explained away by any evidence.

So yeah, I think there needs to be special care assigned to the charges, but some people really just shouldn't live.

[401Delta]

I think it's a waste of a perfectly good human.

Instead of tossing them into the garbage bin, I would have them compete in gladiator style games and charge people to watch.

I'd give 10% of the proceeds to the families of their victims and keep the rest for myself.

[AdamWW]

I think it's a waste of a perfectly good human.

Instead of tossing them into the garbage bin, I would have them compete in gladiator style games and charge people to watch.

I'd give 10% of the proceeds to the families of their victims and keep the rest for myself.

Not sure I agree with them being "perfectly good" humans

[jaxqen]

First, let's establish what is the prison's purpose.
Theoretically, you want to punish someone for his crimes, but also rehabilitate him, so he can be a functional member of the society once he gets out.
Regarding the punishment, depending on the country, prison can be hell or it can be a quite pleasant life, compared with the lives of many other free people that didn't do those crimes, but have to live and work in much harsher conditions.
Quite pleasant = see Scandinavian countries, for example, but not only them
Regarding the rehabilitation, some people cannot or aren't willing to be "rehabilitated"

For heinous crimes, the other option, instead of death, is life in prison without parole. It doesn't matter if you want to be rehabilitated, because you will not get out of there. You are there to be punished, to be kept away from society. On society's money, you are being kept away and you are given food and clothes and electricity and someone is paid to look after you.

Arguments against death penalty:
1. He/she might be innocent = too far fetched, in my opinion, because you can use the same argument for not giving him any sentence. For crimes that are obvious, I see no problem.
2. Is it moral to kill someone? = but is it moral to isolate him completely from the rest of the society?

Arguments pro:
1. it gives the victim's families and friends some justice, some form of vengeance. Like it or not, vengeance is a natural feeling and the family might feel relieved knowing that the murderer was ****ting his pants scared that he will die.
2. Why should society keep you alive if your life means more financial spending? With those money, you could help others that didn't commit crimes.

I don't have a problem with the government having this power, because:
a) if the government wants to kill someone, it can do it, it doesn't need a law. It has this power.
b) you are also giving the government the power to put someone in jail forever.

In conclusion, yes, I am pro.
Not Singapore style, although it is a highly functional well developed country.
Mostly for crime, rape, torture, child abuse + stealing huge amounts of money. Why the money part? Because you can also destroy lives by stealing money. Let's assume someone runs a financial scheme that is a hoax. Thousands of families are ruined. Maybe 2-3 commit suicide and many others have depression, they start to drink, become violent etc...

I also have no problem with medical experiments being done on some of them Mengele style.

PS: I remembered about an older American movie, probably made in the 90's, and they used to put criminals on an island so they can govern themselves. They weren't allowed to get of the island, but they could do whatever they wanted on the island, one was trying to get away with a boat. Some dumb action movie. No, it wasn't No Escape.

[AdamWW]

First, let's establish what is the prison's purpose.
Theoretically, you want to punish someone for his crimes, but also rehabilitate him, so he can be a functional member of the society once he gets out.
Regarding the punishment, depending on the country, prison can be hell or it can be a quite pleasant life, compared with the lives of many other free people that didn't do those crimes, but have to live and work in much harsher conditions.
Quite pleasant = see Scandinavian countries, for example, but not only them
Regarding the rehabilitation, some people cannot or aren't willing to be "rehabilitated"

For heinous crimes, the other option, instead of death, is life in prison without parole. It doesn't matter if you want to be rehabilitated, because you will not get out of there. You are there to be punished, to be kept away from society. On society's money, you are being kept away and you are given food and clothes and electricity and someone is paid to look after you.

Arguments against death penalty:
1. He/she might be innocent = too far fetched, in my opinion, because you can use the same argument for not giving him any sentence. For crimes that are obvious, I see no problem.
2. Is it moral to kill someone? = but is it moral to isolate him completely from the rest of the society?

Arguments pro:
1. it gives the victim's families and friends some justice, some form of vengeance. Like it or not, vengeance is a natural feeling and the family might feel relieved knowing that the murderer was ****ting his pants scared that he will die.
2. Why should society keep you alive if your life means more financial spending? With those money, you could help others that didn't commit crimes.

I don't have a problem with the government having this power, because:
a) if the government wants to kill someone, it can do it, it doesn't need a law. It has this power.
b) you are also giving the government the power to put someone in jail forever.

In conclusion, yes, I am pro.
Not Singapore style, although it is a highly functional well developed country.
Mostly for crime, rape, torture, child abuse + stealing huge amounts of money. Why the money part? Because you can also destroy lives by stealing money. Let's assume someone runs a financial scheme that is a hoax. Thousands of families are ruined. Maybe 2-3 commit suicide and many others have depression, they start to drink, become violent etc...

I also have no problem with medical experiments being done on some of them Mengele style.

PS: I remembered about an older American movie, probably made in the 90's, and they used to put criminals on an island so they can govern themselves. They weren't allowed to get of the island, but they could do whatever they wanted on the island, one was trying to get away with a boat. Some dumb action movie. No, it wasn't No Escape.

I would disagree with it being an appropriate punishment for stealing, or even certain degrees of abuse.

For the most part, I would limit my acceptance to intentional murder(s), severe forms of torture, rape, etc.... and it would have to be such a clear case of guilt based on numerous types of evidence.

[paulinkansas]

I would disagree with it being an appropriate punishment for stealing, or even certain degrees of abuse.

For the most part, I would limit my acceptance to intentional murder(s), severe forms of torture, rape, etc.... and it would have to be such a clear case of guilt based on numerous types of evidence.

Do you think there should be different forms of the death penalty depending on the severity of the crime?

For example, it was a simple homicide they would get a lethal injection or a ride of lightning.
If it was something like a mass shooting they would get starved to death or some other thing that causes a long slow death.

[AdamWW]

Do you think there should be different forms of the death penalty depending on the severity of the crime?

For example, it was a simple homicide they would get a lethal injection or a ride of lightning.
If it was something like a mass shooting they would get starved to death or some other thing that causes a long slow death.

I don't think so, no.

I think there's a difference between what I would personally be OK with an individual doing and what I think the government should be allowed to do.

For example, if someone tortured my loved ones, I would personally be totally cool with them suffering the same slow, painful end... but I would be less OK with the government being brought in to basically serve as a torture service for hire. I think removing someone from the planet is enough.

[gbullock32]

Assuming 100% sure on the guiltiness, yes; I've seen guys in for things beyond speak-able.... there are monsters out there, every one of them human. I'd detail it but... no one wants to hear it. People really can be the worst.