NationStates Jolt Archive

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments. The death penalty is barbaric and uncivilised and has no place in modern society. End this brutal practice, endorse the proposal "abolition of death penalty" in the UN.

United Socialist States of Europaland

The death penalty is not barabaric or uncivilized, unless the act is performed by any method other than lethal injection. In fact, if you were a prisoner, and had the choice between death or life imprisonment, which would you choose?

Lethal injection is ok for illegal immigrants, but for malicious offenses like dog theft a good public electrocution is in order.

The death penalty is barbaric and uncivilised and has no place in modern society. End this brutal practice, endorse the proposal "abolition of death penalty" in the UN.

We should definitely scale down teh death penalty to situations where the person committed an extremely heinous crime is still a significant danger to society in jail, but I don't support full abolition.

If your nation uses the jury system, you should know that juried are much more likely to acquit a capital defendant, even one who is clearly guilty, when they know the death penalty may be imposed.
If you want more convictions, avoid the death penalty.

The death penalty is in complience with some religions in the world that Griffindon recognizes, and there for shall not be outlawed. If, in fact, the UN outlaws the death penalty, we will probably be departing the next day.
We DO, however, support a humane use of the death penalty, and only using it for those who have taken another life, or for any other reason that a world religion may be able to state.

The United Socialist States of Tration does not believe in the death penalty because of our stance on the inherant right to life human beings possess. We believe that as our civilization advances, even the most violent criminals can be rehabilitated successfully. Also, we believe that peace can only be obtained by a rejection of violence and if we allowed execution we would be teaching that violence is a way to solve violence. Even for those whom rehabilitation is impossible because of genetic or learned disorders, the state is still not willing to execute. So we would be in complete support of a ban on capital punishment.
-President Justin Almeida
-United Socialist States of Tration

The Holy Empire of Ustasha opposes this so-called "Resolution". Ustasha needs the death penalty to not only get rid of our criminals and hippies, but also to solve our massive overpopulation problem. This is why we have the death penalty for the following things:

-Murder
-Rape
-Molestation
-Destruction of Property
-Vandalizing a Statue of His Excellency Emperor Jim
-Illegal drug use
-Tobacco use
-Ebonics use
-Talking like Snoop Dogg in a Snoop-Free Zone
-Bling-Bling Fraud
-Hitting on my baby's momma
-Trying to overthrow the Imperial Government
-Trying to date two chicks at the same time, and failing
-Being a whiny little bitch

In fact, the Holy Empire of Ustasha reccomends a Resolution making the death penalty mandatory for all countries. Those who vote "No" on this resultion will be hunted down and killed by the Emperor's Elite Extermination Squads. ....heh heh, just kidding. :wink:

Death penalties is important. It keeps the people in fear. They don't perform a act of crime that they would normally perform, if they knew they would die from it. It works really. Death creates peace in the system.

I agree, exept I believe in certain instances torture should come first. It has more of a detterent effect.

Torture is something I don't use, fortunatlly. Though some of my isshou do use this art(secretly of course). Effective maybe, but I find it tasteless. A slit of the gut, or a cut of the head is all that is needed, to bad its not the old days. But Death is what keeps things in order.

The state should show it has a higher moral standard than the criminals who commit terrible crimes and should not stoop to their level. The death penalty has also never been shown to deter crime. Crime dropped in Canada after the death penalty was abolished and it is far safer in European countries today than it was 50 years ago. The murder rate is 9 times higher in the USA than it is in the UK. The death penalty creates a terrible cycle of violence and teaches people that killing people can sometimes be justified. The death penalty is uncivilised and must be opposed.

since my gov't is an evil dictatorship, naturally, i support executions. hell, my gov't routinely executes protestors, forget about convicted criminals.

personally, i would vote for the most horrific Medieval-style executions imagineable. after all, what's the virtue executing a prisoner humanely? terminating someone's life using a lethal injection or gas chamber doesn't act as a deterrent. you wanna a REAL deterrent, you bring back coliseum executions using lions, tigers, and grizzly bears. just dump the worst criminals in a big arena with the deadliest animals in the world, sit back, and enjoy the show. :twisted:

then you could sell tickets and make a PROFIT on executions. forget about Mondary Night Football, we've got the Monday Night Execution!

trust me, when ppl see criminals being ripped apart and eaten alive by a grizzly bear, crime is gonna drop dramatically.

People killed by criminals/terrorists in 20th century: 1.5 million
People killed by government in 20th century: 200 million

I'd rather have a few more murderers than oppressive government, thank you. However, while I oppose the death penalty except in extremely rare cases, there should NOT be considerations on the humaneness of the punishment. In fact, an excessively humane punishment is only going to drag on the death penalty.

Public executions, while I admit they would be fun, have historically been proven to be a bad idea. You had many people "copycatting" the executioners on innocents.

I believe there is too much room for abuse to use the death penalty on anything greater than an extremely limited scale that is clearly laid out in the law. In addition, you would need several years of appeals, since the State becomes illegitimized of an innocent person is executed.

I disagree. Should a nation abolish the death penalty, it won't give anyone anything to fear from the justice system for commiting truely abominable crimes. Just think. If a begger is truely desperate in the USA if there was no death penalty, they would just need to kill someone, and they would have free lodging, food, water and cable TV for the rest of their life at the expense of the tax payer. The nation of Naz1s will keep severe physical punishments for its worst offenders, including hard labor for those that didn't do something hideously bad, but still got sent to jail, the death penalty for those that did something REALLY bad, but not the worst things, and torture for those that commited the crimes that make them unworthy of a quick death, such as child molestation and murder, as well as any form of rape.

As another note, this resolution would force those members of the UN such as myself who believe in actual punishment for the guilty and currently preform a lethal injection or other means of quick, painless death upon criminals to stop that, and punish them in manners more barberic then death. After all, there are plenty of books on torture that don't involve killing the person.

I also disagree with the Global Market in that several years of appeals are needed. If someone waits around in a comfey jail for several years before their death, then the death penalty loses its effectiveness. That's why the death penalty in the US isn't working. When you hear about someone getting executed for doing some heinous crime, it's normally several DECADES after the actual crime, so no matter how bad the thing was at the time, no one can even remember it, nor do they care.

Ok, even if it's not a deterrent at least it gets rid of the trash. Most of the people that get the death penalty did something so henious that they'd never get to reenter society so they'd just sit and prison take up space. You kill 'em and you're done with them. Personally I think the death penalty should be opened up to involve rapist and child molestors. Such human waste doesn't deserve the right to live. And it'd probably deter better if it was public executions.

The death penalty should be banned, because it's the death penalty looking to any other justifications is repugnant.

The death penalty should be banned, because it's the death penalty looking to any other justifications is repugnant.

So you're basicly saying the death penalty should be banned, just because it's the death penalty?

That makes no sense. There should be some kind of reason to ban it besides "Because I say so." So if I misread your post, please tell me what you actually ment.

Please, the problem here is the fact that people in general have become weak since we became "civilized". Killing isn't wrong if it's under the right circumstances.

I disagree. Should a nation abolish the death penalty, it won't give anyone anything to fear from the justice system for commiting truely abominable crimes. Just think. If a begger is truely desperate in the USA if there was no death penalty, they would just need to kill someone, and they would have free lodging, food, water and cable TV for the rest of their life at the expense of the tax payer. The nation of Naz1s will keep severe physical punishments for its worst offenders, including hard labor for those that didn't do something hideously bad, but still got sent to jail, the death penalty for those that did something REALLY bad, but not the worst things, and torture for those that commited the crimes that make them unworthy of a quick death, such as child molestation and murder, as well as any form of rape.

As another note, this resolution would force those members of the UN such as myself who believe in actual punishment for the guilty and currently preform a lethal injection or other means of quick, painless death upon criminals to stop that, and punish them in manners more barberic then death. After all, there are plenty of books on torture that don't involve killing the person.

I also disagree with the Global Market in that several years of appeals are needed. If someone waits around in a comfey jail for several years before their death, then the death penalty loses its effectiveness. That's why the death penalty in the US isn't working. When you hear about someone getting executed for doing some heinous crime, it's normally several DECADES after the actual crime, so no matter how bad the thing was at the time, no one can even remember it, nor do they care.

I agree with you on the forced labor part. All criminals should be put to forced labor. It helps in rehabilitation and is a better cost.

As for the lengthy appeals process, oppressive government is worse than a higher murder rate. After all, it IS a 130-1 kill ratio. Substantive due process is guarenteed in the US Constitution. We should never give it up.

"He who wishes to secure his liberty from oppression must also take care to secure the liberty of his enemies, for if he violates in this duty, he creates a precedent that will come back to himself."
--Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Please, the problem here is the fact that people in general have become weak since we became "civilized". Killing isn't wrong if it's under the right circumstances.

And what circumstances are those pray tell?

Totally in agreement. What you people call civilized, we call pussified. "don't have war, we want peace" What is peace? Peace solves nothing. It only makes room for backstabbing and overthrow. You wonder how? Because countrys get relaxed, and this leaves room open for betrayl. Thats the downfall of most countrys. For some odd reason, america was strong enough to bounce back from an event that would crush most countrys. Why did it happen? Because they got lazy. This all comes back to the public executions. If we still had them then the crime rate would compared to China. They need tougher prisons and strict laws. Those people take the idea of freedom and run with it.

Mainly ones that are understood. Rapists, child molestors, killers of the innocent, and generally people of that nature. Forced labor is a good idea too though, at least they'll be serving a purpose. Just send 'em to Siberia like the Soviet Union used to.

Totally in agreement. What you people call civilized, we call pussified. "don't have war, we want peace" What is peace? Peace solves nothing. It only makes room for backstabbing and overthrow. You wonder how? Because countrys get relaxed, and this leaves room open for betrayl. Thats the downfall of most countrys. For some odd reason, america was strong enough to bounce back from an event that would crush most countrys. Why did it happen? Because they got lazy. This all comes back to the public executions. If we still had them then the crime rate would compared to China. They need tougher prisons and strict laws. Those people take the idea of freedom and run with it.

Peace may not solve anything, but war causes more problems. Public executions caused especially vicious copycat crimes. This is why they were banned in the first place. The public enjoyed them a little too much.

And what does peace or war have to do with betrayal? Coups and treason usually happen during times of war or other instability...

Also, as for the crime rate being comparable to China's, I'm Chinese and I think it's fair to say that most of the people there would perfer an American-level crime rate with American-level due process.

Edit: This is ment to be in reply to the last post on page 1. I'm a slow typist. So sue me, but I have due process, if not a long one. :)

Ok, here's what you're talking about, correct?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It doesn't say due process of dozens of years of appeals and trials, it just says that you can't bring them to court and have the judge or jury instantly declare them guilty, it requires that a process be followed to provide justice.

Also...

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense


It requires the right to a speedy trial, not one that's delayed by several years of waiting. The only reason for someone to want a delay in their trial is if they know they're guilty and want to stretch out their sentancing as long as possible, so the jury might think it's not that bad a thing, as it's been done several years ago, so he doesn't need the death penalty. Either that, or to make him age substantially, so the defense can try to convince the jury that, since he's such an old man, he poses no furthur threats.

Ok, here's what you're talking about, correct?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It doesn't say due process of dozens of years of appeals and trials, it just says that you can't bring them to court and have the judge or jury instantly declare them guilty, it requires that a process be followed to provide justice.

Also...

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense


It requires the right to a speedy trial, not one that's delayed by several years of waiting. The only reason for someone to want a delay in their trial is if they know they're guilty and want to stretch out their sentancing as long as possible, so the jury might think it's not that bad a thing, as it's been done several years ago, so he doesn't need the death penalty. Either that, or to make him age substantially, so the defense can try to convince the jury that, since he's such an old man, he poses no furthur threats.

THe trial is separate from the appeals process. The 5th amendment is framed in mind with Substantive Due Process, that includes an appeals system. This is what due process means in the modern world. America is supposed to have a high standard of due process, which is what makes it a decent place to live in. You might want to appeal if you're innocent too, that's a good idea. The fact that even ONE innocent person is executed is sufficient justification for reviewing and significantly descaling the death penalty. This is because the government becomes illegitimate if it kills its own citizens. In addition, Congress and the courts have repeatedly upheld the Right of Appeal using Amendment V. Either way history has shown that, as bad as crime is, states overzealous about stopping crime have been infinitely worse.

*snip*

THe trial is separate from the appeals process. The 5th amendment is framed in mind with Substantive Due Process, that includes an appeals system. This is what due process means in the modern world. America is supposed to have a high standard of due process, which is what makes it a decent place to live in. You might want to appeal if you're innocent too, that's a good idea. The fact that even ONE innocent person is executed is sufficient justification for reviewing and significantly descaling the death penalty. This is because the government becomes illegitimate if it kills its own citizens. In addition, Congress and the courts have repeatedly upheld the Right of Appeal using Amendment V and also Amendment VII, which is actually about Common Law, but it is applied to criminal law as well since a criminal case is just like a civil case only the govenrment is the plantiff. Either way history has shown that, as bad as crime is, states overzealous about stopping crime have been infinitely worse.

I don't think I argued against appeals. If I did, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. I was arguing against how the trials take so long for the appeals. I said that the only reason you would want a delay in your trial would be if you were guilty. I didn't say the only reason you would want an appeal is if you're guilty. I think that it is EXTREMELY important to get the correct (as in the true, proper, etc, as opposed to the one that everyone wants) result from a trial, but I don't think that there should be the years and years of delays, if no new evidence is coming up.

Mainly ones that are understood. Rapists, child molestors, killers of the innocent, and generally people of that nature. Forced labor is a good idea too though, at least they'll be serving a purpose. Just send 'em to Siberia like the Soviet Union used to.

No the Transportation costs would be too high. Just have them build and maintain the prison (under guard supervision of course).

Mainly ones that are understood. Rapists, child molestors, killers of the innocent, and generally people of that nature. Forced labor is a good idea too though, at least they'll be serving a purpose. Just send 'em to Siberia like the Soviet Union used to.

No the Transportation costs would be too high. Just have them build and maintain the prison (under guard supervision of course).

Shipping them to some of the really deserted territory in Alaska would be a good thing. Minimal escapes, and you could set up the dangerous labratories there, with the criminals doing all the insanely likely to get them killed things that REQUIRE manual labor. Any wages they make should be sent to the family(ies) of the people they have victimized to make restitution.

*snip*

THe trial is separate from the appeals process. The 5th amendment is framed in mind with Substantive Due Process, that includes an appeals system. This is what due process means in the modern world. America is supposed to have a high standard of due process, which is what makes it a decent place to live in. You might want to appeal if you're innocent too, that's a good idea. The fact that even ONE innocent person is executed is sufficient justification for reviewing and significantly descaling the death penalty. This is because the government becomes illegitimate if it kills its own citizens. In addition, Congress and the courts have repeatedly upheld the Right of Appeal using Amendment V and also Amendment VII, which is actually about Common Law, but it is applied to criminal law as well since a criminal case is just like a civil case only the govenrment is the plantiff. Either way history has shown that, as bad as crime is, states overzealous about stopping crime have been infinitely worse.

I don't think I argued against appeals. If I did, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. I was arguing against how the trials take so long for the appeals. I said that the only reason you would want a delay in your trial would be if you were guilty. I didn't say the only reason you would want an appeal is if you're guilty. I think that it is EXTREMELY important to get the correct (as in the true, proper, etc, as opposed to the one that everyone wants) result from a trial, but I don't think that there should be the years and years of delays, if no new evidence is coming up.

No, the Trial should take place as soon as possible, but the Defendant should have at least eight to twelve years right of appeal aftewards.

The Defendant should have the right to demand a trial if he is not tried within three months of being arrested. Also, bail should be free. Since defendants are legally presumed to be innocent, they should be allowed to continue on with their normal lives (maybe under surveillance).

Mainly ones that are understood. Rapists, child molestors, killers of the innocent, and generally people of that nature. Forced labor is a good idea too though, at least they'll be serving a purpose. Just send 'em to Siberia like the Soviet Union used to.

No the Transportation costs would be too high. Just have them build and maintain the prison (under guard supervision of course).

Shipping them to some of the really deserted territory in Alaska would be a good thing. Minimal escapes, and you could set up the dangerous labratories there, with the criminals doing all the insanely likely to get them killed things that REQUIRE manual labor. Any wages they make should be sent to the family(ies) of the people they have victimized to make restitution.

They should be allowed to keep their wages to increase incentive for working and also further in rehabilitation. But as a rule, their wages should be much lower than the wages of freemen doing the same thing.

Mainly ones that are understood. Rapists, child molestors, killers of the innocent, and generally people of that nature. Forced labor is a good idea too though, at least they'll be serving a purpose. Just send 'em to Siberia like the Soviet Union used to.

No the Transportation costs would be too high. Just have them build and maintain the prison (under guard supervision of course).

Shipping them to some of the really deserted territory in Alaska would be a good thing. Minimal escapes, and you could set up the dangerous labratories there, with the criminals doing all the insanely likely to get them killed things that REQUIRE manual labor. Any wages they make should be sent to the family(ies) of the people they have victimized to make restitution.

They should be allowed to keep their wages to increase incentive for working and also further in rehabilitation. But as a rule, their wages should be much lower than the wages of freemen doing the same thing.

The United Socialist States of Tration does not believe in the death penalty because of our stance on the inherant right to life human beings possess. ...

What about the right to life of all the victims???
If that person breaks out of jail, what do you think they will do? (studies show that people will commit the same crime once they get out of jail.)

I (naturally) disagree. With substantial evidence of guilt we should have a right to keep people in prison until their trial through either a substantial bail, or through outright denying them bail. Otherwise, in a worst case scenario, they could kill someone outside a police station, get caught immediatly, sent to jail and get right back out and do it again until he is actually convicted of a crime.

I (naturally) disagree. With substantial evidence of guilt we should have a right to keep people in prison until their trial through either a substantial bail, or through outright denying them bail. Otherwise, in a worst case scenario, they could kill someone outside a police station, get caught immediatly, sent to jail and get right back out and do it again until he is actually convicted of a crime.

I (naturally) disagree. With substantial evidence of guilt we should have a right to keep people in prison until their trial through either a substantial bail, or through outright denying them bail. Otherwise, in a worst case scenario, they could kill someone outside a police station, get caught immediatly, sent to jail and get right back out and do it again until he is actually convicted of a crime.

All right, I'll agree to this, but to check the system you need the following:

Defendant should not be held for more than 24 hours without charges being filed. Upon charges being filed, defendant shall have the right to request an indictment hearing after two weeks if the prosecutor has not yet done one, and a trial after three months if the prosectuor has not yet done. In addition, since the defendant is presumed innocent, then:

- If the defendant is later convicted, the time he served before being convicted will count towards the total amount of jail time he has to serve (I think it's already this way).

- If the defendant is acquitted or his time he is convicted for is less than the time before the trial, he shall be duly compensated (a fair amount would be at least twice the amount of money he would ordinarily be making in the time that he is imprisoned, and if he worked for a government agency, he should automatically be rehired, though if he worked in the private sector, he will have to go find another job by himself)

Most criminals, having been caught and punished or "rehabilitated", still go on to commit more crimes, and many commit dozens more serious crimes. In most cases, no form of rehabilitation has any affect.
Some 90% of crimes are committed by persons with past felony convictions. Eliminate the persons committing these crimes, and you cut crime by 90%. The recidivism rate for executed criminals is zero.
That's why we have our "three strikes and you fry" law (of course, for murder, rape, armed robbery, arson, severe assaults, and housebreaking, it's usually one strike).

"Humane punishment", by the way is an oxymoron, and if state execution is "stooping to the level of criminals", then any state restrictions on personal action are immoral - arrest is kidnapping, taxation is robbery, etc. If you're an Anarchist, fine, but don't use this argument and pretend that you're not.

Most criminals, having been caught and punished or "rehabilitated", still go on to commit more crimes, and many commit dozens more serious crimes. In most cases, no form of rehabilitation has any affect.
Some 90% of crimes are committed by persons with past felony convictions. Eliminate the persons committing these crimes, and you cut crime by 90%. The recidivism rate for executed criminals is zero.
That's why we have our "three strikes and you fry" law (of course, for murder, rape, armed robbery, arson, severe assaults, and housebreaking, it's usually one strike).

"Humane punishment", by the way is an oxymoron, and if state execution is "stooping to the level of criminals", then any state restrictions on personal action are immoral - arrest is kidnapping, taxation is robbery, etc. If you're an Anarchist, fine, but don't use this argument and pretend that you're not.

People unjustly jailed can always be compensated. That's hard if someone's dead. Recidivism occurs because the prison system breeds more crime. Forced labor is the solution to this. Statistically speaking, criminals are far less dangerous than oppressive government. You don't have to be an anarchist or even a libertarian to realize this.

I'd like to know where you get your statistics. Historically speaking the longest times of peace have come at the hands of oppressive goverments. You want peace and saftey well that's about the only way. Some people are meant to rule while others are meant to serve, it's that easy. Nearly every religion is based upon the idea when you think about it. And pay your prisoners? Come on, look rehabilitation wastes time, money, and resources. Kill them and be done with it, maybe not for petty stuff like burglury but for major stuff just kill them. Cheaper that way, besides this planet already has way too many people living on it. Overall a bullet in the head is more economical than teachering them to read and write or whatever it is you gotta do to rehabilitate them. I have no compassion in me for those who I've deamed unworthy of rights (rapists, child molesters, and killers of the innocent), to me they are nothing more than insects which need to be stepped on. Or, if you like, a cancer that needs to be cut out to save the rest of the body. These people are trash and need to be treated as such.

since i'm roleplaying as an evil dictatorship, naturally i support the death penalty. i'd support torture and summary executions, for that matter.

the creed of my evil nation is "Rule by Fear." so i believe if i utilize brutal and sadistic tactics to rule my population, they'll cower before my wrath and no oppose me. it's not a question of morality, it's a question of necessity.

i really don't take this whole issue seriously. IRL, i'd support the death penalty. not 'cuz i think it's a deterrent, but 'cuz i believe it satisfies a primitive desire for revenge.

I expected better from you, TGM!

Public executions caused especially vicious copycat crimes. This is why they were banned in the first place. The public enjoyed them a little too much.
Nonsense! Murderers cause copycat crimes. Watching an execution is no better excuse for a murder than eating a twinkie.

The 5th amendment is framed in mind with Substantive Due Process...
Certainly not! The "Substantive Due Process" doctrine was invented by Taney in his infamous Dred Scott decision, and later expanded by liberals to justify legislating from the bench. It was NOT intended by the ratifiers of the Amendment.
The difficulty in getting a killer executed isn't really the appeals process; it's a whole array of illegitimate stalling tactics, like endless filing of writs of Habeus Corpus and motions for a new trial.
8-12 years of appeals? The only reason for such a long delay is to let the evidence deteriorate. Witnesses remember less, some die, some move away and don't want to appear again. Organic samples decay and can't be tested accurately. Thus the motions for a new trial - it's harder to convict someone on decades-old evidence.

Recidivism occurs because the prison system breeds more crime.
We don't think so. The main cause of recidivism is getting a slap on the wrist. Prisons cause more recidivism as opposed to what, no punishment at all? I don't think so. But they do cause more than the death penalty...
While we certainly have no moral objections to the use of prisoners as forced labor, there is a dangerous temptation for the state to take advantage of this practice. The Soviet Gulags were such a system.

If the defendant is acquitted or his time he is convicted for is less than the time before the trial, he shall be duly compensated... With that, we can agree. True, it's hard to compensate someone who is dead, but it's hard to compensate a murder victim, too. The solution is not lighter punishments; it's to invest the resources to make factual determinations of guilt so that as few innocent men are convicted as possible, instead of the "justice by auction" system.

Appeals only question whether or not the prosecution acted in a correct manner. By the time you get to an appeal, you are presumed guilty. As for the writs of Habeus Corps and motions for a new trial, the Habeus Corpus are perfectly legitimate if the prosecution isn't pressing charges in a speedy manner as per the 6th Amendment, and the mistrial motions are also valid if the defense feels the prosecution overstepped its authority. In an appeal, you don't question the person's guilt, except by implication, you mainly question the prosecutor's actions.

The term "substantive due process" may not have been invented, but if you read the Federalist Papers, it's relatively clear that Madison, who wrote most of the Bill of Rights, intended for the 5th amendment to substantially protect people from government.

And besides, the death penalty is MUCH easier to abuse than forced labor. So if being abusive is your only argument against forced labor, then I can cross-apply that to your side much easier.

I'm not advocating lighter punishments. I think that forced labor is a heavier punishment. But first of all, many people commit so much crime before being arrested that they are almost psychologically addicted to it (kleptomaniacs, etc). Forced labor, I don't mean Soviet-style but more humane forced labor, would show the benefits of work and by letting criminals keep some of the money, that is using the time-tested psychological tactic of great punishment matched by great mercy. This is probably our best chance at rehabilitating and punishing criminals.

I am personally aginst the death penalty, merely beacuse I don't belive that it is the most severe form of punishment. Life imprisonment, or containing a person within a 10ft x 10ft x 10ft cell for the greater part of their lives is the most horrific thing I can think of.

To me, for some criminals, giving them the death penalty is letting them off easy.

They can plot all they want, but in a high-security prison, their mind and, more importantly, their spirit is as confined as their bodies.

That's pretty intense psycological tourture.

It is my opinion, and the opinion of most every free government in the world today, that the purpose of a legal system is NOT to punish the guilty, but rather to protect the innocent. Prisons exist to keep dangerous people away from civilized society, and hopefully to rehabilitate them while doing so. There is no way to un-execute someone who is later proven to be innocent -- I might mention that over 200 people have been acquitted at appeal from death row in the United States in the past twenty years alone. Would you rather murder one innocent man or have ten guilty men rot in prison cells for the rest of their lives?

State sponsored murder is still murder.

There are certain extreme cases which I believe should be excepted from this view. I don't mean murder or rape. I mean things like mass murder, attempts at genocide. The prime example that comes to my mind is Adolf Hitler. Crimes against the world, society at large.

EDIT: I should probably also mention that I'm not entirely convinced that this is a global issue. It could be one, certainly, but no one seems to think that the UN should have to justify itself that way, for some reason.

It is NOT something that is wrong......the death penility is something that criminals that do something very offencive deserve.....I think that it is the best thing for them?

Yeah it's murder, so what? People have been killing people ever since we came on the scene on this planet, and you know what? It's not gonna stop, we're just gonna keep on killing each other. And hey if a good number of those people are scum, so much the better. Look I do think it's a great injustice when someone's wrongly accused and gets put on deathrow but accidents happen. You can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs, there will always be cracks in the system. I'd rather one innocent man die than 10 guilty go free. Look civilization is only skin deep, at heart every man, woman, and child on this planet is an animal. Killing is a part of nature, that's life. Look you wanna spare the guilty then I say YOU pay for him the rest of his life, you pay for his food, water, living. All of it, I don't want to, not when it's cheaper and more expedient to just kill them off. That's what I propose; all those people who want the death penalty gone let them pay for and house the prison population. Let it be their problem, cause if they don't wanna deal with it themselves then let's get to murdering. Personally I hate civilization, it's made people too soft and weak.

Wow.... the jumble of sentences... its like an English teachers nightmare. :lol:

After much deliberation, this government tends to agree with those that are against the death penalty. Forced labour camps are much better. As for pay, well, this government believes that prisoners do not have the right to receive pay. Here are our reasons.

1) The prisoner committed a crime against society, therefore why should society pay the prisoner for restituion?
2) The government is housing, feeding, and clothing the prisoner. A normal person has to go out and buy these things himself. Some legitimate working people are unable to do this without government assisstance. Why should prisoners get it better off?

Definately, it needs to be made certain that the labour camps do not turn into gulags.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

When a person commits a crime, they do not consider the consequences if they get caught. You could make the punishment death through a month of incessent torture and it wont make any difference. People are impulsive creatures and you can't change that.

When a person commits a crime, they do not consider the consequences if they get caught. You could make the punishment death through a month of incessent torture and it wont make any difference. People are impulsive creatures and you can't change that.

I beg to differ. The reason that anarchy does not break out in the world is because laws and punishments to those laws act as deterrents to criminal action. Indecisiveness is often a big problem with people because they actually tend to OVERTHINK things. Those that do not consider the consequences of their actions are either too immature to do so (thereby the lax criminal action taken against minors... not that I agree with that, and that being a totally different argument) or are mentally inequipped to be living in society.

Rad Kom
UN AMbassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

The death penalty is an easy solution for countries that do not have the tax base to support freeloafers. It is also an excellent way to clean the streets of repeat offenders, you can't commit crimes when you are dead. death by firing squad I say.

Look I do think it's a great injustice when someone's wrongly accused and gets put on deathrow but accidents happen. You can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs, there will always be cracks in the system. I'd rather one innocent man die than 10 guilty go free

You'd rather one innocent man die than ten guilty men go free? That's almost entirely irrelevant, in case you didn't notice that there are other options besides killing and releasing people.

"Accidents happen." Huh. Sounds like you're one of those people who thinks the death penalty is good becuase it brings closure to the families. What about the families of the wrongly executed? How will you comfort them? Will killing people bring other people back?

The death penalty is obviously not the masterfully effective crime deterrent it's made out to be -- look at and compare the murder/execution rates of the US and Britain, just for kicks. Yeah. That's right. Funny thing when the data doesn't support your side of the argument.

Yeah it's murder, so what?

If you wanted to make that argument, you should have done so a few thousand years ago at the dawn of civilization. Apparently only drugged up hippies like myself even think twice about killing people, by your book.

Appeals only question whether or not the prosecution acted in a correct manner. By the time you get to an appeal, you are presumed guilty. As for the writs of Habeus Corps and motions for a new trial, the Habeus Corpus are perfectly legitimate if the prosecution isn't pressing charges in a speedy manner as per the 6th Amendment, and the mistrial motions are also valid if the defense feels the prosecution overstepped its authority. In an appeal, you don't question the person's guilt, except by implication, you mainly question the prosecutor's actions.
Appeals can be made on other grounds - questions of law, judicial misconduct, new evidence (often paid witnesses), incompetent representation, procedural technicalities, etc. Appellate courts are not supposed to review questions of fact, but they often do anyway. Writs of Habeus Corpus are commonly filed after conviction, for the sole purpose of delay. Motions for mistrial are often based on picayune technicalities that have no relation to guilt or innocence, or on hired testimony of the accused's criminal associates.

The term "substantive due process" may not have been invented, but if you read the Federalist Papers, it's relatively clear that Madison, who wrote most of the Bill of Rights, intended for the 5th amendment to substantially protect people from government.
The term wasn't invented by Taney, either, but the concept was. You seem to be confused as to the nature of the term, which is not relevant to this debate. "Substantive due process" is a doctrine concerning legislative authority, and has nothing to do with judicial process.

And besides, the death penalty is MUCH easier to abuse than forced labor.
We doubt that it is easier, because casual executions are more likely to arouse public opposition than casual enslavement; but our point was that convict slavery presents the greater temptation to abuse. Governments can, and have, profitted from mass enslavement of "criminals", but except for enemy political leaders, governments have nothing to gain by executions.

Forced labor... is probably our best chance at rehabilitating and punishing criminals.
Then you wouldn't mind importing some of our criminals? You can benefit from their labor and turn them into useful citizens of the Global Market at the same time, and we'll save on electricity.

I don't care so much about closure to the families as I do about people, who've commited heinous crimes, wasting perfectly good air. Killing the person wouldn't bring closure, you gotta find it for yourself. But hey if you're dead you can hurt anyone else so I say kill them. And look maybe it isn't the detterent some say it is but it cleans out the trash so who cares? And hey if someone has it coming I wouldn't hesitate to do the deed. The only other option in my opinion is forced labor, but they get no rights whatsoever. Basically I'd just work 'em to death then put someone else on. So I guess it'd still be the death penalty in a roundabout way, oh well!

It is my opinion, and the opinion of most every free government in the world today, that the purpose of a legal system is NOT to punish the guilty, but rather to protect the innocent.
That's your opinion, but it's not shared by "most every free government", in fact it's really only accepted by pro-crime liberals.

I might mention that over 200 people have been acquitted at appeal from death row in the United States in the past twenty years alone.
That doesn't mean they were innocent. In the majority of cases it means they escaped on a technicality.
A convicted murderer is more likely to commit another murder, either in prison or following an escape, than to be acquitted. let alone to actually be innocent.

Would you rather murder one innocent man or have ten guilty men rot in prison cells for the rest of their lives?
We're certain the ratio is more favorable than that, but in principle, the answer is yes. In practice, murderers very rarely actually spend their entire lives in prison, regardless of their sentence. If they're left alive, the same bleeding hearts who argued that they should be spared, because they can be incarcerated forever, will be trying to get them released. Some will kill again in prison, and a few will escape. In addition to the injustice inflicted on the family of murder victims, there is a real, material price to pay for keeping murderers around. It's easy for a fanatic to insist that no innocent must be executed, no matter what the price, and to fixate on the most incredibly rare case, but in real life, such fanaticism isn't practical; we might end up sacrificing twenty innocent lives to ordinary murderers in order to spare that last solitary innocent convict - and he'll still spend his life in prison.

State sponsored murder is still murder.
And state sponsored arrests are kidnapping, and state sponsored taxation is robbery, and state licensed pharmacists are drug dealers, community service is enslavement... give us a break.

There are certain extreme cases which I believe should be excepted from this view... Crimes against the world, society at large.
Now that's scary. "Crimes against society" was the offense of most Gulag inmates.

I have a different approach. Have the prisoner either choose death or a life of solitary confinement/hard labor and so on along those lines (for teh country to decide). That way you appease the humanatarianists and also states like the Yuushi can make it so that the alteritave to death is something worse. If this was enacted all countries have the death penalty in a sense but some may choose to use it more often than others.

There is no positive side to the death penalty.

1. It does not deter criminals from doing heinous crimes. Look at a Westernised country like America (at least some states) wiht the death penalty and you'll find much higher crime rates than European countries without the death penalty. Even looking at states in America with and wihtout the death penalty, the ones with death penalty don't have lower crime rates.

2. Why should tax payers pay money on keeping criminals alive? Well, why should we pay more money for killing them. It is much more expensive to put someone to death than kill them alive because you still have to keep them alive for a long time, usually in high security prisons plus there are the legal bills that have to be paid before someone dies. It's much more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive.

3. It does not help the victims or the families of the victims. Often, the family of victims feel than whenthe criminal dies they will finally be able to have closure. Hearing several family members of victims speaking, this has not been the case. Their lives still feel empty even after getting "even". So it doesn't work as a cathartic experience either.

4. Having the death penalty means that innocent people can die. It's happened in every single legal system with the death penalty. A system does not work if it destroys the lives of innocent people. Of course, innocent people will still go to jail, but the mistake can be corrected, which would not be the case if he was put to death.

The death penalty is inherantly wrong, simply because it cannot be undone if the conviction is later found to be unsound.

Criminals either need to be rehabilited or punished not both it doesn't work. I also believe that history has proved that punishment doesn't work.

In fact upon reflection I think that the only real way to prevent crime is to deal with the real causes of crime; poverty, lack of education and drug addiction.

The argument that then people would then commit crime in order to gain access to the luxuries of housing and education is a nonsense if you presuppose that such things are basic human rights anyway, as most civilised nations do.

Well the problem is the wait is too long, as soon as they're convicted as guilty kill them. Screw humane way of killing firing squad or beheading works just fine. We could even reuse the corpses as fertilizer. Look the problem lies not with the institution of the death penaltey but the weakness of people. The real world is governed by death, deal with it. Stop whinning about something that will never change. You can't allow trash to pile up.

The Death penalty is and appropriate and effective deterrence. However, the amount of money that is wasted on "a more humane way" to put a criminal to death is absurd! No matter how we do it, we kill them! After the appeals process, why not shoot them in their sleep one night and throw them in a hole.......

The official position of the Telongan Government is that the death penalty is cruel and unnescessary, and has been abolished in our country. However, the Government is not sure the issue of the death penalty is a matter for the UN rather than national sovreignty.

Alejandro Juan Sanchez
Ambassador to the UN

It's _not_ a matter for the UN, if your country doesn't wanna execute criminals that's fine but the UN doesn't have the right to order the countries that do to stop.

"2. Why should tax payers pay money on keeping criminals alive? Well, why should we pay more money for killing them. It is much more expensive to put someone to death than kill them alive because you still have to keep them alive for a long time, usually in high security prisons plus there are the legal bills that have to be paid before someone dies. It's much more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive"

*double take* What? More expensive to put someone to death than kill them alive? You mean keep them alive? And you seem to be saying that the legal bill of keeping someone alive are high.... *triple take*

"I also believe that history has proved that punishment doesn't work."

Say who what now? You think punishment doesn't work? Your telling me this after being raised in a home where breaking a rule was punished. I don't break rules anymore. Why? I don't like being punished. People are also like this. Of course, there are always those that will continue to defy the laws and such because they have no respect for those that dole out the punishment (but that's a different discussion all together).

I still say forced labour camps are better. They are productive.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

In my opinion,death penalty should not be abolished.People should be punished of what they've done,and i'm not talking for theft or something like that.For example someone who murdered someone should be executed if they have the evidence to prove it.
They know the concequenses of what they are about to do and they should be ready to face them.If they are not prepare to die,then they should not do the crime.It's simple as that.

They know the concequenses of what they are about to do and they should be ready to face them.If they are not prepare to die,then they should not do the crime.It's simple as that.

What a startlingly naive statement that completely ignores the fact that justice systems no matter how good are fallible.

1. It does not deter criminals from doing heinous crimes. Look at a Westernised country like America (at least some states) wiht the death penalty and you'll find much higher crime rates than European countries without the death penalty. Even looking at states in America with and wihtout the death penalty, the ones with death penalty don't have lower crime rates.
That's not proof that the death penalty is not a deterrent (there are many differences between nations and regions that affect crime rates), but as seldom as the death penalty is actually enforced, we should hardly expect it to have any deterrent effect anyway. The chances of a murderer being executed are hundreds to one against.

2. It is much more expensive to put someone to death than kill them alive because you still have to keep them alive for a long time, usually in high security prisons plus there are the legal bills that have to be paid before someone dies.
The legal bills exist because of abuse of the appeals process and the fanatical efforts of pro-criminal organizations on the behalf of murderers. This isn't an argument against the death penalty at all, it's an attempt to prevent executions by blackmail.

3. It does not help the victims or the families of the victims. Often, the family of victims feel than whenthe criminal dies they will finally be able to have closure. Hearing several family members of victims speaking, this has not been the case. Their lives still feel empty even after getting "even". So it doesn't work as a cathartic experience either.
Anecdotes prove nothing about the general case; you haven't given any reason for believing that executions do not provide closure in most cases. Even if they only made one person feel better, they would still be justified; any benefit to even a single victim is more important than the lives of a hundred murderers.

4. Having the death penalty means that innocent people can die. It's happened in every single legal system with the death penalty. A system does not work if it destroys the lives of innocent people. Of course, innocent people will still go to jail, but the mistake can be corrected, which would not be the case if he was put to death.
Having any kind of criminal justice means that innocent people can be punished. No punishment is fully reversible; if a man is imprisoned for twenty years and then exonerated, he has still lost the twenty years.
Again, this isn't an argument against the death penalty per se; the objection is against the execution of innocents (which no one is seriously advocating, I hope!). The same argument could be made against any punishment at all - that it might be inflicted on an innocent man. The solution is not to eliminate all criminal justice, it is to make accurate determinations of fact and respect the presumption of innocence.

That's your opinion, but it's not shared by "most every free government", in fact it's really only accepted by pro-crime liberals.

Oooh, I'm liberal, I believe in personal freedom and government for the people, so I MUST be wrong. Clearly if I'm not willing to murder a few hundred people I'm "pro crime." Good, sound logic.

A convicted murderer is more likely to commit another murder, either in prison or following an escape, than to be acquitted. let alone to actually be innocent.

That's a reason to increase prison security, not to kill people.

In practice, murderers very rarely actually spend their entire lives in prison, regardless of their sentence.

This is not a discussion where the only two options are "kill" and "release." When I say life inprisonment, I damned well mean it.

Some will kill again in prison, and a few will escape.

Some will kill in prison? I thought you didn't care about the rights of those dirty convicts? A few will escape? Again, that's a cause to increase security, not to kill people.

In addition to the injustice inflicted on the family of murder victims, there is a real, material price to pay for keeping murderers around.

Injustice to the family members? What injustice would that be, exactly? And while there is a cost to inprisoning people for life, the statistical cost of appeals is higher. Why do appeals matter? Because people faced with the death penalty are a whole lot more likely to file them. I'm supposing your instinct there will be to greatly reduce the appeals system, but then the likelyhood of killing an innocent person will increase greatly.

we might end up sacrificing twenty innocent lives to ordinary murderers in order to spare that last solitary innocent convict - and he'll still spend his life in prison.

The funny thing about serial killers is that the number of people they kill tends to be affected more by when they're caught than by whether they're sentenced to death or life inprisonment.

Santin wrote:
There are certain extreme cases which I believe should be excepted from this view... Crimes against the world, society at large.

Now that's scary. "Crimes against society" was the offense of most Gulag inmates.

Way to take a quote out of context. You might consider taking the time to read entire paragraphs.

Heck no my country won't abolish the dath penalty. Why does the left always defend the crimminals while turning thier backs on the victims and society at large? If someone does something haneous enough to warrent life in prison then go ahead and kill him. It's more humain then rotting behind bars forever, and rids country's of a threat against the population.

As for the comment above about it costing just as much to kill them... I say we should abolish long wait times, not the penalty,. 1 appeal and if they fail that one the right after court they swing from a rope. And the last time a checked, death from a firing squad costs about .32 cents a bullet. A rope cost about $10 and electricty for something like the chair costs a buck or two.

We should do everything to afford the acused a fair trial. Once convicted, and if the apeal fails to bring forth new evidence to clear the accused of the crime, then he is a crimminal and the victems deserve justice.
I say fry em'....

The only way the death penalty should be abolished is if other nations are willing to take our convicted felons into their prisons without any chance of parole.

Heck no my country won't abolish the dath penalty. Why does the left always defend the crimminals while turning thier backs on the victims and society at large? If someone does something haneous enough to warrent life in prison then go ahead and kill him. It's more humain then rotting behind bars forever, and rids country's of a threat against the population.

As for the comment above about it costing just as much to kill them... I say we should abolish long wait times, not the penalty,. 1 appeal and if they fail that one the right after court they swing from a rope. And the last time a checked, death from a firing squad costs about .32 cents a bullet. A rope cost about $10 and electricty for something like the chair costs a buck or two.

We should do everything to afford the acused a fair trial. Once convicted, and if the apeal fails to bring forth new evidence to clear the accused of the crime, then he is a crimminal and the victems deserve justice.
I say fry em'....

The Holy Empire of Ustasha is in full agreement with the ex-Nation (WTF?) of Kalamshan. A the threat of a lengthy appeals process and criminals growing old and lethargic while eating up tax payer money on Death Row is unacceptible.

This is why in The Holy Empire of Ustasha, as soon as the Death Sentance is Procliamed, the prisoner is dragged away to their public execution.

Also, we try to be creative, and let the punishment fit the crime.

If you raped or molested someone, you are sodomized with a samurai sword.

If you shot someone, you get shot, repeatedly.

If you stabbed someone, hey, off with your head!

If you kill someone with a car, you will be crushed by the Emperor's Hummer.

If you commit arson, or you're found guilty of being a witch, you're burned at the stake.

If you are found guilty of being a vampire, you are impaled by a stake, Buffy-Style.

If you are found guilty of being a hippie, you are herded into a large rocket and shot into the sun.

If you are found guilty of using drugs, you are chopped up and fed to the homeless people... who are in turn chopped up and sold as Jerky.

And if you are found guilty of vandalizing a statue of His Excelency Emperor Jim, you recieve the worst execution imagineable! Death by Subway Food!!!!! "Hey, Jared!"

-His Excelency Emperor Jim. 8)

Lethal injection is ok for illegal immigrants, but for malicious offenses like dog theft a good public electrocution is in order.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Baron Porkonia wrote:

*double take* What? More expensive to put someone to death than kill them alive? You mean keep them alive? And you seem to be saying that the legal bill of keeping someone alive are high.... *triple take*

I think the person you are quoting from is probably refering to the death penalty in the USA, where condemned criminals spend an average of 10 years on Death Row and go through lengthy, costly appeals. This means that in the USA the death penalty does cost more than life imprisonment without parole.

Juan Garcia
Telongan Ministry of Information

People talk tough about the death penalty until they are facing with finding someone guilty and knowing a guilty sentence means death. At that point, rather the bear the burden of responsibility for ending his life (and having seen his frightened tearful wife, kids and momma in the courtroom) most people acquit, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Abolishing the death penalty means a higher conviction rate in serious cases.

It's not as hard as you'd think, every human on this planet has it in them to kill another human. I think you overthink human compassion. Look if someone did something heinous I could stare his wife and child straight in their eye and say death. Please value and comapassion towards human life is a disease of the civilized, humanities true roots lay in killing each other. That's the natural thing.

People talk tough about the death penalty until they are facing with finding someone guilty and knowing a guilty sentence means death. At that point, rather the bear the burden of responsibility for ending his life (and having seen his frightened tearful wife, kids and momma in the courtroom) most people acquit, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Abolishing the death penalty means a higher conviction rate in serious cases.
That's a good argument against the jury system.

Dying is bad. We should make so people can't die anymore.