NationStates Jolt Archive

If someone is sentenced to the death penalty, 99.9% of the time, they're cold-blooded killers and they deserve it. Rebuking the Death Penalty puts those evil people in jail for the rest of their lives, or able to roam free and kill free.

Agreed.

Agreed.

we already have enough threads on this.
stop making new ones.
can we get this locked up or deleted?

Uh...[s]he is presenting an alternate opinion. Instead of wasting effort fighting against a threadful of pro-anti-death penatly people, [s]he has started his[/her] own thread to garner the support of pro-pro-death penalty people. This topic doesn't really need to be locked or deleted...

Agreed.
The author's logic is severely flawed.
He says that the death penalty promotes vengeance instead of justice.
This is not so.
What you do by not having the death penalty for capital crimes is you place the value of the criminal's life above that of the victim's.
The argument made for the ban is made in order to preserve life.
The States of Verasimilitude recognize and support this right.
However, do not forsake justice for the sake of illdeserved forebearance.
These criminals forsook their right to life when they knowingly took the life of another.

When you jump into the proverbial pond after your reflection's bone, you lose the right to your own bone.
Those that self-servedly steal another's right to life should not be granted reprieval by the state.
The act of execution is not vengeance by the state.
It is a just reprisal by the innocent blood of the victim "crying out for justice" and the final decision of a just God.
That is the States of Verasimilitude's exhaustively thought-out and researched view.
However, it is a nation's sovereign right to make decisions against capital punishment on their own.
However, it is repugnant and nonsensical to force flawed theology onto the world through UN mandates.
The rejection of this proposal does not mandate executions, it simply allows individual nations to keep their sovereign right to judge in societal issues.

99.9% of the time

Really, You Say 99.9% Of The Time? Even If That Were True, Which It Is Most Likely Not, That Means...
out of 1000 executions, 1 are innocent, and know it.
out of 10000 excecutions, 10 are innocent, and know it.
out of 100000 executions, 100 are innocent, and know it.
out of 1000000 excecutions, 1000 are innocent, and know it.

But, Those Innocent Are Just A Side Affect Of A Greater Good, Like Civillians Purposely Killed In A War, Aren't They? I say No! There Is No Reason For Execution Other That Humanities Obsession With Death! Law Has No Right To Be God In These Decisions, And The Execution Of Innocent Is Not Reversible. Besides, A Murderer Would Suffer More Staying Alive In A Horrible Prision Awaiting A Death Of Disease Or Old Age, And An Innocent Person Has A Chance That Someday, Someone May Discover His Innocence.Death Penalty Has No Real Advantage Other Than Less Jails. I say NO To The Death Penalty.

Irathian Represenative To U.N.

I say Fry the Rapists, burn the Murderers, and hang the crazys!

I say Fry the Rapists, burn the Murderers, and hang the crazys!

And You Are Always 100% Sure That They Are The Rapists Murderers And Crazies? Of Course Your Not.









Izrathian Represenative To The U.N.

1) Our society's lack of respect for human life is already a pressing issue. When a criminal who has behaved in atrocious ways is spared from death, we do not set his life higher than the victim's. We simply desplay a further lack reverence for human life in general.
2) The costs upon the government for inforcing the death penalty are three times that of a twenty year sentance.
3)The death penalty does not decrease, prevent, appease, or attone for the horrendousness of the acts commited. What purpose does it serve?

1) Our society's lack of respect for human life is already a pressing issue. When a criminal who has behaved in atrocious ways is spared from death, we do not set his life higher than the victim's. We simply desplay a further lack reverence for human life in general.
2) The costs upon the government for inforcing the death penalty are three times that of a twenty year sentance.
3)The death penalty does not decrease, prevent, appease, or attone for the horrendousness of the acts commited. What purpose does it serve?

1. So what's your point? Are you saying that displaying a further lack of reverance for human life in general is a good thing? I say it isn't, and that's why I support the death penalty.

2. Again, what's your point? A 20 year sentence is not justice for a cold-blooded murder. Neither is a 60 year sentence, since that's what you seem to be saying enforcing the death penalty costs, although one might argue that the cost is due to endless appeals permitted a death row inmate, in addition to the excessively long time it takes for an execution to be carried out. I can understand there are some circumstances where you can never be sure, and by all means, sentence those to life without parole. But does anyone seriously doubt the guilt of, for example, Jeffrey Dahmer? What possible justification could there have been for stealing money from taxpayers every year to keep such an animal alive?

3. You almost got this statement right, but you stumbled at the end. No, the death penalty does not lessen, prevent, or appease the horrendousness of the acts committed. However, it does attone for it. In fact it is the only punishment that truly attones for it. If you take a life, that's exactly what you should lose. Some people argue against the death penalty by saying 'it won't bring their victim back'. I counter by saying that's exactly why the murderer should be executed. If sparing the murderer's life would bring their victim back, then I would change my position on this, but of course it won't.

I like your nation name who cares *cough cough ignorant fool cough* :twisted: 8) :lol: :wink:








Izrathian Represenative to U.N

I for one would be disgusted if the person who murdered a member of my family was executed. More bloodshed is not pleasant, desired, nor needed. Besides, what does a criminal learn from dying? Nothing. They don't remember anything. Keep them alive and there's a chance to rehabilitate them.

I for one would be disgusted if the person who murdered a member of my family was executed. More bloodshed is not pleasant, desired, nor needed. Besides, what does a criminal learn from dying? Nothing. They don't remember anything. Keep them alive and there's a chance to rehabilitate them.

Plus, They Get To Suffer In A Jail Cell until all eternity.

Here is some thing to think about..

The Truth About The Death Penalty (http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Comedy.html)

If you want to go at it from a cost effective angle, lets face it, it's much cheaper to keep people in jail for life then to give them the death penalty. If you get the death penalty you get about a decades worth of appeals which cost millions and millions of dollars and most people still don't get death till 15 to 20 years after they have been sentenced. Cost far more money to impose the death penalty then to just keep people in jail for life.

Further, what about if you're wrong? It's not like it doesn't happen.

Any eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!

I agree. The death penalty is wrong. Capital punishment is a primitive way of dealing with murderers. It's like saying: "Why bother to try to convert him when we can just KILL him?" Which do you think is more painful: dying in a matter of seconds, or wasting away in jail for the rest of your life? Maybe we should adopt this method, practiced in Saxon times and forgotten: the victim (or their family if it was murder) gets to decide on a reasonable punishment for the perpertrator. This means that the victim (or their family) is happy, as they see justice as being done, and it may not destroy an innocent life. What would you think if you shocked a man to death in an electric chair and then, a week later, forensics say he was innocent? The death penalty is the EASY way out. The best way to handle these guys is to have the victim (or their family) decide on a punishment and attempt to rehabilitate them. A little thing on rehabilitation: In the 60s, Britain had 3,500 heroin addicts out of 50m people, while the US had 500,000 out of 350m people. Now Britain has 50,000 of 60m. Why? Because they used to send addicts to GPs until the US pressurized them to punish users as criminals.

...99.9% Of The Time? Even If That Were True, Which It Is Most Likely Not, That Means...
out of 1000 executions, 1 are innocent, and know it.
out of 10000 excecutions, 10 are innocent, and know it.
out of 100000 executions, 100 are innocent, and know it.
out of 1000000 excecutions, 1000 are innocent, and know it.

It would take about 7 years in the US to execute 1000 people according to the number of people executed each year.
However, as for innocents being put to death, I would be willing to say that under MODERN, FAIR judicial systems, this does not occur anymore. If there is any reason to doubt the guilt, then the person doesn't get the death penalty.
But, Those Innocent Are Just A Side Affect Of A Greater Good, Like Civillians Purposely Killed In A War, Aren't They?
Because, clearly, in every military campain in the past 2 decades, the whole plan has been to kill civilians. Not that your analogy makes much sense anyway.
Unless you mean that we regretfully accept civilian casualties knowing that the over all good for all outweighs the tragic innocent deaths of a few.
I say No! There Is No Reason For Execution Other That Humanities Obsession With Death!
Nice grammer.
Anyway, if a person tries to murder me, and I kill them in self-defense, it's ok. After all, it was me or him.
If I die, why should the murderer get to live?
Law Has No Right To Be God In These Decisions, And The Execution Of Innocent Is Not Reversible.
You must realize how few people consider God to be relavent in today's society. Though the examination of scientific evidence does nothing but support that the Bible is true, most people chose to ignore that evidence.
As for the execution of innocents not being reversible, you're correct, however, I'm of the opinion that innocents are no longer executed under FAIR judicial systems.
Besides, A Murderer Would Suffer More Staying Alive In A Horrible Prision Awaiting A Death Of Disease Or Old Age, And An Innocent Person Has A Chance That Someday, Someone May Discover His Innocence.
Almost no murderer ever wishes for death. They might welcome it, but they very rarely long for it.
I've already addressed the whole "innocents" argument enough.
Death Penalty Has No Real Advantage Other Than Less Jails.
Most living victims (the families of those murdered) want retribution. It's human nature to want things fair.
Although I agree that less prisons would be desirable.
I say NO To The Death Penalty.
I respect your view, but disagree.

Also, there are too many threads with this.
We can debate in the others.
Can we get this locked up?

Many of the arguments made for the ban argue for the ban based on:
A. Cost
B. Punishment Level
This is absurd.
A. The death penalty is not implemented to be cost-effective.
That money required for the death penalty is spent on the trials and hearings.
That money is spent ascertaining the certain guilt of the accused criminal.
It is not spent on diabolical ways of torturing people, it is to help them.
Somone put on death row has more of a chance to be retried than somone with a life sentance without parole.

B. They say a life in prison is harsher and more unbearable than the death penalty.
Since when is the overnemtn in the business of trying to torture people?
The mission of these punishments is not to abuse them, it is to potentially rehabilitate the criminals or if the crime is sufficiently heinous, to eradicate them.
To argue in favor of something for somone else which you recognize to be more cruel is barbaric.
These people knowingly forsook their right to life.
They are not posterboys for innocence.
They were innocent until proven guilty.
They were proven guilty.
They are no longer innocent.
They are a drain and tumor in society.
You do not kill them out of an attempt to be cost-effective.
You do not kill them in order to let them take "the easy way out."
You kill them because they chose to place their own rights above those of everyone else's in society.
This places them in the role as a deliberate irritant and cancer to society.
Society thusly treats them as the medical community treats cancer.
It erradicates it for the good of others.
Sometimes the treatment for cancer has side effects, but it is done for the good.

There are a few bad things about the death penalty:
1) Cost: It DOES cost more to kill someone in the death penalty than it does to keep a person in prison.
2) Family Involvement: With the death penalty, the families of the victims hear A LOT about the killer in the news about how he/she was sentenced to death and put to death via lethal injection. A lot of times, the families of the victims want to forget about the murder, and don't want to hear anything about the murderer.
3) Only ONE Country in the Western World with Death Penalty: United States is the ONLY country in the Western World to still have the Death Penalty. There must be a reason why so many countries in the Western World don't have the death penalty.
4) Two Negatives = A Positive?: That only works in math. Who made us God to say, "We'll take your life from you,"? Now, I know that can be said about the murderer, but it does not give US the right to sink down to their level by killing them.

Now, sometimes, death penalty is actually too GOOD for the murderer. Have you ever heard of Jailhouse Justice? A lot of times, if a mass murderer, child molester, or rapist is sentenced to life in prison, they won't live a full life. Chances are, the other inmates will kill these people. Especially the child mollesters. Prison inmates do not think too highly of child mollesters. If a murderer is sentenced to life in prison, the only time the families of the victims will hear about the murderer again is when he or she dies in prison.

The death penalty SHOULD be banned.

I like your nation name who cares *cough cough ignorant fool cough* :twisted: 8) :lol: :wink:








Izrathian Represenative to U.N

I guess whoever said that when liberals have no logical argument they always resort to name calling was correct. :wink:

I am in agreeance with the Death Penalty, and anyone from another country or region will face the full wrath of justice my way if they commit a crime in my country or region. I do not believe in any of this "extradition" crap.

Commander-General Vlad Pryde
~=*****=~

The death penalty is state sponsored terrorism. I see no reason to support it. If you want to lower the murder rate, get rid of the government, the biggest murderer of them all.

-----------------------------------------
"Basically, claims that the Holocaust didn't happen are as stupid as saying the Sun is made from Cheese."-English Republicans
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Regardless of your feelings about the other thread on the subject, there IS the other thread on the subject and all arguments on the death penalty should be given there.

*goes to get a someone to lock this*

There is already a thread for the debate of this resolution.