NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally I feel that the death penalty is a immature and barbaric way of dealing with today's problems. What do you all think?

(The poll is quite simple, do you support it or not, yes or no, no special circumstances, you either support it or not)


Cremerica

"Violence is the Last refuge of the Incompetent" ---Isaac Asimov

Yes it is.
I'm drunk.

No, I don't think it is. I think it represents society's moral outrage for the crimes he/she committed.

Besides, the person would most likely welcome death as opposed to life in prison. You guys seem to love having prisoners all comfortable and everything...

murder is murder and wether or not its justified it is still taking the life of someone who didnt take your life. if someone was killed and their ghost wanted to kill the person who killed them then its completely fine, but a third party should have no say in how, when, or why a murderer should be killed.

holy ****...am I the only one who doesn't follow the majority opinion?

Yes!

I'm not a big supporter but I am not entirely against it. Saddam? Give it to him. Osama? Give it to him. I could support it in some and rare cases especially if it is undeniable that the person were guilty.

As with most that try to take the 'murder is murder' argument, you fail completely to miss the point of why the death penalty is a perfectly useable tool in any society, particularly modern society.

Let me say this as a qualifier, I support the death penalty unequivocally in 'smoking gun' cases. I would not use it in ANY circumstantial cases, such as the Scott Peterson case currently underway.

That being said, capital punishment has but one purpose. To keep that particular person from ever again committing a crime. It isn't a deterrent. It isn't revenge. It's society protecting itself, pure and simple from someone that has proven through their actions that they will not observe even the most basic of societies rules. In that context, frankly, capital punishment is the only humane solution. Unless you want to somehow argue that being kept in a cage, by yourself, 24 hours a day for the rest of your life is somehow humane. If you doubt the truth of that, go visit a prison sometime. Ask to be locked up. See how it feels and then contemplate to what extent you would go to remove yourself from those environs.

Quantity of life without quality of life is torture. Locking an animal, any animal in a cage for decades on end without hope for a future is cruel and unusual punishment. Once again, we treat our stray dogs and cats better than we treat our fellow man.

this is a real bastion of left wingery isnt it. your poll reflects the precise opposite, almost to the number, of public opinion. LOL.

most people do you know. you people might have the majority in the forums but not in the streets of our citys nor the halls of government.

i agree with booduh on this one.

That being said, capital punishment has but one purpose. To keep that particular person from ever again committing a crime. It isn't a deterrent. It isn't revenge. It's society protecting itself, pure and simple from someone that has proven through their actions that they will not observe even the most basic of societies rules. In that context, frankly, capital punishment is the only humane solution.

Ok. Killing someone is a really good way to stop them from committing a crime. It's also a really good way to stop them from doing anything, including giving back to society in some way. Besides, being in prison keeps a person from ever again committing a crime too. There are lots of ways to do this, frankly, many much more efficient than capital punishment.

It's also arguable whether or not killing someone is more ethical than life in prison. The same idea can be used for mercy killings and was also used by the Nazis to justify the Final Solution.

Note that I hate it when people play the Nazi card.

Also, it's cheaper to keep them in prison anyway. There's nothing capital punishment offers that is better.

Booduh has it correct. Also, we have to keep in mind not only the protection of society, but the costs of holding lifetimes sentences to people that the government refused to execute. Either the prisoner lives in horrid conditions that no man/woman should ever endure, or they live virtually in a free paradise where they literally get free plastic surgery, cable access, and in some cases, weight rooms/tennis courts/other facilities normal American citizens can't even get themselves! Free! Hell, some people actually do crimes to get into jail so they don't have to work to live comfortably! Well, it's free for everyone except to the tax payers. Thus the death sentence keeps the inhuman and economically damaging practice of imprisonment at a low percentage, not to mentions gets potential murders and criminals to think twice before they act.

Ok. Killing someone is a really good way to stop them from committing a crime. It's also a really good way to stop them from doing anything, including giving back to society in some way. Besides, being in prison keeps a person from ever again committing a crime too. There are lots of ways to do this, frankly, many much more efficient than capital punishment.

It's also arguable whether or not killing someone is more ethical than life in prison. The same idea can be used for mercy killings and was also used by the Nazis to justify the Final Solution.

Note that I hate it when people play the Nazi card.

Also, it's cheaper to keep them in prison anyway. There's nothing capital punishment offers that is better.

I'm not sure what you're thinking here. Are you really suggesting that a person that has committed a 'smoking gun' crime once incarcerated no longer commits crimes?? Surely you can't be making that argument. Currently they refer to people who are in prison for life without the possibility of parole as the princes of the prison. They are never getting out, there is no crime in prison that they commit that will get them any worse sentence. They terrorize the guards, prison population and particularly those that have a chance to get out.

Ethics aside, and I disagree with you whole heartedly by the way, this topic is about capital punishment, not mercy killings of non criminals, or any other kind of killing.

Regarding cost, let me see if I understand your point. What your suggesting is that because it's cheaper to keep a human being caged like an animal for the rest of they're life, possibly 60 or 70 years given the ages we're now convicting people of life without parole, that this is the better solution??

Apparently you completely ignored the quality vs quantity of life. You bemoan ethical considerations. What kind of ethics do you have that you can justify the caging of a human for decades with no hope, in a hostile violent environment?? We don't treat animals that poorly, but you would do so because it's 'cheaper'??

That being said, capital punishment has but one purpose. To keep that particular person from ever again committing a crime. It isn't a deterrent.

Then it should work.

Show me the studies and statistic that prove a state with the death penalty is "safer" than a state without it.

Here are a couple showing the other side:

The FBI Preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 2002 showed that murder rates in the South increased by 2.1% whereas those in the Northeast decreased by almost 5%. The South is responsible for 82% of the total death penalty scentences since 1976 whereas the Northeast accounts for less than 1%.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/02prelimannual.pdf


A survey published in the 1999 volume 45 edition of Crime and Deliquency, by John Sorenson, Robert Winkle, Victoria Brewer and James Marquet looked at signs of deterrance using Texas as a model. The basis for this is that since Texas has the highest rate of death scentences and executions, any effect these might be having on crime rates should be most obvious there. Examining the years of 1984 to 1997 and concluded that, despite the high number of death scentences and executions, during this time span, the number of death scentences and executions had no effect on the murder rate or the felony rates.


In a study published in Criminology, volume 36, 1998, William Bailey looked at possible deterrance effects in Oklahoma. The hypothesis was that, if there was a deterrance effect, then it would be observable by comparing murder rates from before the resumption of executions to those posted after the resumption of executions. Examinging the period between 1989 and 1991, Baily found no decrease in murder rates or sub-type murder rates (felony, stranger-robbery related, stranger non-felony and argument-related). He did find, though, a substantial increase in stranger killings and non-felony stranger related killings.


A study by Ernie Thompson published in volume 3 of Homicide Studies. 1999, looked at the rates of criminal homicides in Los Angeles both prior to and after the Harris execution in 1992. He found that there was no decrease, and actually a slight increase in homicides for the 8 months following the execution.

Then it should work.

Show me the studies and statistic that prove a state with the death penalty is "safer" than a state without it.

Here are a couple showing the other side:




Exactly my point, Berkylvania, Capital Punishment is not a deterrant to other crime by other individuals. That's not its purpose or its goal. Safety is an illusion, but that's another topic. The issue, quite simply, is capital punishment effective at the desired goal. If the desired goal is to keep that particular criminal from ever committing a crime again, then yes, it is extremely effective. If you have any other goal tied to it, then it will fail miserably.

Capital punishement is not and cannot prevent other people from committing crimes. It can only prevent a person who has already proven they can't live in society from committing crimes.

Exactly my point, Berkylvania, Capital Punishment is not a deterrant to other crime by other individuals. That's not its purpose or its goal. Safety is an illusion, but that's another topic. The issue is quite simply is capital punishment effective at the desired goal. If the desired goal is to keep that particular criminal from ever committing a crime again, then yes, it is extremely effective. If you have any other goal tied to it, then it will fail miserably.

Capital punishement is not and cannot prevent other people from committing crimes. It can only prevent a person who has already proven they can't live in society from committing crimes.

Hmm, that's an interesting microscopic application of the statute that I hadn't considered. I suppose it's true in as far as it goes. Yes, execution is certainly one way to make sure one specific person will never again committ a crime. However, it isn't the only way and why do you feel it's the "best" way?

Hmm, that's an interesting microscopic application of the statute that I hadn't considered. I suppose it's true in as far as it goes. Yes, execution is certainly one way to make sure one specific person will never again committ a crime. However, it isn't the only way and why do you feel it's the "best" way?

I believe it's best for a couple of reasons. Primarily, it's effective. If you have a person that has been proven to be unable to live in society then it's society's responsiblilty to remove that person from the society. I believe that it's cruel and unusual punishment to keep a human being locked up in a prison forever where they can terrorize staff and other inmates. I think it's cruel to the convict and I think it's cruel to others convicts that may simply be trying to do their time, get out and move on.

Secondarily, it forces society to deal with its problems more directly. We've made it far too easy to throw a human life away by locking people up indefinately.

As I said in my original post, the death penalty is an incredibly effective tool, within a very limited scope.

I believe it's best for a couple of reasons. Primarily, it's effective. If you have a person that has been proven to be unable to live in society then it's society's responsiblilty to remove that person from the society. I believe that it's cruel and unusual punishment to keep a human being locked up in a prison forever where they can terrorize staff and other inmates. I think it's cruel to the convict and I think it's cruel to others convicts that may simply be trying to do their time, get out and move on.

I agree that life imprisonment is cruel, but do you have any feelings regarding individual rehabilitation? I guess I'm sort of asking what you feel to be the fundamental purpose of prision: punishment or rehabilitation?


Secondarily, it forces society to deal with its problems more directly. We've made it far too easy to throw a human life away by locking people up indefinately.

How do you answer charges of an unbalanced system of "preferrential" scentencing that leads to more black convicts being sent to death row or that a death scentence is more like for a black on white murder than a white on black murder? Also, how do you respond to the charges that the system itself is flawed and is putting innocent people to death?

Personally I feel that the death penalty is a immature and barbaric way of dealing with today's problems.

Personally I feel that you are a "girlie man."

I'm not sure what you're thinking here. Are you really suggesting that a person that has committed a 'smoking gun' crime once incarcerated no longer commits crimes?? Surely you can't be making that argument.

Well, I guess I am. Silly me to think that locking people up inside a huge prison with guards with guns would offer protection. It's obvious to me now that the only way to really be safe would be to kill them.


Ethics aside, and I disagree with you whole heartedly by the way, this topic is about capital punishment, not mercy killings of non criminals, or any other kind of killing.

I know it's a bit of a tangent, however I think it's still relevent. Here's why: you argue in favor of the death penalty because it is more humane. People argue in favor of mercy killings because it is more humane.

The attitude expressed here concerning death is what makes me uneasy. I don't think it's healthy for a society to fix every problem we have by killing someone. It's that attitude I wanted to discuss, not necessarily mercy killing.


Regarding cost, let me see if I understand your point. What your suggesting is that because it's cheaper to keep a human being caged like an animal for the rest of they're life, possibly 60 or 70 years given the ages we're now convicting people of life without parole, that this is the better solution??

Apparently you completely ignored the quality vs quantity of life. You bemoan ethical considerations. What kind of ethics do you have that you can justify the caging of a human for decades with no hope, in a hostile violent environment?? We don't treat animals that poorly, but you would do so because it's 'cheaper'??

Yeah, considering the economics of it is a little heartless. I concede that. However, which one of us is ignoring the quality vs quantity of life here? I refuse to believe that a life spent behind bars cannot be full or rewarding. It's you who's bemoaning treating convicted rapists and murderers as if they were convicted rapists and murderers. It's you who's arguing bascially to put these people out of their misery.

Yes, this is my first post. Anyway...

I'm totally eye rolling at half of this.

Quite often, a person will comit a murder or such specifically for the purpose of getting the death penalty. Often, a person murders because they have nothing to live for. So what's death?

I have actually seen a police video of a man who shot someone in the back nine times, then took people hostage in an office building BEGGING the police to get him the death penalty. When they told him that the person he shot was alive and was recovering, he said things like "I want him to be dead." several times in an attempt to convice them that he deserved death.

The death penalty is not a deterrant of any sort. It's an incentive. Commit an especially heinous crime, and avoid life in prison.

But still, I think that certian people do deserve getting it. A crime is as a dangerously stupid act. I'd rather not have 1,000 or so dangerously stupid people crammed into a large prison... Frankly, there won't always be enough room.

My basic point is that I think tha death penelaty is a barbaric thing not suited for a modern democracy.
But a big question fore you who like the death penelaty is how do you fairly decide who should die? Like for example in America it is a fact that if the one you kill is white it is more likely it will be death. And also if you use your 5:th amadment right to not confess your are more likely to get executed, then if you make a deal. Or if the opinion are fore death penelty in that case or/and it is election time fore the D.A. Or if the accused is poor. I think it is also probably a lot more example like that. Because you most agree that if you have that drastic punishment like the death penelty that you have to see that punishment can be fair and equal distributed to the accused. (You against sorry for using sutch world in the same sentence at the deathpenelty)

The death penalty is a barbaric and, primitive practice which I'm surprised still exists in society today. I think it was Gandhi that put it best "An eye for an eye would make this world go blind"

What I wonder is how could a judge do it.

If I was a judge I could not sentence someone to death, no matter what they did. Judges are people and have their own personal fears of death. While thinking of those and the fears of death the defendant may have, how could you play God and condemn him to facing all those fears.

I'm sorry but I don't think anyone deserves that. Of course was someone in my family killed or harmed by someone I'd want the worst for them. But now when I'm in my sane mood, I don't think the death penalty follows morals, or the famous old Golden Rule.

What I wonder is how could a judge do it.

If I was a judge I could not sentence someone to death, no matter what they did. Judges are people and have their own personal fears of death. While thinking of those and the fears of death the defendant may have, how could you play God and condemn him to facing all those fears.

I'm sorry but I don't think anyone deserves that. Of course was someone in my family killed or harmed by someone I'd want the worst for them. But now when I'm in my sane mood, I don't think the death penalty follows morals, or the famous old Golden Rule.
Then you weren't born in Texas were you?

That being said, capital punishment has but one purpose. To keep that particular person from ever again committing a crime. It isn't a deterrent. It isn't revenge. It's society protecting itself, pure and simple from someone that has proven through their actions that they will not observe even the most basic of societies rules. In that context, frankly, capital punishment is the only humane solution. Unless you want to somehow argue that being kept in a cage, by yourself, 24 hours a day for the rest of your life is somehow humane. If you doubt the truth of that, go visit a prison sometime. Ask to be locked up. See how it feels and then contemplate to what extent you would go to remove yourself from those environs.

First of all, claiming killing someone isn't vengeance is pretty ambiguous, and can't be claimed as fact. There are plenty of people who would gladly admit they want a murderer to die for revenge, and hence they support the death penalty. I can't speak to why it was crafted, but I can speak on some of the people who support it.

Secondly, if you are alive, there is always hope. You may be able to reform and get pardoned or released, laws may change and your conditions changed with it, you may have a family who still comes to visit you, etc. There are plenty of reasons to choose hardship over death.

You're projecting your own ideals as fact, which just doesn't work. Maybe you don't want revenge, that doesn't mean it applies to everyone. Maybe you would prefer to die, but that doesn't apply to everyone either.

Back on topic.

I don't support the death penalty. Never have. Never will.

Anyone who is sentenced where the sentence would be longer than the average life expectancy, the convict will have 5 years in prison, then they will be put to death. It gives courts sufficient time to find evidence that the person is not guilty or remains guilty so there are no people being accidentaly murdered. As a bonus it reduces overcrowding of prisons.

If a person is being sentenced to their life in prison, they might rehabilitate. But chances are that even if they did they might revert. It is much safer to the populace to keep people like that either locked up or dead. For minor crimes that could be rehabilitated or aided I don't support the death penalty, but for larger crimes (multiple rapes, murders etc.) I do.

I don't understand how somebody, no matter how tiny of a peanut-brain they have, could support the death penalty.
Except for my friend who has the most honest policy ever. He votes for pro-death penalty candidates because "people are stupid and everyone should die".

I don't support the death penalty because by killing the guilty person, you have subtly implied that they are forgiven because they no longer have to waste away behind bars in the prison for the rest of their natural life.

As I said
...there won't always be enough room.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/08/05/chicago.arrest/index.html

On April 19, 1995, around 9:03 a.m., just after parents dropped their children off at day care at the Murrah Federal Building, a rental truck parked outside the building and loaded with ammonium nitrate fertilizer exploded killing 168 people.

On June 11, 2001, Timothy McVeigh was executed after his murder conviction for driving the bomb-laden truck.

Marinate yourselves with that and tell me if that man didn't deserve to die for what he did.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/08/05/chicago.arrest/index.html

On April 19, 1995, around 9:03 a.m., just after parents dropped their children off at day care at the Murrah Federal Building, a rental truck parked outside the building and loaded with ammonium nitrate fertilizer exploded killing 168 people.

On June 11, 2001, Timothy McVeigh was executed after his murder conviction for driving the bomb-laden truck.

Marinate yourselves with that and tell me if that man didn't deserve to die for what he did.

Nope, still wouldn't kill him. I'll never understand people who think extreme examples will change core beliefs.

--Example--

Them: So you're against revenge?
Me: Yeah.
Them: What if the person killed your brother?
Me: No, still not then.
Them: What if they killed your entire family?
Me: Still no.
Them: What if they're evil, they've killed your entire city, and if you don't stop them they are going to revive Hitler???

--End example--

There are certain beliefs I'm flexible on. They are largely based on context. There are other beliefs I'm set on, and the context is irrelevant. Torture, for example, is something I'd never support. But that's just me.

an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind

The Death Penalty is cruel.

It's much more humane to lock convicted murderers away in 8x8 cells where they will never again breathe the free air again... where they will spend the rest of their lives either growing more bitter and hardened at their fate, or deadened and hollow with regrets that will never matter. Shower when someone else says. Eat what and when someone else says. Never a private moment ever again. Sounds much kinder than a quick death, eh?

The Death Penalty is cruel.

It's much more humane to lock convicted murderers away in 8x8 cells where they will never again breathe the free air again... where they will spend the rest of their lives either growing more bitter and hardened at their fate, or deadened and hollow with regrets that will never matter. Shower when someone else says. Eat what and when someone else says. Never a private moment ever again. Sounds much kinder than a quick death, eh?

What part of 'hope' is so hard to understand? I suppose if you were captured by an invading tyrant, you'd immediately kill yourself. Just because their situation blows now, doesn't mean it can never, ever get better. It's hope which drives people to survive all hardship. Life would truly be worthless without it.

The Death Penalty is cruel.

It's much more humane to lock convicted murderers away in 8x8 cells where they will never again breathe the free air again... where they will spend the rest of their lives either growing more bitter and hardened at their fate, or deadened and hollow with regrets that will never matter. Shower when someone else says. Eat what and when someone else says. Never a private moment ever again. Sounds much kinder than a quick death, eh?

If that is the case in american prisons there is something very very wrong with them. Unless the point is that prisontime should be 100% punishment and not have anything to do with rehabilitation.

The Death Penalty is cruel.

It's much more humane to lock convicted murderers away in 8x8 cells where they will never again breathe the free air again... where they will spend the rest of their lives either growing more bitter and hardened at their fate, or deadened and hollow with regrets that will never matter. Shower when someone else says. Eat what and when someone else says. Never a private moment ever again. Sounds much kinder than a quick death, eh?
It's much better, actually. You do the you do the time.

If that is the case in american prisons there is something very very wrong with them. Unless the point is that prisontime should be 100% punishment and not have anything to do with rehabilitation.

It isn't a question of rehabilitation. In America today, it's a question of accountability. Who takes the blame when a rehabilitated murderer kills again? Nobody wants to be held accountable anymore, so in jail the murderer stays. For the 'public safety'. Feh.

an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind
That's great. Let the murderer live and the victim dead.

I don't understand the logic of people against the death penalty. Perhaps they're so peeved that death is a punishment. *shrug*

That's great. Let the murderer live and the victim dead.

I don't understand the logic of people against the death penalty. Perhaps they're so peeved that death is a punishment. *shrug*
I can understand why you might be for it. There is good reason to support it, there are also good reasons now to.

I am for the death penalty. It is called PUNISHMENT.

I am for the death penalty. It is called PUNISHMENT.
:D now, if you don't mind me asking, why are you for it? I'm curious, and I'd like to know.

I can understand why you might be for it. There is good reason to support it, there are also good reasons now to.
plenty of good reasons now, I know. :D ;)

The death penalty makes sense in a country where concealed carry is commonplace. Anyone committing a crime is already willing to risk their life to do so, and people seeing someone commit a crime are willing to kill to prevent it. Punishing crime with death is a logical progression.

On the other hand, I would rather have nothing to do with a society like that. People who can should be allowed to make an effort to reform. Everyone has something to contribute if they can use it in the right way. Plus there's my views on Gun laws, but that's another topic.

And anyway; anyone having done something serious enough to get the death penalty in the US is getting off lightly for their crime, in my honest opinion.

If someone commits a terrible crime like child murdeer and has no regrets I think the death penality is approiate. A nother example of when its approiate is when someone goes around shooting random people.

You kill some one we kill you back. Simple. If there was no death penaltty people wouldn't be scared prisons are very nice now with libraries TVs excersise etc.

I strongly oppose it. It is based on "might makes right" and the threat of force, ie terrorism.

I think that the whole death penalty case is ass backwards. The best way to ensure that the death penalty actually works as a deterrent is to make sure that more people get the death penalty. If the death penalty were reserved for just the most violent of criminals than people will tone down their behavior enough as to avoid the death penalty. So what happens when the death penalty is expanded so that more moderate crimes are punishable by death? People will start to think about it more and realize that maybe it just isn’t worth it. Crimes such as grand theft, rape, child molesting, any crime that threatens the livelihood of somebody else and much much more should be treated as death penalty cases. This is where many crimes occur. Certainly much more than what most areas consider capitol crimes. Putting the death penalty there would have more of an effect for deterrence than only reserving it for the most severe crimes.

I'd generally say I don't support it, but it's not that simple. There are a few crimes I wouldn't mind having the death penalty used for, like mass murdering, acts of terrorism, child rape, and high treason. However, I only want it done to adult violators, and otherwise find it appalling.

Well, I guess I am. Silly me to think that locking people up inside a huge prison with guards with guns would offer protection. It's obvious to me now that the only way to really be safe would be to kill them.

I know it's a bit of a tangent, however I think it's still relevent. Here's why: you argue in favor of the death penalty because it is more humane. People argue in favor of mercy killings because it is more humane.

The attitude expressed here concerning death is what makes me uneasy. I don't think it's healthy for a society to fix every problem we have by killing someone. It's that attitude I wanted to discuss, not necessarily mercy killing.

Yeah, considering the economics of it is a little heartless. I concede that. However, which one of us is ignoring the quality vs quantity of life here? I refuse to believe that a life spent behind bars cannot be full or rewarding. It's you who's bemoaning treating convicted rapists and murderers as if they were convicted rapists and murderers. It's you who's arguing bascially to put these people out of their misery.

I think you've most correctly stated the fundamental issue. Death makes most people uneasy. To that end, we have completely divorced ourselves from the process of death where ever possible. In this country, we claim that we value life. I don't think we do. If we valued life, we wouldn't tell a 15 year old that we're going to lock them in a cage for the rest of their natural life with no possibility to ever get out. What kind of hope do we leave these poor benighted souls??

Death is a fact of life. You're uncomfortable with it?? You're not alone. This entire country is uncomfortable with it. Most of the western world is uncomfortable with it. Does being uncomfortable with it mean that we should lock some poor bastard up for the rest of their life and call it mercy??

Personally, I don't have a problem with mercy killings, the death penalty, abortion or any other aspect of death. I live on a farm. I kill my own food. Things die to keep me alive, just like it does with everyone else. The biggest difference is I understand that Death isn't something to be feared or kept in awe. Life is precious. If convicts that are caught with the 'smoking gun' have reached the place where they no longer have enough respect for the basic human rules of living in society, kill em. Maybe they'll have more wisdom in their next life.

First of all, claiming killing someone isn't vengeance is pretty ambiguous, and can't be claimed as fact. There are plenty of people who would gladly admit they want a murderer to die for revenge, and hence they support the death penalty. I can't speak to why it was crafted, but I can speak on some of the people who support it.

Secondly, if you are alive, there is always hope. You may be able to reform and get pardoned or released, laws may change and your conditions changed with it, you may have a family who still comes to visit you, etc. There are plenty of reasons to choose hardship over death.

You're projecting your own ideals as fact, which just doesn't work. Maybe you don't want revenge, that doesn't mean it applies to everyone. Maybe you would prefer to die, but that doesn't apply to everyone either.

Back on topic.

I don't support the death penalty. Never have. Never will.

When I spoke of revenge, I meant the overall society, not the individual. In any case where a crime has been committed where the death penalty is on the table, you can absolutely depend that there are people that want revenge. That being said, the purpose of the legal system is to mitigate that emotional motive.

As for the rest of your argument, are you seriously suggesting that someone like Timothy McVeigh would ever have been pardoned, paroled or forgiven? I can hardly imagine a circumstance in which this society would forgive any kind of heinous crime, no matter how much the person changed.

And, of course, they're my ideals. Projected as fact? Well, if that were true, the bar on using the death penalty would be raised. As for whether or not I would prefer to die, that's true, but you miss the point. The point is that at the moment that an individual choosed to disregard the basic laws of living in society what they prefer or would choose becomes irrelevant. Society has a larger right to protect itself from people that would cause its membership harm. The convicted criminal lives or dies by the will of that society. At this point, most of society sees things your way. That'll change.

this is a real bastion of left wingery isnt it. your poll reflects the precise opposite, almost to the number, of public opinion. LOL.

How bloody arrogant. I think you will find this forum to be international and amongst the western societies you are in the minority.

Dear it's okay,
Next time some son of a bitch murders your Mother or Pop are you going to say let them live? If so tell me where you live so I can put my sex in your mouth. Oh, and don't tell me about this two wrongs don't make a right B.S.

P.S.
If you had a tail it would be between your legs
Just me,
DVKE

The death penalty is not a immature and barbaric way of dealing with today's problems.

But the current one in America is not useful nor does it serve it's intended purpose.

No, I do not support the curent one, but I do support A death penalty.

Next time some son of a bitch murders your Mother or Pop are you going to say let them live?

No, I would make the SOB live a hard life of back breaking labor. Death is not a punishment, it is release.

Kill those who cannot be rehabilated. Send the rest to a life of hard labor.

La Puttana con Il Cane: Work on not insulting people. It will help you win a argument.

Makes no sence to me:

We condemm killing and say it is wrong. Now because you killed someone we are going to kill you. No sence at all.

Well, Here is my deal. Say some guy murders my parents. And imagine how distraught and wrecked and sad I would be for them. Now, if they killed the murderer for what he did to my parents, imagine the murderer's family. I would hate to have them suffer the same pain i experienced because a loved one of theirs is dead. Killing people just doesnt solve any problems. It only causes more pain.

The death penalty is unacceptable under any circumstance.