NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just wondering what everyone thinks about the death penalty. Here in Canada we don't have it (unfortunatly) but I'm in favour of a drastic change to it (as well as the term "murder")

First, remove all thoes stupid 'pre-meditation' and 'accident' sugar-coats from murder: there should be no 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter: murder is murder, whether you intended it before hand or not, or whether it was an accident or not. You killed someone! The only exception is Self-Defense, which should be a different state, kind of like Murder and Manslaughter are now. To recap: One Murder encompasing all killings regardless of specifics, and Self-Defense Murder (which should get between 10-20 years).

That said, here is how I believe the death penalty should work...

Murder (my definition): Death
Violent Rape, including Rape of a Child (under 16, the ideal consent age [I'm 16]): Death (Non-Violent rape [like date rape]: 20 years. I also don't believe in 'minimum' sentences or parole [sp. sorry]: You do the time assigned, period.)
Treason, High Treason: Death
Mass murder, terrorism: Death

Now what does everyone else think?

(P.S. Please don't flame me because of these beliefs: I'm not changing them, and you just bug everyone by flaming.)

Bump it up!

Wow, this is one of the regular topics I had forgotten about. It's been a few weeks now probably.

But..

Killing an authority figure in self defence still gets you the death penilty..?

Pre-meditated murder is the only type that should get the death penalty, and then only in cases where it is a clear-cut case (confession, DNA evidence, etc.). There is a reason for 2nd, 3rd degree murder - basically the intention. If someone murders another on purpose, there is a good chance that they may do it again. If someone accidently kills another, chances are they won't - thus there is no reason for the death penalty.

And, as I already stated in one thread - there is no "non-violent rape." Date-rape is no different from any other rape, except that the victim knows the rapist. Whatever punishment you get for one, you should get for the other.

And you want to put someone to death for killing in self-defense? Seriously????!!!!!

Well, that's a really weird thing that would have to be sorted out. Maybe like killing 3 police officers because one attacked you. However, I'm removing that line.

And, as I already stated in one thread - there is no "non-violent rape." Date-rape is no different from any other rape, except that the victim knows the rapist. Whatever punishment you get for one, you should get for the other.

And you want to put someone to death for killing in self-defense? Seriously????!!!!!

Part 1: By violent I mean something like breaking into a persons house, tying them up, raping them, then moving on. However, my choice of word's wasnt the best. It's 1:30 Am ^.^

Part 2: No, the first poster made that point and I changed my mind about that.

And about the murder part, what does it matter? Most people who commit 1st degree murder (probably) wouldn't do it again. Therefore, I say remove the intention bullshit and get rid of them all.

Part 1: By violent I mean something like breaking into a persons house, tying them up, raping them, then moving on. However, my choice of word's wasnt the best. It's 1:30 Am ^.^

So, if I let someone into my house, because I think they are trustworthy, and then they throw me down and rape me, and then move on - somehow that's better than if they break in to do it??

No killing, period.

Bah forget it then. All rape subject to death penalty. Now you'll probably say that that's too harsh.....

Bah forget it then. All rape subject to death penalty. Now you'll probably say that that's too harsh.....
I think rape should get the death penalty.

I also think they should reinstate the old death penalties. Such as boiling oil. These newer death penalties are too weak. Lethal injection? Come on. Gas chamber? Please. Firing squad? Pfft... Burn 'em alive, says I.

I'd prefer the Gass Chamber over all others: it's the easiest to use.

Plus, using some deadly gasses, you can make them die in a very painful way. How about filling the chamber with gassious sulphuric acid? Burn their skin off and their lungs too.

Or just keep it simple and use VX or Sarin or Zyklon-B: all good poisonous gasses!

I'd prefer the Gass Chamber over all others: it's the easiest to use.

Plus, using some deadly gasses, you can make them die in a very painful way. How about filling the chamber with gassious sulphuric acid? Burn their skin off and their lungs too.

Or just keep it simple and use VX or Sarin or Zyklon-B: all good poisonous gasses!
It's more fun to drop them in liquid nitrogen.

Not that I'd know.

That would be good, however again hard to set up. You'd need the container, a way to lower the person in, etc. The gas chamber is easiest: all you need is a sealed room with a door and some chemical, plus a ventalation system.

I side with George Carlin on this: Capital Punishment needs to be more entertaining. The Government could make a fortune to help balance the budget if they just learned to market the death penalty correctly.

Any murder besides self defense: Death
Self defensive murder: No penalty
Any rape: Death


Also they should speed up the death penalty whats the point of waiting so long, sometimes the people are old enough to die on their own.

Hell ya! For entertainment, go crazy! But I'm just talking standard in a prison.

P.S. What's your favourite out of that skit? Mines the Boiling in Oil controled by the Mob! ^.^

Hell ya! For entertainment, go crazy! But I'm just talking standard in a prison.

P.S. What's your favourite out of that skit? Mines the Boiling in Oil controled by the Mob! ^.^

The sponsors.

Gotta have sponsors. Like burning people at the stake. Sponsor: Bridgeford Charcoal!

[QUOTE=Aisetaselanau]
First, remove all thoes stupid 'pre-meditation' and 'accident' sugar-coats from murder: there should be no 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter: murder is murder, whether you intended it before hand or not, or whether it was an accident or not. You killed someone! The only exception is Self-Defense, which should be a different state, kind of like Murder and Manslaughter are now. To recap: One Murder encompasing all killings regardless of specifics, and Self-Defense Murder (which should get between 10-20 years).

QUOTE]

It seems to me you have a very narrow view of the world if you believe murder is murder. Also if you believe the death penalty is the way to punish it. What is this, the old testament? Civilisation people, civilisation.
No ones deserves to die. Even the most despicable person alive. They should be kept locked up, away from everyone else and suitably punished for the rest of their natural lives. No parole, no getting out on good behaviour - till they die.
When you kill or torture someone in the name of 'justice' - you become as bad as them - how can society function with such a double standard? It's immoral.
We don't have the death penalty here in Australia, but I believe parts of the USA do, don't they? Has it deterred anyone yet? I think not.

The sponsors.

Gotta have sponsors. Like burning people at the stake. Sponsor: Bridgeford Charcoal!

Or let's have some deep-fried fellons! Sponsor: Crisco!

[1] It seems to me you have a very narrow view of the world if you believe murder is murder. Also if you believe the death penalty is the way to punish it. [2] What is this, the old testament? Civilisation people, civilisation.
[3] No ones deserves to die. Even the most despicable person alive. [4] They should be kept locked up, away from everyone else and suitably punished for the rest of their natural lives. No parole, no getting out on good behaviour - till they die.
[5] When you kill or torture someone in the name of 'justice' - you become as bad as them - how can society function with such a double standard? It's immoral.
We don't have the death penalty here in Australia, but I believe parts of the USA do, don't they? [6] Has it deterred anyone yet? I think not.

1. No my view of the world is quite large. I just don't believe a person should be judged any different because he planned something a week before (first-degree) or a minute before (in most places second-degree).

2. It's the scum who deserve to be executed that are ruining civilization. However, it will crumble anyways, so that's a whole other topic.

3. Oh, some people do. If you were around during WWII, would you have thought Hitler diserved to die? I sure would've.

4. Yes, that's my option if the death penalty were to be completely outlawed. I support sticking someone in solitary confinement for the rest of their life with no light (a double door so they can get food so that no light gets in) so that they go insane and kill themselves.

5. No, you give them what they deserve for doing it to someone else.

6. Because it isn't used enough. The people who deserve it probably deal down to second-degree murder, hence the reason why I object to the clasifications of murder.

The death penalty, nothing like state sanctioned slaughter of some of its populace. The great thing once said that you can just the civility of a country based upon how it treats its prisoners.

The death penalty itself, is a rather self defeatist policy that has no positive results. It does not work as a deterrent shown by the crime rates and trends of some of the few backward countries in the modern world that still have the death penalty. Then by taking away another human you life, you deny that person the chance to change who and what they were, prison is meant to help as well and punish people. The death penalty does not do that.

The death penalty also has the quite a huge problem of false positives, many people have recieved the death penalty for the crime that commited, then a later date been found innocent. Seens hardly justice to have extreme punishments when the way to judge them is flawed.

Overall the death penalty is a purely backward idea, its out of place in the modern progressive world.

Murder (1st degree): Life in prison, no parole, forced labor till you fucking drop
Any other murder, including manslaughter, whether "voluntary" or "involuntary": Life in prison, possibility of parole if you're good, but a minimum of 25 years or until your 60th birthday, whichever comes last
Rape, and this includes date rape: Castration and forced hormonal therapy to prevent further violent behavior...oh yeah, and a lengthy prison sentence. See manslaughter for that one.

I don't believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. That's to say that the law is always right, even when it's wrong. A liberal democratic system must accept that it can be wrong and must be willing to fix its mistakes. The death penalty does not allow for that.

The problem with prison is that it is used to lightly. Life should mean that: you do not get out except in a wooden box. 25 years means you shouldn't step out for 25 years after your convicted. Since this rarely works that way, the death penalty is a viable option for thoes who commit the worst of crimes.

The problem with prison is that it is used to lightly. Life should mean that: you do not get out except in a wooden box. 25 years means you shouldn't step out for 25 years after your convicted. Since this rarely works that way, the death penalty is a viable option for thoes who commit the worst of crimes.

Exactly. 25 years means 25 years, not "Well, OK, you can get out in
10 years for good behavior or if you're a celebrity." Sentences must be made firmer, as in never bent, even at the extra cost...after all, prisoners should be working off what it costs to imprison them. This makes us question how prisons should be reformed.

. . .

...after all, prisoners should be working off what it costs to imprison them.

. . .



Personally I don't think giving jobs to prisoners is such a good idea, however appropriate it may sound. We've got enough people on the outside who need jobs.

Life does not mean too spend your entire time behind a bolted steel door. When they send a person to prison for life they mean they are taking away that persons life, which is exactly what they do. When you are locked up for 23 hours a day you have no freedom, you have no life. A person locked away for ever can not hope to have the chance to give back to the society that they took from.

Prison should not be about destroying the minds and souls of people for the misguided concept of punishment. It is about the rehabilitation of the person, society doing what is right in trying to help and cure something rather than deny any problems exist locking and shutting them away.

Prison is living a life without freedom, without the ability to make choices for yourself, to do what you want to do. It is hardly a light thing.



Castration for the crime of rate, what a wonderful idea. Maybe we can think up various wierd and fun tortures for all sorts of crimes. How about losing a leg, or getting crippled for jay walking? The nice old removal of hands for being a thief, software piracy never been so risky.

OK here's how we solve our prison budget problems: We sell Pay Per View rights to the execution, at $1000.00 a pop. Secondary benefit: expanded intel on potential future serial killers.

The death penalty, nothing like state sanctioned slaughter of some of its populace. The great thing once said that you can just the civility of a country based upon how it treats its prisoners.

The death penalty itself, is a rather self defeatist policy that has no positive results. It does not work as a deterrent shown by the crime rates and trends of some of the few backward countries in the modern world that still have the death penalty. Then by taking away another human you life, you deny that person the chance to change who and what they were, prison is meant to help as well and punish people. The death penalty does not do that.

The death penalty also has the quite a huge problem of false positives, many people have recieved the death penalty for the crime that commited, then a later date been found innocent. Seens hardly justice to have extreme punishments when the way to judge them is flawed.

Overall the death penalty is a purely backward idea, its out of place in the modern progressive world.
I completely agree with you. The death penalty is nothing but state/country sanctioned revenge.

Ok, here's my thoughts on the subject. The death peanety should only be givin to the most evil of killers, such as serial killers, people that kill kids, that kind of thing. Also, it should only be givin in there is absoutly NO DOUBT that the person is guility. Im talking witnesses, DNA, fingerprints, ect.

I believe in this becuase these kind of people cannot be rehabilitated, and really do deserve to die. But since death isnt reversable, we need to be sure before we go through with it.

Besides that though, whats needed is a total revamp of the prison system, where the point really is rehabilitation and deterence, and where parole is a pipe dream.

I don't think the death penalty for murder helps those who live in a corrupt society where those in power just couldnt be trusted not to abuse it. Or with a strong enough justice system where there would be no question of a mistake being made.

But I don't agree with this integration back into the community where you are not allowed to be told if a convicted child abuser/rapist is living in your street.

I do not trust the uneducated, brawling British masses not to attack innocent people by mistake, but I trust convicted rapists and child abusers far far less.

Life should most definately mean life. Getting out on good behaviour should not be an option. People should think about that *before* they do whatever landed them in prison in the first place.

I'm just wondering what everyone thinks about the death penalty. Here in Canada we don't have it (unfortunatly) but I'm in favour of a drastic change to it (as well as the term "murder")

First, remove all thoes stupid 'pre-meditation' and 'accident' sugar-coats from murder: there should be no 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter: murder is murder, whether you intended it before hand or not, or whether it was an accident or not. You killed someone! The only exception is Self-Defense, which should be a different state, kind of like Murder and Manslaughter are now. To recap: One Murder encompasing all killings regardless of specifics, and Self-Defense Murder (which should get between 10-20 years).

That said, here is how I believe the death penalty should work...

Murder (my definition): Death
Violent Rape, including Rape of a Child (under 16, the ideal consent age [I'm 16]): Death (Non-Violent rape [like date rape]: 20 years. I also don't believe in 'minimum' sentences or parole [sp. sorry]: You do the time assigned, period.)
Treason, High Treason: Death
Mass murder, terrorism: Death

Now what does everyone else think?

(P.S. Please don't flame me because of these beliefs: I'm not changing them, and you just bug everyone by flaming.)
NEGATIVE!!! The murder rate in Canada declined massively once the death penalty was removed. Also in the US, States that don't have the death penalty have a lower murder rate.

Ok, here's my thoughts on the subject. The death peanety should only be givin to the most evil of killers, such as serial killers, people that kill kids, that kind of thing. Also, it should only be givin in there is absoutly NO DOUBT that the person is guility. Im talking witnesses, DNA, fingerprints, ect.



On the point of kids and serial killers, Why is a kids life more valuable than any other human life. A life is a life after all. You can't really say what is more evil its far too subjective. Also serial killers are societies products killing a serial killer does nothing, you want them not to exist, you have to deal with the core problems that create them in the first place, address the fundamental flaws that exist to create such people.


Witness, lie.
DNA and Fingerprints, are no where near 100% accurate.

There has been many cases where people found guilty by either DNA or fingerprint techniques have later been found innocent. So, there is always going to be a grey area, some uncertainity and some doubt.

1. No my view of the world is quite large. I just don't believe a person should be judged any different because he planned something a week before (first-degree) or a minute before (in most places second-degree).

2. It's the scum who deserve to be executed that are ruining civilization. However, it will crumble anyways, so that's a whole other topic.

3. Oh, some people do. If you were around during WWII, would you have thought Hitler diserved to die? I sure would've.

4. Yes, that's my option if the death penalty were to be completely outlawed. I support sticking someone in solitary confinement for the rest of their life with no light (a double door so they can get food so that no light gets in) so that they go insane and kill themselves.

5. No, you give them what they deserve for doing it to someone else.

6. Because it isn't used enough. The people who deserve it probably deal down to second-degree murder, hence the reason why I object to the clasifications of murder.

1. I'm not sure how you feel manslaughter (ie, accidental death e.g. drunk driver runs over a pedestrian) can be compared to pre-meditated murder. One sentence for all? Come on - imagine you're struggling with someone who has just beaten you senseless and you manage to stick their knife in them instead of vice-versa. So you're sentenced to death for that? Is this fair? Or how about the wife of 15 years who gets beaten every day of her life and now sees her violent husband taking it out on their little child and she picks up a knife to defend her child and kills her husband. Death again I suppose. You have a far too simple view (and obviously a blissful life free from violence and oppression) if you believe death is the answer to everything.
2. The scum you refer to - does your president belong in this category given that he is hell bent on blowing the crap out of the rest of the world?
3. My family are german/irish descendents with some of my family as POW's during the second world war. Hitler deserved to be stopped in his tracks far sooner than he was and only got away with what he did because the rest of the world, including and especially your good old US of A, stood by and let him.
4. A country's humanity should be judged by the way it treats it's prisoners (as per the other delegates opinion). We have seen examples of the US's humanity recently in photos from the prisons in Iraq. Very nice example for human rights, indeed.
5. An eye for an eye then hey? What's next, stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath?
6. Then blame the inefficiency of the law and those lawyers who profit from it. Death as a deterrent does not work. It has been proven.

Most people who commit 1st degree murder (probably) wouldn't do it again. Therefore, I say remove the intention bullshit and get rid of them all.
I'm surprised noone else has jumped on this yet.

Now I wouldn't attack someon'es beliefs, but this is ludicrous. If you really believe that someone convicted of first degree murder WOULDN'T DO IT AGAIN, than how can you possibly support the death penalty for it. YOu stated in a later post that you would settle for murderers getting a life of solitary confinement, which would suggest that your reasoning (and it would be a logical one) would be that murderers need to be removed from society to prevent furthe harm. But if someone isn't going to commit another murder, then the ONLY motive would have to be revenge.


I hate to do it, but I'd like to quote Ghandi in saying 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'

id say defenestration is the best execution method

The death penalty is the highest expression of a barbaric society.

Either abolish the death penalty, or renouce any claim to civilization.

We (Canada) don't have the death penalty, and that's the way I likes it.

I really agree with Seventh Hades on the example of the wife of 15 years who gets abused every day and finally kills her tormentor when he abuses their child. I don't see how the author of this thread can say that's just as bad as as someone violently raping and murdering a child. What would you do if you saw someone who had physically tormented you for fifteen years beating the crap out of your child? I know I would do something about it, and if I killed the abuser in the process, oh well. Also, what about all the people who get executed and later are found to be innocent? With the death penalty, you can't correct your mistakes. With jail time, you can always say "oops," release the prisoner and give compensation if he/she is found to be innocent.

Killing people who kill people is still killing, and therefore, wrong. There's no way to get around it. What gives you the right to destroy a human life? If the person turns out to be innocent, who is brought to account for the injustice of an innocent human being getting executed?

I'd say the author of this thread has no idea how harsh prison really is. Of course, I'm speaking from an American point of view here, many countries in Europe have a much less harsh prison system.

I think the death penalty works, and rapists should get the death penalty.

The way some laws should be.

If something seems to contradict what has already been said, that is simply an exception to the original statement that the second statement contradicts.

Killing somebody in any other way than protecting yourself and property or other individuals except for perps. Perps don’t get the same consideration. Death by Gallagher

Rape, except in those questionable areas. Death by Gallagher

Pedophilia. Death by Gallagher

Grand Theft. Death by Gallagher

Perpetrating a crime that destroys somebody’s livelihood. Death by Gallagher

Antagonizing somebody who kills you. Gets what they deserve. Killer gets 2-10 years, and a possible anger management course. Time off for good behavior.

Internet piracy. Slap in the face and kick to the groin for every offence.

Mercy Kill if consensual. Gets to walk away

Mercy kill if not consensual. 5-20 years, extenuating circumstances may apply. Time off for good behavior.

Get rid of it!!!

I wrote a huge paper on why we should do so here in the states using Mark Fiore as a source:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/execution.html

Get rid of it!!!

I wrote a huge paper on why we should do so here in the states using Mark Fiore as a source:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/execution.html
Lets see do states with the death penalty have the death penalty because their crime rates are so high to begin with. Or do states without the death penalty have lower crime rates because they don’t have the death penalty. The first one makes more logical sense.

As for the rest of it, it makes no sense whatsoever.

1. I'm not sure how you feel manslaughter (ie, accidental death e.g. drunk driver runs over a pedestrian) can be compared to pre-meditated murder. One sentence for all? Come on - [2] imagine you're struggling with someone who has just beaten you senseless and you manage to stick their knife in them instead of vice-versa. So you're sentenced to death for that? Is this fair? [3] Or how about the wife of 15 years who gets beaten every day of her life and now sees her violent husband taking it out on their little child and she picks up a knife to defend her child and kills her husband. Death again I suppose. You have a far too simple view (and obviously a blissful life free from violence and oppression) if you believe death is the answer to everything.

1. He diserves to die. He got drunk, and killed someone for it.
2. That's self-defense, unless your stupid. (5 years for it)
3. That's battered wife syndrom, which I agree with. (5 years for it)

That also applies to the person who agreed.

The way some laws should be.

If something seems to contradict what has already been said, that is simply an exception to the original statement that the second statement contradicts.

Killing somebody in any other way than protecting yourself and property or other individuals except for perps. Perps don’t get the same consideration. Death by Gallagher

Rape, except in those questionable areas. Death by Gallagher

Pedophilia. Death by Gallagher

Grand Theft. Death by Gallagher

Perpetrating a crime that destroys somebody’s livelihood. Death by Gallagher

Antagonizing somebody who kills you. Gets what they deserve. Killer gets 2-10 years, and a possible anger management course. Time off for good behavior.

Internet piracy. Slap in the face and kick to the groin for every offence.

Mercy Kill if consensual. Gets to walk away

Mercy kill if not consensual. 5-20 years, extenuating circumstances may apply. Time off for good behavior.

Quite good, but what's Death by Gallagher?

Lets see do states with the death penalty have the death penalty because their crime rates are so high to begin with. Or do states without the death penalty have lower crime rates because they don’t have the death penalty. The first one makes more logical sense.

As for the rest of it, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Also, when looking at something as large and diverse as the USA, you have to look at smaller subsections as well as the whole picture (averages of states /w the death penalty vs averages of those without). Looking at smaller, regional statistics, its hard to find any real conclusive evidence that shows that the death penalty increases crime. When you compare a place as rich as Massachusettes to some place like Mississippi, however, its much easier.

I want the death penalty gone only because I think it's a better way to go sitting alone in a cold, dark cell re-living what put you away from the world. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, either.

It's either that or I'm against murder in any form. Too much of a softie >.<

Premeditated murder only. That's my view. And make it as painless as possible.

When you administer the death penalty, you're taking someone's life. That's why it should be done with the utmost seriousness.

First, remove all thoes stupid 'pre-meditation' and 'accident' sugar-coats from murder: there should be no 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter: murder is murder, whether you intended it before hand or not, or whether it was an accident or not. You killed someone! The only exception is Self-Defense, which should be a different state, kind of like Murder and Manslaughter are now. To recap: One Murder encompasing all killings regardless of specifics, and Self-Defense Murder (which should get between 10-20 years).

Murder (my definition): Death
Please don't flame me because of these beliefs: I'm not changing them, and you just bug everyone by flaming.)


2. That's self-defense, unless your stupid. (5 years for it)
3. That's battered wife syndrom, which I agree with. (5 years for it)

I am not flaming you, but to me it seems your beliefs are not that set in stone as you first thought. Maybe you should try to stick to your point of view, not that i share it.


My two cents: There is not murder in self-defense. Thats absolutely impossible considering the definition. Self-defense is always right. The exemption from this rule is the use of excessive force, e.g. someone shoves me and i shoot him.
Real murder should get the killer twenty years without parole, after that a psychological examination if the can fit in with society again. If negative additional incarceration until deemed safe for society.
Rape is mostly done by psychopaths. Thus meaning they are mentally ill. Which in turn means that they most likely can be cured. Chemical castration (reversible) and several years of therapy in closed sanatoriums does wonders in extensive tests. Rape done by "sane" people should result in 10-15 years of prison.

Quite good, but what's Death by Gallagher?
It’s a death dealing machine. Probably the most humane way of executing somebody. It’s a design similar to that of the Guillotine, however it’s called the Gallagher for obvious reasons. Unless of course you don’t know what the comedian Gallagher is famous for. But I figure that to be a rare occurrence.

It’s a death dealing machine. Probably the most humane way of executing somebody. It’s a design similar to that of the Guillotine, however it’s called the Gallagher for obvious reasons. Unless of course you don’t know what the comedian Gallagher is famous for. But I figure that to be a rare occurrence.

And here I thought you meant death by watching Gallagher. =)