NationStates Jolt Archive

I am against, because you cant bring back a person who was executed for a crime they did not do, while if a person is imprisoned for something they did not do , they can simply be released. You.?

Also, plz explain why, not just vote in the poll.

Agaist. Becauswe killing is wrong. And state-mandated killing is scary.

I am against, because you cant bring back a person who was executed for a crime they did not do, while if a person is imprisoned for something they did not do , they can simply be released. You.?

Also, plz explain why, not just vote in the poll.

I do not support it, but I do not oppose it.

against. If killing is wrong, it is wrong. That simple.

I do not support it, but I do not oppose it.
I guess that means you dont care.

please. if you voted in the poll, plz tell me why you picked the option that you did.

I am For capital punishment, provided there is concrete non-eyewitness proof.
I also feel that it should beused in stead of a sentence of life without parole. Well that or forced labor.

I am For capital punishment, provided there is concrete non-eyewitness proof.
I also feel that it should beused in stead of a sentence of life without parole. Well that or forced labor.
why are you for it?

I am for Capital Punishment. If somebody murders somebody, and plans it ahead of time, I believe they should lose their life because I don't see how they can ever contribute anything to society again.

Also, I don't want my taxes to go towards supporting somebody that killed an innocent person. I don't want to pay for their work-out equipment, so if they do get released they are twice as strong as they were to begin with, I don't want to pay for their TVs, so they always have quality entertainment, and I sure as hell don't want to feed somebody who got some sick sadistic pleasure out of taking somebody else's life.

However, I only think Capital Punishment should be used in cases where the murder was intentional or planned, but not in situations where a little kid ran out into the street, and the driver didn't have enough time to stop or other un-intentional murders. And if the person is crazy off their wits, I still think they should be thrown into an insane asylum for the rest of their life, unless they were sane when they murdered the person. Also, when it comes to rape cases, I think the use of Capital Punishment varies between person to person, although I don't think Child Molestors should get the death penalty, because I'd rather let the inmates beat the hell out of them for the rest of their life.

15 cent solution for murderers, rapist and pedophiles.
A .308 to the head. (Or in the case of rapists one to both)

I'm against, because it's inhumane and hypocritical.

I'm against, because it's inhumane and hypocritical.

How so hypocritical.

I am completely opposed to executions by the state; I cannot see any serious justification for it.

No one ever deserves death, period.

You make killing illegal, but the state can kill? Sounds hypocritical to me.

You make killing illegal, but the state can kill? Sounds hypocritical to me.

I agree, it is hypocritical, but it is the state's prerogative.
Death is a deturent for criminals. Death or a life of free meals and a place to sleep?

15 cent solution for murderers, rapist and pedophiles.
A .308 to the head. (Or in the case of rapists one to both)
Actually its not that cheap.

It all depends on the severity and circumstances surrounding each individual crime. The only real reason I could see for the death penalty is if the person could be shown to be a mortal threat to other inmates.

why are you for it?
Because if society feels that they are beyond rehabilitation, thus demonstrated by the verdict of death, then why should they remain alive constituting a drain on the society.

I agree, it is hypocritical, but it is the state's prerogative.

No, it is not the state's prerogative. A state does not have any rights.

Because if society feels that they are beyond rehabilitation, thus demonstrated by the verdict of death, then why should they remain alive constituting a drain on the society.

Because they have a right to life, and their right to life does not interfere significantly with anyone else's rights.

You make killing illegal, but the state can kill? Sounds hypocritical to me.
same here.

No, it is not the state's prerogative. A state does not have any rights.

Chuckles to himself.

I guess that means you dont care.

It means that I disagree with it on a personal level, but I believe that society should have the option if it chooses.

Because they have a right to life, and their right to life does not interfere significantly with anyone else's rights.
Ah but it does interfere with societies rights because everyon else's right to property is being infriged upon by the needed increase in taxes to support the rest of that criminals life. This is why I also gave the option of forced labor camps, if we are going to keep them around they might as well be put to a good use.

Actually its not that cheap.
Military surplus.

No, it is not the state's prerogative. A state does not have any rights.

It has the obligation to provide for the rights of the individual, though, and in that sense it is bestowed with abilities.

I'm against the death penalty, simply because it's cheaper to incarcerate someone for life than it is to put someone to death (when someone is put on death row, there are automatic appeals, court costs, lawyer fees, etc).

I’m against it, but I like H.L. Mencken’s argument:

"The argument that capital punishment degrades the state is moonshine, for if that were true then it would degrade the state to send men to war... The state, in truth, is degraded in its very nature: a few butcheries cannot do it any further damage."

I'm against it. I'm a pacifist, but it's not just that, i actually believe that life imprisonment is a worse punishment. I think that a person should have to spend the rest of their lives in a little 5 by 8 cell forever living with what it is they did. They should have to go to bed every night and wake up every morning knowing and remembering. By killing them, you give them the easy way out. They don't have to stay here and deal with the consequences of their actions the way the rest of us do.

Im against the death penalty. And it is only the states prerogitive if the people (voters) allow it (in a Democracy that is, dont know about a fascist emirate, but Im glad I dont live in one). But, I dunno, a life for a life? Well, if that means that its legal to kill judges who send people to their death (a life for a life after all)..that sounds perfectly cricket to me! :D

I am against, because you cant bring back a person who was executed for a crime they did not do, while if a person is imprisoned for something they did not do , they can simply be released. You.?

Also, plz explain why, not just vote in the poll.
I support the death penalty in theory, since I believe there are certain crimes that merit execution. However, I must oppose it in practice until such time as we are able to issue convictions with 100% certainty.

I support the death penalty in theory, since I believe there are certain crimes that merit execution. However, I must oppose it in practice until such time as we are able to issue convictions with 100% certainty.

This one knows.

I'm against. Apart from the fact that the countries that still have the death penalty seem to have appalling problems with their judicial systems: Just because some people deserve to die doesn't mean that someone automatically gets the right to kill someone.

The thing with forums is that as a general rule no one is going to be able to sway anyone to the other extreme.

To repeat myself from a previous thread:

I'm against the death penalty.

My reason:
*It is truly irreversible and irreparable if an innocent is wrongfully executed.

Also:
*It is disputed if and how much of a deterrent capital punishment actually is. And such a drastic form of punishment should in any case not be used if it does not work as an improved deterrent compared to ordinary punishments.
*It is disputed which costs more, life imprisonment or executions.

To repeat myself from a previous thread:

I'm against the death penalty.

My reason:
*It is truly irreversible and irreparable if an innocent is wrongfully executed.

Also:
*It is disputed if and how much of a deterrent capital punishment actually is. And such a drastic form of punishment should in any case not be used if it does not work as an improved deterrent compared to ordinary punishments.
*It is disputed which costs more, life imprisonment or executions.

That, and...

*The state should have no right to execute one of its citizens.

And that I find the whole "revenge" thing distasteful.

Against the Death penalty.

For toughening up the prision system. Prision is no picnic, but it should still be harder than it is now.

Oh come on, I'm the only one who voted for the pony option?

Ehh.

You make killing illegal, but the state can kill? Sounds hypocritical to me.

You make kidnapping illegal, but the state can put you in prison?

Sounds hypocritical to me.

I hope you also oppose imprisonment, wouldn't want to be hypocritical.

I oppose the death penalty. Not because of any moral or religious reason, not because it's right or wrong and certainly not because of any bleeding-heart "all life is sacred" crap.

I oppose the death penalty because I don't want the Government thinking it has the right to end the lives of it's citizen. End of story.

You know why? Because the Government is immortal. Because after I'm dead and gone the Government will still be able to threaten my children with death, and my grandchildren. And that is something that scares me deeply and is totally unacceptable.

Because after I'm dead and gone the Government will still be able to threaten my children with death, and my grandchildren. And that is something that scares me deeply and is totally unacceptable.

On the other hand, the government being able to threaten your children and grandchildren with a life of getting ass-raped in prison doesn't bother you in any way?

Oh come on, I'm the only one who voted for the pony option?

Ehh.

Ponies kick butt.

http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/temporary/PBF024ADUnicorn.jpg

from http://cheston.com/pbf/archive.html

Okay, it's a unicorn, but whatever.

Hahaha. Those comics fucking rock, man.

On the other hand, the government being able to threaten your children and grandchildren with a life of getting ass-raped in prison doesn't bother you in any way?

Not as long as there's still lawyers and free legal aid, no.

Not as long as there's still lawyers and free legal aid, no.

Well that makes me wonder why it bothers you that theres a death penalty, since there's still lawyers and free legal aid in that as well.

Well that makes me wonder why it bothers you that theres a death penalty, since there's still lawyers and free legal aid in that as well.

And a time limit.

And a time limit.

Well, there's a time limit for everything, what with us being mortal beings, and life in prison not exactly being a guarantee of good health.

I think, despite your objections, you do have the moral objection, you just plain think execution is wrong.

No, it is not the state's prerogative. A state does not have any rights.

I've heard that before!!

I voted "For" because there are certain crimes that merit execution. "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." Capital murder, pre-meditated murder, rape, child molestation, etc. are all grounds, in my outlook, for capital punishment.

Many of you have said that killing is wrong, at the hands of a citizen or the state. However, killing has never been wrong in the eyes of the Federal and State governments, or the Bible, which are the only institutions I answer to. Note there is a difference between Murder and Killing. If somebody attacks you in your home, or on the street, etc. and you take their life in defence, it is not wrong. If you are the attacker and take your victim's life, it is murder. To kill somebody for their crimes is not murder and therefore is not morally wrong, nor is it hypocritical.

I share the sentiments of those who mourn over an innocent person who is convicted in a court of law and executed for somebody else's crimes. It is very unfortunate and saddening to know this happens, but what is even more unfortunate and makes my blood boil is how we taxpayers pave the way to Easy Street for the criminals serving a life sentence without parole. I have no interest in paying the bills so they can have all the porn, weight training equipment, food, etc. in return for them being a menace to society. It is a given that I have to pay taxes, and I would like for them to go to other places than making our perverts and murderers comfortable.

You asked for a reason, and I gave it!!!:cool:

You asked for a reason

No I didn't.

No I didn't.

Then I wasn't talking to you. I was trying to stay in line with the topic of the thread and the starter of it, who did, in fact, ask why we voted like we do.

Then I wasn't talking to you. I was trying to stay in line with the topic of the thread and the starter of it, who did, in fact, ask why we voted like we do.

Hooyah.

I am against, because you cant bring back a person who was executed for a crime they did not do, while if a person is imprisoned for something they did not do , they can simply be released. You.?

Also, plz explain why, not just vote in the poll.

you can release them but many cases they have been imprisoned for many years before being found innocent, and you can never give them their time back, its not just as easy as oh we made a mistake lets rewind you life to back when we first arrested you.

even those that have been found innocent when they get out of jail they are not the same, especially if they were to recieve the death penalty. their life would never even be close to the way it was before they were arrested and their family would also never be the same, especially if they had young kids when they went to prison and now those young kids are now adults with their own kids, you missed out on life pretty much.

i agree that it should be up to the state to have a death penalty or not, but the decision should be on the states own funds, completely on their own funds and not recieving any funds from the federal government

However, killing has never been wrong in the eyes of the .......the Bible, which are the only institutions I answer to.

So that bit about "Thou shalt not kill"

That's optional is it?

And that bit about "Turn the other cheek"

And "he who is without sin cast the first stone"

All have a little check box that says "where applicable" do they?