NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello all,

Should we ban the death penalty? I think we shouldn't because the death penalty removes those who are determined to break the law continuously and don't learn squat from punishment, plus it eases the pain of families whose members were wronged by the lawbreaker.

Discuss! And please use reasonable arguments in this debate, doing that will ovoid trolling.

Discuss! And please use reasonable arguments in this debate, doing that will ovoid trolling.
Trolling by eggs?

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

But for the record, I support the death penalty.

Hello all,

Should we ban the death penalty? I think we shouldn't because the death penalty removes those who are determined to break the law continuously and don't learn squat from punishment, plus it eases the pain of families whose members were wronged by the lawbreaker.

Discuss! And please use reasonable arguments in this debate, doing that will ovoid trolling.

In what way does vengence ease the pain of the families wronged by the lawbreaker? Does it resurrect the murdered family member? Does it unrape the raped family member?

:D LOL nice pic.

The state should not have the power to kill those it can otherwise restrain. Abolish it.

In what way does vengence ease the pain of the families wronged by the lawbreaker? Does it resurrect the murdered family member? Does it unrape the raped family member?

It gives them the sense and comfort that the evildoer was brought to justice and that no one else will suffer under his evil.

The state should not have the power to kill those it can otherwise restrain. Abolish it.

Why not, hes just going to kill others in jail, waste living resources and space, most likely he won't learn his lesson. Its better law enforcment kill him in the name of justice than he kills others out of madness or out of the desire to do wrong. If he's dead he can't escape, and do more wrong to people.

I am in opposition to the death penalty, mainly due to my fairly strong pacifism. I have very strong misgivings about intentionally taking an unwilling party's life.

It gives them the sense and comfort that the evildoer was brought to justice and that no one else will suffer under his evil.

Both of which are satisfied by imprisonment.

Been there, done that some 100 years ago. :)

Ugh, I feel so dirty for being proud of Sweden for something...

No. The death penalty should remain legal.

I support the death penalty, but only for very serious crimes, and only when the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty.

Although, I prefer public executions, personally.

It gives them the sense and comfort that the evildoer was brought to justice and that no one else will suffer under his evil.

Imprisonment does that just fine. Capital punishment only serves a base impulse in mankind that I would hope a civilized nation would be above serving.

I firmly believe in the death penalty. I believe that criminal law should be based on vengeance, retribution.

If you steal money, that money should be exacted from you.

Likewise, in the case of say...murder, a life is being stolen. Therefore, a life should be exacted from the murderer.

In my opinion the death penalty should be legalized because it removes those that are destined to repitivly break the law. If someone murders several people, rapes 13 people, do you really think they would be any good on the streets or in prison? No, the death penalty should be legalized. Also because it would insight fear in those thinking to commit crime, some may believe that if they commit a crime they are more likley to be sentanced to the death penalty. Once Canada got rid of capital punishment, crime increased alot.
The death penalty should be legal in Canada.

I firmly believe in the death penalty. I believe that criminal law should be based on vengeance, retribution.

If you steal money, that money should be exacted from you.

Likewise, in the case of say...murder, a life is being stolen. Therefore, a life should be exacted from the murderer.

I think that its kinda true, but what about cases of Man Slaughter (Accidental Death?)

Trolling by eggs?

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

But for the record, I support the death penalty.

Um, Dude. Seriously, why do u support it? Its just killing people for the wrong things they've done. if u were on death row, ud want the government to get u out of it. Have a bit of sympathy. :headbang:

Both of which are satisfied by imprisonment.

What if he escapes?

I think that its kinda true, but what about cases of Man Slaughter (Accidental Death?)

Man slaughter...usually there is intent to harm nonetheless.

What if he escapes?

Find that person, and if they deserve capital punishment, kill them, if they don't, lock them up for the rest of there natural life:)

Man slaughter...usually there is intent to harm nonetheless.

Well maybe, there might be, like what if a car swirves off an icy road and hits someone? But thats off topic. I think the Capital Punishment should be legal!

Find that person, and if they deserve capital punishment, kill them, if they don't, lock them up for the rest of there natural life:)

Too risky, killing him immidiatly prevents any mishaps.

The death penalty should be the method of punishment in the following cases:

(*) Murder
(*) Treason
(*) Rape
(*) Child molestation
(*) Making, selling, distributing, or participating in, child pornography
(*) Bestiality
(*) Kidnapping
(*) Trafficking in persons
(*) Purposely failing to yield to emergency vehicles

The death penalty should be the method of punishment in the following cases:

Murder
Treason
Rape
Child molestation
Making, selling, distributing, or participating in, child pornography
Bestiality
Why bestiality?

Well maybe, there might be, like what if a car swirves off an icy road and hits someone?

Since when is that considered murder?

Why bestiality?

It's barbaric and sick. Not to mention extremely cruel to animals.

(*) Making, selling, distributing, or participating in, child pornography

Adult participants, I assume?

(*) Bestiality

:confused:

The death penalty should be the method of punishment in the following cases:

(*) Murder
(*) Treason
(*) Rape
(*) Child molestation
(*) Making, selling, distributing, or participating in, child pornography
(*) Bestiality

What do you mean by treason, and why bestiality?

It's barbaric and sick. Not to mention extremely cruel to animals.
'Sick' is subjective. Many people think homosexuality is 'sick'. And I think having sex with animals is much kinder than killing and eating them, personally...

Treason
Oh, you anti-state libertarian you.

Child molestation
This is a bad idea. If you make the death penalty the punishment for child molestation, then the perpetrator loses any legal incentive not to kill them - and given they are probably the only witness, that creates whole new problems too. If there is no difference in the punishment for molestation and for murder, then there is no deterrence against graduating from the former to the latter.

Bestiality
Maybe a slight overreaction?

It's barbaric and sick.

Neither of which are good reasons to prohibit it at all, let alone punish it with execution.

Not to mention extremely cruel to animals.

So is imprisoning them in factory farms and killing them for food.

So is imprisoning them in factory farms and killing them for food.

Which is why I think they (the factories) should be regulated to minimize animal cruelty. I also oppose testing on animals. I'd prefer if criminals were used, instead.

Oh, you anti-state libertarian you.

I'm not an anarchist, I'm a minarchist. And I mean real treason, i.e. giving aid to terrorists, threatening national security, etc. Not opposing the government.


This is a bad idea. If you make the death penalty the punishment for child molestation, then the perpetrator loses any legal incentive not to kill them - and given they are probably the only witness, that creates whole new problems too. If there is no difference in the punishment for molestation and for murder, then there is no deterrence against graduating from the former to the latter.

Point conceded.

Maybe a slight overreaction?

Okay, therapy first, and if that doesn't work...

Which is why I think they (the factories) should be regulated to minimize animal cruelty.

Do you think the factory owners should receive the death penalty if they break the rules?

And isn't killing them still at least as barbaric as beastiality?

'Sick' is subjective. Many people think homosexuality is 'sick'. And I think having sex with animals is much kinder than killing and eating them, personally...

Homosexuality is victimless. No one's rights are violated, and no one is hurt by, homosexuality. Consensual sex between people who are old enough, is fine. However, there is no way to prove an animal consents to sex.

I am against the death penalty. For one thing, I think it's wrong.

Also, according to my psychology textbook, states with the death penalty don't have lower homicide rates than states that don't have it.

Homosexuality is victimless. No one's rights are violated, and no one is hurt by, homosexuality. Consensual sex between people who are old enough, is fine. However, there is no way to prove an animal consents to sex.
There is no way to prove an animal consents to being eaten...

Do you think the factory owners should receive the death penalty if they break the rules?

No, but they should lose their factory.

And yes, on second thought, capital punishment for bestiality IS too far.

There is no way to prove an animal consents to being eaten...

LOL, you got me there. :p

I have not heard the death penalty to be more efficient in terms of resources used than life imprisonment, so therefore I do not support the death penalty. Such a penalty is not to be exercised for its own sake but rather for the benefit of society. If society does not benefit then the death penalty is unjustifiable.

Personally I dont like the idea of giving the government the ability to kill. I think life imprisonment is a better idea, that way you can release them should they be innocent. I do think we need to make prisons tougher institutions and devise methods to keep drugs, and other abuses from occuring within them. In the end I think it should be up to the individual states to decide for themselves.

I recommend that we put more funds into raising the dead so that we may institute the death penalty on people multiple times, and for the most rediculous reasons.

That way, only the really serious criminals will continue to commit crimes, and we can lock them away forever. And kill them once in a while just for fun.

In what way does vengence ease the pain of the families wronged by the lawbreaker?
Schadenfreude.
Does it resurrect the murdered family member?
It's been known to happen.
Does it unrape the raped family member?
...Yes. Yes it does.

So what you are implying is that because there is no death penalty for child molestation, that is the reason child molestors do not kill their victims?

First there is not even the slightest basis of logic or fact that such perpertrators would elevate their crimes from molestation to murder if the death penalty were instituted over child molestation. Secondly, if we were to approach this from the view that a childs right to a safe and secure society should trump any legal rights given to adults than we should examine the legalities in which child molestors are prosecuted by.

Child molestors who are caught doing this perverse act are rarely given extreme sentances, in most cases, less than 10 years jail, hardly are they given full life sentances without a chance of parole. And once released, they commit the same act for which they were charged with. Why do we continually allow these people back on the streets, back into the lives and communities of children where these adults committ their sick offense? It does not make any sense. These people should be given the death penalty, the same with rapists and murderers as they are for the most part, sick repeat offedenders, and always present a danger to our livlihood.

However, if given the death penalty, your argument that a change in legality would convert the psychological nature in which these people conduct their sick activity makes no sense and obviously would not happen.

What about the families of those who have been killed?

I think what they meant is that if someone molests a child, they will be punished. If someone molest and kills a child, the consequences advance as the crime does. But if every single case of child molestation recieves the death penalty, then the molestor would be more inclined to kill the child, as the only witness to the molestation that would give them the death penalty.


Personally, I think the death penalty should be banned because I dont think a human has the right to take someone elses life. I wholeheartedly believe that is God's right and life imprisionment is the best option we have because once the criminal dies (not by death penalty), God will give the correct punishment.

They'll have to live the fact that there family member was a child molester? What about the family members of serial killers, should they not be killed because they familes feel bad?

Ban it. Life imprisonment is cheaper and acts as more of a deterrant.

I would vote to use the death penalty only on inmates that have escaped and been recaptured. Make the vicious criminals suffer a 23 hour per day (or more) lock-up for their rest of their lives. No TV! No radio! No mail! No newspaper! No books! No pencil! No paper! No visitors! (except for legal council)

Ban it. Life imprisonment is cheaper and acts as more of a deterrant.

...Come again?

...Come again?

Actully killing criminals acts more as a fear factor, what would you rather want life imprisonment, or death?

Ban it. Life imprisonment is cheaper and acts as more of a deterrant.

Actually death sentence is cheaper, kill him now and you won't need to pay for his facilities or for his food and water ect. Arming the firing squad and mcgeivering together a post to tie him too is cheaper than keeping him alive for years and years, besides with less resources wasted more can be donated to the poor.

...Come again?

The government spends more on the appeal process of prisoners on death row than they do if they are simply imprisoned for life. Or so the story goes.


I still think it's worth every penny.

How about this, the state only can only put people in life imprisonment due to the cost, but if individuals want to pay the additional costs of a death penalty, allow them to do so, so long as the decision process on actual punishment is separate from monetary interests.

Actully killing criminals acts more as a fear factor, what would you rather want life imprisonment, or death?
Death. I don't think I'd enjoy shower rape. And death by firing squad would be an awesome way to go.

The government spends more on the appeal process of prisoners on death row than they do if they are simply imprisoned for life. Or so the story goes.


I still think it's worth every penny.
What the hell makes a trial more expensive than feeding, clothing and sheltering a person?

What the hell makes a trial more expensive than feeding, clothing and sheltering a person?

Lawyers.

Actully killing criminals acts more as a fear factor, what would you rather want life imprisonment, or death?

Which is why states without the death penalty have lower crime rates than states with it.

I know it sounds ridiculously cruel, but you gotta get rid of some bad apples in an already overpopulated society.

Which is why states without the death penalty have lower crime rates than states with it.

Correlation does not necessarily equate to causation.

Lawyers.

Does working in an appeals trial make the salary of a public defender, or prosecutor, increase?

Death to the Death Penalty!!! :gundge:

Does working in an appeals trial make the salary of a public defender, or prosecutor, increase?

More hours worked for them, so yes. More hours for court staff as well.

---

I oppose the death penalty in every case. I beleive it's the height of immorality, hypocrisy, and a sign of an arrogant society.

Both of which are satisfied by imprisonment.

No no, with imprisonment there's always the possibility of escape or parolle for good behavior. I wouldn't feel justice had been done for -my- victimized friend or family member until the S.O.B. was frying in chair.

We're too soft on our criminals in America, they gave up their constitutional rights and liberties the second they chose to void their Social Contract.

Ban it. Life imprisonment is cheaper and acts as more of a deterrant.

The only reason it's cheaper is because of the miles of red tape it takes to get to the end. And how the hell does being babied in a cell with just about all constitutional rights still given (and abused to no end) act as more of a deterrent than being put to death?

Here's a twist, to liven the debate :D

How is the death penalty different from retroactive abortion?

Maybe we make the death penalty applicable only if the offender's Mom approves?

How about this, the state only can only put people in life imprisonment due to the cost, but if individuals want to pay the additional costs of a death penalty, allow them to do so, so long as the decision process on actual punishment is separate from monetary interests.

Sorry, what?

The alleged victims of crimes get to decide whether or not to give the perpetrator the death penalty?

Here's a twist, to liven the debate :D

How is the death penalty different from retroactive abortion?

Maybe we make the death penalty applicable only if the offender's Mom approves?

The difference is that the offender is a living human being, conscious of his own existence and well aware of what the law requires of him as an adult and solely responsible for his actions. :) If anything his/her mother should get to make the funeral arrangements, that's it.

Oh, and Fetus Fajitas taste -way- better than Convict Calzones. :D

I think what they meant is that if someone molests a child, they will be punished. If someone molest and kills a child, the consequences advance as the crime does. But if every single case of child molestation receives the death penalty, then the molester would be more inclined to kill the child, as the only witness to the molestation that would give them the death penalty.


Personally, I think the death penalty should be banned because I don't think a human has the right to take someone else's life. I wholeheartedly believe that is God's right and life imprisonment is the best option we have because once the criminal dies (not by death penalty), God will give the correct punishment.

The sixth commandment, in the original Hebrew, reads, "Thou Shalt Not Murder." God condones the use of execution in the case of murder (war excluded). In the case of accidental death, God said that there was to be designated towns where the person could take refuge in without fear of retribution from the deceased one's family. Should the guy step foot outside the town, though, all bets are off. Not sure about treason.

I support the death penalty in the case of high treason, cowardice in the face of the enemy (when at war), and murder when the case is proven without a shadow of a doubt. And how is execution expensive? Worst case scenario, all you'd need is six feet of rope and a tall tree. And by putting the fear of death into those that might otherwise commit murder, you'd also save money by not having to go through the courts, crime scene clean-up, etc, and, above all else, a life would have been spared.

Giving the guilty choice between death or life imprisonment is stupid. No sane person would choose death over life.

I am for the death penalty for the most part I belive punishments should be stricter to make the crime not worth it, but then there are people on death row that are proven innocent and pardoned also.....:confused:

Vote yes.

This is why we must create good rehab programs, fund them and make them work!

Plus, Im sure there are tonnes of cases where someone got executed and later, it was proven they were innoncent!

What do you do then, huh?

Say "Im sorry"?

Not worth it.

My position:

Commute all death sentences not upheld by incontrovertible physical evidence, such as DNA.

In the future, restrict the death penalty to cases where there is incontrovertible physical evidence.

If a single innocent person is found to have been executed, commute all death sentences and impose a 15 year moratorium on them.

This serves as an incentive for prosecutors to do a good job.

Sorry, what?

The alleged victims of crimes get to decide whether or not to give the perpetrator the death penalty?
The reasoning is simple: if both punishments seek to eliminate a person from society permanently than the difference between the 2 really does not matter outside of cost. Therefore, if some group seeks to pay the difference between the least expensive and the next best alternative in terms of ways to eliminate people then why not allow it? Both ways achieve our end, however, more people might be satisfied by a death penalty in one case than a life imprisonment.

Correlation does not necessarily equate to causation.

I'm well aware of that, however, one would expect the opposite to be true if the death penalty really was a deterrant.

I'm also pretty sure that crime rates fall when a state bans the death penalty, but I don't have actual statistics, and don't have the time to find any, so this comment is pretty worthless other than to provide a method for people to look for themselves.

I firmly believe in the death penalty. I believe that criminal law should be based on vengeance, retribution.

If you steal money, that money should be exacted from you.

Likewise, in the case of say...murder, a life is being stolen. Therefore, a life should be exacted from the murderer.
I thought you were Christian?

The death penalty should be the method of punishment in the following cases:
(*) Child molestation
(*) Making, selling, distributing, or participating in, child pornography


...and what if the (by now adult) victim doesn't want that to happen? Also see replies already made with regards removing any incentive NOT to kill the only witness.


(*) Bestiality


This might be a bit wrong (and a good way of getting some interesting diseases), but I would say it's less wrong than cramming an animal into a cage, killing and eating it. Fois Gras?


(*) Kidnapping
(*) Trafficking in persons
(*) Purposely failing to yield to emergency vehicles

Actually there was one incident where this has happened. According to a friend of mine, a lady in a car didn't give way to the fire engine behind her on a narrow bridge... net result, the driver of the much larger, much heavier and much more powerful fire engine engaged full throttle and barged the car out of the way.

For the record, I am very opposed to the death penalty. It is simply legalised murder, and you can not and will never be able to give a 100% assurance that the wrong person will not be killed. A prison sentence can be quashed, compensation can be given to the wrongfully convicted... but you can't un-kill someone.

Too risky, killing him immidiatly prevents any mishaps.

Except, of course, the rather significant "mishap" in which you kill someone who turns out to be innocent.

Hello all,

Should we ban the death penalty? I think we shouldn't because the death penalty removes those who are determined to break the law continuously and don't learn squat from punishment, plus it eases the pain of families whose members were wronged by the lawbreaker.

Discuss! And please use reasonable arguments in this debate, doing that will ovoid trolling.

I'm very, very, very against it. There's no justice in vengeance. Death will not ease the pain of the murder for the people. The death penalty is an eye for an eye and "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

1. Life in prison is not only cheaper than the death penalty, it allows for rehabillitation.

2. Many criminals do not believe they will get caught, so the death penalty does not work well as a deterrent.

I oppose the death penalty in every case. I beleive it's the height of immorality, hypocrisy, and a sign of an arrogant society.

Funny...I feel the same about incarceration.

I think an emphasis on corporal punishment and heavy fines, with the death penalty as an option for extreme cases, would do more than the current legal system to deter crime and prevent repeat offenses.

That said, the state must go to any means necessary to ensure that convictions which result in an death penalty sentence are confirmed by definitive physical evidence.