NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

I'm inclined towards opposing the death penalty. It clashes with my views that demand the preservation of human life.

Waist of money and there is never a time where a case is 100% proven. If there is even the remotest chance an innocent can be put to death I am against it, at least in Jail theres chances for appeal.

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

I am against all the current jails. I believe in...

LABOR!

Easy to repay society when you are actually giving back to them.

i prefere the death penalty to conventional means of jailing. brainwashing is best form. i prefere new slaves than to posible reoffenders.

I am against all the current jails. I believe in...

LABOR!

Easy to repay society when you are actually giving back to them.

backed.

i prefere the death penalty to conventional means of jailing. brainwashing is best form. i prefere new slaves than to posible reoffenders.

I dunno, the whole slave thing goes against the UDHR. But our current inmate labor system works pretty well.

Waist of money and there is never a time where a case is 100% proven. If there is even the remotest chance an innocent can be put to death I am against it, at least in Jail theres chances for appeal.

Isn't it more of a waste of money to pay for someone to live life in prison?

I support the death penalty. I don't buy the "but we could be executing innocent people" reason - yes, we could, but hey we could be imprisoning innocent people too, and sentencing them to 20 years of ass-raping in prison before they at last die in a knife fight, drug overdose or AIDS. Sure, they COULD get an appeal. And they COULD not. The trick with all this is to make sure that those who are convicted are in fact, guilty, rather than assuming everyone who is convicted is innocent.

It's "innocent until proven guilty," not "innocent until proven guilty, but still innocent after the proof too LOL!"

Isn't it more of a waste of money to pay for someone to live life in prison?

Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah but..... to infinity

backed.

Wow. That's like the first time someone's agreed...

By any chance, are your political stances near (-5,-5) on the Political Chart?

I wouldnt trust any insititution with a legal liscense to kill, so im against it,

Wow. That's like the first time someone's agreed...

By any chance, are your political stances near (-5,-5) on the Political Chart?

on the political charty thingy? i think i was a authoritarian centrist.

So there is nothing someone could do that deserves death?

I wouldnt trust any insititution with a legal liscense to kill, so im against it,

Doesn't that imply that it should be illegal for anyone to have a military?

on the political charty thingy? i think i was a authoritarian centrist.

Curses! They always are...

Oh... well, that is where I lie. (-5.13,-5.23).

At least, last I checked I was there.

So there is nothing someone could do that deserves death?

oh right answering the question, child molesters.

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?
I wouldn't execute Hitler unless I managed to do it right before he announced the Holocaust.

I just don't understand why people are against it.

Because executing the criminal solves nothing. Because anything that could be accomplished by execution could be solved by life in prison. Because life in prison is better then execution because it's reversable if the convict really is innocent.

When you can prove 100% that someone is guilty, fine. Untill then, never.

Isn't it more of a waste of money to pay for someone to live life in prison?

Nope, the death penalty is actually more expensive.
Something to do with the legal bills, I think.

Is life in prison really better than death? A criminal could spend upwards of 70 years in the system (depending on age) or he could just have it end now. Given the choice, I think I'd rather just get the needle rather than spend an indeterminate amount of time in prison on the off chance that someone might prove me innocent.

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

It's ok to use the death penalty on people who are for the death penalty. ^_~

This question depends on how one thinks how our judicial system should work.

Should it: Protect function as a barrier of our society against those how won't follow the law and thereby derailing it? And if yes, should the judcial systems main goal be a) to punish them and thereby setting an example for others or b) try to turn them into good citizen again?

Or is our judcial system a tool of retribution? A way of balancing an imblance cuased by the misdemeanor of the criminal? In such a case the idea of "an eye for an eye,..." is quite acceptable, even strongly suggested.

My personal believe is that a society will only fall to the same level of the serious (in the this case serious means a criminal who has commited a major crime involving manslaughter) criminal by delivering him the same result he has given to his victims. A civilised nation cannot have the death penalty as it should stand above the act of killing.

The death penalty should be used more often, and for more crimes than murder. Like rape, or child molestation. It should be swift, and painful. But Simple, like a hanging, or electricution. Lethal injection is too good for these peices of shit. Take a rapist- throw them in an acid bath. Child molester, car battery, cables- until death. Murder, you get killed however you killed the person you killed. End of story.

The death penalty should be used more often, and for more crimes than murder. Like rape, or child molestation. It should be swift, and painful. But Simple, like a hanging, or electricution. Lethal injection is too good for these peices of shit. Take a rapist- throw them in an acid bath. Child molester, car battery, cables- until death. Murder, you get killed however you killed the person you killed. End of story.

hanging. cheaper. just one rope does many jobs.

:sniper:

It boils down to who's rights are more important the criminal or the victim. To visualize let do the roll call:

Ted Bundy, Timothy Mcveigh, Son of Sam = David Berkowitz, "Night Stalker" Richard Ramirez, Jack the Ripper, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy all of them deserve exactly what they got

hanging. cheaper. just one rope does many jobs.

A valid argument.

How many of these people are actually going to proved innocent in later years. You could add Manson although he did actually kill anyone....

Charles not the singer....

I won't support the death penalty until it actually decreases the crime rate. Current statistics show the death penalty doesn't dissuade people from committing violent crime.

I have been in a country with the USA and a country without Canada. I don't know either way is superior to the other. Paul Bernardo badly deserved it as did Clifford Olson and the pig farmer Robert Pickton.

These people have absolutely no regard for human life. Should we allow them to exist at all?

Pig farmer charged with murdering at least 22 vancouver women.

Death is the ultimate deterrent. If it wasn't for fear of death, we would walk into traffic. If it wasn't for fear of death (and much else), the Cold War would've heated up pretty quickly. Therefor, I support the death penalty.

In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law. To pursue... natural justice. This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive, it's an emotional response. No. Not vengeance. Punishment.

Death is the humane punishment for convicts. I would rather die than spend my life in prison. It should be optional for any inmate.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

Nope. (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm) :)

Here is another incident

10 Russian School Terrorists Identified
Russian security officials identified 10 of the Beslan school hostage-takers Thursday, confirming that six of them came from the breakaway republic of Chechnya.
Four others were from Ingushetia, the republic bordering North Ossetia, where last week's siege that ended in the deaths of at least 326 children and adults took place.

So far, regional security sources have not provided any information to back up Russian President Vladimir Putin's earlier allegation that about 10 of the approximately 30 hostage-takers were "Arabs" from the Middle East and might have been linked to al-Qaeda.

326 children and adults. Words can not do justice to the rage and sorrow they must feel. Live by the sword...die by the sword

326 children and adults. Words can not do justice to the rage and sorrow they must feel. Live by the sword...die by the sword

Stop spamming the thread.

What does killing children have to do with a "Holy War"?

In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law. To pursue... natural justice. This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive, it's an emotional response. No. Not vengeance. Punishment.

So whose judgment is used to determine who dies? Yours? Or does each individual get to decide?

I apologize for spamming. I am somewhat passionate on this subject...

So whose judgment is used to determine who dies? Yours? Or does each individual get to decide?


A judge and 12 jury members of your peers...

Isn't it more of a waste of money to pay for someone to live life in prison?
Short answer is no. The long answer is noooooooooo.

In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law. =/=A judge and 12 jury members of your peers...

I disagree with the death penalty for this reason: When the state does something, it does so at the behest of it's people, and acts as the instrument of the people. Since I don't believe I have the moral authority to demand the death of another human being (unless it's in the immeditate defence of another person's life) I don't want the state to kill someone in my name.

Also, I'm rather proud of the fact that my state was the first democracy in the world to abolish the death penalty (in 1847). Hopefully we keep it that way.

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

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

It's that time of year again. Not only are we rehashing the death penalty, but the 2nd Amendment threads are back in force.

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

Nope. (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm) :)
Nope. (http://web.amnesty.org/wire/July2004/UN) :)

I disagree with the death penalty for this reason: When the state does something, it does so at the behest of it's people, and acts as the instrument of the people. Since I don't believe I have the moral authority to demand the death of another human being (unless it's in the immeditate defence of another person's life) I don't want the state to kill someone in my name.

Also, I'm rather proud of the fact that my state was the first democracy in the world to abolish the death penalty (in 1847). Hopefully we keep it that way.


It is not just you who decides, if 12 people can come to the same conclusion is it wrong? Are you really going to try and rehabilitate any of these people? The only other choice if lifetime incarceration? What good does that do anyone?

i'm against it because i don't think it is a punishment. a punishment is something you have to live through and experience for a prescribed amount of time. death is just an ending. it might hold a significant amount of fear for some people but that fear ends as soon as it happens. a prison term, however, is pretty nasty even considering they get tv and ping-pong tables and whatever. they're still gunna get bum-fucked and otherwise humiliated repeatedly for several years. even the cons that become kings of their wing got screwed in the beginning. and after that they're still lowlifes in prisona dn have to live with that knowledge.

My problem with threads on the death penalty is that they usually go like this.

FOR: The death penalty deters crime
AGAINST: No it doesn't

AGAINST: State-sanctioned murder is wrong/Human life is sacred
FOR: No it isn't
There's more to debate in even the stock abortion and Israel threads.

Would you agree that murder is something no-one should be allowed to do?
Then why should the state be an exception? It may be cheaper than keeping people alive, but that's hardly an ethical argument.

Of course, this only really works (if one is following the "the purpose of prisons is the protection of the population primarily and rehabilitation second" line) if life means life, which is something that really needs rectifying in our prison systems.

Still, I don't believe the state should be empowered to kill.

The only other choice if lifetime incarceration? What good does that do anyone?

It protects the populace in the exact same way. By removing the criminals from society. Only this way, no-one else dies.

My problem with threads on the death penalty is that they usually go like this.


There's more to debate in even the stock abortion and Israel threads.

I won't say it deters crime. It does not.

I think it is the intent of the perpetrator. None of these animals had any regard for human life. Not one iota. There is no mistake they just killed for the fun or the thrill.

Pick some from the headlines:

OJ?

Scott Peterson?

Does the system work? I don't know. It seems to in most cases. OJ got off. 12 people could not come to decision that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He now gets to publish books on how he "might" have killed her.

Where is the lightning bolt?

By the way if you have a good point make it....I have my asbestos underwear on

:sniper:

It boils down to who's rights are more important the criminal or the victim.

Um, no, it doesn't. Victims have no "right" to exact some particular form of vengeance. Victims' rights have nothing to do with the death penalty. What it boils down to, rather, is whether the government ought to have the authority to kill people. Given that juries and lawyers and judges are human beings who are far from infallible, how can one justify giving them that authority?

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

It just doesn't make sense to end someones suffering when you can make them live with it for 50 more years.

A state has the right to end a life when allowing that life to continue would more than likely be more costly to the state(a state of any size, extending to the state of humanity) than allowing that life to continue. Say, a small nation, who form their country within a preexisting one(since there's a rather small amount of land left unclaimed on Earth, if any) and are extremely controversial, and they are infiltrated, then discover the spy, they cannot just say "All people have the right to live, but we wont cater to yours" and throw them out in the case that the spy knows enough to get members of the nation killed, or the entire nation destroyed, keeping a person locked up their entire life is pointless, killing them would be simpler.

That was probably hard to understand....

A state has the right to end a life when allowing that life to continue would more than likely be more costly to the state(a state of any size, extending to the state of humanity) than allowing that life to continue. Say, a small nation, who form their country within a preexisting one(since there's a rather small amount of land left unclaimed on Earth, if any) and are extremely controversial, and they are infiltrated, then discover the spy, they cannot just say "All people have the right to live, but we wont cater to yours" and throw them out in the case that the spy knows enough to get members of the nation killed, or the entire nation destroyed, keeping a person locked up their entire life is pointless, killing them would be simpler.

That was probably hard to understand....


Yes very difficult. Political prisoners should never be put to death. You could argue that they were acting under some foreign guidance.



Does the punishment fit the crime?

Getting 3 square meals a day? Not having to work? Getting a degree while in prison?

By the way lifers are rarely exposed to the same degree of torture that "normal" prisoners would be exposed to. In fact they often get "followers".

If they were exposed to the general prison populace often they will be killed. Why? Animals, every last one of them.

If a dog bit you without cause what would you do?

Hanging is too good for most of them, shooting is too good for most of them...

We should not allow them to continue. These people are a disease.

:sniper:

It boils down to who's rights are more important the criminal or the victim. To visualize let do the roll call:

Ted Bundy, Timothy Mcveigh, Son of Sam = David Berkowitz, "Night Stalker" Richard Ramirez, Jack the Ripper, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy all of them deserve exactly what they got

Jack the Ripper deserved nothing?

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

No

I just don't understand why people are against it.

Because it is, if not legally, than at least morally, murder.

Ahhh. SoO you have a problem with causing the death of another. Is this on moral or ethical grounds, or is it that you think a waste of human life is reprehensible?

I was trying to get to the point that the existence of a society was worth more that an individual, or at least the same; that the society has as much a right to defend itself as any person.

We should not allow them to continue. These people are a disease.

Are the wrongfully convicted a scourge as well?

Ahhh. SoO you have a problem with causing the death of another. Is this on moral or ethical grounds, or is it that you think a waste of human life is reprehensible?

purely moral. I believe that intentionally causing the death of a human being outside of direct defense of life is morally reprehensible. I likewise believe the only legitimate government is one that governs by the will of the people, and no person has the right to take the life of another outside of self defense.

Jack the Ripper deserved nothing?

Heh. I didn't even notice that. Well spotted. :)

Are the wrongfully convicted a scourge as well?

Not at all, so why do you insist on sentencing them to imprisonment?

If executing a wrongfully convicted man is murder, then imprisoning a wrongfully convicted man is kidnapping. Neither one is good.

The problem is wrongful convictions, not in the punishment.

No machine is perfect.

Jack the Ripper deserved nothing?

We did not catch him but he deserved it.

Is it morally justified, hell yes, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. These are not the mistreated, the beaten down these are not:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!


By mistake ...okay you deserve punishment
For fun...You deserve the same respect..none

So here is the deal suppose some "do good" parole board releases Manson one day?

I hope that day never comes...


What good did he do society?

Not at all, so why do you insist on sentencing them to imprisonment?

If executing a wrongfully convicted man is murder, then imprisoning a wrongfully convicted man is kidnapping. Neither one is good.

The problem is wrongful convictions, not in the punishment.

kidnapping can be rectified.

Death can't.

Is it morally justified, hell yes, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. These are not the mistreated, the beaten down these are not:

*snipped lengthy irrelevant Lazarus quote*


You don't have to be a good person to be "mistreated" - by that logic, assault or murder would be perfectly fine so long as the person being assaulted or murdered "deserved" it.

Not at all, so why do you insist on sentencing them to imprisonment?
Obviously, I don't insist on sentencing wrongfully convicted people to prison. I believe there should be a criminal justice system in place to remove convicts from society, with the benefit of the doubt going to the accused.
If executing a wrongfully convicted man is murder, then imprisoning a wrongfully convicted man is kidnapping. Neither one is good.
I agree. However, in my scenario, a convict, whether deserved of this title or not, has a choice over his or her punishment, however dire each may be.
The problem is wrongful convictions, not in the punishment.
How do you propose to remedy this?

We did not catch him but he deserved it.

He deserved to not be caught?

purely moral. I believe that intentionally causing the death of a human being outside of direct defense of life is morally reprehensible. I likewise believe the only legitimate government is one that governs by the will of the people, and no person has the right to take the life of another outside of self defense.

I see what you mean, and have heard the argument before. I was just a little confused as to what you meant.

Two sides to the whole thing from my perspective:

is it more important to not kill an innocent
or
is it more important to protect society from someone they believe has killed and will kill again?

I am afraid that it tends to fall on the side of the needs of the many outweight the needs of the one in this case.

I see what youmean, and have heard the argument befoe.

Two sides to the whole thing from my perspective:

is it more important to not kill an innocent

or

is it more important to protect society from someone they believe has killed and will kill again?

I am afraid that II tend to fall on the side of the needs of the many outweight the needs of the one in this case.

I said nothing about killing innocent. I said killing, period. Taking the life of a human being outside of self defense is immoral, regardless of what that human being has done. However, we do need to protect society from those people. That is what prison is for.

As I said, no machine is perfect, and the legal system is a machine, and society trumps individuals.

Nope. (http://web.amnesty.org/wire/July2004/UN) :)

We're on our way. One can't stop sanity! :)

I said nothing about killing innocent. I said killing, period. Taking the life of a human being outside of self defense is immoral, regardless of what that human being has done. However, we do need to protect society from those people. That is what prison is for.

you misread me. I see your point and have heard it before, I just wanted to make sure you were saying what I thought that you were saying. Than I added my thoughts about the whole business. I am a medically retired soldier. I have my own issues with not killing. I don't disagree with you.

I think we would be a better country without the death penalty. States with it seem to have a lot more executions and a lot less kindness IMHO. DUR that was not what I meant. Rather, a lot more capital crimes that demand execution in their minds, and a lot less kindness.

But if a state has server punishments for any crime the crime rate DOES go down, although that also leads to dictatorships...

actually the crime rate has never been shown to go down. CRime rates tend to have more to do with proper patrol procedure and targeting high crime areas than with executing criminals. Especially if you lock them up with no parole. Texas has always claimed this but in fact hey have also manipulated the numbers (particularly under bush would ya believe)

they also did this with their high school drop out numbers when Bush screwed their school system up. HE has this fascination with screwing things up then fudgung the numbers to show that an unmitigated disaster was actually a brilliant victory...:rolleyes:

Yeah and "mistreated" is 22 bodies found underneath your house. How did those bodies get there? Aliens?

I am all for that when likewise is returned.

If you do no harm ... no harm should come to you.

If you perfer to act like an animal you should be treated a such...

Even animals kill for a reason other than fun...

It does not deter crime nobody is saying that it does. Education, class structure, poverty all play a part in crime? Stealing is one thing.... premeditated, repeated killing is another.

Again, Grantes, stop spamming the thread! Postcount whoring is annoying and it will get you in trouble.

Either edit your old posts to get all your points and crap into them, or post it all at once. You're just rebumping the thread and pushing other people's interesting posts off screen.

For those of you who say the death penalty does not deter crime, how many people who get served the death penalty commit crimes again?? None.

But how many people who serve "life sentences" commit crimes again?

It's that time of year again. Not only are we rehashing the death penalty, but the 2nd Amendment threads are back in force.

Guns, God, Gays and Abortion!

Don't you love how the Right dominates the social agenda in the U.S.?? :rolleyes:

Guns, God, Gays and Abortion!

Don't you love how the Right dominates the social agenda in the U.S.?? :rolleyes:

No I am for the death penalty, for gay rights (marriage and such), pro choice, and not religious.

The concept of criminal justice is predicated on two main tenets - of punishment and redemption. In order to deal with members of a society that transgress the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, nations/communities reserve the right to punish the transgressing individual. This punishment may take the form of loss of money (a fine), of liberty (prison) or any other restriction that the society deems appropriate for the transgression (removal of licence, registration and monitoring, cutting off of limbs, or indeed death.)

The problem, however, with capital punishment is that is precludes the possibility of redemption, which is the balancing half of the equation. The fundamental position of those who believe in redemption is that people are basically 'good' and that to commit an 'evil' act is not the same as being an 'evil' person. Those who believe in capital punishment, therefore, have a different underlying assumption - that people who commit 'evil' acts are, in essence, 'evil' people and cannot be redeemed.

Most of western society is based, like it or not, on a basically Christian set of moral principles, and central to these are the ideas of forgiveness and redemption. I am not personally a Christian as I have some issues with the metaphysics, but I wholeheartedly support the idea that people are essentially 'good' and that nobody ever deserves to be written off.

Many that live deserve to die and many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal death in judgement as even the very wise cannot see all ends.

So capital punishment makes us less moral and less forgiving as both individuals and as a society. It brutalises those who carry it out, makes violence an acceptable solution to problems, and offers no possibility of (Christian) redemption. Add to this the innumerable practical issues regarding its (in)effectiveness as a deterrent and the tragedy of false conviction and you are left with a wholly unsatisfactory system for dealing with crime.

We are better than that, I hope.

I'm against the death penalty because if we introduce it here it would create more problems than it would solve, we havent had it here for like hundreds+ year.

The crime rate wount go down, innocent can be killed althought that is unlikely but people with different backrounds can be judged different. Someone who performs a murder in one place can get lifetime while someone can be sentenced to death.

I dont think that the death penalty belongs in a democracy. People who kill whont care about if the death penalty exists or not, they will still kill. Our main focus should be on reducing crime not punishing criminals(which doesnt mean that we shouldnt punish criminals which some people believe i mean)

Guns, God, Gays and Abortion!

Don't you love how the Right dominates the social agenda in the U.S.?? :rolleyes:

hmm... how to put this lightly...

abortion and homosexuality isnt on the right wing agenda, im afraid.

hmm... how to put this lightly...

abortion and homosexuality isnt on the right wing agenda, im afraid.

Banning abortion and blocking the legalization of gay marriage isn't on the Right-wing agenda?

What world are you living in?

I don't believe anyone has the right to kill, particularly not the state.

Banning abortion and blocking the legalization of gay marriage isn't on the Right-wing agenda?

What world are you living in?

maybe you shouldve, yknow, put in that part somewhere in there.

seeing GOD near ABORTION kind of made me do a double take

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

I'm against death penalty because:
1.It won't allow to repair a judiciary error: if you jail a person and then discover that he's innocent, you can free him and give him some sort of compensation. If you kill a person and then discover that he's innocent, it's too late.
2.Laws forbid to kill, except for emergencies, like self-defence cases, or to prevent a criminal from killing someone else. Clearly, if a person has been arrested and tried, he's not likely to be able to kill anyone anymore. If the judiciary power is persuaded that this person cannot be rehabilitated, he can be put in jail for life.
3.Justice isn't revenge. Justice and laws are meant to protect the society, not to instate a revenge system or the lex talionis. Revenge is too dangerous.

I can accept, however, one case of death penalty: the killing of a former head of government or head of state. In this case (see: Louis XVI, Mussolini) it isn't a judiciary act: it is an act of political change through violence - and a symbolic act. In some cases, like the two cases I just quoted, I find it acceptable. Anyway, I'd preferred that Mussolini ended his days in jail, following a trial for high treason.

Am against the death penalty:

I do not believe there is a system which would ensure that no mistake would ever be made. I do not believe the risk of killing 1 innocent is acceptable. I ask myself the question would I accept the state making that mistake with a member of my family and the answer is NO.

There does not appear to be any evidence that killing by the state reduces crime rates.

To sanction state killing reduces our own personal moral position lowering us to the same position as the killer. Can we say with confidence that if we had had the same upbringing, lived in the same enviroment, shared the same experiences we would have behaved any better? I would hope so but I cannot know that.

The death penalty is a waste of money. Do you like the idea of the state killing on your behalf? I know I don't. How can one complain about the Iraq War and not about people being killed on their own back door.

I am against the death penalty, however, life in prison should mean life in prision, not like in England where it is only 25 years.

I'm against the death pen, except, where somebody keeps offend against little kids. Kiddy fiddlers that keep offending should be put to death.

Unfortunately that pretty much destroys the Catholic Church. But hey, plenty ingredients for Soylent Green!!!!

The death penalty is a waste of money. Do you like the idea of the state killing on your behalf? I know I don't. How can one complain about the Iraq War and not about people being killed on their own back door.

I am against the death penalty, however, life in prison should mean life in prision, not like in England where it is only 25 years.

I didn't support the Iraq war either!!! It's 15 years in the UK, and it's only probation, commit again and your back inside, no questions.

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

I am against the death penalty because not only are cases never 100% proven, thereby the possibility of condemning an innocent to a final punishment exists, it is less expensive, more humane and much more beneficial to society to have criminals serve out life sentences or serve as forced labour.

If the person ever turns out to be actually innocent, they can be released and compensated.

If the person is actually guilty, they serve out a harsh yet more humane punishment.

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

No.

I am against the death penalty for the same reason I am against murder.

I'm against death penalty because:
1.It won't allow to repair a judiciary error: if you jail a person and then discover that he's innocent, you can free him and give him some sort of compensation. If you kill a person and then discover that he's innocent, it's too late.
Am against the death penalty:

I do not believe there is a system which would ensure that no mistake would ever be made. I do not believe the risk of killing 1 innocent is acceptable. I ask myself the question would I accept the state making that mistake with a member of my family and the answer is NO.

The possibilities of mistakes is the main reason I'm against the death penalty too. The killing of one innocent person by the state is unacceptable.

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

I'm against the state using it against citizens because I think it is a poor philosophical foundation upon which to build a nation.

That said, I do, and shall continue, to condone the use of the death penalty against several members of governments and others, upon whim. Sign up here to be a shooter!~~The next target is Bush & his cabinet!!


Walt Whitman: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am vast and contain mutlitudes."

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

Heh man it's easy to figure out. If the killing of a human by a human is working against the right to life, then state sanctioned killing is ecactly the same. If you support an individuals right to life, then you logcialy not support the death sentance, or you risk being labeld a hypocrite. In other words if you think that YOU have a right to live your life and that nobody has a right to take your life away from you, then you must extend this thought to all humans.

I am against the death penalty. It is currently not a deterrent for criminals, according to my psychology textbook. I am also against it because I am against killing.

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

Some people happen to believe that human beings have a right to live, and that this right cannot ever be taken away lawfully.

Some people happen to believe that human beings have a right to live, and that this right cannot ever be taken away lawfully.

*Is one of those people... except for instances of IMMEDIATE defense of self and others.*

*Is one of those people... except for instances of IMMEDIATE defense of self and others.*

In the very rare occasion where there is absolutely no other way, yes. I'm very wary of excessive force, though.

Personally I don't understand the death penalty.

It costs more to execute someone in the US than to keep them in jail till they die

Its almost the easy way out in comparisson to spending the rest of your days in jail

I hate the "eye for an eye " argument. I don't know who said it but "if we all take an eye for an eye we'd all be blind" probably Ghandi or someone.

Many that live deserve to die and many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal <a href="http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/death">death</a> in judgement as even the very wise cannot see all ends.


As Gandalf told Frodo. Chapter 2 of the Fellowship of the Ring, iirc.

added:
see:
Caius Iulius Caesar - speech at the Roman Senate against the death penalty for political crimes requested by Cicero for Catilina, reported by Sallustius
Cesare Beccaria - "Dei delitti e delle pene"

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty?

Only in truly exceptional circumstances. It might be justified to execute Saddam if it seems likely that his death will reduce the power of the insurgency.

:sniper:

It boils down to who's rights are more important the criminal or the victim. To visualize let do the roll call:

Ted Bundy, Timothy Mcveigh, Son of Sam = David Berkowitz, "Night Stalker" Richard Ramirez, Jack the Ripper, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy all of them deserve exactly what they got

Wow, Jack the Ripper was executed? There's me thinking the crime was never solved. What was his name then?

In answer to the OP, no there is never a time when man has the right to execute man.

I think the Death Penalty is a great way to impede crime. Of course, there is the issue of reasonable sentencing. If a person kills someone in cold blood, I say hang him on the nearest tree. Same thing with rape. But stealing... Eh... No.

And what's this "right to life" stuff? Right given by who (or what?)? Since when is it inalienable?

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

So, when someone kills many children, what does killing that person prove?

Put the bastards to work, I say.

I personally do not like the idea that the state should be able to take its citizens' lives, simply because that is giving the government too much power.

So, when someone kills many children, what does killing that person prove?
Executing the person is not "revenge". It is a punishment--and a permanent removal of them from society. I think it's a win-win situation.

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.

I'm against the death penalty except in cases of war crimes or crimes against humanity. THe risk of killing an innocent is too great in any other case.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty?

Never, unless it is necessary to prevent the person from repeating the crime or can successfully deter others from committing it.

Since we have prisons, the first consideration doesn't justify it. And the evidence doesn't support the second consideration, so that doesn't justify it either.

It should be abolished. We must stop killing unnecessarily.

I believe that where possible, the death penalty should be carried out by relatives and friends of the victims - and if they're unwilling to do it, then the sentence becomes life in prison.

It should be something difficult to do, and very personal, like strangling someone with a knotted rope twisted by a stick.

A lot of people can demand the death penalty, but I'm not sure how many people could do it if it wasn't neat, pretty, and remote. If it were up close, and you had to feel the body struggle while the person died, a lot of people would be unable to do it.

This is a question for everyone who is against the death penalty.

Is there any case where it is acceptable to use the death penalty? Any crime where it is acceptable, such as killing hundreds of small children, or even killing one person?

I just don't understand why people are against it.
I'm againist the 'death penalty' because it's stupid to kill someone for killing someone.

It's like "eye for an Eye" Society should be more evoled than that.

Mattorn;12079439']And what's this "right to life" stuff? Right given by who (or what?)? Since when is it inalienable?

The problem is it's about the use of power and what uses are permissable for the government to take.

Capital punishment is state sanctioned death. Let's understand that for the moment. It isn't war, it isn't defense of a country, it isn't a battlefield where there's an enemy to be fought. Capital punishment is the power of the state to say to a person "you will die today".

The existance of capital punishment therefore is nothing more than the government having the sanctioned power to end someone's life. It is the government given the power to kill you. And it doesn't matter what limitation that power has, it allows the government to say "If you do X, you die". And it doesn't matter what X is, it could be "kill 100 babies" or "step on the grass", it makes your life conditional. It turns your life into the whim of the state. Once the government is given the authority to end a life, it makes everyone's life, yours, mine, everyone's bound by the will of the state which can say, should circumstances be met, we will kill you.

Even if those circumstances are extreme, it places a condition on your life, and gives the power to the state to revoke your life at its chosing. Such power should never, ever, be given to people.

Capital punishment is state sanctioned death. Let's understand that for the moment. It isn't war, it isn't defense of a country, it isn't a battlefield where there's an enemy to be fought. Capital punishment is the power of the state to say to a person "you will die today".
Whoa, whoa, whoa. There's a big difference between the government just condemning people to death for no reason and the death penalty. You act as if the death penalty would be instituted for everything if it actually is instituted at all. Who are you for, the innocent citizens or the murdering criminals? Yes, it isn't a war--it's protection of the people from harm--like it's the government's job to do. Why else is it there? To tax us? No. To protect the people from harm.

The existance of capital punishment therefore is nothing more than the government having the sanctioned power to end someone's life.
This would be true, but for the "punishment" part.

It is the government given the power to kill you. And it doesn't matter what limitation that power has, it allows the government to say "If you do X, you die".
Exactly. "If you murder someone, you die. If you rape someone, you die."

And it doesn't matter what X is, it could be "kill 100 babies" or "step on the grass", it makes your life conditional.
It totally depends on the type of government you allow to be in authority over yourself. Do you want a communist government? One that controls every aspect of your life?

It turns your life into the whim of the state. Once the government is given the authority to end a life, it makes everyone's life, yours, mine, everyone's bound by the will of the state which can say, should circumstances be met, "we will kill you."
Once again, that depends on the government that you decide to put over yourself. But even still, look at history. American history. Death penalty was instituted, but the government didn't kill everybody, or even close to that number. So now you expect the government to do this now? Why is that?

Even if those circumstances are extreme, it places a condition on your life, and gives the power to the state to revoke your life at its choosing. Such power should never, ever, be given to people.
Hence a nice document called a constitution and several other documents called laws.

The problem is it's about the use of power and what uses are permissable for the government to take.

Capital punishment is state sanctioned death. Let's understand that for the moment. It isn't war, it isn't defense of a country, it isn't a battlefield where there's an enemy to be fought. Capital punishment is the power of the state to say to a person "you will die today".

The existance of capital punishment therefore is nothing more than the government having the sanctioned power to end someone's life. It is the government given the power to kill you. And it doesn't matter what limitation that power has, it allows the government to say "If you do X, you die". And it doesn't matter what X is, it could be "kill 100 babies" or "step on the grass", it makes your life conditional. It turns your life into the whim of the state. Once the government is given the authority to end a life, it makes everyone's life, yours, mine, everyone's bound by the will of the state which can say, should circumstances be met, we will kill you.

Even if those circumstances are extreme, it places a condition on your life, and gives the power to the state to revoke your life at its chosing. Such power should never, ever, be given to people.

Alternatively, replace references to the death penalty with imprisonment, and references to life to freedom.

If the Death Penalty is government sanctioned murder, then imprisonment is state sanctioned kidnapping and fines are state sanctioned theft.

If you don't like an eye for an eye, I assume you're against imprisonment for kidnappers and people who've committed a similar crime, so what punishment should they have?

As Gandalf told Frodo. Chapter 2 of the Fellowship of the Ring, iirc.

added:
see:
Caius Iulius Caesar - speech at the Roman Senate against the death penalty for political crimes requested by Cicero for Catilina, reported by Sallustius
Cesare Beccaria - "Dei delitti e delle pene"

Thassrite. Support one's argument with classic penmanship. Its oratory innit.

Who are you for, the innocent citizens or the murdering criminals?
Too often when people speak against the death penalty we are accused of being more for the perpetrator then for the victim. I resent that argument. Most of the arguments as can be seen in this thread are about the reliability of the system and a moral committment to not lowering ourselves to the same status as murderers, rapists etc.

In a democracy where the death penalty exists, appeals and pardons become subject to political expediency. For example in the case of Derek Bentley* (one of the last people hung in the UK) the Home Secretary is quoted years later of rejecting an appeal for clemancy as he felt he would have the cabinet at his throat at a time the party was anxiuos to show it was hard on crime. Derek Bentley neither pulled the trigger and in fact was in police custody when PC Stanley Miles was killed. However the shooter was too young to hang. It seems likely that the Home secretary benefitted in the short term from his decision becoming Lord Chacellor and being ennobled as Lord Kilmuir within 2 years.

Where expediency is involved prejudices and discrimination will start to appear. As I understand it a young black man convicted of a crime is more likely to be killed then an older white male in similar circumstances.

Lord Kilmuir in discussing an appeal with the barrister john Parris is quoted as saying at the end of their meeting *
Everyting you have urged in his favour, his feeble-mindedness, his illiteracy, his epilepsy and so on, merely goes to confirm the conclusion that I had already come to. He is a young man that society can do without

In the UK we are at a stage where out current home secretary wants to be seen to be tough on crime. This is fine however being tough on crime should be fair, accurate and repairable. The death penalty can be wrongly applied if so there is no fixing the consequences John Bentley's family were still seeking a posthumous royal pardon 40 years after the hanging.

*Source "Scapegoat - the inside story of the trial of Derek Bentley hanged at Wandsworth 28 January 1953" by John Parris

Mattorn;12079439']And what's this "right to life" stuff? Right given by who (or what?)? Since when is it inalienable?

Heh so you don't belive in a right to life then? You have no rights over your own life, and you belive that anybody has the right to end your life at anytime and you have no say in the matter. Is that what you are asking?

In a democracy where the death penalty exists, appeals and pardons become subject to political expediency. I prefer a type of government that has laws to prevent those in authority from ruling according to their own feelings on the matter, aka abuse. Sadly, even these laws are ignored many times anyway. A bummer, to be certain.

As I understand it a young black man convicted of a crime is more likely to be killed then an older white male in similar circumstances.
I would disagree with that, although I can't answer for all who would be in a position to sentence. See, if people are convinced that black people are disadvantaged in court, they will tend to try to "even out" the odds by ruling at least partially in favor of those who are "disadvantaged". Wouldn't you have the same thought process in the shoes of the judge?


Heh so you don't belive in a right to life then? You have no rights over your own life, and you belive that anybody has the right to end your life at anytime and you have no say in the matter. Is that what you are asking?Oh, haha! Heck yes, I know exactly where I get my right to life. However, I'd like to know where you all get your "right to life", which is the purpose of what I said there.