darkSpyro

i was just wondering. some states in the U.S. still allow it, and more and more countries are ridding of it. the U.S. is the only one of the big seven groiup who still does it, apparently.

I don't know, I think it's fine.

Most definitely

Depends on the crime and how proven guilty they are
Once the death penalty has been carried out, there's no going back for new evidence.

beat em down

If there's absolutely 0 doubt they're guilty and their crime is especially horrible, then yeah.

Depends on the crime

I'm waiting for Mary I to show up here.

kill everyone now

Depends on the crime

If they robbed a bank, no

if they raped and killed a family, hell to the yes

I think it is not right to revenge evil with evil.

Life in prison can be seen even as a worst penalty then killing. I think one mistake made with death penalty is enough to prove Why there should not be such a thing. What criminals have Done should end in jail, and for How long should depend about the fact what is their crime. We can never take back mistakes made, but we Can do something if the place is always jail. The idea of jail or a legal system should not be to revenge crime. It should be to help those people who can make it back to the society after jail and lock away those which have done something that they can never be part of society again.

Depends on the crime, imo.

If someone stole or sold drugs, then no. Going to the cells will do.

If someone did something more serious - like killed a lot of people or the like - then yes, use the death penalty for sure.

but for real, the death penalty just isn't right for the modern society. the road to execution in states that still have it is a tedious and messy process full of repeals and legal blabber, and a waste of taxpayers' money.

does not depend on the crime; even jaywalkers should get the chair

if it was immediate upon sentence and only done when the guilty verdict was 100% and was only used on mass murderers, molesters and pedophiles then yes

I used to be a strong supporter of it, but now I am more on the fence.

If they're definitely guilty, then yes, certainly. Why keep them alive when that's just wasting resources?

However, if they're not 100% guilty, then probably not. No turning back once you've killed the wrong person.

Against it.

Do some people deserve to die? Absolutely. Should the government have the right to make that decision? Absolutely not.

I think it should only be applied when we know for absolute certain that the person is guilty (which we usually don't, but sometimes we do, like with Nikolas Cruz), but I'm definitely not against it in principle. To be brutally honest, I simply don't value the lives of psychopathic mass murderers. I don't think of the death penalty as punishment, I think of it as ridding the world of trash.

On the one hand, only if there is absolute and total proof that the crime was committed by someone would I be in favour of it. On the other, I think it martyrs people. I'm glad that Charles Manson died in prison from natural causes because, while it was a peaceful way to go and I agree it was too good for him, the state killing him gives ammunition to those who oppose the state. He's now a sad footnote in the annals of history, his Family will wither away and nought will remain but ashes of a bygone age, and we'll move on as we always do until we die.

My opinions on this would no doubt change if a loved one of mine was murdered, I'd be frothing at the mouth going out for revenge. But that hasn't happened yet, and I'm grateful that it hasn't. I'm grateful there are preventative measures to stop that even being a possibility, and I would rather we have more of those and the Death Penalty becomes a bedtime story to make the serial killers eat their greens. But at what cost do these measures come? Invasion of privacy? Loss of personal identity? Guilty until proven innocent?

I believe that where I'm from people want drama, especially of the gruesome nature. The song "Murder Show" by Motorhead adequately describes the locals' need for blood. They love violence on our telly, tutting at the lack of police patrols but deciding to keep their heads down when they see bullies. While they ask for video games to be banned because they make children violent, there's fights breaking out on daytime reality TV and another pub gets blown up in Coronation Street at 7PM. We are totally desensitized to violence to the point where folks don't recognise how good they have it, and yet not even a school shooting raises their pulse because it's so common and so easy to access info on. The Running Man may well become reality - "folks are gonna die anyway, might as well make some money on it!"

I really am sorry for taking this way off topic. It's something that I'm very passionate about and in my attempts to look at all sides, it usually boils down to either a nightmare of Orwellian surveillance and total obliteration of the human race. I'm rather glad we've not had to resort to either of those yet!

^no, you're good. i like hearing detailed explanations of why people think the way they do about something when I make topics like this.

Quote: Metallo

Against it.

Do some people deserve to die? Absolutely. Should the government have the right to make that decision? Absolutely not.

Interesting.... do you have any ideas of what we could do? (Not being condescending, just asking.)

Fully against it, 100%.
The average time that someone spends on death row is 15 years. That's just cruel and unusual punishment at that point. There's no absolute certainty that someone who is innocent won't be unjustly sentenced, and I would rather see 10000 criminals walk away free than a single innocent person be punished. Our judicial system is heavily flawed and often people are stuck with defense attorneys that fail them. It's a barbaric violation of human rights, and I don't believe anyone on Earth has the right to decide whether someone deserves to die or not.
Also, punishments for criminal behavior are supposed to act as deterrents for crime, and there's no evidence to suggest that the death penalty is even a deterrent at all. I think it's a really gross practice that should've been abolished years ago and I'm genuinely surprised that it hasn't been in the US, especially with the recent overly sensitive culture.

Blah blah an eye for an eye yadda yadda

^ I'd rather kill an innocent person than have criminals roam the streets. Your opinion of 10000 criminals free would lead to mass disaster.

^as a matter of fact, our tax dollars support these prisoners their entire sentence. we pay for their food, tv, programs, etc. our tax dollars go to waste no matter what, because we're giving them better lives in prison then they may/may not deserve.

*not being snippy, I just thought it was good to toss on the table*

I just personally value freedom over safety. If our government gets to decide who lives and who doesn't, where does that lead?

For some reason I have the urge to write something about this issue, even though I honestly don't care about it. But here it goes.

I had a little thought here and there for both sides but eventually when broken down to basics, I said no to death penalty. It is illogical; it doesn't add up.

Well there is something about the issue. Yes, I covered that part, alright.

Quote: DirtPrincess

I just personally value freedom over safety. If our government gets to decide who lives and who doesn't, where does that lead?

Found the chaotic neutral.

Quote: StormDragon21

Quote: DirtPrincess

I just personally value freedom over safety. If our government gets to decide who lives and who doesn't, where does that lead?

Found the chaotic neutral.

Honestly, I think the only people who would value freedom over safety would be the people who are threatening people's safety. Sometimes, we have to give up stuff to deter the risk of getting ransacked or killed.

Quote: StormDragon21

Quote: StormDragon21

Quote: DirtPrincess

I just personally value freedom over safety. If our government gets to decide who lives and who doesn't, where does that lead?

Found the chaotic neutral.

Honestly, I think the only people who would value freedom over safety would be the people who are threatening people's safety. Sometimes, we have to give up stuff to deter the risk of getting ransacked or killed.

Prisons work way more effectively than the death penalty. I could see that argument if I was saying "abolish prisons". I just don't understand how occasionally killing a handful of people who may or may not be guilty after torturing them for years and years with the anticipation of their death is in any way an effective solution to crime.

Quote: DirtPrincess

Quote: StormDragon21

Quote: StormDragon21

Found the chaotic neutral.

Honestly, I think the only people who would value freedom over safety would be the people who are threatening people's safety. Sometimes, we have to give up stuff to deter the risk of getting ransacked or killed.

Prisons work way more effectively than the death penalty. I could see that argument if I was saying "abolish prisons". I just don't understand how occasionally killing a handful of people who may or may not be guilty after torturing them for years and years with the anticipation of their death is in any way an effective solution to crime.

What was the quote

Something about giving up freedom for safety, IDK

Quote: DirtPrincess

and I don't believe anyone on Earth has the right to decide whether someone deserves to die or not.

The "right to decide" argument has always confused me. I mean, who gave you the right to decide that we don't have the right to decide who deserves to die?


Rights are a concept made up by humans. We give ourselves our rights.

Quote: Sesshomaru75

Quote: Muffin Man

Quote: DirtPrincess

and I don't believe anyone on Earth has the right to decide whether someone deserves to die or not.

The "right to decide" argument has always confused me. I mean, who gave you the right to decide that we don't have the right to decide who deserves to die?

Rights are a concept made up by humans. We give ourselves our rights.

It's a morality thing. And by saying that you're also implying that killers have the "right" to kill other people because we can just give ourselves rights when that isn't how it works at all.

Who decided that killers don't have the right to kill people? We did, as a community. We decide what people have the right to do and not do. The only difference between the killer who decides he has the right to kill and the community that decides he does not have the right to kill is that the killer is outnumbered by the community.

If we decide we have the right to execute a criminal, then we have the right. If we decide we don't, then we don't. The question is: how does each possible choice benefit or harm us as a community?

Quote: parisruelz12

Quote: Metallo

Against it.

Do some people deserve to die? Absolutely. Should the government have the right to make that decision? Absolutely not.

Interesting.... do you have any ideas of what we could do? (Not being condescending, just asking.)

Life sentences. You know, like almost every other developed country on the planet.

The only real argument against it is "hurr durr the taxpayer's dollars" but on average it actually costs the state more to execute someone than it does to house them for life.

I know the source seems biased, but it cites other legitimate sources.

As for the question of who deserves to die versus who doesn't, I like the current laws (which vary across states, but mine is Georgia for reference) regarding the use of lethal force in cases of self-defense. In other words, killing someone to stop them from doing a deed is a completely different moral situation from killing them after the deed is done.

Quote: Sesshomaru75

I don't really agree with that personally, as that logic is flawed at best. Killing is killing, simple as that. I still stand by my point that execution is the easy way out, and that violence only breeds more violence.

"If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remains the same."

-Batman

Quote: Sesshomaru75

I don't really agree with that personally, as that logic is flawed at best. Killing is killing, simple as that. I still stand by my point that execution is the easy way out, and that violence only breeds more violence.

How is the logic flawed? What is your reasoning for all killing being the same? You even say yourself that death inflicts less suffering than life in prison. What exactly makes killing a criminal any worse than keeping them trapped in a cell their whole lives?


Quote: Metallo

"If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remains the same."

-Batman

Did Batman really say that? Because that math doesn't work out for him. He could have saved thousands of non-killers by killing about a dozen killers. Then there would only be one killer instead of a dozen (that killer being Batman, who would only be killing criminals), and thousands more non-killers still alive.

Quote: Sesshomaru75

How is it not flawed? If you're killing someone who's already locked up, how does that bring back the people that they killed?
You're trying to justify murder with murder, which makes absolutely no sense, especially when there's no point to it when they can't go anywhere.

I just personally feel that life in prison is better because they'll actually suffer that way, whereas by killing them you're just giving them the easy way out and over glorifying their crime by committing something that is equally as bad.
That, and from what I understand, a lot of criminals on deaths row actually want to get the death penalty because of the fact that it's the easier way out and that it basically glorifies their crime. The cons outnumber the pros, in my opinion.

i just don't agree with killing someone who's locked up and literally can't do anything. Don't see how that's hard to understand, really.

What you're saying here isn't addressing the question of "who gives us the right to decide". You're mixing in a separate discussion, about the practical benefits and detriments of the death penality and our motivation for having it. I'm strictly talking about the idea, which is often brought up in these kinds of discussions, that we do not have the "right" to decide. We have the right as long as we give ourselves the right.

But to address what you're saying: The goal of the death penalty isn't to bring back the victim. Nor is it punishment, in my view. It's merely disposal. I don't place any value in the continued existence of mass murderers, child rapists, and people of that nature. It is like if I were to have a cancerous growth cut out of me and have it disposed of. Disposing of the cancerous growth will not bring back the healthy tissue that it destroyed, but that does not somehow make me place value in the cancerous growth as though it were itself healthy tissue.

I do, however, think there are strong arguments against the death penalty, when it comes to practicality. The most obvious being that we often put innocent people to death. But, again, that's a completely separate matter from the matter of "do we have the right to execute criminals".

I see it this way

The reason why the death penalty exists is because prison is kind of weird

Not only is it possible for prisoners to have reduced sentences, but they can also sneakily escape too

Let's say that there is a serial killer, who kills 5 families of 4

Would you think he should get the death penalty or no?