Do You Support the Death Penalty?

[rightwinger]

The way we use the death penalty today? Nope

Lengthy trial, appeals, more appeals...even more appeals

Ten years later you get an execution

 

[Alvin]

No I do not. I am totally against it for a couple of reasons.

1. People are fallible, and even a jury can get it wrong.

So as long as the punishment procludes the ability to put things right, then it shouldn't be given.

2. As much as I like the idea, a death penalty isn't a punishment, it's revenge. Please see above.

3. Death is easy. Supermax for (for the remainder of your natural) life isn't..

4. In the case of serial killers etc, death means you loose a shitload of research material. Without which you can't accuratly predict the type of sick fuck you are looking for next time.

 

[IDSSTING39]

I used to be for the death penalty... I hardly ever change my stance on something but on this issue I did. I believe that the death penalty does not stand for justice, if you are rich, you get away with it. If you are poor and from the inner city you are most likely going to get convicted... and with DNA evidence there have just been to many mistakes imprisoning and taking the lives of innocent people...

 

[xotoxi]

Do you support the death penalty?

Yes I do.

Does that make me a bad man?

 

[IDSSTING39]

Do you support the death penalty?

Yes I do.

Does that make me a bad man?

No, cuse I wish we could have a way to which the death penalty could actually work... theres just too many flaws with the current system..

 

[Alvin]

Do you support the death penalty?

Yes I do.

Does that make me a bad man?

Yes.
It does.

Because you assume that those deciding the issue of life or death are more perfect than you. You have gotten things wrong before, been in situations where you were sure it was one thing but it turned out you had it completely arse about face......but in this instance "Sorry-I-Fucked-Up" doesn't fix it.

Therefor it follows that you must never perform an action that can't be undone because there is always a chance that someone, somewhere along the line, fucked up.

Now ponder this....

If you kill those who are guilty, it's called "Execution".
But there is another possibility.
If you kill those who turn out to be innocent, it's called "Murder".

So if it's found later that you killed an innocent? What should your penalty be?

 

[xotoxi]

So if it's found later that you killed an innocent? What should your penalty be?

Ooooops!

Too bad the accused's lawyer wasn't good enough to create a reasonable doubt amongst jurors.

 

[Skeptik]

I used to be for the death penalty... I hardly ever change my stance on something but on this issue I did. I believe that the death penalty does not stand for justice, if you are rich, you get away with it. If you are poor and from the inner city you are most likely going to get convicted... and with DNA evidence there have just been to many mistakes imprisoning and taking the lives of innocent people...

I used to be for the death penalty also, then I read an essay bout how the death penalty puts too much power in the hands of the government. That got me thinking. Then I read The Innocent Man, by Grisham, a book about an actual death row inmate who was proven innocent. Of course, that's a novel, but it is about a real case. Then there was the innocence project that has exonerated over 200 people who had been found guilty.

Now, I'm against the death penalty.

I think anyone who reads the above and thinks about it will be against it too.

 

[JW Frogen]

I think anyone who reads the above and thinks about it will be against it too.

You have never been to Texas, have you?

 

[Skeptik]

I think anyone who reads the above and thinks about it will be against it too.

You have never been to Texas, have you?

No, come to think of it, I've never been to Texas.

Surely, there are at least a few Texans who read books and think about them, aren't there? Books other than the Holy Bible, I mean.

 

[Samson]

I used to be for the death penalty also, then I read an essay bout how the death penalty puts too much power in the hands of the government. That got me thinking. Then I read The Innocent Man, by Grisham, a book about an actual death row inmate who was proven innocent. Of course, that's a novel, but it is about a real case. Then there was the innocence project that has exonerated over 200 people who had been found guilty.

Now, I'm against the death penalty.

I think anyone who reads the above and thinks about it will be against it too.

See, this here is exactly the kinda foolishness that comes from too much book-learnin'.

Son, Ah kin see yaller confused own this here issha, so lemme SIM-PLY-FLY it fer ya:

Gawd will Sort 'Em Out.

 

[IDSSTING39]

I think anyone who reads the above and thinks about it will be against it too.

You have never been to Texas, have you?

No but I believe they have executed over 400 people right? and my home state of CA has executed only 12 I believe....

 

[antagon]

i dont see any real implications either way. id let people who care sort this out.

indifferent.

 

[JD_2B]

I am against it. Any time the government kills a person or animal, regardless of the person or animal's "guilt", it is really just an animalistic means of releasing anger and getting back at the person for whatever their crime was. Long ago, even in biblical times, people were allowed to be stoned to death for the stupidest shit possible. If we used the death penalty for such crimes as adultery and, well, every other of the ten commandments, then we certainly would not live in a more peaceful society.. we would just live in a far less populated, and more policed one.

The point here is that we may have evolved in language, but we are still a hunter- gatherer society. The problem is, why do we not USE our understanding of our own sociological and anthropological misgivings on crime and punishment, to create a better society? As it stands we have a very neanderthalic Three Strike system, which is much akin to a fire breathing dragon of yore telling the village people that if they try to pummel it's castle (because it did something that scared them, or hurt them somehow) again, they will be more than scorched, they will be burned alive. See that doesn't make sense, because then the village people will again think- well this time, we are not just going to send this dragon away, we are going to kill it. Then you get into a whole big bloodfest, and nobody can win. Instead, all that remains are feelings of hate and aa general state of social unrest overall.

I think the whole damned system is FUBAR. Why the hell anyone could possibly think that killing someone somehow fixes or does some kind of resititution to the family of the murderer's victim, is beyond me. All it really does is cause more feelings of guilt, that people hide deep down inside, knowing full well that if it was wrong to kill one person, then it cannot be right to kill another one, at least not unless it happens during the commission of a crime, in an attempt to stop the criminal.

We have stringent rules about deadly force, which the death chamber happens to BE, and yet we do not seem to have the sensibility to apply that to "sentencing". Reee-tarrr-ded!!!

Guh!!

 

[IDSSTING39]

I am against it. Any time the government kills a person or animal, regardless of the person or animal's "guilt", it is really just an animalistic means of releasing anger and getting back at the person for whatever their crime was. Long ago, even in biblical times, people were allowed to be stoned to death for the stupidest shit possible. If we used the death penalty for such crimes as adultery and, well, every other of the ten commandments, then we certainly would not live in a more peaceful society.. we would just live in a far less populated, and more policed one.

The point here is that we may have evolved in language, but we are still a hunter- gatherer society. The problem is, why do we not USE our understanding of our own sociological and anthropological misgivings on crime and punishment, to create a better society? As it stands we have a very neanderthalic Three Strike system, which is much akin to a fire breathing dragon of yore telling the village people that if they try to pummel it's castle (because it did something that scared them, or hurt them somehow) again, they will be more than scorched, they will be burned alive. See that doesn't make sense, because then the village people will again think- well this time, we are not just going to send this dragon away, we are going to kill it. Then you get into a whole big bloodfest, and nobody can win. Instead, all that remains are feelings of hate and aa general state of social unrest overall.

I think the whole damned system is FUBAR. Why the hell anyone could possibly think that killing someone somehow fixes or does some kind of resititution to the family of the murderer's victim, is beyond me. All it really does is cause more feelings of guilt, that people hide deep down inside, knowing full well that if it was wrong to kill one person, then it cannot be right to kill another one, at least not unless it happens during the commission of a crime, in an attempt to stop the criminal.

We have stringent rules about deadly force, which the death chamber happens to BE, and yet we do not seem to have the sensibility to apply that to "sentencing". Reee-tarrr-ded!!!

Guh!!

I agree with you on the fact that the current death penalty system does not bring justice.... but, if you have outstanding PROOF, like a confession, video footage, any thing that we would know indefinitely that the person committed a MURDER, for no apprent reason, then they should get the death penalty. I don't think its working the way it is now because of all the innocent that are now dead, but if we know somebody did it that person has every right to be killed. And if you don't think the victims families don't get some restitution out of it then you have some research to do honey........
You sound like all the flaming liberals that are in my classes

 

[Alvin]

So if it's found later that you killed an innocent? What should your penalty be?

Ooooops!

Too bad the accused's lawyer wasn't good enough to create a reasonable doubt amongst jurors.

Reasonable doubt is a very subjective criteria for ending the life of a person. This person was innocent. They never in any way broke the law. They never in fact, even got a parking ticket before they were wrongfully accused of this crime. They had a family, raised kids, paid their taxes, coached little league, were active in their church, donated to charity etc....

A crime for which they were proven innocent without any possible doubt later on......lets say by DNA or some such....

What should be the judge and jury's penalty for being accomplices to the death of this person.
And the one who administered the injection/threw the switch/pulled the leaver?

Remember they have just ended the life of an innocent person. Or comitted "Murder" if you will. It's well documented in the court transcripts etc.



Now personally, if you could gaurentee infalibility, I'd throw the switch on each and every bugger myself.

 

[p kirkes]

I, personally support the death penalty, even wish to expand it to all crimes where a weapon is used or someone is killed.

But, I observe, am in a minority. Of the 192 nations in the world, about 140 have abolished or don't use the death penalty. Even states within the US are using it less or outright abolishing the death penalty. A substantial reduction of it's use has been seen in the last few years in America.

Predictably, my Baptist Sunday School class, in a predominately Red district, supports the death penalty for the usual reasons: deterrence, justice, safety of society.

If the death penalty is abolished completely in America what would the effect be on society? Probably minimal as far as deterrence. Life imprisonment without parole would be the next choice for Jurors to make and many would welcome that.