Are you for or against the death penalty ?

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I am for it as long as there is indisputable evidence. Someone like OJ I would put in jail for life. Someone like the Long Island Railroad gunman I would sentence to death.
 

Lazerbeam

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Posts
12
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
36

All I have to say is that I am for the death penalty, purely on the basis that certain criminal acts are so heinous that they deserve fitting punishment. I think we, as society, reach a certain state, of denial or whatever you’d like to call it, where we see the world as this lovely place where everything runs smoothly and crime is a bad dream.

well a fitting punishment is debatable. Surely a fitting punishment would be long term suffering rather than a quick painless death injection? Many see that as an easy way out.

and I don't know of anybody who thinks along the lines of the last part. I think society as a whole views the world with very cynical eyes.
 

Not_Punny

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
5,464
Media
109
Likes
3,056
Points
258
Location
California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
A few improvements I would make to my state's civil/justice system:

-- Surgically implant a GPS receiver (location device) into anyone convicted of a brutal crime, such as murder, rape with battery, torture, etc. This eliminates the argument, "what if they escape and do it again?" (This is one of the rationales used by pro-execution people.)

-- Completely overhaul the sentencing system. A system that puts away people for a long time for minor crimes (e.g. drug possession), while locking up violent offenders for relatively little time, is seriously broken. Add to that all the behind-doors-bargaining, and you have a system that can only be called corrupt.

I do not know if this is true of all states in the USA, but it is true in my state.
 

BobLeeSwagger

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Posts
1,455
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't oppose the idea of executing, say, a serial killer who killed multiple victims and is certain to be guilty. In principle, I don't think that executing the most heinous of all criminals is the worst idea in the world.

However, we haven't come close to devising a system that applies this sentence in a rational way. It mainly servers as state-sponsored revenge on the behalf of a victim's family. A small group of people feel a little better knowing that such a person has been put to death instead of rotting in prison, but it has absolutely no effect on the rest of society.

DNA evidence has exonerated quite a few death-row inmates. As long as there's any doubt that everyone on death row right now is guilty, there should be a moratorium on executions. It's irresponsible to do otherwise. Then there's the difficulty of applying it in a fair way. Black murderers are statistically more likely to be sentenced to death, even when accounting for the different circumstances of crimes. And a large proportion of death-row inmates were provided poor defense lawyers to plead their cases.

Most disturbing to me is the argument that it deters criminals from committing crimes. There is no reason to believe this is true. How can a punishment that is applied to less than one percent of all people who commit homicides possibly be a deterrent? If anything, they've been given guidelines about how not to get the death penalty.

I have no problem with death-row inmates being allowed multiple appeals before being executed. (Although I agree that there's no way it should take as long as it does.) We should absolutely do due diligence to make absolutely sure that the inmate is not only guilty, but also had a completely fair trial in court. But it's worth ending the death penalty for the cost savings alone. Setting aside legal expenses, it costs far more to house death-row inmates than those sentenced to life in prison. This for prisoners who are more likely to die of suicide or natural causes than to actually be executed.

Until we have a system that we could be confident in, I oppose capital punishment.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
No. It's revenge.

That is my opinion exactly. Is it clear that the death penalty is superior for accomplishing the following goals over other forms of punishment:

- Rehabilitation: No
- Public Safety: No
- Disincentive: No
- Cost to public: No
- Revenge: Yes
 

Thirdlegproduction

Formerly WhiteMonst3r
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Posts
1,526
Media
13
Likes
2,593
Points
368
Location
Amsterdam (North Holland, Netherlands)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
we dont have death penalty over here but I believe that some people are deserving of death. People who rape children will never be sane or able to live back in society and even if they could I wouldn't want to give em that opportunity anyway.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Judicial murder is wrong - because it is murder.

It is wrong even if there is 100% certainty that someone committed the most horrific crimes. While there are certainly practical issues around the miscarriage of justice these practical issues are not the telling objection - rather the act of judicial murder is wrong in itself. It harms the society that carries out the judicial murder. It may also harm the soul of the murdered in that it takes away time for repentance.

Judicial murder is illegal in international law. It is the position of the moral code of the major religions, including the OT commandment "thou shalt not kill" and the NT "love thy neighbour as thyself".

When nations including Iran, China, Sudan and the USA break this basic legal and moral position they deserve the sympathy of all for the damage they are inflicting on their societies. We can all hope that we will be able to persuade them to desist from judicial murder and grow their societies.
 

D_Kay_Sarah_Sarah

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,331
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
193
Absolutely for the death penalty. Especially in extreme cases such as serial killers and mass murdered. I don't think our taxes should be spent keeping such evil people alive when it could be spent helping the families of the ones they have harmed.


However this is only in cases where the evidence is100% proven, such as with video footage of the crime or a confession.
 

DasLeezard

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Posts
540
Media
3
Likes
47
Points
263
Location
Washington State
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I am pro-life AND pro-death penalty.


My reasoning: The unborn child has not had the chance to make their mark on this world. They are the future scientists, doctors, lawyers, parents, teachers... taking away that chance for delicious baby toes to be brought forth unto this planet because you couldn't use protection or keep it in your pants (rape and ectopic pregnancies aside, ffs people don't light the torches yet) is so sad. They haven't messed up OR had a chance to find a cure for cancer. Pro-choice is exercising your choice for birth control (multiple forms!) or not having sex, and using common sense.

Rape is a fucking horrible, evil deed. I feel for those that endure that hell.
Ectopic pregnancies are a heartbreaking occurrence, but they happen.
Pregnancies that will endanger the life of the mother are also sad, and they, too, happen.

Those are the only times in my mind that abortion is acceptable.


I am pro-death penalty for the fact that I canNOT enjoy the thought of someone, for my statement, a child molester, living off the dime of taxpayers, getting three hots and a cot and a roof over their head. So what if they're getting beat every day, or they're in solitary for however long? I'm not for letting some sickfuck live as some poor child is suffering through some bullshit and garbage for the rest of their natural life? I'd rather tell a kid that the bad person is gone and will never hurt them again, then to tell them that the bad person is locked up for a very long time.... but what about parole? They bought their ticket. Let them ride.


That's the short version. I could go into detail about who should and should not get the death penalty, but I would hope that common sense would prevail in your assumptions in who I would like to see fry and who I would like to see released back into society.



NOTE: This is my personal opinion, and I'm not trying to 'convert' people into my line of thinking, so let no such fuckery cross your mind. Thank you.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Absolutely for the death penalty. Especially in extreme cases such as serial killers and mass murdered. I don't think our taxes should be spent keeping such evil people alive when it could be spent helping the families of the ones they have harmed.


However this is only in cases where the evidence is100% proven, such as with video footage of the crime or a confession.


Three problems here.

1) You will never get 100% proof. People confess to crimes they didn't commit. Video can be misleading or faked. If you have judicial murder you have to accept that there will be some innocent people murdered.

2) It is much cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than to go through the costs of the legal process required in the USA for judicial murder. (Of course this probably doesn't apply in China, Iran and some other regimes, at least not in terms of the direct costs). There are also hidden costs for countries in the form of sanctions and restrictions on trade and being treated by the international community as beneath contempt. China may come to move away from judicial murder precisely because of the steady international condemnation which is being perceived as costing that country trade and influence.

3) Judicial murder breaches international law which reflects a very broadly agreed moral view. The clout of the USA means that no nation feels able to sanction the USA. But the time must be coming when we get a private prosecution. For example the UK can try under international law a crime committed by a US citizen in the USA, say the former-governor of a US state that has the death penalty could be tried for murder. Such a prosecution could be brought by an individual (it would be expensive). I think there would be treaty restrictions on trying an acting governor so it would have to be someone retired - and I guess the person concerned would have to travel to the UK and be arrested in the UK. The USA has recently seen in the decision of the Scottish courts to release the Lockerbie bomber that courts within the UK are willing to defy US views and UK political pressure.
 

D_Kay_Sarah_Sarah

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,331
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
193
Three problems here.

1) You will never get 100% proof. People confess to crimes they didn't commit. Video can be misleading or faked. If you have judicial murder you have to accept that there will be some innocent people murdered.
"Just in case" isn't really a legitimate argument. If it was then nobody would be in jail 'just in case" they were innocent.

2)
It is much cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than to go through the costs of the legal process required in the USA for judicial murder. (Of course this probably doesn't apply in China, Iran and some other regimes, at least not in terms of the direct costs). There are also hidden costs for countries in the form of sanctions and restrictions on trade and being treated by the international community as beneath contempt. China may come to move away from judicial murder precisely because of the steady international condemnation which is being perceived as costing that country trade and influence.
Regardless if person is given life in prison or sentenced to the death penalty a legal case is still going to cost money. My problem is not spending the money on finding the persons innocence/guilt. And if the death penalty is an option then a lot more time and resources should be spent to determine the outcome is correct. But once that outcome is decided, and if it is guilty, then the person should not have the choice to live just as their victim/s weren't given the choice.

3) Judicial murder breaches international law which reflects a very broadly agreed moral view. The clout of the USA means that no nation feels able to sanction the USA. But the time must be coming when we get a private prosecution. For example the UK can try under international law a crime committed by a US citizen in the USA, say the former-governor of a US state that has the death penalty could be tried for murder. Such a prosecution could be brought by an individual (it would be expensive). I think there would be treaty restrictions on trying an acting governor so it would have to be someone retired - and I guess the person concerned would have to travel to the UK and be arrested in the UK. The USA has recently seen in the decision of the Scottish courts to release the Lockerbie bomber that courts within the UK are willing to defy US views and UK political pressure.
I guess this is where extradition treaties come into place. Sanctions, moral views or punishment severity should not even be taken into consideration, it should be an automatic that the person in question is to be sent back to the country the crime was initially committed in.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The UK asserts "Universal Jurisdiction", ie jurisdiction over people of all nationalities for crimes committed anywhere against international law. Trial is within the UK under the appropriate UK legal code (basically English or Scots law). Anyone involved in judicial murder anywhere in the world is liable for trial in the UK - with some restrictions for acting heads of state and similar (though not retired heads of state, eg Pinochet). The UK could in theory demand extradition of a national from their own nation to stand trial in the UK though in practice the case only arises when the person visits the UK. It is an old concept with new teeth because of the growing body of international law. Whatever people in the USA might think about judicial murder, sooner or later there is going to be a court case to apply international law.
 

D_Abraham Slinkin

Account Disabled
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Posts
105
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
51
Personally, I'm against it.

No one has the right to take anyones life away, life is precious. No matter how awful a thing someone has done, you don't then punish them by doing that same evil thing.
I struggle to see how people can justify the death penalty. It's something I associate with harsh dictatorships like the Nazis, modern day Iran & China - not the USA.