Death Penalty Poll

Èibhear

Simi wrote: »

Ya see I think it's immoral, so do all intelligent people. And your right, you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs and opinions. I still yearn for the good old days when you and your right wing buddies weren't around to express them. Oh and you are socially right wing if you believe in the death penalty. Sorry I had to be the one to tell you.

Ahh, the good ol days...

Now which days are we talking about? Public beheadings with dull axes by untrained men? Being hung, drawn, and quartered? Hangings for looking at someone wrong? Being burned alive for being a "witch"? Because in those Good Ol Days, you would be in a very different position.

Intelligent people wouldn't fight over religion to the point of killing one another in this day and age. Shiite/Sunni's...... cough cough Protestants and Catholics..:rolleyes:

slipss

sdonn_1 wrote: »

Bring in as a substitute lifelong solitary confinement with no communication outside of the prison for..................those who are/were in charge of drug dealing of any kind.

So someone that stabs someone to death, burns someones home to the ground or rapes and beats some girl should get normal prison time but someone that sells a bit of weed should be driven mentally insane through a period of extended isolation? Those are some pretty mad priorities you've got there buddy.

slipss

Èibhear wrote: »

My State executes the worst of the worst and I don't have a problem with it. We also have the most inmates on death row at 667.


Some argue that you do nothing good by taking a life, to which I agree to an extent. Look at war, in this case you have two men on either side, no bad blood between them personally, trying to kill/injure each other; for nothing more then order of a leader. Not knowing anything about how each one could be an outstading family man and leader in their own community back home.
When I think about it like that, how many lives we have lost for god and country, it seems trivial for me to feel sad for a single man answering for his brutal crimes.
The death penalty isn't meant for all crimes, just the most brutal, twisted examples of human disregard of life. It also help to remind people that they will be held accountable for their actions, considering the crime has to be premeditated, possibly deterring them.

Some deterrent........

Simi

Èibhear wrote: »

Ahh, the good ol days...

Now which days are we talking about? Public beheadings with dull axes by untrained men? Being hung, drawn, and quartered? Hangings for looking at someone wrong? Being burned alive for being a "witch"? Because in those Good Ol Days, you would be in a very different position.

Intelligent people wouldn't fight over religion to the point of killing one another in this day and age. Shiite/Sunni's...... cough cough Protestants and Catholics..:rolleyes:

What on earth are you talking about? The good old days I was referring to were the mid-late 90's before you lot all learned to use the internet. Well not you specifically because your American.

Also people who fight over religion aren't very bright. Not that I can recall mentioning religion in my post? Nor do I mention that I prescribe to any of those religions?

Oh and you'll notice that almost every civilised country in the world asides from most notably yours, Japan and India (1 execution in the last decade, so hopefully it's on the way out) either don't practice the death penalty or have banned it outright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

Lockstep

Èibhear wrote: »

Ahh, the good ol days...

Now which days are we talking about? Public beheadings with dull axes by untrained men? Being hung, drawn, and quartered? Hangings for looking at someone wrong? Being burned alive for being a "witch"? Because in those Good Ol Days, you would be in a very different position.

Yeah, the internet was mad in those days.

flyton5

i couldnt find torture by rape.....surely there must be the option of torture by rape.....

here's what i'd do.....a pneumatic drill.....a 20inch dildo.....no lube.....subject them to being penetrated by that every day for a year then ask them will they re-offend.....then no matter what they say let them have it for another year....then throw away the key....bastards

mountainyman

kleefarr wrote: »

By a Mod or by the OP? (I know it can be done via the "edit" button. )

I don 't think I can edit the poll.

mountainyman

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

How creepily disturbing that only one-quarter of people think it is immoral....

A person may deserve to die, but no one has the right to kill.

Killing in the defense of IRELAND is an act of great heroism. The executioner shows moral courage.

mountainyman

Quinine wrote: »

Careful now, with that kind of talk you're liable to be labelled a "do gooder" and have the psychotic masses of AH descend upon you for ever thinking of treating your fellow man with an ounce of humanity.

It's sad that we now live in an age where arguments championing even the rights of criminals is frowned upon. I know I've used it before but this quote by Thomas Paine illustrates, in part, why I feel the way I do:

Apart from this, killing the criminal does not undo the crime. Nor does it bring back the person they murdered, if that was their crime.
It's only purpose is to give a visceral and sickening glee to those connected to the victim.

It is much cheaper than life meaning life imprisonment. China eliminated opium addiction through large scale use of the death penalty in the 1950s. Ireland could do the same to heroin addiction.

mountainyman

Simi wrote: »

Ya see I think it's immoral, so do all intelligent people. And your right, you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs and opinions. I still yearn for the good old days when you and your right wing buddies weren't around to express them. Oh and you are socially right wing if you believe in the death penalty. Sorry I had to be the one to tell you.

You don't seem smart enough to know that you are contracts to you're.

mountainyman

Simi wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about? The good old days I was referring to were the mid-late 90's before you lot all learned to use the internet. Well not you specifically because your American.

Also people who fight over religion aren't very bright. Not that I can recall mentioning religion in my post? Nor do I mention that I prescribe to any of those religions?

Oh and you'll notice that almost every civilised country in the world asides from most notably yours, Japan and India (1 execution in the last decade, so hopefully it's on the way out) either don't practice the death penalty or have banned it outright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

China isn't civilised? By the way it is subscribe not prescribe.

vibe666

lol state executioner and grammar police. you're going to be a busy man.

you'd want to be very sure someone was guilty if you were going to do it though. not sure if it would be a deterrent to most people. life in prison doesn't seem to be deterring people at the moment, so you'd need to have a much more effective legal system so that there was a higher likelihood of being caught in the first place.

i don't think many people (with the possible exception of vengeful parents or partners etc.) go out thinking i'm going to kill that bloke and it'll be worth spending the rest of my life in prison for it.

i would imagine they're taking a gamble on getting away with it. if you improve the effectiveness of the police force and legal system so that it's not such a good bet for them to make then less people are going to do it.

whilst we're at it though, how about castration for repeat sex offenders? "3 strikes and they're coming off" sort of deal. I'd sign up to that no bother, feckers deserve nothing better.

jim o doom

I reckon there are cases it might not be the worst idea - serial killers, the odd child molester etc, but I honestly feel that it should never be implemented in any country ever, due to the chances of it being abused & also the possibility of some poor innocent cnut getting fried. No matter how compelling a body of evidence there is a chance it could be wrong, fabricated or any other number of things that could cause an innocent man to be put to death by the state. That would be an injustice too great to imagine in my book.

Cianos

Can't wait for tomorrows thread on the death penalty.

I have still to see an intelligent argument that takes in to account all elements, advocating the death penalty...can someone who is pro death penalty go even a bit beyond the 'those scum deserve to die' argument please.

mountainyman

[1] Cost
[2] Deterrent
[3] Revenge
[4] Finality
[5] Organ Harvesting

aidan24326

To the 7 muppets who've so far voted for 'Yes and we should accept that innocent people will be killed' no doubt you'll stick to your guns and not protest when they're tying the noose round your neck for something you didn't do.

Cianos

mountainyman wrote: »

[1] Cost
[2] Deterrent
[3] Revenge
[4] Finality
[5] Organ Harvesting

Nice way to explain your points. Anyway...

Cost: It costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.

Deterrent: It is widely shown that the death penalty is not a very effective deterrent. The main reason being that most people who commit serious crimes are mentally unstable and thus are not really mindful of the consequences of their actions.

Revenge: Ok, you want the law system to be built around a philosophy of revenge? Good luck with that one, we'll see how long it lasts. So you think it's ok to risk executing innocent people just so victims can exact revenge (on what could sometimes be the wrong person)? Executing the criminal is not going to take the memory of the crime away, it only gives a temporary outlet of relief for the victim or the victims family.

Finality: Same as above.

Organ Harvesting: :rolleyes:

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Simi wrote: »

Ya see I think it's immoral, so do all intelligent people. And your right, you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs and opinions. I still yearn for the good old days when you and your right wing buddies weren't around to express them. Oh and you are socially right wing if you believe in the death penalty. Sorry I had to be the one to tell you.

One thing that I love about boards is that when you don't side with another persons opinions, you are labled "stupid". The stealth insults persue when you express your opinions. No wounder there can be a refusal to express ones opinions. Oh, by the way, your opinion now was once right wing.

Ok... Firstly less of the insults, you seem to be getting fustrated that you are not getting your way. I have reasons for believing what I do.

I will argue the point that a serial rapist or murderer will not reoffend if they are put to death. If someone has committed the same henious offence over and over again, why should that person deserve to live? Tell me that? If your mother, sister daughter were among the multiple victims of a serial rapist and murderer, would you forgive him? Would you apeal his sentencing of death? Would you fight on his side to keep that "man" alive?

Simi will lead you to believe that it is wrong and unconstitutional to take the life of a criminal, but what exactly is that belief based on? Ignorance I would suspect.

It is evident that you have not looked at both sides of the story.

When I was younger I thought that the death penalty should not exist and that nobody had the right to end another beings life. But I was naive, I was young and I didn't understand how such crimes effect people. Not just the victim, but their family, friends, work colleagues and neighbours. It brings hurt to everyone.

Cianos, can you back up your claim that it costs more for an execution. I know it costs a serious amount per year to keep a prisoner. I think it would cost less to execute someone, sure how much is a lenght of rope? I cannot see too many expenditures here.

A dead criminal cannot reoffend. It will act as a deterrant to others who offend. What is the sentencing for a rapist these days? Fcuk all, same with murder... you can get more for manslaughter than you can for murder in some cases. That is something I never understood. Rape seems to be viewed as a lesser crime with armed robbers getting larger sentences.

I won't say all criminals deserve to die. Like I said before, serious offenders and reoffenders should be put to death. If someone commits a crime once they may have the chance to be rehabilitated. I don't think reoffenders have so much of a chance.

I for one don't want to be paying for a serial rapist or murderer to be kept "safe" behind bars. Eliminate that bad apple.

thelordofcheese

Lyra Shaggy Weapon wrote: »

I will argue the point that a serial rapist or murderer will not reoffend if they are put to death.

and by the same token a person who's been wrongly conviced can never have their sentace revoked.
From this point on your entire argument is null and void, because it assumes you'll allways be correct in sentancing people. Which you won't.

The pro-death penality people aren't interested in justice, they want revenge and that's a shitty basis for a legal system.

cornbb

Lyra Shaggy Weapon wrote: »

I will argue the point that a serial rapist or murderer will not reoffend if they are put to death. If someone has committed the same henious offence over and over again, why should that person deserve to live? Tell me that? If your mother, sister daughter were among the multiple victims of a serial rapist and murderer, would you forgive him? Would you apeal his sentencing of death? Would you fight on his side to keep that "man" alive?

Whether or not you would forgive him is not the point. I'm sure you would be angry, distraught, lots of other things. That does not entitle you to exact revenge, however. Its pretty obvious your support of the death penalty arises from rage and bloodlust, not a desire to see justice done. It is possible to punish someone without using state-sanctioned murder. Some people would argue that some crimes are so heinous that there is no possible punishment that would be enough. Why would even execution be enough in such a case?

Simi will lead you to believe that it is wrong and unconstitutional to take the life of a criminal, but what exactly is that belief based on? Ignorance I would suspect.

The fact that it is "unconstitutional" is a reality, not a belief... but I would suspect that the belief that it is "wrong" arises from a fundamental sense of morality, something that most well-balanced adults have managed to develop.

When I was younger I thought that the death penalty should not exist and that nobody had the right to end another beings life. But I was naive, I was young and I didn't understand how such crimes effect people. Not just the victim, but their family, friends, work colleagues and neighbours. It brings hurt to everyone.

Then how would the death penalty relieve that hurt? Personally you might imagine that putting someone to death might magically relieve your anguish if the criminal was put to death, but everyone does not share your belief: http://www.mvfhr.org/

Furthermore, it is up to society to determine what someone's punishment should be, not the victim or the victim's family.

Cianos, can you back up your claim that it costs more for an execution. I know it costs a serious amount per year to keep a prisoner. I think it would cost less to execute someone, sure how much is a lenght of rope? I cannot see too many expenditures here.

It is a widely-accepted fact that execution is more expensive than life imprisonment, what with the cost of appeals, keeping someone on death row for decades, etc: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

A dead criminal cannot reoffend.

Neither can one who is locked up for life.

It will act as a deterrant to others who offend.

No it doesn't, this is another accepted fact: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-deterrence_1202edi.ART.State.Edition1.36bbe2f.html

Better policing is a far better deterrent, why aren't you campaigning for that?

What is the sentencing for a rapist these days? Fcuk all, same with murder... you can get more for manslaughter than you can for murder in some cases. That is something I never understood. Rape seems to be viewed as a lesser crime with armed robbers getting larger sentences.

If lenient prison sentencing is your problem, then maybe you should focus your efforts on campaigning for longer sentences, more rigid trials, proper policing etc.

I'm glad that despite the views of people like you I live in a (relatively) civilised country where the majority of people readily recognise and accept the fact that state-sanctioned murder is an arbitrary, barbaric, inhumane, irreversable and inherently flawed form of punishment. If you had your way you would drag civilisation back into the dark ages.

If you are going to reply to my post please put down your pitchfork and back up your claims with logical arguments and some facts please.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

thelordofcheese wrote: »

and by the same token a person who's been wrongly conviced can never have their sentace revoked.
From this point on your entire argument is null and void, because it assumes you'll allways be correct in sentancing people. Which you won't.

The pro-death penality people aren't interested in justice, they want revenge and that's a shitty basis for a legal system.

Considering that you need to be 100% in a criminal court and not like a civil court. The chances of a serial rapist or murderer not getting caught and an innocent victim being presecuted is almost non existant. For a death sentence you must be 100% without a doubt. Not like sending somebody to prison.

In some states a death sentance automatically gives the defendant the right to an appeal. They are lenghty procedures, normaly take years. IF someone is convicted they will not be put to death tomorrow.

I do not think the death penalty should be based on revenge, but on other elements which I already stated and will not state again for the lazy bastards out there.

cornbb

Lyra Shaggy Weapon wrote: »

Considering that you need to be 100% in a criminal court and not like a civil court. The chances of a serial rapist or murderer not getting caught and an innocent victim being presecuted is almost non existant. For a death sentence you must be 100% without a doubt. Not like sending somebody to prison.

How on earth can anyone be literally 100% sure? Hundreds of people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged, don't you think its inevitable that some people who are innocent were executed before that evidence came to light? What do you think of the US's history of executing minors and the mentally handicapped, or China's law that says people can be executed for tax fraud?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

So no offences are caused by offenders when they are locked up? They are.

I don't believe sentencing should be handed out by victims or their families, that would be kinda nuts, no?

I wouldn't see this thread as a campaign but as a debate, bit of a differance there, no?

You are linking articles that make no argument here. One time offenders, did you read what I posted? Honestly?

I still can't get over the insults that you people throw into a good debate, that is pretty low. Keyboard warriors? Yes I think so.

I will state again, these are my opinions, I can never see myself picketing on a street to bring in the death penalty, I am giving reasons on why it might work. I do believe it would be good for all in the extreme cases. Bringing in the death penalty for lesser crimes would not be a good idea at all. I suppose when you guys watch the news and see a man being convicted of multiple rapes or murders or something like that guy fritzel in austria (sorry I cannot remember exact names etc etc) Who raped his daughters for years and locked them up, do you ever find yourself saying, "they should shoot that bastard" or something like that?

I do in some cases, although you may see my opinions as barbaric and uncivilised I still think it will work. Remove the bad apple from society. It seems that some of you may feel sorry for the bad guy? Why is that?

I suppose labotomys were ok? Keeping someone in an asylym drugged up to the eyeballs is ok?

If you are going to debate about something, link facts and have your opinions heard, leave out the insults. No point acting like kids, really...

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

cornbb wrote: »

How on earth can anyone be literally 100% sure? Hundreds of people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged, don't you think its inevitable that some people who are innocent were executed before that evidence came to light? What do you think of the US's history of executing minors and the mentally handicapped, or China's law that says people can be executed for tax fraud?

No I don't agree with a lot of executions that happened or with current executions too.

With an abundance of evidence you can be 100%. DNA, finger prints etc etc.

I do believe that a lot of innocent people have died from executions and it's pretty bad.

You ever watch discovery channel and watch some of the crime programs they have? Pretty good (and I don't want people bitching about how it's TV and what not). I think a lot of them nut jobs should be put to death

cornbb

Lyra Shaggy Weapon wrote: »

So no offences are caused by offenders when they are locked up? They are.

Not in certain supermax prisons where people are kept in solitary confinement for 23.5 hours per day. Not that I support these either. But execution is a bit of an overreaction to what is essentially an operation problem (insufficient security in prisons), no?

I don't believe sentencing should be handed out by victims or their families, that would be kinda nuts, no?

It certainly would, but your arguments for supporting the death penalty largely appear to stem from appeasing the anger of victims, which amounts to pretty much the same thing.

You are linking articles that make no argument here. One time offenders, did you read what I posted? Honestly?

I am linking to articles that back up my claims with hard facts, again I suggest you do the same.

I still can't get over the insults that you people throw into a good debate, that is pretty low. Keyboard warriors? Yes I think so.

Oh please, I've stated that I think your opinions are barbaric, its hardly "pretty low".

I will state again, these are my opinions, I can never see myself picketing on a street to bring in the death penalty, I am giving reasons on why it might work. I do believe it would be good for all in the extreme cases.

Your "belief" is based on flawed arguments (e.g. that it would be cheaper and that it would be an effective deterrent)[/quote]

Bringing in the death penalty for lesser crimes would not be a good idea at all. I suppose when you guys watch the news and see a man being convicted of multiple rapes or murders or something like that guy fritzel in austria (sorry I cannot remember exact names etc etc) Who raped his daughters for years and locked them up, do you ever find yourself saying, "they should shoot that bastard" or something like that?

Maybe sometimes I do. However I don't let emotions and anger influence my opinions on what punishments should be meted out. Luckily the justice system doesn't allow this either.

I do in some cases, although you may see my opinions as barbaric and uncivilised I still think it will work. Remove the bad apple from society. It seems that some of you may feel sorry for the bad guy? Why is that?

Of course I don't feel sorry for the bad guy, I have a desire to see justice done. And I believe that the death penalty is an inherently flawed form of justice.

I suppose labotomys were ok? Keeping someone in an asylym drugged up to the eyeballs is ok?

Of course not, but what does that have to do with anything?

If you are going to debate about something, link facts and have your opinions heard, leave out the insults. No point acting like kids, really...

I have linked to facts, e.g. disproving your idea that execution is cheaper, where have you done the same?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

SOrry if my opinions seem to stem from anger etc etc, they do not. Kill the reoffender and eliminate him from society for ever.

Solitary confignment, now there's a cost that nobody wants to bear.

Considering my argument is solely based on MY opinions, will be hard to even google that.

I don't agree with the articles you linked, I won't recognise them.

State that my opinions are barbaric, don't suggest that I should lay down my pitch fork. That is insulting. You, like most of boardies, cannot make a statement without putting an insult in there, of some form or another, in order to gain admiration from other boardies... sad.... (Lets just leave it at that, yea?)

Again, I am not basing my arguments on ANGER or anyting of the like, but logical elimenation of defected humans (Ok now I open the "do you think it is right to exterminate disabled people" No I do not, I mean only reoffenders of extreme cases)

Although your arguments are good, I won't sway from my opinion. You won't see me campaigning for it, nor will you see me amoungst the angry mob, but I do think it is the right thing to do for everybody. I believe that when a criminal commits crimes in such manner that they have given up any right they previously posessed.

*EDIT* How do I quote multiple lines from the same post?

cornbb

Lyra Shaggy Weapon wrote: »

Considering my argument is solely based on MY opinions, will be hard to even google that.

It was your "opinion" that executions are cheaper than imprisonment, but is not the case. You are perfectly entitled to argue based on your opinions but if you are arguing based on facts (such as whether it is more expensive to kill or imprison) then you need to back that up.

I don't agree with the articles you linked, I won't recognise them.

You don't agree with the facts? That kind of makes it difficult to take your argument seriously.

State that my opinions are barbaric, don't suggest that I should lay down my pitch fork. That is insulting. You, like most of boardies, cannot make a statement without putting an insult in there, of some form or another, in order to gain admiration from other boardies... sad.... (Lets just leave it at that, yea?)

Oh come off it, if you genuinely think I insulted or abused you then why not report the post.

Again, I am not basing my arguments on ANGER or anyting of the like, but logical elimenation of defected humans (Ok now I open the "do you think it is right to exterminate disabled people" No I do not, I mean only reoffenders of extreme cases)

If it is logical to eliminate "defected humans" on the basis that they are serial re-offenders, why not apply it to all "defected humans"? Why not eliminate the mentally handicapped, the homeless etc?

Obviously I'm not advocating that we do this, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic. If you think its ok and moral and logical to solve one problem by executing one troublesome facet of society, why not others?

*EDIT* How do I quote multiple lines from the same post?

[quote*]type quote tags around the bits you want to quote, like this but without the stars[/quote*]

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

cornbb wrote: »

It was your "opinion" that executions are cheaper than imprisonment, but is not the case. You are perfectly entitled to argue based on your opinions but if you are arguing based on facts (such as whether it is more expensive to kill or imprison) then you need to back that up.

Ok I cannot argue agains the facts that it is cheaper. So be it.

You don't agree with the facts? That kind of makes it difficult to take your argument seriously.

I just don't agree with that link, it deals with one time offenders, I am strictly speaking about reoffenders.

Oh come off it, if you genuinely think I insulted or abused you then why not report the post.

Not looking to get your banned or any of that crap, it is something that happens on boards a lot. "omg if you think that way then you are stupid" etc etc. I prefer to argue or debate without getting personal, which a lot of people seem to do.

If it is logical to eliminate "defected humans" on the basis that they are serial re-offenders, why not apply it to all "defected humans"? Why not eliminate the mentally handicapped, the homeless etc?

Obviously I'm not advocating that we do this, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic. If you think its ok and moral and logical to solve one problem by executing one troublesome facet of society, why not others?

There is a huge differance between a person that raped and killed 5 or 6 women and someone born with downsyndrome. Choice. I don't think it is safe to go into too much detail about it. It was once the case in some nations that new born babies with defects were disposed of. It is something entirely differant. Someone who chooses to inflict pain and suffering to fuel his/her own fantasies is differant.

[quote*]type quote tags around the bits you want to quote, like this but without the stars[/quote*]

Thanks :P

marti101

I dont know if id have the death penalty here to much corruption,but something neeeds to be done.How bout them prisons in America where that Govenor has them sleeping in tens and eating out of date food.He has them building roads and all other ****ty jiobs that nobody else wants.I bet they wouldnt reoffend then.Also you can never prove somebody is 100% guilty there is always reasonable doubt.And dna in 10 years the science we have now will be no use and they will have better science to prove whether someone did something or not.

AckwelFoley

No It is ineffective

I votedas quoted.

Which is a change of ground on my part over my previous and long held stance of rape'em and kill'em