Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Gatling

Norwesterner wrote: »

I agree but with the caveat that not all killings deserve the death penalty.
Some are in the heat of the moment and are unplanned. Others like killing an intruder etc.
I'm talking about the serial killers, the abductors, the sex- cases etc.

For me deliberate and planned killings deserve the ultimate penalty of death ,

Manslaughter through accidental death give 20 years

Manslaughter when an innocent person is attacked kicked and punched to death life sentence

Child rape/ abuse full castration and life sentence

Rape minimum term 20 years

Repeat non violent crimes minimum term of hard labor no remission

As I pointed out in an earlier post the whole legal and prison system needs to be majorally over halled before we even get to the death penalty

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jwkbyrne wrote: »

This thread is a joke, along with what seems like seventy percent of the people on it, more interested in moaning about peoples spelling mistakes than the actual topic, this is the future, a load of stuck up little ****s who live in a world wrapped up in cotton wool thinking everything is fine?

Firstly, there is a massive difference between making spelling mistakes and intentionally using txtspeak.

Secondly, just because people oppose your view does not give you the right to throw your toys out of the pram and verbally abuse people.

Thirdly, I asked you a question related specfically to the topic and you didn't answer it.

You said you couldn't guarantee that it would reduce crime, so what would be the point in having it then? Justice and revenge are not the same thing.

How are we supposed to take your views seriously?

Artful_Badger

tolaneil wrote: »

No,killing a murderer is just being hypocritical.I think life should Mean life thou

What about imprisoning a kidnapper ?

Is there a specific reason this topic was ignited, or was it simply a poster's curiosity?


Just wondering if I've missed something.

Artful_Badger

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Probably the txtspk again. Or the blood thirsty desire for vengance. They're dead giveaways.

Anyway - you said you couldn't guarantee that it would reduce crime, so what would be the point in having it then? Justice and revenge are not the same thing.

Removing people who have no place in society from society completely, not just hiding them away at the expense of everyone else.

Rubeter

Anyone who want's to see the re-introduction of the death penalty should read this book The Better Angels of Our Nature by Stephen Pinker.
You would see then how you have more in common with a crowd cheering on someone getting castrated and disembowelled in public by people who's idea of fun includes burning cats alive, laughing at dogs being killed by bulls, who see nothing wrong with owning, raping and beating slaves or abusing women and children than those of us who have evolved beyond such barbarity (which is the vast majority of humanity today).
Come on in to the 21st century, it's not a bad place.

mikemac1

BBC had a drama series called Garrow's Law. Famous lawyer back around 1810 or so.

You could be hanged for stealing a watch! The upper class terrified out of their minds of lowly guerriers.

Solved nothing at all. Scotland had different laws then England and Wales and their murder rate was much lower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Code

namloc1980

It's no coincidence that the only country in Europe that still practices barbarity in the form of capital punishment is essentially a dictatorship. Do we really want to lump our lot in with Belarus? For all you bloodthirsty people seeking vengeance I'm sure Belarus would welcome you with open arms. Meanwhile the rest of us will move on into the 21st century.

old hippy

epluribusunum wrote: »

1) An adult is also a "clump of cells."
2) Lethal injection is also a medical procedure.
3) Completely subjective, not really any logic used.

Calling people "monsters" is subjective and illogical.

old hippy

jwkbyrne wrote: »

this is the future, a load of stuck up little ****s who live in a world wrapped up in cotton wool thinking everything is fine?

For the most part, everything is fine. Malicious acts should not define life and how we live it. Scaremongering and calling for blood is the extreme end of the spectrum but thankfully, that is in the minority.

old hippy

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Removing people who have no place in society from society completely, not just hiding them away at the expense of everyone else.

Who are you to judge what people should be "removed" from society? And by what criteria?

Artful_Badger

old hippy wrote: »

Who are you to judge what people should be "removed" from society? And by what criteria?

Did I claim I was going to be judge jury and executioner ? And same criteria that can deprive a person of their right to be free. You think its ok to imprison someone against their will and regiment their lives until they die but its a step too far to end that life that's already been taken away from the person ?

old hippy

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Did I claim I was going to be judge jury and executioner ? And same criteria that can deprive a person of their right to be free. You think its ok to imprison someone against their will and regiment their lives until they die but its a step too far to end that life that's already been taken away from the person ?

If that person wishes euthanasia, sure, grant them their wish. But to force death on someone - victim or perp - is wrong. It's murder.

Artful_Badger

old hippy wrote: »

If that person wishes euthanasia, sure, grant them their wish. But to force death on someone - victim or perp - is wrong. It's murder.

You agree then that homicide is not inherently wrong, so why do the wants of the criminal make it wrong when them not wanting to be imprisoned for the rest of their lives is irrelevant when it comes to a life sentence ? When it comes to an individual who has displayed nothing but intent to cause harm and suffering to others removing them from society is the only rational thing to do. I'm sure you'll agree.

The question after that fact is whether or not its necessary to keep this person alive given their life is already forfeit and the fact that whatever happens to them is done in the interests of protecting society. Keeping them caged like animals isnt the 21st century civilized act people think it is either btw. Rehabilitation is the civilized option, but until we can figure out how to do that we have to make do with less civilized things.

323

Gatling wrote: »

For me deliberate and planned killings deserve the ultimate penalty of death ,

Manslaughter through accidental death give 20 years

Manslaughter when an innocent person is attacked kicked and punched to death life sentence

Child rape/ abuse full castration and life sentence

Rape minimum term 20 years

Repeat non violent crimes minimum term of hard labor no remission

As I pointed out in an earlier post the whole legal and prison system needs to be majorally over halled before we even get to the death penalty

Sounds about right.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

What about imprisoning a kidnapper ?

Minimum 20 years to life.

Herb Powell

Gatling wrote: »

So the punishment should be life take into account remission = 1/3 reduction before even making it to the prison ,feeding 3/4 times a day ,clothed,and never having to worry about having to lift a finger ever ,
Sounds pretty cushy actually,

If your willing to take a life you should be willing to to accept your life been taken as punishment

Yes, I'm sure prison is absolutely wonderful, in fact I'll go there now, you have me convinced.

Gatling

Herb Powell wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure prison is absolutely wonderful, in fact I'll go there now, you have me convinced.

Don't forget your flat screen and Xbox

Leftist

the death penalty is pointless and serves as no deterrent to crime.
It can also cost more than housing a prisoner for life because of appeals.

Quite frankly if I was given a choice of death sentence or prison for rest of my life, I'd choose death.

23hrs lockdown a day, with no access to literature or television for the rest of your days? come on. Give me the chair.

Artful_Badger

Leftist wrote: »

the death penalty is pointless and serves as no deterrent to crime.
It can also cost more than housing a prisoner for life because of appeals.

Quite frankly if I was given a choice of death sentence or prison for rest of my life, I'd choose death.

23hrs lockdown a day, with no access to literature or television for the rest of your days? come on. Give me the chair.

The cost is relative to appeals where the death penalty is sought for a particular crime. If it was only an option for repeat offenders the appeals process could be changed. Like the boards way, so many infractions and bans that the one that breaks the camels back doesn't even matter considering the record. So they wouldnt be sentenced to death based on one conviction.

Its also not about using the death penalty as a deterrent in my eyes. Punishment itself is only useful to correct behavior. Someone messes up and they spend a few years inside, they wont be as keen to mess up again. I dont see value in punishing people as revenge or to warn others. An attempt should be made to rehabilitate those who offend and whatever warning that serves it serves but it shouldnt be part of the reason for punishing someone.

But if you get to the stage where someone wont be let out considering their history then what use in punishing them ? And as you say life in prison is no kind of life. Death isnt a punishment in this case its a solution to the problem of having someone who is not only unfit to live in society but also unfit to be housed with people that society is trying to rehabilitate as best as possible and punishing them further will serve no purpose.

But as I said to me it isnt about revenge or punishment. Its about removing someone from society that cant exist there without causing pain and suffering to others. Maybe the death penalty isnt a viable option in the current judicial system. But I think we all know it needs major reform and I dont think execution should be off the table whenever it comes time to rethink the entire thing.

old hippy

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The question after that fact is whether or not its necessary to keep this person alive given their life is already forfeit ... Rehabilitation is the civilized option, but until we can figure out how to do that we have to make do with less civilized things.

Why is their life already forfeit? Do we stoop to barbarism in order to prevent barbarism?

Nodin

old hippy wrote: »

Why is their life already forfeit? Do we stoop to barbarism in order to prevent barbarism?

...in the full knowledge that it hasn't worked before, and theres no evidence of it every having done so, ever, anywhere.

MadsL

Nodin wrote: »

...in the full knowledge that it hasn't worked before, and theres no evidence of it every having done so, ever, anywhere.

..and the utter rejection that anyone, anywhere has rehabilitated into society after committing a murder.

Artful_Badger

old hippy wrote: »

Why is their life already forfeit? Do we stoop to barbarism in order to prevent barbarism?

Do you only engage with soundbites ? They are being locked up for the rest of their lives. They live at the direction of the penal system. They no longer have a life of their own. You throw out the word barbarism to describe the death penalty. What about locking someone up for the rest of their lives ? How is it more barbarous than punishing someone indefinitely ?

Btw I never mentioned preventing anything. I actually made it clear that it wasnt a means to prevent anything or punish anyone in my post to leftist.

Artful_Badger

Nodin wrote: »

...in the full knowledge that it hasn't worked before, and theres no evidence of it every having done so, ever, anywhere.

In the context of the discussion you are quoting you are 100% wrong. My point is that some people with many convictions that are not safe be left in society must be removed from society. I see the death penalty as a better option than punishing these people indefinitely. So whats it got to achieve ? Removing the person from being an issue to the state, the penal system and themselves. Does execution do that ? Yes it most certainly does.

Norwesterner

Leftist wrote: »

the death penalty is pointless and serves as no deterrent to crime.
It can also cost more than housing a prisoner for life because of appeals.

Quite frankly if I was given a choice of death sentence or prison for rest of my life, I'd choose death.

23hrs lockdown a day, with no access to literature or television for the rest of your days? come on. Give me the chair.

So, you're actually saying that the death penalty is the more humane option?
Thumbs up.

Nodin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

In the context of the discussion you are quoting you are 100% wrong. My point is that some people with many convictions that are not safe be left in society must be removed from society. I see the death penalty as a better option than punishing these people indefinitely. So whats it got to achieve ? Removing the person from being an issue to the state, the penal system and themselves. Does execution do that ? Yes it most certainly does.

....I was unaware we were limited to those two options.

Artful_Badger

Nodin wrote: »

....I was unaware we were limited to those two options.

And what other options are there for someone who has failed to be rehabilitated and is a continuing source of suffering for others in society ? ........ in full knowledge that each and every time they have been release previously they have re offended.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Removing people who have no place in society from society completely, not just hiding them away at the expense of everyone else.

The expsene is grearter when killing them. And how is killing them any different from "hiding them away"?

Artful_Badger

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The expsene is grearter when killing them. And how is killing them any different from "hiding them away"?

Doesnt mean it wouldnt serve a purpose outside merely preventing crime by being seen as a harsh punishment. Its expensive now because of the appeals process which is the way it is because they seek the death penalty as punishment for a crime. I dont think it should be used as a punishment but a solution to a problem individual who's exhausted every effort the state has tried to rehabilitate them and are facing life in prison.

It would be different because it would remove the problem that is the individual rather than shifting it along.

phenomenalcat

Yes, the ultimate deterrant for scumbags

Gatling

Don't give mulitipley appeals ,

One appeal

Charged ,trial ,convicted ,sentenced ,

12-14 months

Carrying out of sentence no longer than 30 days from conviction

KwackerJack

If a person commits murder, child abuse etc they should be removed from society completely!

Can you really rehabilitate a person who commits those types of crimes??

If a person commits a crime knowing the penalty is death well that's there choice and they deserve what they get!


All this ' It's barbaric to take a life for a life' is nonsense, if you kill another human being or molest a child you deserve not to exist on this planet and when the public see a person being executed it will make them think twice before making that final lethal choice!!

dar100

You don't hit a child to teach him not to hit others, why should this be different

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Don't give mulitipley appeals ,

One appeal

Charged ,trial ,convicted ,sentenced ,

12-14 months

Carrying out of sentence no longer than 30 days from conviction

I'd hate to be a wrongly convicted man/woman, in your state/country.

namloc1980

KwackerJack wrote: »

If a person commits murder, child abuse etc they should be removed from society completely!

Can you really rehabilitate a person who commits those types of crimes??

If a person commits a crime knowing the penalty is death well that's there choice and they deserve what they get!


All this ' It's barbaric to take a life for a life' is nonsense, if you kill another human being or molest a child you deserve not to exist on this planet and when the public see a person being executed it will make them think twice before making that final lethal choice!!

What you describe is vengeance, not justice. Killing someone to show that killing is wrong is just plain stupid. A society that allows for it stoops to the same level as the criminal as it demonstrates that killing a human is ok when of course it never is.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Doesnt mean it wouldnt serve a purpose outside merely preventing crime by being seen as a harsh punishment. Its expensive now because of the appeals process which is the way it is because they seek the death penalty as punishment for a crime. I dont think it should be used as a punishment but a solution to a problem individual who's exhausted every effort the state has tried to rehabilitate them and are facing life in prison.

It would be different because it would remove the problem that is the individual rather than shifting it along.

The initial point was said that they couldn't guarantee it reduced crime, and no one's shown me proof that it can..

Now, when you say "exhausted every effort the state has tried to rehabliliate them", for what crimes are you advocating it?

Gatling wrote: »

Don't give mulitipley appeals ,

One appeal

Charged ,trial ,convicted ,sentenced ,

12-14 months

Carrying out of sentence no longer than 30 days from conviction

So, what do you think should be the punishment for the State in the event of a miscarraige of justice?

Artful_Badger

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The initial point was said that they couldn't guarantee it reduced crime, and no one's shown me proof that it can..

Now, when you say "exhausted every effort the state has tried to rehabliliate them", for what crimes are you advocating it?

I was just pointing out thats not the only reason for it. I dont think there any evidence to suggest it does reduce crime either.

I'm not advocating it as punishment for a particular crime, I dont believe it should. I'm advocating it as an alternative to life in prison for criminals who's record should classify them as too much of a risk of re-offending to be released.

namloc1980

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I dont think it should be used as a punishment but a solution to a problem individual who's exhausted every effort the state has tried to rehabilitate them and are facing life in prison.

It would be different because it would remove the problem that is the individual rather than shifting it along.

Killing people to fix a social problem! Sounds like a bunch of lads I've read about who came up with the idea of killing undesirables...they called it the final solution...they were the Nazis.

KwackerJack

So what do we do with Serial killers, murderers, serial rapists, child molesters??

Give them comfy cells with tvs, gyms, pool tables???

Seem like a good life on the back of the tax payer who is funding these scum to live for free all be it locked up!

Nodin

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I was just pointing out thats not the only reason for it. I dont think there any evidence to suggest it does reduce crime either.

I'm not advocating it as punishment for a particular crime, I dont believe it should. I'm advocating it as an alternative to life in prison for criminals who's record should classify them as too much of a risk of re-offending to be released.

....so essentially 'I don't know what to do with you, therefore I'm killing you'. Great stuff.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm not advocating it as punishment for a particular crime, I dont believe it should. I'm advocating it as an alternative to life in prison for criminals who's record should classify them as too much of a risk of re-offending to be released.

Doesn't really answer the question: are we talking about one-off murderers and rapists, or people who go throug life with hundreds of petty offenses?

Nodin

KwackerJack wrote: »

So what do we do with Serial killers, murderers, serial rapists, child molesters??

Give them comfy cells with tvs, gyms, pool tables???

Seem like a good life on the back of the tax payer who is funding these scum to live for free all be it locked up!

....I often wonder where this bullshit comes from...is it flown in? Does it come in big shipping containers?

Artful_Badger

Nodin wrote: »

....so essentially 'I don't know what to do with you, therefore I'm killing you'. Great stuff.

............. yeah that's it.

Artful_Badger

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Doesn't really answer the question: are we talking about one-off murderers and rapists, or people who go throug life with hundreds of petty offenses?

Not one off crimes. Multiple convictions for violent offenses.

Johro

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-innocence

Hitchens

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, what do you think should be the punishment for the State in the event of a miscarraige of justice?

What do you think yourself?

KwackerJack

:rolleyes:

Nodin wrote: »

....I often wonder where this bullshit comes from...is it flown in? Does it come in big shipping containers?

Its in the water!

From a nation who defeated an empire to a bunch of couch warriors afraid to punish a criminal incase were seen as being mean to them!


If you commit a crime you must face the consequences. Its ridiculous to defend and make up excuses for criminals!

Let them kill a family member then see if you feel remorse for the poor chap!

God sure he killed a man but he's great at Gaa and has never been in trouble :rolleyes:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hitchens wrote: »

What do you think yourself?

The last time you asked me that you had difficulties defining basic words and presenting your argument, tried to hide behind a spelling mistake and then got banned for being a grammar Nazi; so what do I think? I think the same thing will happen again.

Nodin

KwackerJack wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Its in the water!

From a nation who defeated an empire to a bunch of couch warriors afraid to punish a criminal incase were seen as being mean to them!

...the harsh punishment/lock em up/hang em high approach doesn't work. Therefore implementing it would be institutionalising vengeance, not solving the problem of criminality.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row-inmates-state-and-size-death-row-year

Capital punishment appears to be working a treat.