http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...-to-die-Thursday-for-1996-slaying-6048228.php
What are your views on the death penalty? Are you for it? Against it?
What are your views on the death penalty? Are you for it? Against it?
Death Penalty
- Thread starter miniCyb3r
- Start date
I'm personally against it.
I am for a voluntary death sentence though, because life in prison is a horrible, cruel punishment and we should show some criminals decency and let them go if they please.
Now for the actual death sentence, it should not be allowed. I know this is a work of fiction, but if you watch Prison Break, the guy is innocent and they still want to kill him. People HAVE been framed for murder before, and people will keep being framed. People have also been killed and then later found innocent. The death sentence is barbaric and solves nothing. And obviously doesn't deter crime.
The death penalty is basically just a revenge execution regulated by a government. An execution is what CRIMINALS do. Think about it, some Crip kills a Blood, the Crips hunt him down and execute him. Or we can take a look at ISIS. Someone does something against their laws, so they kill them. Our government and citizens shouldn't act like that, we are better than those people.
I am for a voluntary death sentence though, because life in prison is a horrible, cruel punishment and we should show some criminals decency and let them go if they please.
Now for the actual death sentence, it should not be allowed. I know this is a work of fiction, but if you watch Prison Break, the guy is innocent and they still want to kill him. People HAVE been framed for murder before, and people will keep being framed. People have also been killed and then later found innocent. The death sentence is barbaric and solves nothing. And obviously doesn't deter crime.
The death penalty is basically just a revenge execution regulated by a government. An execution is what CRIMINALS do. Think about it, some Crip kills a Blood, the Crips hunt him down and execute him. Or we can take a look at ISIS. Someone does something against their laws, so they kill them. Our government and citizens shouldn't act like that, we are better than those people.
Using murder to show that murder is wrong. Punishing murder with murder. Seriously, you can't kill someone to show the public that murder is wrong. Besides, death is not punishment enough for some major crimes.
Well played.
Totally against.
[DOUBLEPOST=1422560168][/DOUBLEPOST]
Well played.
Totally against.
[DOUBLEPOST=1422560168][/DOUBLEPOST]
Exactly. All the shit they test on animals and shit. There are plenty of pedophiles in prison you could use for that.
Regardless of whether someone is innocent (which, I agree, has happened and will continue to happen), we must first analyze something like a death penalty. First, let's define the thing: what is a death penalty? Is it electrocution, hanging, lethal injection, beheading, stoning or what? Is it slow, quick, painful, painless, private, public? Each of these have been done, plus many others. Is one 'better' than another? Let's keep this thread in mind as we move on to what a death penalty is supposed to achieve.
Ideally, a death penalty is the ultimate token of punishment for an act of sufficient criminality. In this case, it serves not only to punish offenders but - hopefully - deter future offenders. The argument should be that the 'cost' (i.e. death) significantly outweighs the 'reward.' Now there are also implications that the mechanism is one of 'revenge' for the victim). So let's consider what we've got: a mechanism of death that seeks simultaneously to punish, deter and satisfy (i.e. victim satisfaction). If you're going to use something like the death penalty, how do you best achieve all 3?
Examining the West, particularly America, lethal injection in a highly controlled environment seems to be the preferred modern method. It is touted as the most humane and leads to the least suffering. An audience is allowed to view the injection, but as the inmate loses consciousness curtains are drawn and the viewing room is emptied. Certainly dying is a terrifying prospect, but as far as deaths go this is not the worst one could imagine. In fact, if your only option is to die a grizzly death at the hands of a fellow criminal or take a chance and potentially face this type of death penalty...well, the choice becomes obvious. As well, the victim, while allowed to view the injection, sees no suffering or the final moment of death. I argue that this, therefore, only achieves the goal of punishment and, even then, does so lightly.
What does that mean? Well, I think it means this: if you're even going to do something like the death penalty then you need to do it right. If you are going to entertain such extreme notions it had better be to achieve EVERY goal you set out to achieve. Therefore, it only makes sense to have the death penalty be absolutely brutal and terrifying. It should be barbaric, humiliating, massively public and awful for the inmate. I say again: if you will kill people to achieve your ends, then do not make half-measures.
So - we now have a terrifyingly brutal system of ultimate penalty. HERE is where the false positives come into play: not everyone has been correctly convicted. Under the current system, which is awful yet 'light,' perhaps some pundits can overlook the false positive rate (since, presumably, it's so low). NOW, however, since things are as brutal as possible, even a single false positive will call into serious doubt the punishment. You have two options: you can only punish perpetrators that are CLEARLY guilty of some unforgivable crime, or you have to abolish your death sentence.
Option 1: If there is any doubt, the case would not move to the death penalty. Now, again, the reward vs. risk ratio is balanced toward risk. This is because VERY few cases have evidence that is so cut and dry. The number of absolutely provable cases warranting execution would be small enough that it would no longer achieve the goal of deterrence. We're right back to square one, only now the system is not only ineffective, it's also terribly barbaric.
Following all of this logic, if you are still concerned with being moral (which, btw, a justice system like that of the United States is indicative of (if you were immoral you'd have no justice system (what would be the point?))), then the ONLY reasonable option is 2: total abolishment of the death penalty.
In conclusion, if any justice system considers itself to be, or seeks to be, moral, then the death penalty can never serve as a useful countermeasure against certain types of crime, or to provide closure to victims. It is simply an immoral act on all accounts.
Last edited:
null, you said it much better, and more thought out than I ever could have.
I'm for it in limited cases. Whats the point in keeping mass murderers and serial killers behind bars for ever? Save the prison cells for those who have a chance at turning their life around once they are out. Keeping people behind bars until they are dead costs money. Bullets are cheap, rope is cheaper, and reusable.
When people are wrongly convicted then we should start questioning the legal system, not the penalty. Whether they are convicted wrongly and they are sent to prison or death row, they were still convicted wrongly. Start by fixing that before abolishing the penalty that works when applied correctly.
When people are wrongly convicted then we should start questioning the legal system, not the penalty. Whether they are convicted wrongly and they are sent to prison or death row, they were still convicted wrongly. Start by fixing that before abolishing the penalty that works when applied correctly.
Last edited:
It's appalling that lethal injection is called "humane".
You watch the chemicals enter your IV, then slowly die.
That is just painless mind torture.
At least with a firing squad you don't know which guy has the live round, and it's a quick and painless death.
Now for life with torture, again we are better than that. We claim to be civil, yet we want to torture someone for literally the rest of their lives. I think a life sentence in a place with violent criminals is plenty torture.
You watch the chemicals enter your IV, then slowly die.
That is just painless mind torture.
At least with a firing squad you don't know which guy has the live round, and it's a quick and painless death.
Now for life with torture, again we are better than that. We claim to be civil, yet we want to torture someone for literally the rest of their lives. I think a life sentence in a place with violent criminals is plenty torture.
I disagree that life imprisonment is a punishment worse than death and a horrible fate (as an absolute) . I've had family members spend years in prison and come out and tell me that it really wasn't that bad. Obviously it's different for every individual, but for some people it really isn't as bad as we may think.
If inmates have family members (or get the money on their own) they can have lots of privileges (tv's in cells/dorms, food stuffs, books, etc.) After years of incident free behavior they can possibly be moved down to a level 2 prisoner.
Almost every death row inmate files as many appeals as they can. If even death row were worse than living, I'm not sure we'd see them do that.
As for the death penalty itself, i think it should be reserved for the most vile of criminal. If someone murders a child, they should be disposed of , and quickly. We shouldn't have to foot the bill for housing and feeding them for 20 years. We do enough of that due to the idiotic drug war.
If inmates have family members (or get the money on their own) they can have lots of privileges (tv's in cells/dorms, food stuffs, books, etc.) After years of incident free behavior they can possibly be moved down to a level 2 prisoner.
Almost every death row inmate files as many appeals as they can. If even death row were worse than living, I'm not sure we'd see them do that.
As for the death penalty itself, i think it should be reserved for the most vile of criminal. If someone murders a child, they should be disposed of , and quickly. We shouldn't have to foot the bill for housing and feeding them for 20 years. We do enough of that due to the idiotic drug war.
Last edited:
I would say no because life in prison is a better sentence but i say some people deserve a death penalty not a swift death but a very painful and long death. The people that deserve this are, rapists, child sex offenders and other people like that. They should have public executions for shit like that like burning at a stake and shit.
We could rebuild the Colosseum!
I think we discussed this before but here goes..do some ppl deserve to die? yeah ,imo .... do we have the right to judge that? not so clear cut... I will say this, I have a cousin that did 19 years for murder, it was a him or them situation...Flat death penalty would have seen him killed but as it happens in Hawaii he was released 19 years later and has since gone on to live a productive life and father 3 children. I am glad for this. I will agree that some depraved mofo's should be removed for all our sakes but it's not my place to judge who is deserving and who is not..
omg that would be epic like a fight to the death thing
Bronze bull anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull
-----
But really, If you think the lethal injection is inhumane, just open up a history book and read up on some of the old ways of doing it. The methods of torture / execution they came up with back then were pretty... inventive...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull
-----
But really, If you think the lethal injection is inhumane, just open up a history book and read up on some of the old ways of doing it. The methods of torture / execution they came up with back then were pretty... inventive...
Last edited:
Who are we to play God and decide who lives and who doesn't? At the same time, someone who commits murder can get out with a good enough lawyer and kill again. Or they can get life in prison with all the works (TV, internet access, great food, etc). At what point is it okay to look at a crime and decide they have to die because of it?
I wouldn't call the food great. I think the biggest luxury item a lot of inmates have is cup o noodles and candy bars. I don't even think they serve them real eggs for breakfast.
Wiki on internet use in United States Prisons:
"In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, has put into place the Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System (TRULINCS) on February 19, 2009. This allows inmates access to electronic messaging through e-mails. The message must be text only, and must be conducted in a secure manner between inmate and the public. Messages are subject to monitoring. Currently all institutions operated by the Bureau of Prisons have TRULINCS. However outside of the TRULINCS program, nearly all states prohibit Internet use by inmates, limiting technology based access to educational opportunities."
I've read many articles about inmates getting their hands on smuggled devices and harassing their victims/victims families via Facebook and Social media.
*This does not apply to Ray Liotta and Goodfellas. They get lobster, steak and wine!
Wiki on internet use in United States Prisons:
"In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, has put into place the Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System (TRULINCS) on February 19, 2009. This allows inmates access to electronic messaging through e-mails. The message must be text only, and must be conducted in a secure manner between inmate and the public. Messages are subject to monitoring. Currently all institutions operated by the Bureau of Prisons have TRULINCS. However outside of the TRULINCS program, nearly all states prohibit Internet use by inmates, limiting technology based access to educational opportunities."
I've read many articles about inmates getting their hands on smuggled devices and harassing their victims/victims families via Facebook and Social media.
*This does not apply to Ray Liotta and Goodfellas. They get lobster, steak and wine!
