Lets Talk-Death Penalty

[Random_Guy]

As title.

Any anti capital punishments here? Would genuinely like to hear your thoughts.

[JohnFreeman]

The criminal should get done to them, what they did to others. I am also up for handing the accused to the victims family.

[fiddy]

+you save tax money

[Random_Guy]

Here's what I think,

I think the victims should not only be killed, but they should be killed in the most painful fashion possible. This serves not only as a punishment but even more so a deterrence to other potential criminals.This may sound cruel, but recently in taiwan, a mass killing happened in taipei where a random person started hacking people with knifes. He killed 4 with more than 20 injured. He did so because he wanted to make sure that he was sentenced to death; he wanted to die but he was afraid of commiting suicide...thus the killings.

[fiddy]

Here's what I think,

I think the victims should not only be killed, but they should be killed in the most painful fashion possible. This serves not only as a punishment but even more so a deterrence to other potential criminals.This may sound cruel, but recently in taiwan, a mass killing happened in taipei where a random person started hacking people with knifes. He killed 4 with more than 20 injured. He did so because he wanted to make sure that he was sentenced to death; he wanted to die but he was afraid of commiting suicide...thus the killings.
No.

[Random_Guy]

No.
so how are you going to punish the person in my post? death is a relief for him.:confusedshrug:
everyone seems fine with whipping in singapore

[GimmeThat]

it's inhumane

but most likely they have also committed a crime that is inhumane to face such possible penalty

the biggest question comes down to whether or not they have the possibility to appeal, that they didn't commit the crime, or that the "intention" in which they committed the crime means that their inhumane action can be justified.

If not, I honestly don't see why we can't if every single possible action and route has been tried.

Especially those who openly admits that they committed the crime. And view it as a way to taunt others in order to instill fear into the society of mankind.

[GimmeThat]

so how are you going to punish the person in my post? death is a relief for him.:confusedshrug:
everyone seems fine with whipping in singapore

because granting someone their wish and prevent any further massecre is now the wrong thing to do.

because the publics job is in the competition of showing who's more inhumane, regardless of its impact and effect to the society.

because if whipping him bring "sick cruel" justice to the mind of the victims, then it is safe to say such event would happen again.

because countering negativity with negativity is what a great government do.

[ForeverHeat]

I dont like it. There is always a possibility that an innocent person is being sent to death. For those who are guilty, it is a easy way out.

Life is much better because for those who are innocent, there is a long time for them to try to get the decision reversed and to get justice for themselves.

For those who are guilty, life in prison followed by death is a better punishment than a short time in prison followed by death.

[GimmeThat]

I dont like it. There is always a possibility that an innocent person is being sent to death. For those who are guilty, it is a easy way out.

Life is much better because for those who are innocent, there is a long time for them to try to get the decision reversed and to get justice for themselves.

For those who are guilty, life in prison followed by death is a better punishment than a short time in prison followed by death.


If life in prison as a better punishment actually reduces the amount of people who commits murder/crime that deserves capital punishment/death penalty.

then yes, it IS a better punishment because it makes people think twice before they commit a crime.

And if not, what exactly do you mean by "better" punishment?

[Lonely_Sandberg]

http://media.tumblr.com/65ad245796e23084bbd3d05bdfec7321/tumblr_inline_mwaajgq11q1rdych8.gif

[blablabla]

The criminal should get done to them, what they did to others. I am also up for handing the accused to the victims family.
I bet you'd like to rape some dudes

[ForeverHeat]

If life in prison as a better punishment actually reduces the amount of people who commits murder/crime that deserves capital punishment/death penalty.

then yes, it IS a better punishment because it makes people think twice before they commit a crime.

And if not, what exactly do you mean by "better" punishment?

Well the death penalty is essentially a easy way out. Die in a very non-painful fashion and thats that. Life in prison (until you die, not 25 years), is the same since you will die in prison anyway (and more likely in a more painful way then by state execution). Its essentially the death penalty + decades of imprisonment. I dont see how the death penalty is a "worse" punishment.

Then again some guys like prison and they have communities there, so they may prefer life in prison to being sentenced to death, so that may be an issue.

[JtotheIzzo]

As title.

Any anti capital punishments here? Would genuinely like to hear your thoughts.

I am. It costs way more money than incarcerating someone for life, and since DNA testing has been introduced it has proven a lot of people to be innocent who were previously on death row.

Two HUGE inexcusable flaws in the current system, and anyone who supports it so they can spout off some right wing bullshit or act like some eye for an eye tough guy is a first rate rube.

Until they have a more cost effective way and accurate way to condemn people to death the judges should be held personally accountable for the well being of anyone they wrongfully condemn to death (ie charged with murder) that would make far fewer death sentences and much more accurate ones.

Plain and simp the systems a pimp, and I refuse to be a ho.

[Dresta]

No, because:

1. Mistakes cannot be rectified, and there will always be mistakes.
2. I do not think the state should have the right and power to kill its citizens, no matter what they do, and i do not trust the state with such a power.

Though i deplore the current focus on rehabilitation with people who have committed acts so heinous that one should have no interest in their rehabilitation, and only in their permanent separation and isolation from the rest of society.

The best reason i can think of to justify the death penalty is that it provides a kind of cathartic release for society in that it has revenged itself on someone who so thoroughly cheated it. Human beings have always revelled in this kind of collective revenge.

[GimmeThat]

Well the death penalty is essentially a easy way out. Die in a very non-painful fashion and thats that. Life in prison (until you die, not 25 years), is the same since you will die in prison anyway (and more likely in a more painful way then by state execution). Its essentially the death penalty + decades of imprisonment. I dont see how the death penalty is a "worse" punishment.

Then again some guys like prison and they have communities there, so they may prefer life in prison to being sentenced to death, so that may be an issue.

Of course, I'm guessing you are also unaware that this life in prison is paid by our taxes. Or that you genuinely enjoy paying taxes so that people are in prison instead of facing death penalty.

We are all a little f&cked up in the head now, aren't we.

[JtotheIzzo]

Of course, I'm guessing you are also unaware that this life in prison is paid by our taxes. Or that you genuinely enjoy paying taxes so that people are in prison instead of facing death penalty.

We are all a little f&cked up in the head now, aren't we.

Death penalty costs the tax payer much much much more than life in prison.

Read a book, you sound like an idiot popping off in that tone unaware of how retarded your rant is.

[GimmeThat]

No, because:

1. Mistakes cannot be rectified, and there will always be mistakes.
2. I do not think the state should have the right and power to kill its citizens, no matter what they do, and i do not trust the state with such a power.

Though i deplore the current focus on rehabilitation with people who have committed acts so heinous that one should have no interest in their rehabilitation, and only in their permanent separation and isolation from the rest of society.

The best reason i can think of to justify the death penalty is that it provides a kind of cathartic release for society in that it has revenged itself on someone who so thoroughly cheated it. Human beings have always revelled in this kind of collective revenge.


Jail, is a land in which we created for those who had been deported from our country. Some temporary. In the case of life in prison, I suppose we are just creating an arena of people where people of the civlized generally would not want to be associated with or the fear of possible danger. But I guess this leaves the possibility that those who could make through enough progress in order for others to accept them.

That is one point of view in which I can live without the capital punishment.

But that's just me.

[GimmeThat]

Death penalty costs the tax payer much much much more than life in prison.

Read a book, you sound like an idiot popping off in that tone unaware of how retarded your rant is.

I don't need a book to tell me that you believe in making mistakes, than have a system to be sure you save for those who got left because they were right.

Because in that case, population control isn't your issue.

[JtotheIzzo]

I don't need a book to tell me that you believe in making mistakes, than have a system to be sure you save for those who got left because they were right.

Because in that case, population control isn't your issue.

are you a moron?

you wrote:


I'm guessing you are also unaware that this life in prison is paid by our taxes. Or that you genuinely enjoy paying taxes so that people are in prison instead of facing death penalty.

We are all a little f&cked up in the head now, aren't we.

death penalty costs more than life in prison.

get a f*cking clue.

[Dictator]

I'm anti death penatly but even if you agree wih it, it should only be used when there is undisputeable evidence like a clear cut video of the person comitting the crime.

[Dresta]

Jail, is a land in which we created for those who had been deported from our country. Some temporary. In the case of life in prison, I suppose we are just creating an arena of people where people of the civlized generally would not want to be associated with or the fear of possible danger. But I guess this leaves the possibility that those who could make through enough progress in order for others to accept them.

That is one point of view in which I can live without the capital punishment.

But that's just me.
:biggums:

I read that 3 times and still don't have a clue what you're getting at.

[GimmeThat]

are you a moron?

you wrote:



death penalty costs more than life in prison.

get a f*cking clue.


all you need to do is change the law and somehow it won't.

:applause:

sorry if I mistaken world view with American view sometimes.

Damn tunnel version that I have.

[iamgine]

Death penalty only takes up tax money.

What would be more useful is to turn them into medical/science experiments to find cure for diseases. That way they are useful to society.

[GimmeThat]

:biggums:

I read that 3 times and still don't have a clue what you're getting at.


That in a none-political fashion, one life is worth more than another.

[D-FENS]

Until they have a more cost effective way and accurate way to condemn people to death the judges should be held personally accountable for the well being of anyone they wrongfully condemn to death (ie charged with murder) that would make far fewer death sentences and much more accurate ones.


I always vote Green, and I believe in the death penalty. It needs to be fixed so that only people that have absolute evidence against them, e.g. a witness, a motive, AND firm DNA evidence should be killed. They should only have 3 months to mount a defense, and if they cannot prove they didn't do it (rape, murder, pedo acts etc) then they're dead. Gun shot to the head.

I don't approve of paying for lifelong criminals, and I don't believe in prisoner reform in violent criminals

[DukeDelonte13]

i'm anti.

IMO it's morally wrong.

[Dresta]

I always vote Green, and I believe in the death penalty. It needs to be fixed so that only people that have absolute evidence against them, e.g. a witness, a motive, AND firm DNA evidence should be killed. They should only have 3 months to mount a defense, and if they cannot prove they didn't do it (rape, murder, pedo acts etc) then they're dead. Gun shot to the head.

I don't approve of paying for lifelong criminals, and I don't believe in prisoner reform in violent criminals
:rolleyes:

Yeah, i'm sure granting such an arbitrary power to the state won't end badly and end up with innocent people getting a 'shot to the head'

In the real world things don't function so smoothly as in your dreamt up utopia where it is easy as pie to determine guilt and execute someone in the space of 3 months :facepalm

[deja vu]

I'm not in favor of the death penalty. I don't think it's a deterrent and there's a small chance that an innocent man might be sentenced to death.

It's better to make those mofos suffer a life in prison rather than give them an easy way out.

[joe]

I am anti-death penalty because we will wind up putting innocent people to death. I also think there should be far less laws in general and that would cut plenty of costs from the prison system. I also think prisoners should be treated in a more humane fashion, though I know many would disagree with that. It's not right to keep someone locked in a box 23 hours a day. It's insanity.

[GimmeThat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFTj82Y90uA

[ILLsmak]

No, because:

1. Mistakes cannot be rectified, and there will always be mistakes.
2. I do not think the state should have the right and power to kill its citizens, no matter what they do, and i do not trust the state with such a power.

Though i deplore the current focus on rehabilitation with people who have committed acts so heinous that one should have no interest in their rehabilitation, and only in their permanent separation and isolation from the rest of society.

The best reason i can think of to justify the death penalty is that it provides a kind of cathartic release for society in that it has revenged itself on someone who so thoroughly cheated it. Human beings have always revelled in this kind of collective revenge.

yea but that's something inside of them. Like dude said THE MOST PAINFUL FASHION. haha, it's like wut. Like in the future it'll be some computer program where you get to press buttons and they are tortured. "Ok, I'm finished now... kill!"

I think a lot of people need to be killed. I think a lot of people who haven't murdered need to die because they do nothing positive. There really are a lot of people who do nothing but have a negative influence on every person they come into contact with.

The world is not ready to truly decide people's fates. So the death penalty is, as said, more of an appeasement of the crowd than anything else. As it has always been.

But there are way too many people in prison, we are paying for them to live. It's too bad they can't be forced to do more labor. Instead of killing them, a life of servitude might be better. I think people need to rehabilitate, but what they are doing isn't it. Dudes need to come to the answer themselves.

-Smak

[D-FENS]

:rolleyes:

Yeah, i'm sure granting such an arbitrary power to the state won't end badly and end up with innocent people getting a 'shot to the head'

In the real world things don't function so smoothly as in your dreamt up utopia where it is easy as pie to determine guilt and execute someone in the space of 3 months :facepalm

I didn't say everyone convicted of murder would get it. Only those guilty beyond any doubt. Take a guy like Ted Bundy. It took them 10 years to execute him. There was no way anyone would consider this guy innocent. He admitted to the murders right away, there was DNA evidence, why give the guy 10 years on the waiting list? Just a bullet to the head, burn the body and file the paperwork. Case closed, and another 1c in your pocket.

[joe]

I didn't say everyone convicted of murder would get it. Only those guilty beyond any doubt. Take a guy like Ted Bundy. It took them 10 years to execute him. There was no way anyone would consider this guy innocent. He admitted to the murders right away, there was DNA evidence, why give the guy 10 years on the waiting list? Just a bullet to the head, burn the body and file the paperwork. Case closed, and another 1c in your pocket.

You assume smart and rational people will be drawing this divide between who's guilty and who's definitely guilty.

[D-FENS]

You assume smart and rational people will be drawing this divide between who's guilty and who's definitely guilty.

There would need to be a diverse forum of educated people (democrats and republicans - you need to have about 40 people spread from different backgrounds vote on it) If that vote comes back at under 36, then it's no death penalty. 36 and over, death penalty.

[JtotheIzzo]

I always vote Green, and I believe in the death penalty. It needs to be fixed so that only people that have absolute evidence against them, e.g. a witness, a motive, AND firm DNA evidence should be killed. They should only have 3 months to mount a defense, and if they cannot prove they didn't do it (rape, murder, pedo acts etc) then they're dead. Gun shot to the head.

I don't approve of paying for lifelong criminals, and I don't believe in prisoner reform in violent criminals


Yes, except it would take decades and trillions of dollars in legal wrangling and legislation to tear down and rebuild the current legal system to recreate your China in a box execution system.

State killings are wrought with red tape and demand serious legal maneuvering ($$$).

[BigBoss]

Im against it. What would Batman do?

[dude77]

I also think prisoners should be treated in a more humane fashion


are you including there unrepentant, violent offenders like child rapists/murderers ?

[ace23]

I'm not in favor of the death penalty. I don't think it's a deterrent.
Simple as that. If it's not a deterrent, what's the point? The purpose of the prisons is to isolate dangerous people from society, not to kill people out of spite.

[Swaggin916]

I am anti-death penalty because we will wind up putting innocent people to death. I also think there should be far less laws in general and that would cut plenty of costs from the prison system. I also think prisoners should be treated in a more humane fashion, though I know many would disagree with that. It's not right to keep someone locked in a box 23 hours a day. It's insanity.

Agree completely with this.

[MadeFromDust]

Here's what I think,

I think the victims should not only be killed, but they should be killed in the most painful fashion possible. This serves not only as a punishment but even more so a deterrence to other potential criminals.This may sound cruel, but recently in taiwan, a mass killing happened in taipei where a random person started hacking people with knifes. He killed 4 with more than 20 injured. He did so because he wanted to make sure that he was sentenced to death; he wanted to die but he was afraid of commiting suicide...thus the killings.
WTF :wtf:

[MadeFromDust]

Simple as that. If it's not a deterrent, what's the point? The purpose of the prisons is to isolate dangerous people from society, not to kill people out of spite.
It might be a deterrent to some, even many. However, that's besides the main point, which is to prevent a sicko from ever hurting another soul.

[LJJ]

I'm for it. At the very least there should be a way to get rid of those extreme cases. People like Breivik. I don't see how it's desirable in any way to return this man to society yet there is a realistic chance this will happen when he claims he is reformed.

But I don't mind to take it further and extend the death penalty to all violent, serious offenses. The focus in Europe has shifted almost completely towards reform rather than punishment, but I don't see how we can't have a two-pronged approach. Do what you can to reform those first time offenders, but dispose of recidivists and those who committed something exceedingly fiendish with clinical efficiency. Sure every now and there might be an innocent victim, but that might be a price we should be willing to pay as a society.

Life is good here. Everybody has access to everything they should ever want to lead a satisfying life. We have set the standards where committing a murder, rape or a violent robbery is never necessary. So there is something inherently wrong with those who do and it should be more acceptable to just get rid of them without a hundred retrials.

[Jasi]

I'm for it. At the very least there should be a way to get rid of those extreme cases. People like Breivik. I don't see how it's desirable in any way to return this man to society yet there is a realistic chance this will happen when he claims he is reformed.

But I don't mind to take it further and extend the death penalty to all violent, serious offenses. The focus in Europe has shifted almost completely towards reform rather than punishment, but I don't see how we can't have a two-pronged approach. Do what you can to reform those first time offenders, but dispose of recidivists and those who committed something exceedingly fiendish with clinical efficiency. Sure every now and there might be an innocent victim, but that might be a price we should be willing to pay as a society.

Life is good here. Everybody has access to everything they should ever want to lead a satisfying life. We have set the standards where committing a murder, rape or a violent robbery is never necessary. So there is something inherently wrong with those who do and it should be more acceptable to just get rid of them without a hundred retrials.

Unexpected from a Dutch, I must admit.

I am against it.
The idea of punishing someone by committing the same crime he's punished for, just seems wrong to me.

I agree that punishments should be harder and longer for some cases though. Breivik should never have the possibility to walk free again.

[travelingman]

are you including there unrepentant, violent offenders like child rapists/murderers ?

Yep.

[dude77]

Yep.

so you want to send the message to potential offenders that .. if you decide to commit a heinous, violent crime such as terrorizing a child by kidnapping them, raping them and then snuffing their life out that you can expect as punishment .. a nice, cozy prison setting with 3 meals a day and 'good treatment' ?

if you want to act like an animal, you should be treated like one(the mentally competent ones)

[T_L_P]

It sends mixed signals (don't kill or else the state will kill you), and these things are rarely beyond reasonable doubt.

What if an innocent man is killed?

[Random_Guy]

A japanese man whose wife and 11 month daughter was killed then their corpses raped puts it well.
"capital punishment is not a mean of revenge, but rather a mean for the offender to acknowledge truthfully what he has done."
link here:(its in chinese)
http://gps.wolflord.com/viewtopic.php?t=19077

my take after reading many of your posts:
1. to those that are afraid of killing the innocent, what about those clear cut cases where there is no doubt? for instance, say the man was recorded on tape killing people, and there was no room for doubt.
2. and to those who think its barbaric, do you have any idea how painful it is to be a relative of those killed/brutally raped? since capital punishment is usually applied only to the most extreme cases, the victims are usually put into horrific pain or death. and as previously mentioned, many families of victims do not see the death penalty as revenge, but rather as a medium to move on. they see the death of the killer as a closing and a comfort, and to regain a new balance and holding in their life. in my opinion its just not right to protect the offenders whilst overlooking what the victims want.

[Random_Guy]

because granting someone their wish and prevent any further massecre is now the wrong thing to do.

because the publics job is in the competition of showing who's more inhumane, regardless of its impact and effect to the society.

because if whipping him bring "sick cruel" justice to the mind of the victims, then it is safe to say such event would happen again.

because countering negativity with negativity is what a great government do.
because the offenders may not be afraid of death but are afraid of pain?
the offender of the tram massacre case that i was talking about openly said that he wanted to kill, but after he was kept asking for morphine because he was pummeled at the station after his knifes were took away. pain CAN act as a deterrence. and lets be real here, how many people that are put away for life are really put away for life? for monster like this, who doesnt give any ****s and just want to kill, whats stopping them from doing so if they are released on parole for good behavior or shit like that?

[Random_Guy]

I am. It costs way more money than incarcerating someone for life, and since DNA testing has been introduced it has proven a lot of people to be innocent who were previously on death row.

Two HUGE inexcusable flaws in the current system, and anyone who supports it so they can spout off some right wing bullshit or act like some eye for an eye tough guy is a first rate rube.

Until they have a more cost effective way and accurate way to condemn people to death the judges should be held personally accountable for the well being of anyone they wrongfully condemn to death (ie charged with murder) that would make far fewer death sentences and much more accurate ones.

Plain and simp the systems a pimp, and I refuse to be a ho.
maybe that's because the law bestows too much right on the offender:confusedshrug: a freaking law case usually takes years. and answer me this, what if there was no doubt at all? what if in some specific cases some goddamn murderer decided to kill in broad daylight? what then.

[Rockets(T-mac)]

To me more than the death penalty, I'd rather see current criminals in jail have to work for their meals while they are in there. Find something for them to do so they aren't given meals while sitting on their ass at least. Maybe that could bring down the cost of jails. I don't get free meals, criminals shouldn't either.

As for the death penalty I'm not against it in situations likes repeat offenders of serious crimes (rape, murder, etc.) I can see how being cautious with the death penalty on someone's first offense is warranted, mistakes do happen. But to me if you are convicted twice of a serious crime I don't think it's worth trying rehabilitate that person or paying for their time in jail they are a lost cause.

And as for the death penalty costing more than the life in prison, I'd like to see numbers on that. And assuming it's an undeniable fact, then if should be made to cost less, it shouldn't cost much to kill someone if you are cautious with who you sentence to death I wouldn't really care if it was painless for that person or not.

[Derka]

I don't like the idea of the state assuming the power to murder its own citizens BUT it's not so cut-and-dried for me as "I'm against the death penalty." Situationally, I see why it exists.

[Jailblazers7]

No, because:

1. Mistakes cannot be rectified, and there will always be mistakes.
2. I do not think the state should have the right and power to kill its citizens, no matter what they do, and i do not trust the state with such a power.

Though i deplore the current focus on rehabilitation with people who have committed acts so heinous that one should have no interest in their rehabilitation, and only in their permanent separation and isolation from the rest of society.

The best reason i can think of to justify the death penalty is that it provides a kind of cathartic release for society in that it has revenged itself on someone who so thoroughly cheated it. Human beings have always revelled in this kind of collective revenge.

Yeah, I'm generally pretty trusting of the government (at least compared to most) but even I agree with #2. Sorry but the history of government is way too dark (even here in the US) for me to sign off on giving the government permission to kill citizens. It's bad enough that politicians can kill people overseas without public repercussions. I'm honestly surprised that point isn't brought up more in this debate because a lot of people who support capital punishment are also very suspicious of other government activities.

[travelingman]

so you want to send the message to potential offenders that .. if you decide to commit a heinous, violent crime such as terrorizing a child by kidnapping them, raping them and then snuffing their life out that you can expect as punishment .. a nice, cozy prison setting with 3 meals a day and 'good treatment' ?

if you want to act like an animal, you should be treated like one(the mentally competent ones)

That's not really sending a message any more than implementing the death penalty is sending a message (which studies have shown, even if the intent was to dissuade certain activities, that this message falls on deaf ears). If they committed anything like the vile thing you mentioned then they should be locked up for the rest of their life. That alone should be the punishment (and it's one helluva punishment). Otherwise, treat them like humans, not animals in the sense that you were using it.

[D-FENS]

A japanese man whose wife and 11 month daughter was killed then their corpses raped puts it well.
"capital punishment is not a mean of revenge, but rather a mean for the offender to acknowledge truthfully what he has done."
link here:(its in chinese)
http://gps.wolflord.com/viewtopic.php?t=19077

my take after reading many of your posts:
1. to those that are afraid of killing the innocent, what about those clear cut cases where there is no doubt? for instance, say the man was recorded on tape killing people, and there was no room for doubt.
2. and to those who think its barbaric, do you have any idea how painful it is to be a relative of those killed/brutally raped? since capital punishment is usually applied only to the most extreme cases, the victims are usually put into horrific pain or death. and as previously mentioned, many families of victims do not see the death penalty as revenge, but rather as a medium to move on. they see the death of the killer as a closing and a comfort, and to regain a new balance and holding in their life. in my opinion its just not right to protect the offenders whilst overlooking what the victims want.


Great post. I think in clear-cut cases the Chinese method is great. If you agree to live within a society you agree to abide by the rules. If you can't respect the rights of others, then you should not be a part of that society.

I really think that so many countries have it wrong right now. We have a worldwide population crisis and most countries have huge financial problems.
We should be working on a 10 points death system as follows:
10 - murder
9 - rape
8 - attempted murder
7 - business corruption related offences
6 - Making class A drugs
5 - Dealing class A drugs
4 - fraud
3 - theft
2 - common assault
1 - Drink driving

So let's see here. If you were 100% guilty of rape with out any doubt, you are awarded 9 points. 1 more point and you get the death penalty. That person would either have to fit in or **** off. If they drove drunk just once, they would be given the death penalty.

How about that drunk guy that keeps getting behind the wheel no matter how many times they attend AA, or what other interventions take place. 10 times doing that and we kill him.

It seems very fair to me, but ONLY if we have all the required evidence.

Look at countries like Canada and New Zealand. They believe in reforming all criminals, shit you can kill and rape someone in either country and potentially do less than 20 years in prison. That's a terrible system, and it's basically the only point of contention for me with liberal/democratic parties.

[Draz]

2 things.

1. Who are we to take another life.
2. Death is an easy way out.

[D-FENS]

2 things.

1. Who are we to take another life.
2. Death is an easy way out.

1. Judge, jury, executioner, and contributing members of society
2. Death is a means to an end. If you have nothing but evil to contribute, GTFO.

Your grandkids are the one's that will suffer when the population is soaring and resources are all used up.

The governments and large companies that run this world are as ****ed up as it's inhabitants.

[Dresta]

because the offenders may not be afraid of death but are afraid of pain?
the offender of the tram massacre case that i was talking about openly said that he wanted to kill, but after he was kept asking for morphine because he was pummeled at the station after his knifes were took away. pain CAN act as a deterrence. and lets be real here, how many people that are put away for life are really put away for life? for monster like this, who doesnt give any ****s and just want to kill, whats stopping them from doing so if they are released on parole for good behavior or shit like that?
Right, so with all the furore over the US torturing foreign people tied up quasi-military activity against the United States and its people, you think the US should now start torturing its own citizens? That'll go down well.


A japanese man whose wife and 11 month daughter was killed then their corpses raped puts it well.
"capital punishment is not a mean of revenge, but rather a mean for the offender to acknowledge truthfully what he has done."
link here:(its in chinese)
http://gps.wolflord.com/viewtopic.php?t=19077

my take after reading many of your posts:
1. to those that are afraid of killing the innocent, what about those clear cut cases where there is no doubt? for instance, say the man was recorded on tape killing people, and there was no room for doubt.
2. and to those who think its barbaric, do you have any idea how painful it is to be a relative of those killed/brutally raped? since capital punishment is usually applied only to the most extreme cases, the victims are usually put into horrific pain or death. and as previously mentioned, many families of victims do not see the death penalty as revenge, but rather as a medium to move on. they see the death of the killer as a closing and a comfort, and to regain a new balance and holding in their life. in my opinion its just not right to protect the offenders whilst overlooking what the victims want.
I can guess. I would think if anyone did that to somebody in my family i would want personally to torture and kill them, but that does not make it any more than revenge, and i'm pretty sure the state is not a very good instrument for exacting revenge. You have to appreciate that even if the evidence isn't 100% conclusive, the family are going to be baying for the blood of the killer, and in high-profile cases this would undoubtedly still result in innocent people being executed. There is no justice in cases such as this: if something similar happened to someone i loved, i'm not sure i would want to continue living with that knowledge, regardless of whether the perpetrator was living or not.


Great post. I think in clear-cut cases the Chinese method is great. If you agree to live within a society you agree to abide by the rules. If you can't respect the rights of others, then you should not be a part of that society.

I really think that so many countries have it wrong right now. We have a worldwide population crisis and most countries have huge financial problems.
We should be working on a 10 points death system as follows:
10 - murder
9 - rape
8 - attempted murder
7 - business corruption related offences
6 - Making class A drugs
5 - Dealing class A drugs
4 - fraud
3 - theft
2 - common assault
1 - Drink driving

So let's see here. If you were 100% guilty of rape with out any doubt, you are awarded 9 points. 1 more point and you get the death penalty. That person would either have to fit in or **** off. If they drove drunk just once, they would be given the death penalty.

How about that drunk guy that keeps getting behind the wheel no matter how many times they attend AA, or what other interventions take place. 10 times doing that and we kill him.

It seems very fair to me, but ONLY if we have all the required evidence.

.
Yeah, sounds very fair executing people for committing non-violent crimes. This would be almost a return to the Middle Ages :facepalm .

[D-FENS]

Yeah, sounds very fair executing people for committing non-violent crimes. This would be almost a return to the Middle Ages :facepalm .

What gives someone the right to make the same bad mistake time and time again putting our children at risk?
I don;t know why you think we should be affording criminals so many rights and using up more of the Earth's resources to keep them living comfortably.

If you want violent criminals and repeat criminals alive living the high life, you need to re-evaluate your belief system. At least suggest forced labor camps or something. Shit, maybe we can get these guys making more railroads or sell them to Cambodia to use them as landmine bait so kids stop getting their legs blown off

[Dresta]

What gives someone the right to make the same bad mistake time and time again putting our children at risk?
I don;t know why you think we should be affording criminals so many rights and using up more of the Earth's resources to keep them living comfortably.

If you want violent criminals and repeat criminals alive living the high life, you need to re-evaluate your belief system. At least suggest forced labor camps or something. Shit, maybe we can get these guys making more railroads or sell them to Cambodia to use them as landmine bait so kids stop getting their legs blown off
Except a lot of those crimes on your points system don't even put anyone's children at risk. You could be execute for one case of fraud and two cases of theft.

Making drugs is also not a violent activity, really shouldn't be illegal at all, and you want to kill people for doing it twice. Maniacs like you are the reason i will always be opposed to the death penalty on principle - you'd like to wipe out half the population if you could.

[magic chiongson]

pros: gov't saves money
cons: criminals get off easy

that's all

[D-FENS]

you'd like to wipe out half the population if you could.

Perfect. Then we'd be living in a utopia. Only people with something to hide should be worried by my plan.

[Dresta]

Perfect. Then we'd be living in a utopia. Only people with something to hide should be worried by my plan.
I think you mean dystopia, otherwise you're pretty deranged.

[ForeverHeat]

Great post. I think in clear-cut cases the Chinese method is great. If you agree to live within a society you agree to abide by the rules. If you can't respect the rights of others, then you should not be a part of that society.

I really think that so many countries have it wrong right now. We have a worldwide population crisis and most countries have huge financial problems.
We should be working on a 10 points death system as follows:
10 - murder
9 - rape
8 - attempted murder
7 - business corruption related offences
6 - Making class A drugs
5 - Dealing class A drugs
4 - fraud
3 - theft
2 - common assault
1 - Drink driving

So let's see here. If you were 100% guilty of rape with out any doubt, you are awarded 9 points. 1 more point and you get the death penalty. That person would either have to fit in or **** off. If they drove drunk just once, they would be given the death penalty.

How about that drunk guy that keeps getting behind the wheel no matter how many times they attend AA, or what other interventions take place. 10 times doing that and we kill him.

It seems very fair to me, but ONLY if we have all the required evidence.

Look at countries like Canada and New Zealand. They believe in reforming all criminals, shit you can kill and rape someone in either country and potentially do less than 20 years in prison. That's a terrible system, and it's basically the only point of contention for me with liberal/democratic parties.

I dont agree with the way you have ranked the crimes, but this point based execution system is actually an interesting idea. Good thinking.

[D-FENS]

I dont agree with the way you have ranked the crimes, but this point based execution system is actually an interesting idea. Good thinking.

I don;t agree with my rankings either, I was just trying to put different crimes on a scale so each point would be represented.

It would be great to put recidivist drunk drivers to death

[D-FENS]

I think you mean dystopia, otherwise you're pretty deranged.

http://media.giphy.com/media/UHMiW2FEBTOCI/giphy.gif

A world without violence!

[ForeverHeat]

I don;t agree with my rankings either, I was just trying to put different crimes on a scale so each point would be represented.

It would be great to put recidivist drunk drivers to death

I get where your coming from, but a lot of serial drunk drivers dont have malicious intentions towards others. They probably arent bad people. They are mostly alcoholics who want to stop but cant, thus resulting in multiple drink-driving cases. With help these people can become well functioning members of society, its a bit too extreme to start killing them.

[travelingman]

Perfect. Then we'd be living in a utopia. Only people with something to hide should be worried by my plan.

You have one sick, warped, and ethically-twisted belief system. Do you enjoy fantasizing about playing ruler in this chthonic society you've constructed? Just execute all of the wrongdoers! There's nothing wrong with bloodshed if I don't like the people being cut down! Nobody can repent of their mistakes! All criminals are addicted to crime, so we might as well kill them before they get the chance to do it again! A regime of violence that is supposedly opposed to it...

[D-FENS]

You have one sick, warped, and ethically-twisted belief system. Do you enjoy fantasizing about playing ruler in this chthonic society you've constructed? Just execute all of the constant wrongdoers that never show signs of staying away from crime! There's nothing wrong with bloodshed if I don't like the people being cut down! Nobody can repent of their mistakes! All criminals are addicted to crime, so we might as well kill them before they get the chance to do it again! A regime of violence that is supposedly opposed to it...

Fixed

[travelingman]

Fixed

That's so much better!

:facepalm

[The-Legend-24]

It's simple. Nikkas that deserve to die, get put down.

People against it are pvssies.

[joe]

are you including there unrepentant, violent offenders like child rapists/murderers ?

My main issues are inmates being subjected to violence and rape. I think that's inhumane no matter what you did, and everyone should be protected way better than we do now. The social attitude that prison fights and rape are justifiable revenge against rapists is morally wrong. First of all those people may be innocent in many cases. Second, we are all humans and all could have wound up like any other. Good circumstance like where we were born and how our parents raised us, things completely out of our control, are the only reason we are not the ones doing crime and making mistakes. I think compassion is necessary.

From there, I could imagine a system where inmates that do the most positive can gain more allowances. I'm not saying prison should be Disney world. But it should be possible to earn better food, more sunlight, or more entertainment if you show you're striving to be a better person.

[KobesFinger]

This babysitter gave a 3 year old boy she was babysitting to a known paedophile who drugged and raped him twice. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/babysitter-jailed-three-year-old-boy) I showed the article to my friends and told them I thought he deserves the death penalty but the disagree for varying reasons

EDIT - I should add that we don't have the death penalty in England. It was abolished completely in 1969 after a man named Derek Bentley was hanged after he was found guilty of the murder of a police man. His accomplice killed the officer but he was under 18 and so couldn't be executed. Bentley was found guilty under "joint enterprise".

[Random_Guy]

This babysitter gave a 3 year old boy she was babysitting to a known paedophile who drugged and raped him twice. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/babysitter-jailed-three-year-old-boy) I showed the article to my friends and told them I thought he deserves the death penalty but the disagree for varying reasons

EDIT - I should add that we don't have the death penalty in England. It was abolished completely in 1969 after a man named Derek Bentley was hanged after he was found guilty of the murder of a police man. His accomplice killed the officer but he was under 18 and so couldn't be executed. Bentley was found guilty under "joint enterprise".
:( :facepalm

[Psileas]

Great post. I think in clear-cut cases the Chinese method is great. If you agree to live within a society you agree to abide by the rules. If you can't respect the rights of others, then you should not be a part of that society.

I really think that so many countries have it wrong right now. We have a worldwide population crisis and most countries have huge financial problems.
We should be working on a 10 points death system as follows:
10 - murder
9 - rape
8 - attempted murder
7 - business corruption related offences
6 - Making class A drugs
5 - Dealing class A drugs
4 - fraud
3 - theft
2 - common assault
1 - Drink driving

So let's see here. If you were 100% guilty of rape with out any doubt, you are awarded 9 points. 1 more point and you get the death penalty. That person would either have to fit in or **** off. If they drove drunk just once, they would be given the death penalty.

How about that drunk guy that keeps getting behind the wheel no matter how many times they attend AA, or what other interventions take place. 10 times doing that and we kill him.

It seems very fair to me, but ONLY if we have all the required evidence.

Look at countries like Canada and New Zealand. They believe in reforming all criminals, shit you can kill and rape someone in either country and potentially do less than 20 years in prison. That's a terrible system, and it's basically the only point of contention for me with liberal/democratic parties.

Ι completely disagree that the sum of an x amount of petty crimes can equal the severity of a much graver crime. To put it more mathematically, this is like claiming that having 4 2.0-richter scale earthquakes would give you 1 of M-8.0.
I don't care if someone is caught 100 time DUI, as long as this is his only crime and nothing more, this should still belong to the "1" category, not "10 murders" and be punished by what is expected by DUI (but multiple times over). If he's caused an accident, death, injury, whatever, he should receive each punishment separately, not a punishment derived by the sum of all his crimes.

Neither do I agree that the value of a human life is "a bit above protecting yourself from being raped". Serious a crime as a rape may be, murder should still stand at a category of its own. To make another analogy, it's like comparing the King in chess to everything else. Losing your Queen, Bishop, etc, may suck, but there's still a possibility of recovery, have your King captured and it's all over.