[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFTj82Y90uA[/url]
Printable View
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFTj82Y90uA[/url]
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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
[QUOTE=Dresta]: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[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=D-FENS]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.[/QUOTE]
You assume smart and rational people will be drawing this divide between who's guilty and who's [I]definitely [/I]guilty.
[QUOTE=joe]You assume smart and rational people will be drawing this divide between who's guilty and who's [I]definitely [/I]guilty.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=D-FENS]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[/QUOTE]
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 ($$$).
Im against it. What would Batman do?
[QUOTE=joe] I also think prisoners should be treated in a more humane fashion [/QUOTE]
are you including there unrepentant, violent offenders like child rapists/murderers ?
[QUOTE=deja vu]I'm not in favor of the death penalty. I don't think it's a deterrent.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
Agree completely with this.
[QUOTE=Random_Guy]Here's what I think,
[B]I think the victims should not only be killed, but they should be killed in the most painful fashion possible.[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]
WTF :wtf:
[QUOTE=ace23]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=dude77]are you including there unrepentant, violent offenders like child rapists/murderers ?[/QUOTE]
Yep.