Death sentence : an eye for an eye

[JimboUK]

I'm against it for several reasons. The state should not have the power to kill its own citizens, mistakes get made, it costs more, it lessens the chances of conviction, people don't commit murder expecting to be caught so the deterrent value is minimal, you also punish the perpetrators family especially any children and it cheapens human life.

 

The death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims. As long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated

-Amnesty International

[HeyYou]

Yeah....we kinda already had two debates on this already, and as one of those operators, I'll tell you what I keep telling them: the death penalty is wrong. It's much better to lock someone else away and let them rot than becoming the monster that kills them. That's only what they want: to play with your emotions and twist your life around like a Twizzler.

 

Is it? Or, would they rather "rot" in prison, than be dead?

 

Personally, I just wouldn't have a problem putting a bullet in the head of most killers. I would probably even smile while I did it. If that makes me a 'monster', so be it.

[dazzerfong]

How about Anders Breivik? At the most, right now if he's considered sane, he's going to get 21 years or so. For definitive cases like his, I wholeheartedly support the death penalty. There's little wonder as to what he'll do once he gets out.

[Keanumoreira]

Yeah....we kinda already had two debates on this already, and as one of those operators, I'll tell you what I keep telling them: the death penalty is wrong. It's much better to lock someone else away and let them rot than becoming the monster that kills them. That's only what they want: to play with your emotions and twist your life around like a Twizzler.

 

Is it? Or, would they rather "rot" in prison, than be dead?

 

Personally, I just wouldn't have a problem putting a bullet in the head of most killers. I would probably even smile while I did it. If that makes me a 'monster', so be it.

 

Yes, it is. Senseless death solves nothing. Shooting a man in the head only offers a millisecond of suffering. If that's your idea of due process, then count me out, because that isn't a proper sentencing.

[marharth]

How about Anders Breivik? At the most, right now if he's considered sane, he's going to get 21 years or so. For definitive cases like his, I wholeheartedly support the death penalty. There's little wonder as to what he'll do once he gets out.

I find it ridiculous that he can be mentally evaluated after killing a camp full of kids due to political reasons, and be considered sane. Why was he considered sane anyways? Is there any info on his mental evaluation?

 

I find almost all cases for the death sentence fueled by emotion and not by reason. A society run by emotion is not a good thing.

 

Even if you could somehow justify killing someone you still can never be 100 percent sure that you are killing a criminal. There is always a small chance you might be killing a innocent person. In a civilized society we shouldn't risk killing innocent people, even if it is just a tiny risk, simply to get revenge on criminals.

 

The issue with "lining them up against the wall" is that it increases the chance of you killing someone innocent. You need a long appeal process to be sure that you are killing the right people. Not that it works very well all of the time, but it does help to take away some of the possibility of killing innocents.

[dazzerfong]

@ marharth:

 

So you're disputing the fact that Breivik did it, or not? I don't support it for cases which have reasonable doubt, I support it for cases in which the battle is over the sentence and not the crime.

[marharth]

@ marharth:

 

So you're disputing the fact that Breivik did it, or not? I don't support it for cases which have reasonable doubt, I support it for cases in which the battle is over the sentence and not the crime.

Only the first part of my post was in reply to you, did not mean to the rest to be about Breivik.

 

He did do it, but is almost all cases there is still a possibility people can be innocent. Regardless I don't see much point in killing these people instead of locking them away for life, even someone as bad as Breivik.

 

I can understand why it would be justified to kill him to get rid of a threat, but locking him away in prison or some kind of mental hospital would be just about as safe. I think it is rather obvious he is not sane, which is the entire reason I replied to you. I don't think you should be executing people with serious mental problems. Putting them in a separate place from society is fine, but killing them is a bit much in my opinion.

[Aurielius]

Just an idle observation...... this is the third Death Penalty debate that I can remember within two years and am willing to bet that no one's mind will be changed one iota.

[Deleted472477User]

This is one of the few areas where I disagree with my fellow Liberals. It's never a thing which should be done lightly, but there are some crimes so horrifying that those who commit them gave up the right to be called a human being in my opinion. They're human by benefit of genes only.

[marharth]

Just an idle observation...... this is the third Death Penalty debate that I can remember within two years and am willing to bet that no one's mind will be changed one iota.

That is probably a valid observation.

Edited April 21, 2012 by marharth