Do you support the death penalty?

[morgs]

Are you for the death penalty, against the death penalty, or on the fence?

I recently watched a TV show about the death penalty and its current use in the US, and I'm undecided. I mean, I'm all for putting murderers and serial killers to death, particularly if they have no hope of reforming. But what about the innocents that end up on death row? It doesn't happen that often of course, but surely one innocent man dying on death row is too many? Then there are the botched executions, such as the wrong amount of chemicals being used during execution by lethal injection.

Then there's the so called 'psychological torture' that inmates are put through while on death row, knowing they're going to die. The question is, do they deserve it. Obviously it varies from case to case. I don't agree with the whole "If you support the death penalty, you're a murderer" statement, it just seems like a way of trying to make people feel bad. I don't believe the death penalty works as a deterrent, especially when it comes to murders of passion/compulsion.

I think there are some people that are just screwed, (see Anders Behring Breivik) that aren't going to reform, and I think they're the people the death penalty should be aimed at. Of course my opinion could be changed in a second. If I had a relative who was put on death row after a mistrial I'd probably be against it. On the other hand, if someone broke into a family member/close friend's house and murdered them I'd probably want them to die on death row. But that's just human nature I guess.

 

[Higlac]

I'm for it under certain circumstances.

 

[dfc05]

I've always been against it. Aside from the fact that there have been quite a few folks on death row who have been proven innocent, I've always thought it was kind of sick especially when it's made into a public spectacle. I think I remember they televised one (in Texas) when I was a kid.

I've heard that it also costs more money to go through the process of killing the person than it does to keep them in prison for life. I haven't researched that in depth though.

 

[FrostedxB]

I support it but only for certain/more extreme circumstances.

 

[lord_raken]

One innocent person killed is too many, and that makes we the people proxies to murder. To paraphrase Lord of the Rings: Some who deserve death live while those who deserve life perish, but that's not for use to decide. The point for criminal incarceration and the death penalty is to remove dangerous people so they can't harm others. You can accomplish that by locking them up. Killing seems a little excessive. Of course some probably deserve death, but even one innocent killed makes the cost for keeping that program too high.

Besides, As long as there is life there is hope. There is hope that an evil man will repent, there is the hope that a man wrongly accused will cleared of his charges, there is the hope for closure and peace on both sides of the crime.

Besides, its cheaper to keep them alive and there is little evidence for the death penalty as a deterrent.

If they do keep it, they need to reserver it only for the most atrocious and horrible crimes committed by unrepentant psychopaths who can ONLY be described as unquestionably EVIL.

 

[Shem]

I'm on the fence about it as well, but I believe it depends on the severity of the crime. People like Breivik, Hassan, and Loughner deserve the death penalty because they are dangerous criminals and have taken the lives of many innocent people. They are a tumor to our society.

 

[dfc05]

Hmm, I still think that, for the sake of the innocent, it'd be simplest to just get rid of the death penalty entirely. Even though some people might deserve it, I don't really mind that they're only condemned to rotting away in some jail cell rather than being put to death.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

**** no.

 

[morgs]

Hmm, I still think that, for the sake of the innocent, it'd be simplest to just get rid of the death penalty entirely.

This. The crime is already done, killing them wont bring back the victims.

 

[Acepilotf14]

I believe that any time someone takes someone else's life in cold blood they forfeit their own right to life.

However, I'm not saying kill everyone who is suspect in murder. There has to be no reasonable doubt whatsoever.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I've been arrested on false pretenses and have witnessed first-hand how blatantly unfair the justice system can be, even on the smallest level of offenses. I was always against capital punishment because it solves nothing and costs literally millions of dollars more than life in prison in this country, but now I hold, with great clarity, the belief that death is not a measurable penalty.

Birth is not a reward and death is not a punishment.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Only for Batman villains, because incarceration has so clearly failed in their case.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm for it, but only under very strict conditions. As the justice system works right now, I am wholly against it. Lets say I was in charge of revamping the justice system, I'd do the following.

Get rid of prisons as we know them today. Instead of them, we make them actually useful. Incarcerated people receive daily treatment and psychiatric care for a period of time dictated by the judge at the time of sentencing. This will actually help patient/prisoners get over their inclinations to commit whatever crime they were caught committing, and the set amount of time will still mean you'll lose a significant portion of your life to this institution and thus retain the deterrence factor that the current system relies solely upon. This, I think, would be a much better system of fostering better behavior than locking them in a barred cell and letting them mingle freely with terrible people. I mean seriously, do people really expect that people will behave better in society after we lock them in a building where they get raped and beaten, meet and conspire with other criminals, and provided no measure of a civilized perspective on life?

Death would be a legitimate sentence, but I'd require a certain amount of trials before the execution is permitted. One jury (of imperfect human beings) being convinced beyond reasonable doubt is not enough to sentence a man death. If there are, say, four juries that are completely convinced that this person is guilty, then I'd allow it. It would also have to be the consensus of several psychiatrists that the person is incapable of being fixed (for lack of a better word).

I also would get rid of life sentences. If someone did something bad enough to deserve life in jail, then he did something bad enough to deserve death. No reason to try and heal a mind that can't be healed. I don't believe in locking people up for life out of revenge. Prison should be used to force people to get fixed and come out better people, and not solely something we use to exact petty vengeance on those who did us wrong. That doesn't help society. People that can't be fixed however, like clinically proven sociopathic/psychopathic murderers, yeah they're doing no good to society either. Don't see any reason to keep them around.

This would, of course, be expensive as shit. But I figure we can use them as cheap labor in factories or something to pay for themselves. Then they're learning applicable work skills too!

 

[Viperidae]

Only for Batman villains, because incarceration has so clearly failed in their case.

Not necessarily. The last movie's villain has already been taken care of.

lolblackhumour

 

[Ennui]

I don't support it at all. Institutionalized violence + imperfect justice system = bad things. Personally I do think there are crimes so reprehensible that the person deserves to die / has forfeited their right to live on Earth with the rest of us, but on principle I just can't agree with any sort of state-sanctioned murder.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I'm for it under certain conditions.

 

[Raziaar]

For people who are undoubtedly guilty, definitely.

 

[MJ12]

Against the death penalty.

That's not to say I don't believe certain people deserve to die, I definitely do. I just don't believe a government should have that power.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Against it. The risk of killing someone who is innocent is too high. I'm fine with having those criminals rot in prison for the rest of their lives.

 

[Stylo]

Agree with the points that have been said against the Death Penalty:

- Killing a criminal won't bring back or relieve the victims of their crimes. It will still have happened.

- Some criminals may welcome being killed as an easy way out. I'd bet some would rather have their lives ended than rot in jail until they die of old age/go crazy/get shanked.

- One innocent life taken is too many. If a genuinely innocent person ends up on Death Row, we're pretty much murdering bastards for putting them there.

- Does anybody not think it's kind of stooping to their level? Oh they've murdered somebody, what should we do in response? MURDER THEM, YEAH!

I believe they should be kept away from society and that prisons should be harsh and devoid of luxuries. Prisoners should be put to work to give something back to the society they've wronged.

 

[morgs]

Does anybody not think it's kind of stooping to their level? Oh they've murdered somebody, what should we do in response? MURDER THEM, YEAH!

The "eye for and eye" policy does seem very out of place in civilized society.

 

[Stigmata]

- One innocent life taken is too many. If a genuinely innocent person ends up on Death Row, we're pretty much murdering bastards for putting them there.

This is all that needs to be said, IMO.

 

[Krynn72]

Oh, I'm also for the option of giving people with life sentences the ability to request assisted suicide.

- Does anybody not think it's kind of stooping to their level? Oh they've murdered somebody, what should we do in response? MURDER THEM, YEAH!

Agreed, its much better to lock them in tiny windowless jail cells for their entire life and only let them associate with terrible people who beat, kill, and rape each other, and force them into slave labor, YEAH MORAL HIGH GROUND!

 

[morgs]

That's another question, is it any worse than keeping them locked up in a cell for the rest of their lives, with the possibility that they may kill other prisoners, or influence other prisoners to kill?

 

[nofreeman]

who wants a invite

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/

 

[Eejit]

Against.

If Andy Dufresne had gotten the death penalty the Shawshank Redemption woulda been pretty shit.

 

[KiplingsCat]

I'd be completely against it. You may say that somebody has forfeited the right to life by their actions, but firstly, that's a matter of opinion on which life and death shouldn't depend, and secondly, somebody forfeiting the right to life doesn't give any of us the right to take it away from them.

 

[Minister]

Against. It just seems pretty backward and barbaric to me. No other reason than that.

 

[Escaep]

Then there's the so called 'psychological torture' that inmates are put through while on death row, knowing they're going to die. .

Then there is life in prison without parole which is essentially a death sentence as well.

 

[EversorAssassin]

I'm all for it. I believe in a waiting period of a few years, to help reduce the risk of the innocent being killed... but allowing a murderer to rot in prison for a full lifespan is a waste of taxpayer money.

 

[Shift]

I'm against it. The fact that there have been innocent people executed is reason enough for it to not be practiced, but I also think its an easy way out for murdering scum, I'd much rather they have to spend the rest of their days rotting in a cell. That does however pose the question of overcrowding prisons, which is a big problem over here.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Depends on the type of murder, the only type of death penalty I endorse is for people who clearly do not show remorse for the what they have done (Basically people who get off on it or enjoy the torture of victims, do other things to the victims bodies; rape and mutilation, before or after last breath)

 

[The Monkey]

For people who are undoubtedly guilty, definitely.

The percent of people who can be "undoubtedly" considered guilty is so small that it would be impossible to implement such a rule in praxis.

 

[Shem]

- Killing a criminal won't bring back or relieve the victims of their crimes. It will still have happened.

Neither will giving them life in prison. This point is irrelevant, but I understand you weren't the first to bring it up in this thread.

The only problem I have with the death penalty is that the executioner applying the lethal injection does not give the right amount of drugs or cannot find the right vein in the criminal. I've heard that most people who administer the drugs are inexperienced with anesthesia and do not successfully induce unconsciousness in the patient when the time comes. This would cause the patient to feel pain but not be able to say anything because of the paralytic agent.

This was a case where the executioner did not find the right vein the first time and had to do it again:

On December 13, 2006, Angel Nieves Diaz was not executed successfully in Florida using a standard lethal injection dose. Diaz was 55 years old, and had been sentenced to death for murder. Diaz did not succumb to the lethal dose even after 35 minutes, necessitating a second dose of drugs to complete the execution. At first, a prison spokesman denied Diaz had suffered pain, and claimed the second dose was needed because Diaz had some sort of liver disease. After performing an autopsy, the Medical Examiner, Dr. William Hamilton, stated that Diaz’s liver appeared normal, but that the needle had been pierced through Diaz’s vein into his flesh. The deadly chemicals had subsequently been injected into soft tissue, rather than into the vein. Two days after the execution, then-Governor Jeb Bush suspended all executions in the state and appointed a commission “to consider the humanity and constitutionality of lethal injections.” The ban was lifted by Governor Charlie Crist when he signed the death warrant for Mark Dean Schwab, July 18, 2007. On November 1, 2007 the Florida Supreme Court unanimously upheld the state's lethal injection procedures.

 

[15357]

I support the death penalty. I believe in second chances for all men, but very few deserve a third. Also, the idea that the State is in control of a man's life is symbolic of its jurisdiction over all men.


But most of the time, I can think of better ways to use these criminals. Explosive collars and hard labor comes to mind.

 

[Solaris]

I do not support the death penalty when carried out by the established state. However there have been times in the past when Guerrilla Army's have had to utilise this as they cannot imprison people for obvious reasons. Also, for military's in time of dire war, the death penalty can often be required also as a sanction against cowardice, inhumanity and rapine.

 

[Stylo]

Neither will giving them life in prison. This point is irrelevant, but I understand you weren't the first to bring it up in this thread.

Agreed, its much better to lock them in tiny windowless jail cells for their entire life and only let them associate with terrible people who beat, kill, and rape each other, and force them into slave labor, YEAH MORAL HIGH GROUND!

Well, I can answer these 2 responses with the same point.

The point of locking them in jail isn't to torture them, it's to keep them away from society where they can't do anymore harm. The point of killing them is... what? Cutting them out of the picture entirely even though innocent people might end up dead? Is that worth it?

The whole "moral high ground" thing is just stupid. I mean the whole "windowless jail cells terrible people blah blah" comment - Well why should they get luxury in jail? I don't get how because you don't agree with spilling blood but do agree with keeping people away from society that somehow makes you a hypocrit? So because we've chosen not to kill them we should then spend money making their lives as comfy as possible because it's either one extreme or the other and there's no middle ground?

Detention > Killing, IMO.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Its no more expedient or cheap for the state than life imprisonment, at least in Western countries where it is practiced, so no real reason to hold onto it, especially with the associated risks of killing innocents.

 

[Krynn72]

The point of locking them in jail isn't to torture them

You don't think that locking them in windowless 6' x 8' jail cells for the entire life, giving them only communication with other criminals who rape beat and kill each other isn't akin to torture? What you call luxuries (a window, not getting raped and beaten) I'd call basic human needs. What you're trying to do is treat these people like animals but say you're treating them humanely because you don't put them down. Thats what I mean you trying to take the moral high ground. I say that if we are sure a person cannot function in society after any measure of treatment, then lets put them down (because I don't think a person like that can qualify as more than an animal, as he would have to physically be incapable of any measure of compassion or having any measure of a moral compass), rather than punish them for the rest of their life for no reason other than to feel better about ourselves.

So because we've chosen not to kill them we should then spend money making their lives as comfy as possible because it's either one extreme or the other and there's no middle ground?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Totally, absolutely what I'm saying. Man, its like you can read my mind! I was just thinking to myself "I bet someone will pull shit out of their ass and say that I'm arguing for something I'm not!" and then BAM, here you are! AMAZING.


Also, the whole "if one innocent person is killed then its not worth it" thing rings a little false to me too, since there have been far more cases where murder convicts escaped from jail to kill more people. The risk of that is higher than the risk of sentencing an innocent man to death, and the onus is still on the justice system for such murders.

 

[Eejit]

You don't think that locking them in windowless 6' x 8' jail cells for the entire life, giving them only communication with other criminals who rape beat and kill each other isn't akin to torture?

Don't put words in his mouth. He said torture isn't the point of life sentences, not that the conditions couldn't be viewed in such a way.