Death penalty argument

Opinion of the death penalty is...

  • I support the death penalty for most crimes

    Votes: 4 13.3%

  • I support the death penalty for sadistic (rape, murder, torture) crimes

    Votes: 11 36.7%

  • I support the death penalty for murder only

    Votes: 2 6.7%

  • I do not support the death penalty for any crime

    Votes: 13 43.3%
  • Total voters
    30
N

Norsefire

Salam Shalom Salom
Registered Senior Member
Sure, we've had many polls and debates over the death penalty. But I want to know, from those opposed to it, why? Why are you opposed to it?

The first argument is wrongful execution. As unfortunate as this is, you must understand that it is the fault of the judicial system, not the punishment.

And then, think of the horrendous crimes. Mass-murderers who torture, kill, and eat their victims, and feel no remorse...........these people do not deserve execution? Silly. They do.


And for those supportive, why are you supportive?

Debate away!

As an added note, why is it of consequence to you? To the people opposed to cp, I mean. We are dealing with criminals here, murderers, why the hell do you care? They deserve it. I don't understand why some people defend them and say they shouldn't be executed. Is it any skin off your nose? No.


In a 2000 poll, 65%+ of the US population approved of the death penalty.
 
No other deaths should occur unless a human performs a sadistic act as defined above. Rape of a child should be worse than death, take it back to the old days. I say either crusafiction or disembowlment. Nothing is humane about it, but neither was their crime.
 
Some might suggest that when a person is put away in a cell by themselves for the rest of their lives it is worse than dying with a quick electrocution or lethal injection. Sitting in a cell 10x10 everyday until you die with no way to get outside isn't a very pleasant way to spend your time while living. Again, if you think about it , that is more cruel and unusual punishment than a quick swift death isn't it?:shrug:
 
Norsefire said:
The first argument is wrongful execution. As unfortunate as this is, you must understand that it is the fault of the judicial system, not the punishment.
Click to expand...

Uh.. precisely because the judicial system can fail the death penalty is not a good idea.
 
Cannon said:
No other deaths should occur unless a human performs a sadistic act as defined above. Rape of a child should be worse than death, take it back to the old days. I say either crusafiction or disembowlment. Nothing is humane about it, but neither was their crime.
Click to expand...
I agree
Enmos said:
Uh.. precisely because the judicial system can fail the death penalty is not a good idea.
Click to expand...

True. But nonetheless, in situations where it's blatantly obvious and proven beyond a doubt, why not use it?



We are also forgetting the emotional element. Don't one single person tell me that if your family was brutally tortured, murdered, and eaten, you wouldn't want the person behind it to suffer. Don't tell me you wouldn't, Enmos.
 
Norsefire said:
True. But nonetheless, in situations where it's blatantly obvious and proven beyond a doubt, why not use it?
Click to expand...
Because you can't have double standards in the law. Who is going to say which case is obvious and which case is not ?

Norsefire said:
We are also forgetting the emotional element. Don't one single person tell me that if your family was brutally tortured, murdered, and eaten, you wouldn't want the person behind it to suffer. Don't tell me you wouldn't, Enmos.
Click to expand...
Of course, but emotion has no place in the judicial system.. and rightly so.
Besides, virtually instant death is not exactly suffering.
 
Enmos said:
Because you can't have double standards in the law. Who is going to say which case is obvious and which case is not ?
Click to expand...
Evidence


Of course, but emotion has no place in the judicial system.. and rightly so.
Besides, virtually instant death is not exactly suffering.
Click to expand...

But doesn't it? What I mean is, such horrid and barbaric crimes deserve horrid and barbaric punishments.

And it doesn't have to be instant death. What about crucifixtion?
 
I could only say that one mans sin can only be repaid with another. And as such the man who sins starts the evil cycle, for the only way to make right is to ignore. But to ignore is ignorance. It means to do nothing more than to ignore. So if a man murders 100, than his entire family line should be taken too in payment to the family. Cause blood pays with blood and money with money. So do unto them as they do to you. Have done to them as they have done to you. For my eye is my eye and it is what I see, justice and judgment is reserved for me.
 
Norsefire said:
Evidence
Click to expand...
That is what they do know and still errors are being made.
They only sentence someone to death if they are absolutely sure that he or she did it. Still errors are being made.

Norsefire said:
But doesn't it? What I mean is, such horrid and barbaric crimes deserve horrid and barbaric punishments.

And it doesn't have to be instant death. What about crucifixtion?
Click to expand...
Oh I thought you were talking about the conventional means of putting someone to death..
Lowering yourself to the level of a barbaric murderer is wrong, especially for the state. They should be the ones to set the good example.
 
*sigh* Enmos, nobody reply anymore. Do you think people scroll down after my
post #12? What if they think I really meant Orleander? Although..... :scratchin:
 
inzomnia said:
*sigh* Enmos, nobody reply anymore. Do you think people scroll down after my
post #12? What if they think I really meant Orleander? Although..... :scratchin:
Click to expand...

lol Don't worry about it.
I have a hard time believing even Orleander will have a problem with it. It's just a harmless joke :)
 
I don't really think the death penalty is that great of a punishment, I don't think it serves its purpose. Because I don't think you are really punishing the person who committed the crime. You're punishing the people who actually cared about that person. Even if they can't see the person they wouldn't feel the same pain that do when their killed, because death is so final. It won't bring you're loved one's back, back that way you don't make innocent people suffer just as you have. But maybe that's what people want since "misery loves company" and all.
 
I would support the death penalty if we had better criminal justice systems. I can’t support the death penalty in any system where innocent people have been executed. We would have to change our criminal justice systems before I could support the death penalty. I believe that the concept of using a prosecutor, a lawyer, a judge, and a jury to determine if a person is innocent or guilty is an archaic custom that should have been abolished a long time ago. Our competition based systems allows innocent people to be convicted and guilty people to go free. A murder trial shouldn’t be about a competition between the prosecution and the defence. It should be about finding the truth and protecting the public. Most lawyers are only concerned about winning their case. I am also not comfortable with the idea of allowing a jury to decide if a person should live or die. I can give you an example of the kind of criminal justice system that I would support.

The Detectives and Scientists

They would search for the truth.

The Panel of Judges

They would play the role of the judge, jury, and district attorney. It would be very important that these people are trained to think like scientists instead of philosophers. The idea that a judge or jury can sentence a person to death or life in prison simply because they “believe” a poses a danger to society is ridiculous to me. Every verdict and sentence should be based on logic and statistics. Emotions shouldn’t play a role in determining what kind of punishment a person should receive.

The Oversight Committee

They would have the job of making sure that the judges, scientists, and detectives are doing their jobs properly. They would review every case to make sure that no one is punished for a crime that they did not commit. The people from the oversight committee would have the power to fine or fire anyone that is involved in the wrongful conviction of a person.

The Prison Wardens

They would have the job of trying to rehabilitate the inmates.

Death Penalty Eligibility

A point system should be created to determine if a person is eligible for the death penalty. Every violent offense should have a specific value. Having a number of 100 or more could make you eligible. For example, rape or attempted murder could be worth 30 points. Voluntary homicide could be worth 40 points. There should also be limit to the amount of points that a person can accumulate during a specific event or a 24 hour period. I believe that a person that make one bad decision that results in the death of five people should have a lower score than someone that killed five people different times. Anyone that has a score above 100 should have the opportunity to be a productive member of society within their prison walls. They should be in prison for the rest of their lives, but they should have the opportunity to work for various privileges like a comfortable living space, cable television, and conjugal / prostitute visits. The inmate should only be sentenced to death if they continue to engage in violent behaviour within the prison. The sentencing process should involve the signing of a document by a prison warden, a person from the oversight committee, and one of the judges that was involved in sentencing the person to prison.
 
I think anyone for the death penalty should be killed. Preferably by someone else who has the same belief. One person, the winner of a series of execution matches, gets pardoned each year.
No one gets to watch any of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top