Death Penalty (in a bubble)

Would you ever allow the death penalty?


  • Total voters
    35

ashura

the Old Right
Registered Senior Member
What do people think about the death penalty in a bubble? Seperate from any issues of cost, of guilt, and on purely ethical grounds, is the death penalty something that you'd support using? Why or why not?

The person being sentenced is 100% without a doubt guilty and the cost is meaningless. The crime is whatever you think would result in the severity of a death penalty.
 
The government has no standing to kill any of its citizens, or decide who deserves to live or die.

And it cannot be trusted with such power.
 
I think the punishment should fit the crime. The only punishment that fits murder, is death.

I agree with that, the only problem I have (on a practical, rather than theoretical level) is that juries make mistakes, as do judges after innumerable appeals, prosecutors and police are potentially overzealous, and public defenders (and other defense counsel) are often really, really bad at their jobs.

I'm happy enough to see murderers be killed, but I'm not sure what "error rate" I'm comfortable with where the "errors" are innocent people being executed. To be honest, I don't think I require "zero" errors (since that's impossible), but I have to imagine I'd change my tune on that were I the target of a trial gone wrong, or were someone I know personally.
 
I agree with that, the only problem I have (on a practical, rather than theoretical level) is that juries make mistakes, as do judges after innumerable appeals, prosecutors and police are potentially overzealous, and public defenders (and other defense counsel) are often really, really bad at their jobs.

I'm happy enough to see murderers be killed, but I'm not sure what "error rate" I'm comfortable with where the "errors" are innocent people being executed. To be honest, I don't think I require "zero" errors (since that's impossible), but I have to imagine I'd change my tune on that were I the target of a trial gone wrong, or were someone I know personally.

The question, for the purposes of this thread, is supposed to be answered with a "zero error" assumption. I personally am against the death penalty as a part of our law because of the points you raised. When the death penalty is in a bubble however, I'm not sure when I stand.

Is death ever an appropriate punishment for any crime?

iceaura: As I mentioned to Pandaemoni, the government and it's power is really irrelevant to the discussion.
 
The question, for the purposes of this thread, is supposed to be answered with a "zero error" assumption. I personally am against the death penalty as a part of our law because of the points you raised. When the death penalty is in a bubble however, I'm not sure when I stand.

Is death ever an appropriate punishment for any crime?

iceaura: As I mentioned to Pandaemoni, the government and it's power is really irrelevant to the discussion.

Assuming zero error (as I did when I voted), then I'd say that the death penalty is appropriate. Assuming zero error, I'd also say that lottery tickets are a great investment.
 
And what's your reasoning behind that? As a deterrent for anyone ever committing murder?

How about when we bring crimes of passion into consideration. Under our current legal system, these tend to be viewed in a more sympathetic light and are given lighter sentences. Or perhaps when someone commits a murder as revenge, ie. a victim killing her rapist after the rape in a premeditated attack.

Which crimes would you consider appropriate for a death sentence?
 
What do people think about the death penalty in a bubble? Seperate from any issues of cost, of guilt, and on purely ethical grounds, is the death penalty something that you'd support using? Why or why not?

The person being sentenced is 100% without a doubt guilty and the cost is meaningless. The crime is whatever you think would result in the severity of a death penalty.

I think the thing that most people fail to take into account is ....Why should any society want to keep such people as murderers in their midst? ...even if in prisons?

What good are murderers to any society on Earth?

Baron Max
 
So you would give the death penalty to any and all murderers, no matter the circumstance?
 
So you would give the death penalty to any and all murderers, no matter the circumstance?

You're trying to stretch things here, but the answer in a word is ....yes.

No human society needs such people in their midst ...and that includes wives who've been abused and beaten, etc, who then decide to kill the husband in his sleep in some misguided ideal of protecting herself. No society needs a person like that ...yes, the death penalty.

Baron Max
 
Would you have any exceptions?

Killing someone in self defense doesn't count as murder so I'm obviously excluding that.
 
Death is more humane than solitary confinement for life I'd think. Putting

someone in a 10 foot cubicle and allowing no contact to the outside world is

more of torture than death itself.
 
Death is more humane than solitary confinement for life I'd think. Putting

someone in a 10 foot cubicle and allowing no contact to the outside world is

more of torture than death itself.

Some would view torture as the proper punishment with death being too easy.

So you believe that imprisonment is worse than death. Is giving the death penalty to murders then an act of mercy on your part?
 
Some would view torture as the proper punishment with death being too easy.

So you believe that imprisonment is worse than death. Is giving the death penalty to murders then an act of mercy on your part?


I'd say it's a better way to deal with people that do heinous crimes so that

they are never again going to be part of society. No , not mercy but justice.
 
Last edited:
I'd say it's a better way to deal with people that do heinous crimes so that

they are never again going to be part of society. No , not mery but justice.

So then you're valuing the efficiency of the death penalty in punishment over the not-so-efficient but more punishing imprisonment.

I can see the logic in that.

I wonder if anyone will end up voting no. After hearing several views from the yes camp, I'd love to hear what the other side thinks.
 
I know of two innocent people who were hanged in my lifetime. I also know of three people who were wrongly convicted of murder after the death penalty had been aboloished. They were subsequently released, one after almost twenty years incarceration. when fresh evidence came to light.

My vote is NO. And that is the vote of all those civilized countries which have abolished the seath penalty.

I may have missed it, but I have seen no discusion of the pros and cons of the tax-dollar cost of execution versus inprisonment.

There is also the smal point that in putting a person to death means society is descending to the same level as a murderer.
 
That's because you missed the gist of the entire thread. The premise is that guilt is 100% confirmed and money is not a factor; the death penalty in a bubble so to speak.

Would your views change under those circumstances?
 
That's because you missed the gist of the entire thread. The premise is that guilt is 100% confirmed and money is not a factor; the death penalty in a bubble so to speak.

Would your views change under those circumstances?




No
 
I think our entire legal system was developed to keep people from being wrongly convicted of crimes and yet it still occurs. While it is bad enough that a person can be unjustly imprisoned, it at least can be reversed. Death can not be. For those who don't believe that those errors occur you need only look at the number of convictions that have been overturned by DNA evidence in recent years.
 
Back
Top