death penalty - yes or no

do you support the death penalty

  • YES

    Votes: 33 45.2%

  • NO

    Votes: 40 54.8%
  • Total voters
    73
Q

Quagmire

convince me or convict me
Registered Senior Member
Here it is sciforums people, the big one, the death penalty.

If you are a yes - please say why

If you are a no - please say why

lets get a dialogue going, discuss the pros and cons of capital punishment and if you can be bothered use examples, links, news stories and photos.
 
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind...I can go with that. After all Gandhi is a very peaceful person and it's been working out for him.
I think it all depends on the case though. I know that if someone were to kill someone close to me I'd want a punishment that's equal for them. People think it's cruel to have the death penalty but isn't it worse to have someone in prison the rest of their life?
If you've killed somone in cold blood...where do you draw the line in the punishment? Isn't the death penalty the only just way of doing this? If you don't want to die then you shouldn't be killing people. It's easy.
 
its not solely about vengance, it is also about prevention, there was a case recently in britain where a convicted attempted murder was released after 6 years of his 12 year sentance, killed and robbed a man on his door step within 3 months of release.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4757414.stm

so now this murderer is serving 36 years on the tax payers bill, will it mean he is released in 18 years or less? if so he will be around 40 years old and still capable of similar horrific acts.

prison doesnt rehabilitate, prisoners reoffend more often than they dont, its time to realise prison isnt working and that a 'new' method needs to be devised.

On a related note: it costs thousands of pounds to keep a prisoner jailed for a year, currently britain is facing up to a huge shortcoming in the pensions sector and the state of the NHS (national health service) is appauling, yet the tax payer can pay to keep scum like hanson and many many more fed and kept in prison. NO THANKS, we have war veterans, and pensioners struggling to get by - living below the poverty line.

when did looking after criminal bastards become a higher priority to looking after the innocent and hardworking.
 
As I suggested in a previous post, criminals should be given a number of points dependant on the gravity of each misdeamenour as well as probation or prison sentences according to the crime.

Rehabilitation, education, skill learning and social service should be a mandatory part of any prison sentence.

If the criminal can't learn the error of their ways even after the chances they are given as in the above paragraph and they persist in crime, then, after a number of points have been reached, they should be put to death.
 
No, just build a just and social society and half your crime problems are already gone. Of course it is easier to shout that you need the death penalty because;
a. it requires no effort
b. you can close your eyes for the real problems
 
I'm told that the legal costs of putting a criminal to death are more than it costs to keep them imprisoned for life.

Of course, you could always cut costs by throwing away the ideas of "reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty". It's tempting to do exactly that, but I suspect that the long-term cost to society might be too high.

Prevent reoffense? Either don't release from prison, or rehabilitate (re-Neducate?)

If a life sentence is a fate worse than death, then allow suicide, or call it a voluntary death sentence if you prefer.

What does the death sentence do? Deter criminals? No. Prevent re-offense? Certainly, but so does life in prison. Vengeance? I think that's what people really want it for, deep down. Perhaps we should bring back public floggings?
 
Different circumstances call for different measures.

I believe that paedophiles, once found guilty should be immediatly killed.

They harm peoples mental health, and get away relatively scot free. for example, the other day on the news, a man had been found guilty of raping a 9 year old girl several times, he got 5 years, which, if he behaved well would be reduced to half! Two and a half years of punishment versus a whole lifetimes worth of anguish.

Makes me feel sick!

:m:
 
indeed, i say execute, not because it is easy, not because it helps turn a blind eye to other problems, but so that the bastard never does anything like it again.

imagine an execution live on television, for lets say a paedophile, if watching the perverted scum ball hang by his neck till he stops breathing plants even the smallest degree of discouragement in the mind of even one single other would be paedophile is it not worth it?

i would prefer to ladel out justice and retribution in such a fashion so as to scare paedophiles and murderers and rapists and terrorists so much that they would be less likely to offend. even a 1% reduction in such horrific crimes must be worth the means.

Also, i do not buy into this culture of blaming everybody else for my problems, "its societys fault for being so elitist/corrupt that i decided to kill someone"

"its the inequality of society that forced me to go out thieving"

"its not my fault i didnt get an education and so cant get a good job, instead i will snatch old ladies hand bags and deal drugs"

The moment a person decides to break the law, they have forfeitted all their rights in my view, it is currently why we imprison criminals - the worst offenders should be used as examples to other criminals - the state will force the RESPONSIBILITY of YOUR CRIMES on YOU!
 
i would prefer to ladel out justice and retribution in such a fashion so as to scare paedophiles and murderers and rapists and terrorists so much that they would be less likely to offend. even a 1% reduction in such horrific crimes must be worth the means.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we could crucify them?
What about burning them alive?
Make them fight lions?
How about hang, draw, and quarter?
 
hows about cover them in honey and let a colony of army ants take them to pieces.
or starve them to death
or maybe, cruelest of all make them read posts by Theoryofrelativity and Ophiolite
 
spuriousmonkey said:
No, just build a just and social society and half your crime problems are already gone.
Click to expand...

Far easier said than done. If anything, societies are getting harder and harder to control and manage and this is why the superpowers (governments) are moving slowly but surely into fascism and totalitarianism while their peoples follow like blind sheep. Just who, is supposed to change societies into just and social ones in the present socio/political climate?

What is the point of wasting tax payers money on keeping persistent re-offending criminals behind bars? The only reason I can see and that I don't agree with is because of some Christian religion based moral code.
 
tablariddim said:
Far easier said than done. If anything, societies are getting harder and harder to control and manage and this is why the superpowers (governments) are moving slowly but surely into fascism and totalitarianism while their peoples follow like blind sheep. Just who, is supposed to change societies into just and social ones in the present socio/political climate?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was easy, but all european countries have lower crime rates than for instance the US. Most do not have the death penalty. How can crime be lower if death penalty deters criminals? Because the social climate is different.

Can the US ever change? No. I have been here now for 9 months or so. Selfishness is a way of life here. The highest good. A good climate for crime and support for the death penalty. I'm sure americans don't want any change.
 
i aint gonna lose sleep knowing that child murderers are going to be put to death. id say something better would be to keep them in a closed space by themselves for the rest of their lives as they slowly start to go insane, you could also choose when to put the lights on so the body never has its 'clock' to work so they suffer horrific sleep depravation. then as they near their death we use them for live vivisections so at least they serve a purpose, oh and quagmire that list is bloocks as you havnt included duendy
 
Quagmire said:
hows about cover them in honey and let a colony of army ants take them to pieces.
or starve them to death
or maybe, cruelest of all make them read posts by Theoryofrelativity and Ophiolite
Click to expand...
Throw them in a pool with sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads!

Get a knife, cut open their spleen, and drink their fluids! Does that sound good to you?
 
No!
I support either slavery or isolation. I would like to send those who would otherwise be executed, on an island into community with anarchy. If they kill eachother, fine :( Island based on personality types would be nice.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
I didn't say it was easy, but all european countries have lower crime rates than for instance the US. Most do not have the death penalty. How can crime be lower if death penalty deters criminals? Because the social climate is different.
Click to expand...

Crime statistics may show a lower rate in Europe, but the prisons are overflowing with up to 4 times as many inmates as they were designed to hold. All this does is provide breeding grounds for more criminals. Many Judges in the UK now avoid handing out jail sentences because of this overcrowding.

The problem is, that the whole prison system is inadequate and outdated and it is obvious that imprisonment is ineffective as punishment, especially for re-offenders. The ones that suffer the most in prison are the non-career criminals; those that are normally law abiding but have just been caught doing something naughty and anti social, usually through greed or ignorance or diminished responsibility like being drunk or drugged when commiting their crime and the trouble is that when you put those type of offenders in the same environment as hardened criminals, the weak ones are likely to be brutalised and the others will get further education in the criminal arts.

If I were to reform the prison system, I would devise some sort of tier system with many levels as befits the many levels of criminal behaviour, taking into account the type of person the offender is and their previous record. I know that this already happens to a certain degree but the measures taken are half baked. Basically, prisons are designed to cause grief and punishment and while this is fine for serious offenders, I think that it's totally the wrong ploy for most first time and even second time offenders.

For those people, prison should be more like an ashram; a place where people are made to see their errors and understand the harm they caused; a place that can help to deprogram them from their criminal tendency, to educate them, enlighten them, rehabilitate them and give them a chance to service the community in some way and although this might seem to be horrendously expensive to implement initially, it may prove to be an excellent investment in the long run, if it achieves a genuine reduction in re-offending criminals.

I would still award points according to the nature of the crime and the deterrent would be that with each re-offence, more points are awarded and the punishment gets harder but still with an emphasis on rehabilitation until such time as that after a certain number of points have been awarded and the person has proved that they could never be rehabilitated and that they are utterly useless and a danger to society, then the only solution is execution. A simple end to the matter.
 
There's always the danger of killing someone innocent isn't it? And once one becomes a murderer, one becomes a murderer, right? A justice system killing criminals aint a justice system. It's a killing system, which makes it no better than the murderer. If a person who has murdered is on death row and actually has changed, and kknows with himself that he won't kill again, then is it right to kill him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top