Forum Settings
Forums
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
 
Poll: What is your take on the death penalty?


#1
Aug 17, 8:33 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 2437
What is the current MAL user's opinions on the death penalty? Since this thread seems to be picking up traction, I'd like to get more people discussing the topic (yes it's specifically talking about a mental illness but it still stands as a topic without the mental illness). I obviously didn't put a "Sometimes" option in the poll, since that still means you are in support of it.

Is it justice or revenge? Does it make you any more of a monster than the criminal? If it was a family member/friend as the criminal, would you still fulfill your own personal opinion on the matter?

As always, keep it civil or big daddy mods will end the fun discussion.
 
#2
Aug 17, 8:43 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31462
The death penalty has time and time again been shown to not be a deterrent. It costs more financially than a life sentence. Many innocent people are put to death and nothing will undo that when they are proven innocent. Minorities and ugly people are more likely to receive the death penalty. Men more likely than women. If it is used it should only be used on mass killers with no remorse and will always be a threat to society and guilt has to be proven without a doubt from well established physical evidence.
 
#3
Aug 17, 8:48 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 2481
A harbinger of societal regression.
 
#4
Aug 17, 10:04 PM
Offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 47069
i can see it as a necessary evil or lesser evil in somce cases like a criminal that is as bad as the Joker he repeatedly kills more people and he escapes repeatedly too, im not a fan of Batman mindset on the likes of the Joker even if he got the insanity defense since he is clearly crazy but not in a suicidal way but mass murderer way

i mean the USA already assasinates the likes of Osama Bin Laden if we are strictly talking about real life anyway so that is like the death penalty too

but in cases of the KyoAni arsonist i can somehow see the point of not wanting death penalty on him since he is untreated they say so there might be hope for him unlike the Joker that is clearly antisocial to the max
 
#5
Aug 17, 10:11 PM
Meme Master

Online
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 1359
What is with all these threads about the same topic? *facepalm*

I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is not a single legitimate reason for the death penalty. If you support it, you are not civilized and are just as bad as any other murderer. There is so much wrong with it. Just read through this:

https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-penalty
 
#6
Aug 17, 10:18 PM

Online
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 10211
Honestly they need to just take them out and shoot them by firing squad without alerting the media, this way it won't trouble anyone.
 
#7
Aug 17, 11:37 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 1223
Japan has it right, don't use it for everyone but particularly disturbing cases, mass murder and terrorism.

Time and time again some do gooder says these people are fit for society and then they go on a murder/rape/kiddyfiddling spree as soon as they are released.

So the question should be, should there be a death penalty or would you prefer they be allowed to kill more people? Because that's what happens. You would have to be an idiot to keep the killer alive over innocent men women and children.
 
#8
Aug 17, 11:49 PM
Offline
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 22
If you steal a napkin then off with your head.
 
#9
Aug 18, 1:51 AM

Online
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1734
QPR said:
Japan has it right, don't use it for everyone but particularly disturbing cases, mass murder and terrorism.

Time and time again some do gooder says these people are fit for society and then they go on a murder/rape/kiddyfiddling spree as soon as they are released.

So the question should be, should there be a death penalty or would you prefer they be allowed to kill more people? Because that's what happens. You would have to be an idiot to keep the killer alive over innocent men women and children.
Why not just use permanent incarceration then which is cheaper?
traed said:
The death penalty has time and time again been shown to not be a deterrent. It costs more financially than a life sentence. Many innocent people are put to death and nothing will undo that when they are proven innocent. Minorities and ugly people are more likely to receive the death penalty. Men more likely than women. If it is used it should only be used on mass killers with no remorse and will always be a threat to society and guilt has to be proven without a doubt from well established physical evidence.
The function of capital punishment is to give the people their vengeance, however I enjoy withholding their vengeance from them because I enjoy seeing those that believe in vengeance suffer.


It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate".

— Bertrand Russell
 
Aug 18, 1:53 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5864
Hard evidence shows it does not work as a deterrent, so it shouldn't be used.
Or at the very least, it should only be used for extreme cases.
 
Aug 18, 2:00 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 1223
Sphinxter said:
]Why not just use permanent incarceration then which is cheaper?.


Because it's not, the cost of keeping someone in prison is very high. Besides, costs shouldn't really come into it.
 
Aug 18, 2:05 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3886
I'm against it for all the usual reasons. I suppose I wouldn't mind it being given purely as an option for the prisoner, as a humane alternative to life in prison.
 
Aug 18, 2:12 AM

Online
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1734
QPR said:
Sphinxter said:
]Why not just use permanent incarceration then which is cheaper?.


Because it's not, the cost of keeping someone in prison is very high.
No that's wrong; capital punishment is very expensive due to numerous legal protocols that must be followed as it is irreversible that are not required for lifetime incarceration as it can always be reversed ere the convict die:

https://www.thebalance.com/comparing-the-costs-of-death-penalty-vs-life-in-prison-4689874

Besides, costs shouldn't really come into it.
Quite — my point is you've given no advantage of capital punishment to lifetime incarceration for what you want to achieve which seems superior on all levels.

Scud said:
I'm against it for all the usual reasons. I suppose I wouldn't mind it being given purely as an option for the prisoner, as a humane alternative to life in prison.

Suicide should be a human right that should apply even to lifetime incarcerated convicts is my belief thereon — a man should always own his own life as property and be allowed to void it.

Also, bring back Yuno; I have the greatest of plans for him.


It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate".

— Bertrand Russell
 
Aug 18, 2:16 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 423
Like I said before, I'm for it only for particularly dangerous and influential individuals such as leaders of terrorist organisations and powerful cartels. It's not uncommon for hostages to be taken and millions of dollars of bribes to be made in order to free such individuals. They've gone to the extent of hijacking multiple passenger planes before in order to negotiate their release.

Well such individuals are usually never taken alive in the first place so in a way they're already giving them the death penalty.
As for the costs, no need for some death penalty ceremony. A bullet to the head is enough. There should be plenty of irrefutable evidence against such individuals already.
Modified by -InfiniteLoop-, Aug 18, 2:19 AM
Our existence precedes our essence
 
Aug 18, 2:34 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 1223
Sphinxter said:


Because it's not, the cost of keeping someone in prison is very high.
No that's wrong; capital punishment is very expensive due to numerous legal protocols that must be followed as it is irreversible that are not required for lifetime incarceration as it can always be reversed ere the convict die:

https://www.thebalance.com/comparing-the-costs-of-death-penalty-vs-life-in-prison-4689874

[/quote]


You are talking about the US where they keep them on death row for decades. Japan and everywhere else are a bit more efficient, hell the US still manages to screw up executions because they won't use drugs that can kill them painlessly.

Also, this guy will kill again if he is released, he killed dozens over a supposed stolen forum sig, imagine what he'd do when something really goes against him?
 
Aug 18, 5:09 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1248
Just torture them if being in a prison is not enough, but as long as people want to live let them live.

The mentality "it's better if that person die" is the very same thing what in the killer's mind before he killed other people. It's not like by killing the perpetrator the victim will live again. And I am not yet talking about wrong charges.
Modified by Jim_Heart, Aug 18, 5:15 AM
 
Aug 18, 5:22 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 13499
In a secular society, why should any form of punishment exist in the first place? We should just try to understand that other people express themselves differently. Sure, we don't want people mowing down children with an AR-15. But that person isn't evil - he's just being a dick. Forcing our subjective sense of morality on a mass murderer would be cruel - it might even hurt his feelings and cause him to feel as though he suffered the death penalty in his mind.

I also support Bernie Sanders's campaign promise to allow convicted pedophiles & white supremacist shooters to vote from prison.
Modified by Bayek, Aug 18, 5:25 AM
 
Aug 18, 6:19 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4204
I support it. Some people commit crimes so horrible that they should be put to death.

If the death penalty doesn't act like a deterrent its because it takes years or even decades to execute someone due to all the appeals the guilty can get. Which by the time that person is executed the general public done forgot why that person was executed.
 
Aug 18, 7:12 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 1402
Golly, this topic again? I'm totally against it. There have been wrongful executions and that fact alone is more than enough for me to believe it should be abolished
 
Aug 18, 7:16 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 1955
Pragmatically it's indefensible. The only reason why one would want it is due to some twisted idea of retribution. If you want the culprit to atone in some way, forced labour whose earnings go to victims' families and/or charity organizations is infinitely more beneficial. Now I'm not saying it should be done, it may seem a bit inhumane, but unlike killing off the person it'd actually help people.
 
Aug 18, 7:20 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1756
I consider it to be barbaric.

We as a society don't want to send a message that such violence is accepted, even when the person using the said violence is the legal system.
My condolences to KyoAni #PrayForKyoani
 
Aug 18, 7:30 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 5314
The death penalty is like eating an orange after brushing your teeth. You really want to eat it but it tastes horrible.

It can be both good and bad, the punishment itself is the same as any other, but the execution or the premises of application is often vague and arbitrary. Things to do are: define the premises, make the punishment known, use it reluctantly.

Contrary to general belief, capital punishment really does reduce crime rates. Countries that do apply death penalty enjoy low-crime rates, although it is not a direct cause-effect, but it works nonetheless. The logic behind that is as follows --Most countries cannot functionally run productive jail systems. Once you're in, unless you develop certain life philosophies inside, you'll just go on a rampage once your sentence ends. Death penalty eliminates this process in countries that have shit prisons, thus the low-crime rates; the crooks don't get a chance to do it twice.

I advocate for death penalty in incompetent prison systems, but fair incarceration in functional systems. That's just how it works.
Modified by Yarub, Aug 18, 7:34 AM
 
Aug 18, 7:43 AM

Online
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2512
I support it in cases of very dangerous and irredeemable criminals and who are undeniably the perpetrators of the act.
I see no purpose in keeping someone locked up forever, or continuously re-releasing someone into society, only for them to keep harming other innocent people. That's misguided morality.
The purpose of imprisonment is rehabilitation, and if you won't release them back into society because they are too dangerous, I see no point in wasting money keeping them alive for several decades.
I don't see it as some violent retribution. It's a painless and efficient solution. The people who want them to rot in jail forever seem more vengeful and sadistic to me.

I can see you


 
Aug 18, 8:13 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 1030
it's no different than a penalty in football imho. you get it cuz you've done a foul in a dangerous place. simple as that. if you play the game nice and fair, you won't get a penalty :>
I'll stay out all night
Looking at the sky
I'll still have my sight
Yeah, I'll still have my eyes


And, I’ll stop writing songs
Stop scratching out lines
I won't have to think
And it won't have to rhyme
 
Aug 18, 8:18 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 1623
QPR said:
Sphinxter said:
]Why not just use permanent incarceration then which is cheaper?.


Because it's not, the cost of keeping someone in prison is very high. Besides, costs shouldn't really come into it.
you're incredibly uninformed.
The cost of a death penalty trial dwarfs the cost of life in prison.


Anyway, @traed has it right. Case closed.
 
Aug 18, 8:30 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 2481
QPR said:


You are talking about the US where they keep them on death row for decades. Japan and everywhere else are a bit more efficient, hell the US still manages to screw up executions because they won't use drugs that can kill them painlessly.


You realize that Japan kept the biggest criminal in their modern history for more than 20 years before hanging him, right? If you are going to give such examples at least say Iran or something "you are sentenced to death because we don't like you, you'll be hanged tomorrow and your family will pay for it" - yea, sounds cheaper that way but also kind of medieval.

But no you are terribly wrong. Outside of the third world and countries that don't care about human rights, the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Glad that traed got the first answer as many people probably also believe this myth.
Modified by 149597871, Aug 18, 8:43 AM
 
Aug 18, 8:35 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 348
I think it depends entirely on the crime the person committed and if the investigations are 100% sure it was really the person

Of course, only for big crimes like killing many people, raping children and killing animals for no reason
 
Aug 18, 8:41 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 372
Yes it should be used. As Immanuel Kant put it so eloquently: "If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death."
“Loddfafnir, listen to my counsel: You will fare well if you follow it, It will help you much if you heed it. If aware that another is wicked, say so: Make no truce or treaty with foes.” - Havamal 127
 
Aug 18, 8:47 AM

Online
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 1142
I think that death of personality would be better. Erase there memories, fix somatic stuff and rehabilitate them by giving them new identity and new memories and make them serve humanity and become productive citizens. Kinda like in Babylon 5, although I'm not sure if it's possible yet but it's something that we should strive for.




X s t a s y

“I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours”
―Cheshire Cat

 
Aug 18, 8:49 AM
otaking
Offline
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 24882
The State should not hold the rights of life and death simple as that
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine"

When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run
There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun
Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one
For the Union makes us strong
 
Aug 18, 8:54 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 4902
I really am not sure. It is obvious that there are some criminals who most people prefer not be around them: a government will have to do something about it. Is killing them that different to locking them away for the rest of their lives? I believe not, in fact I would rather be dead than locked up for 60 years.
But this topic is not really about the criminals but about our feelings in regards to what "we" do with the criminals. Some people think that the more suffering of the criminal, the more justice and therefore they advocate for torture; others, that if you do not hurt their bodies, you are """civilized""" and that incarceration is just fine; others think that a pragmatic execution is best for the wellbeing of society.

Personally I believe that long life incarceration is a fate worse than death and it's very inconsistent to pretend that the prison system is "rehabilitative" when there are certain individuals whose return to society has been categorically forbidden.
I believe that anyone who advocates for torture outside of erotic arousal is a dangerous person and should be ostracized.
So I am left with capital punishment, on pragmatic grounds. I would just add that the executions themselves be public, on the largest plaza of the town. In that form, we'd get people to consider justice for a moment. Or not.
 
Aug 18, 9:17 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 1223
Railey2 said:


Because it's not, the cost of keeping someone in prison is very high. Besides, costs shouldn't really come into it.
you're incredibly uninformed.
The cost of a death penalty trial dwarfs the cost of life in prison.


Anyway, @traed has it right. Case closed.[/quote]
No chance,

£120k per place and £40k per year for the average inmate, it will be higher for high security inmate. Around £16m for 40 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/28/justice.prisonsandprobation

$1.26m for a single trial.
https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/

Are you going to tell me $1.26m is more than £16m?
 
Aug 18, 9:36 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 47
It depends, take these absurd cases that death penalty can be applied:

-In Indonesia, drug trafficking is a crime with a death penalty by shooting.

-In Arab countries it is a death penalty crime being atheist or homossexual.

-In communist dictatorships, going against the dictatorial regime is also a life-threatening crime

Nothing that comes from the state is good, considering that they themselves are a criminal and immoral institution, so they have no basis for judging anyone else.
 
Aug 18, 10:04 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 967
Criminality has its origins in tremendous parts from the DNA of the perpetrators.

And since both nature and human society have had genes pass down through violence and dominance for eons, chances are extremely slim to find people that aren't dominated by criminal instincts through their DNA. Most people just act on it. Society supports and encourages the criminal behavior through brainwashing in school. Ironically the government also punishes the same behavior that they grow people up to be like.

It's like the gardener that grows shiny and aromatic flowers in abundance and then wonders why dandelion "infests" their garden. And then they violently remove the dandelion and throw it away, not knowing that the dandelion grows exactly because their field is sick and the dandelion is trying to re-nurture the field with calcium and co.



The electric chair and the syringe are tools abused to dipose of the weak.
We once had the tools to dispose of those with malicious DNA instead.
But just as taller school bullies gang up on the smaller kid, so did the allies on the axis. There will always be more evil than there will be good people and the blame thus falls on those good people that are beaten down.

The most pitiful existences on earth might be those that believe in karma.
If people ever even remotely got punished for what they inflict on others, the world wouldn't be filled with disparity as it is.
 
Aug 18, 10:11 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 1623
QPR said:
Railey2 said:
you're incredibly uninformed.
The cost of a death penalty trial dwarfs the cost of life in prison.


Anyway, @traed has it right. Case closed.

No chance,

£120k per place and £40k per year for the average inmate, it will be higher for high security inmate. Around £16m for 40 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/28/justice.prisonsandprobation

$1.26m for a single trial.
https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/

Are you going to tell me $1.26m is more than £16m?
apparently you can't do math. Tell me what's 40*40k again? 16 million really? You sure about that?

Maybe you should also read the second link you posted, as it completely agrees with traeds and my viewpoint, and refutes yours.
actually YOUR second link said:
  • A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
    (December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)

  • In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
    (2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)

  • In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case.
    (Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008)

  • In California the current system costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.
    (California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, July 2008)




Mod Edit: Removed baiting.
Modified by ThatRazorGuy, Aug 18, 11:35 AM
 
Aug 18, 10:49 AM
Anime/Car Lover

Offline
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 118
I have two points on it I do think it should be used on some people such as serial killers and other similar cases however, I think if we kill them when are losing valuable information on learning what makes people act that way. If we just put them in a asylum for the rest of their life we could learn about those peoples brains and possibly prevent it from happening again. But again their are some people such as mass murders and terrorist that don't even deserve that and should just be taken out. As far as deterrence goes I have read many different studies on it throughout college and they always contradict each other so I can't say anything but speculation and opinions on that.

So tldr: it should definitely be a punishment option but only for particular cases imo.
 
Aug 18, 11:33 AM
Forum Moderator
Bot Hunter

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 3873
Thread Locked


This thread violates Casual Discussion Rule 7, which pertains to controversial material


Controversial/sensitive topics liable to incite rule violations (trolling, flaming, abuse) are no longer allowed. Please use the Current Events board for new developments in these topics, and follow the board rules there. This includes, but is not limited to, topics which:
a. aim to profile/stereotype, or question the legitimacy of, people based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, xenophobia, religion, etc.
b. discuss highly-debated social issues; e.g. abortion, sexual assault, immigration, etc.
c. focus on political ideologies and events; e.g. Nazism, fascism, world leaders, controversial laws/lobbies, etc.
One bright day in the middle of the night, two dead boys got up to fight
Back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other
A deaf policeman heard the noise and came and killed those two dead boys
 
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Top