What is your take on the death penalty?
It should be used
51.1%
24
It shouldn't be used
48.9%
23
47 votes
| 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. |
| A harbinger of societal regression. |
| 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 |
| 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 |
 |
| 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. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| 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. |
 |
QPR said: Why not just use permanent incarceration then which is cheaper?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. traed said: 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.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. |
 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 |
| 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. |
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. |
|
| 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. |
 |
QPR said: 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: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. 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 |
| 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. |
xLoopAug 18, 2019 2:19 AM
<Insert clever quote> |
| 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? |
|
| 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. |
Jim_HeartAug 18, 2019 5:15 AM
"The Slave is the have-not, the oppressed one with nothing to spare. But because the Slave is in that despairing situation, having nothing, it can kill the Emperor !" |
| 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. |
ZekkenshinAug 18, 2019 5:25 AM
 |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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. |
 |
| 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. |
| 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. |
YarubAug 18, 2019 7:34 AM
| 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 |
| 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 :> |
 |
QPR said: you're incredibly uninformed.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. The cost of a death penalty trial dwarfs the cost of life in prison. Anyway, @traed has it right. Case closed. |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
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. |
149597871Aug 18, 2019 8:43 AM
| 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 |
| 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. |
 |
Railey2 said: you're incredibly uninformed.Because it's not, the cost of keeping someone in prison is very high. Besides, costs shouldn't really come into it. 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? |
|
| 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. |
 |
QPR said: apparently you can't do math. Tell me what's 40*40k again? 16 million really? You sure about that?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? 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:
Mod Edit: Removed baiting. |
LoveLikeBloodAug 18, 2019 11:35 AM
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
| 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. |
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. |
Take care of yourself |
More topics from this board
» How do you know other people actually exist?purple_rayn - Yesterday |
11 |
by Sad
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » JAPAN?BaronLukis - Apr 17 |
22 |
by mentalmondai
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» Is this forum dead? It seems like it.DesuMaiden - Apr 17 |
45 |
by Sad
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» What do you think about law enforcement (police) in your country?Sad - Apr 16 |
28 |
by Sad
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» What hobbies, skills, or common views do you wish a significant other had?IpreferEcchi - 5 hours ago |
6 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
41 minutes ago |