are you for or against the death penalty **DEBATE**

Im all for it. Some people are just better off dead.

i think am with it !!! although a life sentence might make him pay more !! esp. for child rapists killers ...

against it. even from a purely logical point of a view, the death penalty is actually more expensive than just keeping them alive!!!

it lowers us to their level as well

people can be wrongly convicted

Many people who are stuck in prison for a certain amount of time and they know they will never be free again will be begging for death.xTheExploited

i don't think so. prison life is still life! and if they really wanted to die, they could commit suicide couldn't they?

Depends on the crime. IF they are a Child Molester or they murder children, they are better off with life in prison. The inmates do some pretty terrible things to people like that.

against it. even from a purely logical point of a view, the death penalty is actually more expensive than just keeping them alive!!!

it lowers us to their level as well

people can be wrongly convicted

jpph

against it. even from a purely logical point of a view, the death penalty is actually more expensive than just keeping them alive!!!

it lowers us to their level as well

people can be wrongly convicted

[QUOTE="xTheExploited"]Many people who are stuck in prison for a certain amount of time and they know they will never be free again will be begging for death.jpph

i don't think so. prison life is still life! and if they really wanted to die, they could commit suicide couldn't they?

this again? make a poll at least

I'm against it, killing someone does not solve anything

against it. even from a purely logical point of a view, the death penalty is actually more expensive than just keeping them alive!!!

jpph

If thats true, it still doesnt change anything for me. I'd rather pay more for a child molestersexecution than pay less but for their food and shelter.

Or they can kill them cheaply without all the unnecessary costs, its notlike icare if its more painful for them.

[QUOTE="jpph"]

against it. even from a purely logical point of a view, the death penalty is actually more expensive than just keeping them alive!!!

it lowers us to their level as well

people can be wrongly convicted

XDaWoLfMaNX

No,i thinkpaying for the Lethal Injection costs thousands

[QUOTE="XDaWoLfMaNX"][QUOTE="jpph"]

against it. even from a purely logical point of a view, the death penalty is actually more expensive than just keeping them alive!!!

it lowers us to their level as well

people can be wrongly convicted

gamedude2020

No,i thinkpaying for the Lethal Injection costs thousands

I don't think anyone has the right to judge whether or not an individual has forfeited his or her right to life, and when it comes down to the death penalty there are two ways to go about it: a really expensive appeals process that dwarfs life imprisonment in cost and reduces the number of innocent executions, or a cheap one that has you killing people who didn't do crap more often. Due process may be the least fallible method of determination, but that hardly makes it a flawless system; and if it isn't perfect, I wouldn't be comfortable with ANYBODY using it to pick who lives and dies.

If you pick life imprisonment you don't really have to worry about either of those, since you're not implementing an irreversible punishment. There's always the point that jails are overfilled nowadays, but if you want to empty those, then what you should do is something like legalize drugs, not put in an imperfect system that doesn't actually have anything going for it except retributive sentiment. The same sentiment which is based on the rather simplistic (and false) idea that when somebody does something bad, it's always because he's "evil".

I think it should be reserved for only the most severe circumstances.

I'm against it, killing someone does not solve anything

gamedude2020

I say stripping someone of their rights as a human being is more of a punishment than simply ending it for them.

[QUOTE="XDaWoLfMaNX"][QUOTE="jpph"]

against it. even from a purely logical point of a view, the death penalty is actually more expensive than just keeping them alive!!!

it lowers us to their level as well

people can be wrongly convicted

gamedude2020

No,i thinkpaying for the Lethal Injection costs thousands

Also you have paying for appeals which are necessary to have before the execution, These appeals are also needed because since 1970 there had been around 100 people that been released because they are innocence, and there had even been an execution of a possiblyinnocent man, Carlos de Luna, and there had been others too.

Against it. As long as you can keep someone locked up for life instead of kill them, locking them up should always be the choice. Don't kill people if they don't threaten you (or you can take the threat away from imprisonment).

It's better than keeping people caged for their entire lives just to die anyway. I think they should be given the option for death in prison whenever(if it's a life or very very long sentence).

Against it. The possibility of killing an innocent man is far too great, even only if it's a 1% chance. There is no recourse if the innocent person is dead, whereas if the person is in prison, they can be released.Ring_of_fire

This is why I think it should be optionable to the inmate.

[QUOTE="jpph"]

against it. even from a purely logical point of a view, the death penalty is actually more expensive than just keeping them alive!!!

it lowers us to their level as well

people can be wrongly convicted

LoseEagles1245

new jersey stopped the death penalty for economic reasons.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

https://www.msu.edu/~millettf/DeathPenalty/6.html

http://www.fashion-res.com/death-penalty-more-expensive-than-life-in/

there are plenty more, just google it!

Against it.. It hardly acts as a deterrent.. Its a major waste of money to the point it costs many times more then just housing the convicted party in prison for life.. And it does nothing for the victims out side of some kind of petty revenge that doesn't bring back the victim.sSubZerOo

Why kill them? That's pointless. How about torture them? Or go back to the old style prisons, bread and water along with a straw bed. Let them suffer.

Im all for it. Some people are just better off dead.

Zerocrossings

[QUOTE="jpph"]

against it. even from a purely logical point of a view, the death penalty is actually more expensive than just keeping them alive!!!

Zerocrossings

If thats true, it still doesnt change anything for me. I'd rather pay more for a child molestersexecution than pay less but for their food and shelter.

Or they can kill them cheaply without all the unnecessary costs, its notlike icare if its more painful for them.

thats very narrow minded. yano, the vast majority of child molesters/rapists/abusers and whatnot were abused in some shape or form in the past. they are not inherently evil. they need rehabilitation not redneck cowboys calling for their death.

Why kill them? That's pointless. How about torture them? Or go back to the old style prisons, bread and water along with a straw bed. Let them suffer.

CBR600-RR

Because we are civilized and believe in human rights, regardless of whot he person is..

Why kill them? That's pointless. How about torture them? Or go back to the old style prisons, bread and water along with a straw bed. Let them suffer.

CBR600-RR

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Against it.. It hardly acts as a deterrent.. Its a major waste of money to the point it costs many times more then just housing the convicted party in prison for life.. And it does nothing for the victims out side of some kind of petty revenge that doesn't bring back the victim.Teenaged

agreed. very nicely put.

Against it. The possibility of killing an innocent man is far too great, even only if it's a 1% chance. There is no recourse if the innocent person is dead, whereas if the person is in prison, they can be released.Ring_of_fire

Pretty sure it costs a great deal more to house someone (in bad conditions) than it does to just kill them. You have to consider that prisons are very often full and have to supply electricity, food, water, etc... to the prison inmates, along with clothes. These things cost a great deal over time.

[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]Against it. The possibility of killing an innocent man is far too great, even only if it's a 1% chance. There is no recourse if the innocent person is dead, whereas if the person is in prison, they can be released.LJS9502_basic

Sometimes people are convicted of murder regardless of DNA presence. Sometimes they can be convicted by eyewitnesses and video evidence along with maybe some physical evidence. Kinda like they did before DNA printing was around.Occasionally it does pop up that some people are convicted wrongly no doubt. However, wrong convictions have definitely decreased in the last decade or so because of DNA advancements, so that is good.

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]

[QUOTE="jpph"]

against it. even from a purely logical point of a view, the death penalty is actually more expensive than just keeping them alive!!!

jpph

If thats true, it still doesnt change anything for me. I'd rather pay more for a child molestersexecution than pay less but for their food and shelter.

Or they can kill them cheaply without all the unnecessary costs, its notlike icare if its more painful for them.

thats very narrow minded. yano, the vast majority of child molesters/rapists/abusers and whatnot were abused in some shape or form in the past.

They are still child molesters, doesnt make it excusable. Its tragic that they were raised badly, but hey, the world is better off without them.

Which side do you want me to be on....I can argue either side.LJS9502_basic

Ye old Devil's Advocate then. :P

[QUOTE="jpph"]

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]

If thats true, it still doesnt change anything for me. I'd rather pay more for a child molestersexecution than pay less but for their food and shelter.

Or they can kill them cheaply without all the unnecessary costs, its notlike icare if its more painful for them.

Zerocrossings

thats very narrow minded. yano, the vast majority of child molesters/rapists/abusers and whatnot were abused in some shape or form in the past.

They are still child molesters, doesnt make it excusable. Its tragic that they were raised badly, but hey, the world is better off without them.

i never even suggested that it's excusable. they can become better people, maybe even benefit others........

so if you're parents were/are ****s, should we kill you off?

i am for it in certain cases. and if the process was done a little differently.

[QUOTE="jpph"]

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]

If thats true, it still doesnt change anything for me. I'd rather pay more for a child molestersexecution than pay less but for their food and shelter.

Or they can kill them cheaply without all the unnecessary costs, its notlike icare if its more painful for them.

Zerocrossings

thats very narrow minded. yano, the vast majority of child molesters/rapists/abusers and whatnot were abused in some shape or form in the past.

They are still child molesters, doesnt make it excusable. Its tragic that they were raised badly, but hey, the world is better off without them.

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]

[QUOTE="jpph"]

thats very narrow minded. yano, the vast majority of child molesters/rapists/abusers and whatnot were abused in some shape or form in the past.

jpph

They are still child molesters, doesnt make it excusable. Its tragic that they were raised badly, but hey, the world is better off without them.

i never even suggested that it's excusable. they can become better people, maybe even benefit others........

so if you're parents were/are ****s, should we kill you off?

If im a threat to your children, go right ahead. And you talk only of the positive extreme, how many of these guys actually change after treatment?

[QUOTE="jpph"]

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]

They are still child molesters, doesnt make it excusable. Its tragic that they were raised badly, but hey, the world is better off without them.

Zerocrossings

i never even suggested that it's excusable. they can become better people, maybe even benefit others........

so if you're parents were/are ****s, should we kill you off?

If im a threat to your children, go right ahead. And you talk only of the positive extreme, how many of these guys actually change after treatment?

how much has crime gone down since the introduction of the death penalty?

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]

[QUOTE="jpph"]

i never even suggested that it's excusable. they can become better people, maybe even benefit others........

so if you're parents were/are ****s, should we kill you off?

jpph

If im a threat to your children, go right ahead. And you talk only of the positive extreme, how many of these guys actually change after treatment?

how much has crime gone down since the introduction of the death penalty?

When it was first introduced? A whole lot im betting.

[QUOTE="jpph"]

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]

If im a threat to your children, go right ahead. And you talk only of the positive extreme, how many of these guys actually change after treatment?

Zerocrossings

how much has crime gone down since the introduction of the death penalty?

When it was first introduced? A whole lot im betting.

bad bet.google it!!

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

I'm against it, killing someone does not solve anything

gamedude2020