Death Penalty, For or Against

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Suzy_Q_Kazoo"]

I agree with this. It's not as if death penalties are handed out like candy.

Suzy_Q_Kazoo

As I said before, if they don't have enough evidence then the person shouldn't even been in prison in the first place.

I just posted, I didn't actually read through the thread.

Then proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and based on the heinousness of the crime.

Yeah, that's kinda the idea. According to our legal system if proof isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt then the person should be aquited. There's no "if you think he's probably guilty then convict".

[QUOTE="Suzy_Q_Kazoo"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

As I said before, if they don't have enough evidence then the person shouldn't even been in prison in the first place.

worlock77

I just posted, I didn't actually read through the thread.

Then proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and based on the heinousness of the crime.

Yeah, that's kinda the idea. According to our legal system if proof isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt then the person should be aquited. There's no "if you think he's probably guilty then convict".

I know, sorry for the redundancy :P

[QUOTE="Suzy_Q_Kazoo"]

[QUOTE="Lilyanne46"]

I'm all for it, when they have full proof and evidence, including thorough DNA testing, when people commit serious crimes, such as murder. But if they don't have enough evidence, then, just life in prison with no parole.

worlock77

I agree with this. It's not as if death penalties are handed out like candy.

As I said before, if they don't have enough evidence then the person shouldn't even been in prison in the first place.

Innocent people have never been put to death have they?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Suzy_Q_Kazoo"]

I agree with this. It's not as if death penalties are handed out like candy.

THUMPTABLE

As I said before, if they don't have enough evidence then the person shouldn't even been in prison in the first place.

Innocent people have never been put to death have they?

I'm sure they have been, which is one of the reasons why I oppose it.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Suzy_Q_Kazoo"]

I agree with this. It's not as if death penalties are handed out like candy.

THUMPTABLE

As I said before, if they don't have enough evidence then the person shouldn't even been in prison in the first place.

Innocent people have never been put to death have they?

There's strong belief that it has occurred, but it's not of commonplace.

[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

As I said before, if they don't have enough evidence then the person shouldn't even been in prison in the first place.

Suzy_Q_Kazoo

Innocent people have never been put to death have they?

There's strong belief that it has occurred, but it's not of commonplace.

I don't know about that. Using my own state as an example Illinois, since reinstituting the death penalty in the 1970's, has executed 11 and freed 13 who were convicted, sentenced to death and then later found to be innocent of the crime.

the death penalty is a crime against humanity .

[QUOTE="Suzy_Q_Kazoo"]

[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"]

Innocent people have never been put to death have they?

worlock77

There's strong belief that it has occurred, but it's not of commonplace.

I don't know about that. Using my own state as an example Illinois, since reinstituting the death penalty in the 1970's, has executed 11 and freed 13 who were convicted, sentenced to death and then later found to be innocent of the crime.

I'm not sure if he meant actually killed or just sentenced to the death penalty. I presumed the former, but if talking about the latter you're absolutely right; it does happen.

Being an atheist, I'd rather people who are given the death penalty stay in prison for life. Rather them letting them having the easy way out.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Suzy_Q_Kazoo"]

There's strong belief that it has occurred, but it's not of commonplace.

Suzy_Q_Kazoo

I don't know about that. Using my own state as an example Illinois, since reinstituting the death penalty in the 1970's, has executed 11 and freed 13 who were convicted, sentenced to death and then later found to be innocent of the crime.

I'm not sure if he meant actually killed or just sentenced to the death penalty. I presumed the former, but if talking about the latter you're absolutely right; it does happen.

He meant killed. My point is that judging by the track record, having overturned the convictions of more people than they've executed, it makes me wonder how many of those 11 were innocent. And that's just for one state. Considering that the legal system is pretty much uniform across the United States I'm betting that more innocent people have been put to death in our prisons than what some people might like to think.

[QUOTE="Suzy_Q_Kazoo"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I don't know about that. Using my own state as an example Illinois, since reinstituting the death penalty in the 1970's, has executed 11 and freed 13 who were convicted, sentenced to death and then later found to be innocent of the crime.

worlock77

I'm not sure if he meant actually killed or just sentenced to the death penalty. I presumed the former, but if talking about the latter you're absolutely right; it does happen.

He meant killed. My point is that judging by the track record, having overturned the convictions of more people than they've executed, it makes me wonder how many of those 11 were innocent. And that's just for one state. Considering that the legal system is pretty much uniform across the United States I'm betting that more innocent people have been put to death in our prisons than what some people might like to think.

I was referencing this, but I guess I wouldn't actually know otherwise.

There are so many clueless people in this thread.

I am against the death penalty due to 4 empircal objective reasons:

1. It is not a deterrent

2. It costs more to execute a person than to keep them incarcerated for life. Most important reason.

3. It defeats the purpose of correctional facilities

4. Human error during trials.

The ones that support the death penalty do so because they have a misguided sense of self-righteousness and nothing more.

We are not Gods. We do not play God. We should not create life in an artificial way, and so neither should we take life in an artificial way (such as the death penalty).

On the more pragmatic side, it actually costs more to execute a prisoner in the US than it does to lock them up for life.

Against, for many reasons.

1. It costs more money to execute someone than to incarcerate someone for life.

2. Life in jail seems like just as bad of a punishment as execution.

3. Innocent people have been executed. That is unacceptable and that reason alone should make it illegal. It is better for (arbitrary number) guilty men to go free than to put one innocent man to death.

4. I know this really doesn't have a bearing on the law but I am also against it for religious reasons. Jesus was against it "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." For those who claim "eye for an eye" That was put in to place to prevent people from killing entire families as retribution for one death. I believe we are FAR beyond that as a society.

5. It's been shown that it isn't a deterrent.

The only reason to be for it is if you have a vengeful attitude which I think is a pretty crappy and barbaric reason for it to still be around.

There was another topic about 2 robbers breaking into a house and tieing up the man of the house. Beating, raping, and strangling to death his wife. And raping and killing his 11 year old girl. Then burning the house down.

Its ***** like this that make me support not just the death penalty, but harsher deaths.

Bring back the steak and fire. Get them used to hell.

I am totally for it.

For it but only in the more extreme cases like the one a few posts above mine.

People who rape/kill children, serial killers, spree shootings, that kind of thing.

3. Innocent people have been executed. That is unacceptable and that reason alone should make it illegal. It is better for (arbitrary number) guilty men to go free than to put one innocent man to death.

The only reason to be for it is if you have a vengeful attitude which I think is a pretty crappy and barbaric reason for it to still be around.

Guybrush_3

I don't have a vengeful attitude, I just think some of them don't deserve to live. Life in prison and a death sentence are very similar, nobody should be incarcerated without proof.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

3. Innocent people have been executed. That is unacceptable and that reason alone should make it illegal. It is better for (arbitrary number) guilty men to go free than to put one innocent man to death.

The only reason to be for it is if you have a vengeful attitude which I think is a pretty crappy and barbaric reason for it to still be around.

bloodling

I don't have a vengeful attitude, I just think some of them don't deserve to live. Life in prison and a death sentence are very similar, nobody should be incarcerated without proof.

You find evidence that the guy was innocent. If he's in prison, you can let him go. It's a bit harder to do that when he's dead.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

3. Innocent people have been executed. That is unacceptable and that reason alone should make it illegal. It is better for (arbitrary number) guilty men to go free than to put one innocent man to death.

The only reason to be for it is if you have a vengeful attitude which I think is a pretty crappy and barbaric reason for it to still be around.

SgtKevali

I don't have a vengeful attitude, I just think some of them don't deserve to live. Life in prison and a death sentence are very similar, nobody should be incarcerated without proof.

You find evidence that the guy was innocent. If he's in prison, you can let him go. It's a bit harder to do that when he's dead.

Nobody should ever go to jail if there's a possibility he's innocent, much less given a death sentence. If it's not 100% sure, I agree with you.

steak

dercoo

Stake.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

3. Innocent people have been executed. That is unacceptable and that reason alone should make it illegal. It is better for (arbitrary number) guilty men to go free than to put one innocent man to death.

The only reason to be for it is if you have a vengeful attitude which I think is a pretty crappy and barbaric reason for it to still be around.

bloodling

I don't have a vengeful attitude, I just think some of them don't deserve to live. Life in prison and a death sentence are very similar, nobody should be incarcerated without proof.

I think thinking that some people don't deserve to live is a vengeful attitude. I don't think that humans have the right to decide who lives or dies due to the crimes they commit.

The difference between a death sentence and a life sentence is that is at least partially fixable if evidence is found later to overturn the conviction. If someone is still alive in prison and evidence is found that exonerates them then they can be released, but if someone is executed then no amount of evidence saying they are innocent will bring them back. Saying that people shouldn't be incarcerated without evidence as a reason to back up the death penalty is extremely naive. The judicial system is not perfect. People do make mistakes and innocent people are incarcerated.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

I don't have a vengeful attitude, I just think some of them don't deserve to live. Life in prison and a death sentence are very similar, nobody should be incarcerated without proof.

bloodling

You find evidence that the guy was innocent. If he's in prison, you can let him go. It's a bit harder to do that when he's dead.

Nobody should ever go to jail if there's a possibility he's innocent, much less given a death sentence. If it's not 100% sure, I agree with you.

But that's not how the law works. There is always some possibility that someone is innocent.

Partially against. I feel only human beings who obviously have the resources to break out of any jail should be the ones put the death. As in owning an entire MOB or gang of people who are willing to throw their lives away to save their leader. And this Mob or gang is notorious to commit large scale terrorist attacks....

So, I'm for it depending on how dangerous that person is. I'm against it if the person isn't capable of getting out....

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

3. Innocent people have been executed. That is unacceptable and that reason alone should make it illegal. It is better for (arbitrary number) guilty men to go free than to put one innocent man to death.

The only reason to be for it is if you have a vengeful attitude which I think is a pretty crappy and barbaric reason for it to still be around.

Guybrush_3

I don't have a vengeful attitude, I just think some of them don't deserve to live. Life in prison and a death sentence are very similar, nobody should be incarcerated without proof.

I think thinking that some people don't deserve to live is a vengeful attitude. I don't think that humans have the right to decide who lives or dies due to the crimes they commit.

The difference between a death sentence and a life sentence is that is at least partially fixable if evidence is found later to overturn the conviction. If someone is still alive in prison and evidence is found that exonerates them then they can be released, but if someone is executed then no amount of evidence saying they are innocent will bring them back. Saying that people shouldn't be incarcerated without evidence as a reason to back up the death penalty is extremely naive. The judicial system is not perfect. People do make mistakes and innocent people are incarcerated.

That's what I'm saying, if they can't prove it 100% this shouldn't happen. However, if the person admits having done the crime...

We do kill terrorists because of the crimes they commit. We have the right to decide to put them in jail, which you admitted was an even worse situation in some cases, so why should this be any different?

That's what I'm saying, if they can't prove it 100% this shouldn't happen. However, if the person admits having done the crime...

We do kill terrorists because of the crimes they commit. We have the right to decide to put them in jail, which you admitted was an even worse situation in some cases, so why should this be any different?

bloodling

Again you are being naive. The judicial system is not perfect and people make mistakes. Often times people think that the person is 100% guilty. (guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) but evidence later turns up that exonerates them. It happens.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

That's what I'm saying, if they can't prove it 100% this shouldn't happen. However, if the person admits having done the crime...

We do kill terrorists because of the crimes they commit. We have the right to decide to put them in jail, which you admitted was an even worse situation in some cases, so why should this be any different?

Guybrush_3

Again you are being naive. The judicial system is not perfect and people make mistakes. Often times people think that the person is 100% guilty. (guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) but evidence later turns up that exonerates them. It happens.

What evidence could possibly exonerate them? If such a thing exist, then these people were wrong to be sure. Maybe your judicial system is heavily flawed, but every country has a different system. These crazy things don't happen everywhere.

Not sure. Just think of all the animals we have killed in our lives to eat. Life's not something we cherish too much. We don't give a **** about people around the world. If we stopped to help other we could probably save a lot of lives. Why not kill someone if we have definite proof they've done something really bad. It does have an element of being primitive, but I don't know if that should be a deciding factor in whether or not it exists.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

That's what I'm saying, if they can't prove it 100% this shouldn't happen. However, if the person admits having done the crime...

We do kill terrorists because of the crimes they commit. We have the right to decide to put them in jail, which you admitted was an even worse situation in some cases, so why should this be any different?

bloodling

Again you are being naive. The judicial system is not perfect and people make mistakes. Often times people think that the person is 100% guilty. (guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) but evidence later turns up that exonerates them. It happens.

What evidence could possibly exonerate them? If such a thing exist, then these people were wrong to be sure. Maybe your judicial system is heavily flawed, but every country has a different system. These crazy things don't happen everywhere.

If you live in the US (like me) then you are seriously misinformed about the judicial system. People are wrongfully convicted here.Hell it happens all over the world.

Against. But only on a strictly financial standpoint. Apparently offing a guy somehow cost more money then incarceration for life : S

Not sure. Just think of all the animals we have killed in our lives to eat.brandontwb

Killing an animal is completely different from killing a human being.

Still in favor of the death penalty, though. Just wanted to point out that people who think that a pig's life is as significant as a human's life are wrong, wrong, wrong.

If you live in the US (like me) then you are seriously misinformed about the judicial system. People are wrongfully convicted here.Hell it happens all over the world.

Guybrush_3

Well then, that sounds like a much more serious problem needs to addressed, because convincting people for no reason is absolutely ridiculous. But still, an expert could easily see what cases are 100% sure, and what cases are not.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

If you live in the US (like me) then you are seriously misinformed about the judicial system. People are wrongfully convicted here.Hell it happens all over the world.

bloodling

Well then, that sounds like a much more serious problem needs to addressed, because convincting people for no reason is absolutely ridiculous. But still, an expert could easily see what cases are 100% sure, and what cases are not.

No case is "100%" sure.. Our justice systems works on "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "100%" figures..

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

If you live in the US (like me) then you are seriously misinformed about the judicial system. People are wrongfully convicted here.Hell it happens all over the world.

bloodling

Well then, that sounds like a much more serious problem needs to addressed, because convincting people for no reason is absolutely ridiculous. But still, an expert could easily see what cases are 100% sure, and what cases are not.

Time to move into the real world kid. No one is perfect and people will be wrongfully convicted. (sometimes evidence is missed and it really does look like an innocent person committed a crime) If "experts" could really tell every time if someone was innocent or guilty then there would be no need for juries or even real trials. Just the opinion of some "expert."

No case is "100%" sure.. Our justice systems works on "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "100%" figures..

sSubZerOo

I am saying that these sentences should never be given if there is any kind of doubt whatsoever. If there is anything that could prove their innocence, then life sentence is out of the question.

[QUOTE="brandontwb"]

Not sure. Just think of all the animals we have killed in our lives to eat.Metal_Mario99

Killing an animal is completely different from killing a human being.

Still in favor of the death penalty, though. Just wanted to point out that people who think that a pig's life is as significant as a human's life are wrong, wrong, wrong.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No case is "100%" sure.. Our justice systems works on "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "100%" figures..

bloodling

I am saying that these sentences should never be given if there is any kind of doubt whatsoever. If there is anything that could prove their innocence, then life sentence is out of the question.

Thats absurd then, because there is always doubt of some kind by the idea of how most justice systems work.. Hence beyond a REASONABLE doubt.. Not any doubt.

What do you do to get rid a virus? Do you rehabilitate it or kill it?UT_Wrestler

Comparing human beings to viruses. What a world we live in.

Time to move into the real world kid. No one is perfect and people will be wrongfully convicted. (sometimes evidence is missed and it really does look like an innocent person committed a crime) If "experts" could really tell every time if someone was innocent or guilty then there would be no need for juries or even real trials. Just the opinion of some "expert."

Guybrush_3

A life sentence and opinions from many experts added to the fact that the person admitted having done many mind-blowing crimes and hard evidence are the requirements. Can it be done? I believe it can. Would it be done the right way? You are starting to make me doubt about it.

No question changes should be made, and they should be made right now.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No case is "100%" sure.. Our justice systems works on "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "100%" figures..

bloodling

I am saying that these sentences should never be given if there is any kind of doubt whatsoever. If there is anything that could prove their innocence, then life sentence is out of the question.

In theory there is no doubt. That is how our legal system is set up: guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. That's the theory. The reality however is far different. Any system set up and ran by flawed, imperfect beings is going to be a flawed, imperfect system. As such that makes for an unacceptable risk that an innocent might be executed.

In theory there is no doubt. That is how our legal system is set up: guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. That's the theory. The reality however is far different. Any system set up and ran by flawed, imperfect beings is going to be a flawed, imperfect system. As such that makes for an unacceptable risk that an innocent might be executed.

worlock77

I agree, there are much more important things to be concerned about right now, and not just in the US.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Time to move into the real world kid. No one is perfect and people will be wrongfully convicted. (sometimes evidence is missed and it really does look like an innocent person committed a crime) If "experts" could really tell every time if someone was innocent or guilty then there would be no need for juries or even real trials. Just the opinion of some "expert."

bloodling

A life sentence and opinions from many experts added to the fact that the person admitted having done many mind-blowing crimes and hard evidence are the requirements. Can it be done? I believe it can. Would it be done the right way? You are starting to make me doubt about it.

No question changes should be made, and they should be made right now.

I appreciate your idealism, but I don't think it's practical. The judicial system will never be perfect because people aren't perfect. If it were possible for people to be perfect in their judgement I would definitely agree with you.

bring back the firing squad i say, its faster and cheaper:twisted: