death pently for or against

i have to write an essay on it so gamespot might as well help

i have to write an essay on it so gamespot might as well help

mirriorman

I remember I had written an essay about the death penalty.

How will our contributions help you at all?

Going to get locked, but vehemently against.

If we could be 100% certain they were guilty, then I would be for it
-I believe there are people in this world that we can do nothing for, given the current limitations in medicine/psychology...they are only a danger to all those around them
-however, too many innocent people are jailed for me to support it

I remember I had written an essay about the death penalty.

How will our contributions help you at all?

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I remember I had written an essay about the death penalty.

How will our contributions help you at all?

mirriorman

I may be able to find a link.

I am against. I don't like death at all, even if someone "deserves" it.

Do your own homework. I'm against.

If we could be 100% certain they were guilty, then I would be for it
-I believe there are people in this world that we can do nothing for, given the current limitations in medicine/psychology...they are only a danger to all those around them
-however, too many innocent people are jailed for me to support it

rawsavon

I feel the exact same way. I think just recently several people were found innocent based on new DNA evidence that came up decades later.

some people behave like rabid dogs

and some dogs just gotta be put to sleep.

That doesnt make it right, but I feel the death penalty should be used where rehabilitation is completely useless.

im all for it... whats the point of putting someone in jail for 3 life terms and wasting tax payers money? oh yeah, there isnt one but yet the cries of bleeding heart americans is louder than logic...er... my logic

I'm all for death pentlies. Penalties, not so much.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

If we could be 100% certain they were guilty, then I would be for it
-I believe there are people in this world that we can do nothing for, given the current limitations in medicine/psychology...they are only a danger to all those around them
-however, too many innocent people are jailed for me to support it

Atmanix

I feel the exact same way. I think just recently several people were found innocent based on new DNA evidence that came up decades later.

Exactly...
-even 1 innocent person on death row is one too many to risk...their life/existence is over

Against. Costly, ineffective, and risky.Bourbons3

i think you got it backwards on one of your points

its much more costly paying for a life term inmate than putting them to death....

im all for it... whats the point of putting someone in jail for 3 life terms and wasting tax payers money? oh yeah, there isnt one but yet the cries of bleeding heart americans is louder than logic...er... my logic

ogvampire

[QUOTE="Atmanix"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

If we could be 100% certain they were guilty, then I would be for it
-I believe there are people in this world that we can do nothing for, given the current limitations in medicine/psychology...they are only a danger to all those around them
-however, too many innocent people are jailed for me to support it

rawsavon

I feel the exact same way. I think just recently several people were found innocent based on new DNA evidence that came up decades later.

Exactly...
-even 1 innocent person on death row is one too many to risk...their life/existence is over

that is very true, but that has more to do with the legal system than the actual implementation of a death penalty

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Link 5

____________________

And on topic: I am against.

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]Against. Costly, ineffective, and risky.ogvampire

i think you got it backwards on one of your points

its much more costly paying for a life term inmate than putting them to death....

No it isn't, because the due process required to put someone to death ends up costing more than the typical life imprisonment. And you can't do away with the due process, or you risk executing innocent people. Even in cases where the original trial found that the person was "definitely guilty, no doubt about it," evidence has occasionally been found that later clears the person.

I don't need to tell you that murdering one innocent person is completely unacceptable... and so it is NOT POSSIBLE to make the death penalty cheaper than life imprisonment unless the legal system becomes less expensive. Fat chance that the lawyers are going to accept that...

nothing justifies the death penalty imo

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

im all for it... whats the point of putting someone in jail for 3 life terms and wasting tax payers money? oh yeah, there isnt one but yet the cries of bleeding heart americans is louder than logic...er... my logic

T_P_O

yeah, but that problem stems from the legal system... not the implementation of a death penalty

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="Atmanix"]

I feel the exact same way. I think just recently several people were found innocent based on new DNA evidence that came up decades later.

ogvampire

Exactly...
-even 1 innocent person on death row is one too many to risk...their life/existence is over

that is very true, but that has more to do with the legal system than the actual implementation of a death penalty

That is why I said in my OP that I would be for it if we could be 100% certain they were guilty (of the crime in question)
-throughout my studies and real life experiences, I have seen some truly sick ****'s ...there is nothing we can do for them...it would be best for the rest of society, but I am just not willing to risk an innocent man's life in the process

Against it. It's somewhat of a contradiction with the whole "inalienable human right to life" idea, it's considerably more expensive per convict and unless you develop the ability to read minds, your court is not going to be able to place infallible judgment.

I'm against the death penalty it achieves nothing. It would make more sense to isolate the trouble maker gene and kill everyone that had it.EMOEVOLUTION

Im not really against it, but I think locking them up for 25 years or so is a lot worse, as he has to endure all that time. just my thoughts

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]Against. Costly, ineffective, and risky.pianist

i think you got it backwards on one of your points

its much more costly paying for a life term inmate than putting them to death....

No it isn't, because the due process required to put someone to death ends up costing more than the typical life imprisonment. And you can't do away with the due process, or you risk executing innocent people. Even in cases where the original trial found that the person was "definitely guilty, no doubt about it," evidence has occasionally been found that later clears the person.

I don't need to tell you that murdering one innocent person is completely unacceptable... and so it is NOT POSSIBLE to make the death penalty cheaper than life imprisonment unless the legal system becomes less expensive. Fat chance that the lawyers are going to accept that...

the problem is that they make special cases for death penalty candidates, which is the main reason for the high costs. what they SHOULD do is let certain crimes have an automatic death penalty applied to them

also, the people that have been set free were imprisoned a long time ago... when they really didnt do DNA matching. now they do, problem shouldnt be as big

vengeance is mine says the lord. its his call

DNA matching. now they do, problem shouldnt be as big

ogvampire

but **** up's still happen...quite a bit, actually (given that DNA should be 100% accurate)
-bias, planting evidence, lab screw up, contamination

I'm against it. If what they did was so horrendous they don't deserve the luxury of dieing. The victims of the family have to live with the pain all their lives, so the criminal should have to spend the rest of his/her life in the pain of being in prison ...daqua_99

after watching documentaries on prisons... the inmates look more bored than in pain

[QUOTE="ogvampire"] DNA matching. now they do, problem shouldnt be as big

rawsavon

but **** up's still happen...quite a bit, actually (given that DNA should be 100% accurate)
-bias, planting evidence, lab screw up, contamination

ok. how about this: if someone is put on death penalty, they have to retest all the dna samples they did for accuracy

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="ogvampire"] DNA matching. now they do, problem shouldnt be as big

ogvampire

but **** up's still happen...quite a bit, actually (given that DNA should be 100% accurate)
-bias, planting evidence, lab screw up, contamination

ok. how about this: if someone is put on death penalty, they have to retest all the dna samples they did for accuracy

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="ogvampire"] DNA matching. now they do, problem shouldnt be as big

ogvampire

but **** up's still happen...quite a bit, actually (given that DNA should be 100% accurate)
-bias, planting evidence, lab screw up, contamination

ok. how about this: if someone is put on death penalty, they have to retest all the dna samples they did for accuracy

That does not exclude evidence planting... Now that may only happen in one out of every million cases...but still not worth the risk to me

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

but **** up's still happen...quite a bit, actually (given that DNA should be 100% accurate)
-bias, planting evidence, lab screw up, contamination

rawsavon

ok. how about this: if someone is put on death penalty, they have to retest all the dna samples they did for accuracy

That does not exclude evidence planting... Now that may only happen in one out of every million cases...but still not worth the risk to me

have there been any cases where a death penalty inmate gets acquited cause they found evidence tampering after the fact? if so, how long after the inmate was imprisoned did they find this out?

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

but **** up's still happen...quite a bit, actually (given that DNA should be 100% accurate)
-bias, planting evidence, lab screw up, contamination

EMOEVOLUTION

ok. how about this: if someone is put on death penalty, they have to retest all the dna samples they did for accuracy

just about every single case of a death penalty inmate getting acquited was due to DNA evidence, not anything else

For. HOWEVER, I believe more evidence must be presented than is required to simply convict. To put it another way, I believe the threshold of doubt should be higher for applying the death penalty than for a guilty verdict.

You may get a guilty verdict based on circumstantial evidence, but I don't believe the death penalty should be invoked unless there is DIRECT evidence, such as indisputable DNA or video evidence.

For. HOWEVER, I believe more evidence must be presented than is required to simply convict. To put it another way, I believe the threshold of doubt should be higher for implying the death penalty than for a guilty verdict.

You may get a guilty verdict based on circumstantial evidence, but I don't believe the death penalty should be invoked unless there is DIRECT evidence, such as indisputable DNA or video evidence.

br0kenrabbit

thats exactly my view on it

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

ok. how about this: if someone is put on death penalty, they have to retest all the dna samples they did for accuracy

That does not exclude evidence planting... Now that may only happen in one out of every million cases...but still not worth the risk to me

have there been any cases where a death penalty inmate gets acquited cause they found evidence tampering after the fact? if so, how long after the inmate was imprisoned did they find this out?

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

That does not exclude evidence planting... Now that may only happen in one out of every million cases...but still not worth the risk to me

rawsavon

have there been any cases where a death penalty inmate gets acquited cause they found evidence tampering after the fact? if so, how long after the inmate was imprisoned did they find this out?

i should have been more clear.

when i said 'after the fact', i meant after they have been put in prison, not after they have been executed

Currently in the middle.......leaning towards being against it