How can people not support capital punishment?

I honestly dont see how you can draw that conclusion. The panel basically approves if the convicted is on death row for 2 years or 20 years, the time frame is up the laws of the respective state.

majwill24

Oh, in that case, my apologies;I did misunderstand what you were saying.

However, I see different problems, then - it's not as though prisoners on death row for years just sit there twiddling their thumbs until they die. The vast majority of the reason why it takes so long is precisely because of mandatory sentencing reviews, whose job is to ensure that no case quickly goes from sentencing to execution, and whose purpose is precisely to ensure that innocent individuals are not executed.

You basically seem to be asserting that we should bypass mandatory sentencing reviews just on the subjective basis that a case seems sufficiently open-and-shut... but that's exactly why we convict people in the first place. If there is any reasonable doubt whatsoever that a person is innocent, he or she will not be sentenced. By the very fact that someone has been sentenced, the jury has affirmed that there is no reasonable doubt that can be placed on the guilt of the accused. Yet, there is a continual trickle of those who have been on death row for years, and whom everyone thought was guilty, yet were later acquitted.

You say - and I believe you - that you don't want to see any innocent person put to death, but really, that is exactly the effect that will be incurred if you arbitrarily say "this person is definitely guilty, we don't need to give him an extended period of time for that to be verified".

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"] This conclusion has come to mind through the time-tested effectiveness of punishment. Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire. To such a degree this is true that most religions prophecy punishment for those who do evil in life. Religion being the popular thing that it is, I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment. My point is pretty clear, too. The death penalty is a strong form of punishment, hence carrying a strong motivational weight. Let me illustrate further: A man carrying a stick (a mild form of punishment) is more persuasive than a man carrying a gun (a strong form of punishment), for obvious reasons. The same logic applies to lawful persuasion.twitchmonkey399

Sorry, but human history does not support your premise.

And even if history doesn't prove my rational justifiable (which it blatantly does), simply saying I'm wrong and stopping there is a poor way to argue.

religion does not breed morals.. The religious societies of history are by far more violent then anything coming to the secular societies of today.. Those societies were brutal compared to ours.. It is ridiuclous absolutely ridiculous to some how suggest that religion instills non violence.. Because the opposite is true historically.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="majwill24"]So no matter what how damming he evidence, a person should get 20 years of appeals instead of being executed a year later with possibly just one appeal?

In my mind I thinking about cases, where guilt is virtually absolute. Im being told reasons why they arent is because of tampered video footage, cops and witness all lying, coerced confession. Do you see how ridiculous this sounds

I'm not talking about executing someone for a murder in the middle of the night, with no witness and some circumstantial skin under the guys fingertips.

majwill24

In individual instances that may happen, but the examples I give, all those things would have to happen in one trial.

I used the example of a gunman who goes into a public space and starts killing people. He is eventually subdued and the evidence against him is rock solid. Guilt is a formality. The evidence of video, civilian witnesses, victims, the police and the confession from the perpetrator on why he did it; results in the jury coming back with a guilty verdict in less than 20 minutes. I believe in such cases a quick execution is warranted. the delay can be set by the state, 6 months, 1 or 2 years, they can determine it

Unfortunately the counter I got can be summed up as "You never know"

There is no ifs ands or buts about it.. Every oen regardless of the evidence is allowed to have appeals.. There is no "exceptions"..

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"] The graph shows one nation, in one point of time. All one can do with this graph is extrapolate conclusions without considering the factors it does not show yet are relevant. Education, economy, and other outside influences will affect the these statistics yet are impossible to draw upon due to the nature of this graph. Furthermore, these factors are not consistent with every nation and every time frame. To be of any convincing evidence, you will have to provide a graph (better yet, multiple graphs) that show multiple nations with diverse economies, education levels and levels of technological advancement, as well as showing different time periods that correlate with your thinking.twitchmonkey399

It shows that the states without a death penalty do not have a higher crime rate than the states with one.

You are the one who made the assertion; it seems to me that the onus is on you to provide evidence showing causation between the presence of a death penalty and lower crime rates.

The only assertions you have made is that death penalty has caused less violence.. He provided you proof to state the exact opposite.. FURTHERMORE, we have histoircal evidence of cultures and societies where the death penalty was far more liberal, and yet it was far more violent...

No, I do not mean that. I mean this:

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It seems few people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.worlock77

Which you posted on page 8. Or did you forget about that?

Where do I claim the death penalty itself is a time-tested as an effective means of deterring people from committing crime?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, I do not mean that. I mean this:

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It seems few people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.twitchmonkey399

Which you posted on page 8. Or did you forget about that?

Where do I claim the death penalty itself is a time-tested as an effective means of deterring people from committing crime?

Do you explicit state it in so many words? No. But you sure as hell imply it.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, I do not mean that. I mean this:

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It seems few people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.twitchmonkey399

Which you posted on page 8. Or did you forget about that?

Where do I claim the death penalty itself is a time-tested as an effective means of deterring people from committing crime?

Except your religious examples are incorrect.. Society was more violent historically centuries ago, yet they were infact far more devout religious people....

The reason executions aren't sped up is because of the chance that someone who's innocent may slip through the cracks. I'd rather see ten guilty men walk free then to see that one innocent one was executed.

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It does show that the states without a death penalty do not have a higher crime rate than the states with one. I know how to read a graph. But it doesn't support your point of view for the reasons I stated above. I will continue to show this. Beef consumption in the last 20 years has increased; as has our waistlines. One could, using your logic, extrapolate from this information that beef causes fat gain and subsequently use it in an argument. A graph depicting such information doesn't let you know what else increased, decreased, and stayed constant. For example, sugar and refined flour during these last twenty years have skyrocketed to incredible proportions. I do believe you see where I'm getting at. The death penalty has been practiced in society since the beginning of recorded history, and is currently legal in the U.S. I do believe it is the responsibility of the questioner of the prevalent practice to provide evidence against it.GabuEx

You have made an assertion - that the presence of the death penalty as a punishment to which one may be sentenced results in less crime than there would be were there no such punishment available.

You have provided exactly zero evidence for that assertion.

I don't really feel as though there's much more to say than that.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It does show that the states without a death penalty do not have a higher crime rate than the states with one. I know how to read a graph. But it doesn't support your point of view for the reasons I stated above. I will continue to show this. Beef consumption in the last 20 years has increased; as has our waistlines. One could, using your logic, extrapolate from this information that beef causes fat gain and subsequently use it in an argument. A graph depicting such information doesn't let you know what else increased, decreased, and stayed constant. For example, sugar and refined flour during these last twenty years have skyrocketed to incredible proportions. I do believe you see where I'm getting at. The death penalty has been practiced in society since the beginning of recorded history, and is currently legal in the U.S. I do believe it is the responsibility of the questioner of the prevalent practice to provide evidence against it.twitchmonkey399

You have made an assertion - that the presence of the death penalty as a punishment to which one may be sentenced results in less crime than there would be were there no such punishment available.

You have provided exactly zero evidence for that assertion.

I don't really feel as though there's much more to say than that.

Yet again no it hasn't.. Violence in Roman society was extremely high, and Roman justice was merciless.. Violence has gone down and so has the death penalty in secular societies..

15th century British Empire were extremely religious where it was EXPECTED to go to church every Sunday, and to pray every day.. Far more religious then secular society of today.. And it was far more violent.. Infact the RELIGIOUS societies historically are far more violent then the secular society of today.. Your "logical" argument doesn't hold up to historical fact..

Let me recap:

twitchmonkey: "I think this way about something"

GabuEx: "Then explain my graph."

twitchmonkey: "The graph, while showing something true, doesn't help your point in the slightest because of reasons A, B, and C."

GabuEx: "Well, you haven't provided evidence, either. And you're the one who has to, because you're the one who believes in the prevalently accepted principals and practices of crime and punishment." [which, by the way, even animals understand]

twitchmonkey: I have provided evidence in the form of logical analysis. Which, I admit and apologize for now, wasn't directed at you. I shouldn't expect you to read my responses to other users. I am at fault for not keeping separate minds for separate arguments. Here's a logical analysis of the rational behind my assertion (which is aligned with the prevalently accepted principals and practices of crime and punishment that even animals understand)

Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire. To such a degree this is true that most religions prophecy punishment after death for those who do evil in life. Religion being the popular thing that it is, I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment. Now, the death penalty is a strong form of punishment, hence carrying a strong motivational weight. Let me illustrate: A man carrying a stick (a mild form of punishment) is less persuasive than a man carrying a gun (a strong form of punishment), for obvious reasons. The same logic applies to lawful persuasion.

How you stand now is as follows: In a position of imposing questions on the prevalently and historically accepted principals and practices of crime and punishment with zero evidence. Your move.twitchmonkey399

I see no figures, no data, no studies, nor any comparative analyses; the sole thing you have offered is an assertion regarding historical motivation, for which you have also provided no evidence. None of this constitutes evidence in favor of the assertion that "people will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught."

Shall I say, "Your move"?

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Which you posted on page 8. Or did you forget about that?

worlock77

Where do I claim the death penalty itself is a time-tested as an effective means of deterring people from committing crime?

Do you explicit state it in so many words? No. But you sure as hell imply it.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"] And where in that post do I claim the death penalty has been time-tested and proven to be a deterrent? You quoted my premise. Which I supported by doing the following: a) Showing that punishment has been time-tested as an excellent motivator using the religion example, and b) Showing that greater punishment results in greater deterring by using the stick versus gun example.

Where do I claim the death penalty itself is a time-tested as an effective means of deterring people from committing crime?

twitchmonkey399

Do you explicit state it in so many words? No. But you sure as hell imply it.

Except both your examples are false to begin with from what we know of history..

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]Let me recap:

twitchmonkey: "I think this way about something"

GabuEx: "Then explain my graph."

twitchmonkey: "The graph, while showing something true, doesn't help your point in the slightest because of reasons A, B, and C."

GabuEx: "Well, you haven't provided evidence, either. And you're the one who has to, because you're the one who believes in the prevalently accepted principals and practices of crime and punishment." [which, by the way, even animals understand]

twitchmonkey: I have provided evidence in the form of logical analysis. Which, I admit and apologize for now, wasn't directed at you. I shouldn't expect you to read my responses to other users. I am at fault for not keeping separate minds for separate arguments. Here's a logical analysis of the rational behind my assertion (which is aligned with the prevalently accepted principals and practices of crime and punishment that even animals understand)

Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire. To such a degree this is true that most religions prophecy punishment after death for those who do evil in life. Religion being the popular thing that it is, I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment. Now, the death penalty is a strong form of punishment, hence carrying a strong motivational weight. Let me illustrate: A man carrying a stick (a mild form of punishment) is less persuasive than a man carrying a gun (a strong form of punishment), for obvious reasons. The same logic applies to lawful persuasion.

How you stand now is as follows: In a position of imposing questions on the prevalently and historically accepted principals and practices of crime and punishment with zero evidence. Your move.GabuEx

I see no figures, no data, no studies, nor any comparative analyses; the sole thing you have offered is an assertion regarding historical motivation, for which you have also provided no evidence. None of this constitutes evidence in favor of the assertion that "people will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught."

Shall I say, "Your move"?

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Do you explicit state it in so many words? No. But you sure as hell imply it.

sSubZerOo

Except both your examples are false to begin with from what we know of history..

[QUOTE="chathuranga"]I will never understand why some people care about protecting the "rights" of criminals. GabuEx

1. Criminals do not cease being human beings; the decision that those who are guilty of a crime cease to deserve basic human rights is one that would dehumanize the justice system and render its moral authority null and void.

2. Criminals have only been convicted through a trial by jury; there is no ironclad 100% guarantee that they are guilty, and as such, the punishment should not be unbounded and should leave open the ability for one to receive proper restitution if they are later exonerated.

You have ignored what I said and reiterated your previous response. I have provided a logical analysis, and try as you may to not confront it, it is more than what you have. I brought up a previously traversed idea aligned with basic logic. And all you have done is bring up an inconclusive graph with a few "You don't have a graph so I'm right."'s thrown in.twitchmonkey399

No, all you've said is basically, "What I said is historically accepted; therefore, it is true." This is either an appeal to authority fallacy if you are declaring that some unnamed historians have affirmed what you've said, or it is an appeal to common belief fallacy if you are declaring that most people accept this as true. It doesn't really matter which it is, as both are fallacies, and it remains the case that you have provided no evidence in favor of your position(s) other than bare unsupported assertions.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="chathuranga"]I will never understand why some people care about protecting the "rights" of criminals. Plzhelpmelearn

1. Criminals do not cease being human beings; the decision that those who are guilty of a crime cease to deserve basic human rights is one that would dehumanize the justice system and render its moral authority null and void.

2. Criminals have only been convicted through a trial by jury; there is no ironclad 100% guarantee that they are guilty, and as such, the punishment should not be unbounded and should leave open the ability for one to receive proper restitution if they are later exonerated.

But the problem there is that the burden of proof in criminal cases is about as high as you can reasonably get. "Without any doubt" is impossible; there can always be completely unreasonable doubt no matter. People don't get convicted of murder just on the basis of he-said-she-said.

Capital punishments are more expensive than keeping the person in jail. The government completely subsidizes correctional facilities and their operations. By supporting capital punishment you are supporting the sinking of the nation's economy because the extra subsidies spent on executions can be spent on infrastructure instead.

By keeping inmates in jail people still have jobs and demand for those jobs will rise increasing GDP

Supporting Capital punishment = support of lowering GDP = supporting economic recessions.

[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

1. Criminals do not cease being human beings; the decision that those who are guilty of a crime cease to deserve basic human rights is one that would dehumanize the justice system and render its moral authority null and void.

2. Criminals have only been convicted through a trial by jury; there is no ironclad 100% guarantee that they are guilty, and as such, the punishment should not be unbounded and should leave open the ability for one to receive proper restitution if they are later exonerated.

GabuEx

But the problem there is that the burden of proof in criminal cases is about as high as you can reasonably get. "Without any doubt" is impossible; there can always be completely unreasonable doubt no matter. People don't get convicted of murder just on the basis of he-said-she-said.

I guess at the end of the day i would rather 1 thousand criminals go free than 1 innocent man get the death penalty, and the system is definitely broken as it currently stands. It would just be nice in my eyes if it was possible to keep it around for those particularly sick individuals that deserve it.

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]You have ignored what I said and reiterated your previous response. I have provided a logical analysis, and try as you may to not confront it, it is more than what you have. I brought up a previously traversed idea aligned with basic logic. And all you have done is bring up an inconclusive graph with a few "You don't have a graph so I'm right."'s thrown in.GabuEx

No, all you've said is basically, "What I said is historically accepted; therefore, it is true." This is either an appeal to authority fallacy if you are declaring that some unnamed historians have affirmed what you've said, or it is an appeal to common belief fallacy if you are declaring that most people accept this as true. It doesn't really matter which it is, as both are fallacies, and it remains the case that you have provided no evidence in favor of your position(s) other than bare unsupported assertions.

My "bare unsupported assertion" is a logical train of thought. Since when did logic become useless for supporting an argument? Additionally, you still have made no argument against it.

"What I said is historically accepted; therefore, it is true." is not my point. Being historically accepted as well as currently accepted means you are the one to offer evidence against the mainstream idea, not me for it. I in no way intended my mentioning of historical acceptance of the mindset to be viewed as proof of any truthfulness contained therein, and I believe my text shows this. Had I argued the way you described, I would indeed be guilty of logical fallacy.

twitchmonkey399

No, your text does not show that. You first said the following:

"People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught."

You then said, in your recap which you titled "a logical analysis of the rational (sic) behind my assertion", the following:

"Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire. To such a degree this is true that most religions prophecy punishment after death for those who do evil in life. Religion being the popular thing that it is, I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment. Now, the death penalty is a strong form of punishment, hence carrying a strong motivational weight. Let me illustrate: A man carrying a stick (a mild form of punishment) is less persuasive than a man carrying a gun (a strong form of punishment), for obvious reasons. The same logic applies to lawful persuasion."

In other words, your assertion is, "People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught," and your justification of that is:

- "Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire."

- "I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment."

- "The same logic applies to lawful persuasion."

The first two are your fundamental premises, and they are both offered without proof, other than an allusion to historical acceptance. The third is more or less a tautology, as it effectively says "persuasion is persuasion".

Given that it is no exaggeration to say that the only evidence you have provided in favor of your premises is the allusion to historical acceptance, it is unreasonable to assume that you were not intending your allusion to historical acceptance to be taken as proof of your assertion, given that it is, indeed, the only proof you have ever attempted.

My "bare unsupported assertion" is a logical train of thought. Since when did logic become useless for supporting an argument? Additionally, you still have made no argument against it.

twitchmonkey399

You would make a great lawyer, but this is not a court of law, and it remains the case that you have still provided no evidence in favor of your assertion. I have not asserted the negation of your claim; therefore it is not incumbent on me to provide an argument against it.

May i know why killing them is so expensive? Just curious.

Capital punishment isn't even illegal here but due to outside pressure "hur hur US" we don't use it, ever since the last one in 99 our murder rate has gone x5 higher.

Espada12

So perhaps the crime rate in your country may be connected to the absence of the death penalty but it can also be connected to other factors as well.

So before you know about those other factors and to what extend they influence the situation you cant point fingers at the abolishment of the death penalty.

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]

"What I said is historically accepted; therefore, it is true." is not my point. Being historically accepted as well as currently accepted means you are the one to offer evidence against the mainstream idea, not me for it. I in no way intended my mentioning of historical acceptance of the mindset to be viewed as proof of any truthfulness contained therein, and I believe my text shows this. Had I argued the way you described, I would indeed be guilty of logical fallacy.

GabuEx

No, your text does not show that. You first said the following:

"People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught."

You then said, in your recap which you titled "a logical analysis of the rational behind my assertion", the following:

"Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire. To such a degree this is true that most religions prophecy punishment after death for those who do evil in life. Religion being the popular thing that it is, I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment. Now, the death penalty is a strong form of punishment, hence carrying a strong motivational weight. Let me illustrate: A man carrying a stick (a mild form of punishment) is less persuasive than a man carrying a gun (a strong form of punishment), for obvious reasons. The same logic applies to lawful persuasion."

In other words, your assertion is,"People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught," and your justification of that is:

- "Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire."

- "I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment."

- "The same logic applies to lawful persuasion."

The first two are your fundamental premises, and they are both offered without proof, other than an allusion to historical acceptance. The third is more or less a tautology, as it effectively says "persuasion is persuasion".

Given that it is no exaggeration to say that the only evidence you have provided in favor of your premises is the allusion to historical acceptance, it is unreasonable to assume that you were not intending your allusion to historical acceptance to be taken as proof of your assertion, given that it is, indeed, the only proof you have ever attempted.

My "bare unsupported assertion" is a logical train of thought. Since when did logic become useless for supporting an argument? Additionally, you still have made no argument against it.

twitchmonkey399

You would make a great lawyer, but this is not a court of law, and it remains the case that you have still provided no evidence in favor of your assertion. I have not asserted the negation of your claim; therefore it is not incumbent on me to provide an argument against it.

-"Heavier punishments comes with heavier persuasiveness."

Not that its of much importance.

My two premises were backed not by an allusion, but by a common understanding of religion and it's effects. That being one example of the effectiveness of the threat of punishment. Perhaps I didn't make my religion example clear (ugh, I waste too much time not making what I say clear or detailed enough the first time, if you haven't caught on by now) like I did for another user: "Then why do so many people deprive themselves of the freedom that non-religious people enjoy? Surely, it is because they are convinced that there is a god, and that that god will punish them if they don't do as they are instructed. These people believe that a good short time on earth is not worth the eternity of hell, the greatest of all punishments. Eternal damnation is a strong form of punishment. So strong, in fact, that it will bend men to deny themselves things of their very nature."

This is the vastly exercised base of religions, and given the popularity of them and their existence since the beginning of recorded history, it is safe to say that the threat of punishment is both highly motivating (to the point of having complete control over and sometimes exercising denial of their naturally occurring passions) and affecting most people (again, due to religion's prevalence in the vast majority of cultures throughout time).

I hope this clarified my stance further.

You have not asserted negation of my claim, I do see that now. You were careful. Darn, you've got me beat on me telling you to provide evidence against my claim. Still, I have to mention that the specific response you quoted and responded to in the last part of your previous post was referring to my train of thought not being confronted, not that what it claimed was not being confronted. You did assert negation of my reasoning by calling it a "bare unsupported assertion."

So, now I am to reevaluate my position. You are not asserting negation of my claim, but merely asking for concrete evidence. It's a fair enough position (tricky as it is). Well, seeing that this will require research, and that my limited experience with researching will probably end with me only finding hearsay, I say I'm done. You win. For now.

I believe that death penalty must be applied by a court as punishment for the most serious of crimes.

However, clearly our system is a human one and humans make mistakes. If we execute someone and later find that the person was not guilty we are in a tragic situation. This will be just another type of murder

"Justice is harmony. Revenge is just making yourself feel better."

The "justice" system should not be about making people feel better, it should be about bringing those people who have committed crimes to their rightful consequences. Also, why is "punishment" the driving factor? Should we not be more willing to help people realize why they were wrong and help them learn from their mistakes? "Punishment" implies that we've already given up on them and don't care whether or not they become productive members of society. Also, wouldn't it be better for the person who committed the crime to pay a debt to both their victim(s) and society? Shouldn't they owe something for doing wrong? If they are just killed, they won't be able to repay anything.

This of course would lead many people to bring up "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." However, one should ask, how does a blind man repay the eyes he stole from the man who could see fine? It would not be an equal repayment, so to just take the blind-man's eyes because he took someone else's eyes is not fair to either the victim, nor the criminal. So you must mete out a proper repayment, which does not have to involve the same thing being taken from the guilty.

Which brings me to my last point. How Old Testament of you all who support the death penalty. We live in an era that knows of mental illness, and how it causes people to do things completely out of character and makes many think what they are doing, no matter how wrong it might be, is right. Putting people to death for crimes is what Hammurabi prescribed, but we have moved beyond that period in history and have come to a point where we realize that putting people to death brings us down to the criminal's level and doesn't really help anything. We should be helping them, hell, Jesus even overruled the OT and said we should "turn the other cheek" and lead our lives with compassion and forgiveness... the death penalty is anything but that.

I must admit, there are points where one must respond to lethal force with lethal force, but after a crime has occurred and the force is not being threatened, it is not right to turn around and start throwing lethal force on people. When a criminal has a knife to the neck of a pregnant woman, it is perfectly fine to shoot them in the head to prevent them from killing both the woman and her unborn child. This also applies to military operations to take down a dictator who is committing (or threatening) atrocities on innocent people. Whenever an innocent is being directly threatened, or someone has shown that they could directly threaten innocents, if there is no other option, then lethal force is necessary to prevent it from occurring. Once someone is in custody, they no longer can threaten innocents, so it contradicts this idea and makes it unreasonable to kill them.

Because it's expensive, it's hypocritical, it achieves nothing and there are cases literally every year of innocent people being put to death. There you go. :)Ninja-Hippo

Where is the justic in putting someone in jail for having no remorese for their actions, who get to sit in a "cell" and watch tv, exercise in a gym and have probably better food than what alot of very low income familes eat. Why should tax payers have to pay for someone like that to live, then to get a new identity a new house etc and most likely some sort of employment or benifits. I see NO REASON why we should have someone like a serial rapist allowed to live or to do anything but work themselves away in some sort of manual work camp that benifits a chairty or something. Of course people will see that as unfair but unless they have witnessed, or experinced that crime first hand they really have very little opinion. Please be my guest and look at some beheading videos, people beating up vunrable people and them come back and tell me whats an "appropiate" punishment. o0squishy0o

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"]Where is the justic in putting someone in jail for having no remorese for their actions, who get to sit in a "cell" and watch tv, exercise in a gym and have probably better food than what alot of very low income familes eat. Why should tax payers have to pay for someone like that to live, then to get a new identity a new house etc and most likely some sort of employment or benifits. I see NO REASON why we should have someone like a serial rapist allowed to live or to do anything but work themselves away in some sort of manual work camp that benifits a chairty or something. Of course people will see that as unfair but unless they have witnessed, or experinced that crime first hand they really have very little opinion. Please be my guest and look at some beheading videos, people beating up vunrable people and them come back and tell me whats an "appropiate" punishment. foxhound_fox

Oh so if its a metal illness why should we keep them alive? What purpose do they give to society? we put down animals for biting children, we buy clothes that children work 20+ hours a day for incredibly small wages, we harvest animals and yet people like yourself have some sort of "moral" stance that oh someone is a "broken" person they must be helped because thats the right thing to do. What if there is no help for them? do we continue to fund this money which could be spent; i highly doubt it would on giving children in poverty areas that extra chance. for all you know someone the other side of the world has died, does that effect you? does it bother you? i doubt it would because you have no emotional bond with them so you are "ok" with that to a degree.

o0squishy0o

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"]Where is the justic in putting someone in jail for having no remorese for their actions, who get to sit in a "cell" and watch tv, exercise in a gym and have probably better food than what alot of very low income familes eat. Why should tax payers have to pay for someone like that to live, then to get a new identity a new house etc and most likely some sort of employment or benifits. I see NO REASON why we should have someone like a serial rapist allowed to live or to do anything but work themselves away in some sort of manual work camp that benifits a chairty or something. Of course people will see that as unfair but unless they have witnessed, or experinced that crime first hand they really have very little opinion. Please be my guest and look at some beheading videos, people beating up vunrable people and them come back and tell me whats an "appropiate" punishment. o0squishy0o

By supporting the death penalty you support economic depressions.

people have opinions. you may not like it but hey. we all have it

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Because it's expensive, it's hypocritical, it achieves nothing and there are cases literally every year of innocent people being put to death. There you go. :)o0squishy0o

Apart from food and being housed in a cell these other things are privileges. The prison must earn the right to use them. Also if a prisoner wants a tv in his cell not only must he earn the right to have it, but he must pay for it himself. Well, at least that's how it is in some states, not sure about all.

The current state of capital punishment is just a waste of taxpayer money. It's far cheaper and effective just to give them life without parole. Maybe if they carried out executions the way China does it, it'd be more reasonable, but then you'd have to be 100% sure you have the right person, but even with today's technology you can't be a lot of times.

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"]Oh so if its a metal illness why should we keep them alive? What purpose do they give to society? we put down animals for biting children, we buy clothes that children work 20+ hours a day for incredibly small wages, we harvest animals and yet people like yourself have some sort of "moral" stance that oh someone is a "broken" person they must be helped because thats the right thing to do. What if there is no help for them? do we continue to fund this money which could be spent; i highly doubt it would on giving children in poverty areas that extra chance. for all you know someone the other side of the world has died, does that effect you? does it bother you? i doubt it would because you have no emotional bond with them so you are "ok" with that to a degree.

foxhound_fox

Because I don't believe the justice system should be your own little tool of revenge. If you want revenge, do it yourself and accept the consequences.

I believe in rehabilitation. Not revenge.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"]Where is the justic in putting someone in jail for having no remorese for their actions, who get to sit in a "cell" and watch tv, exercise in a gym and have probably better food than what alot of very low income familes eat. Why should tax payers have to pay for someone like that to live, then to get a new identity a new house etc and most likely some sort of employment or benifits. I see NO REASON why we should have someone like a serial rapist allowed to live or to do anything but work themselves away in some sort of manual work camp that benifits a chairty or something. Of course people will see that as unfair but unless they have witnessed, or experinced that crime first hand they really have very little opinion. Please be my guest and look at some beheading videos, people beating up vunrable people and them come back and tell me whats an "appropiate" punishment. o0squishy0o

Because the law if found criminally insane pretty much says the person is innocent of the crimes in the sensethey were not realizing what they were doing.. This would be alot like executing a innocent person.. Who are you to decide who lives and who dies?

Because I don't believe the justice system should be your own little tool of revenge. If you want revenge, do it yourself and accept the consequences.

I believe in rehabilitation. Not revenge.

Pixel-Pirate

Why should those who robbed a person of their life, never contemplated giving them a second chance be given a second chance themselves?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Because I don't believe the justice system should be your own little tool of revenge. If you want revenge, do it yourself and accept the consequences.

I believe in rehabilitation. Not revenge.

Espada12

Why should those who robbed a person of their life, never contemplated giving them a second chance be given a second chance themselves?

Because I don't see how stooping to the level of the criminal to get some primal satisfaction of revenge is somehow justice.

By using your stance, we should also execute the jury and the executioners as they robbed a person of their life and never contemplated giving them a second chance.

Contrary to popular belief, revenge is not justice.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Because I don't believe the justice system should be your own little tool of revenge. If you want revenge, do it yourself and accept the consequences.

I believe in rehabilitation. Not revenge.

Pixel-Pirate

Why should those who robbed a person of their life, never contemplated giving them a second chance be given a second chance themselves?

Because I don't see how stooping to the level of the criminal to get some primal satisfaction of revenge is somehow justice.

Yet trying to make his life better is? I don't see how the death penalty makes us stop to their level anyway.. they kill innocent people.. we kill guilty people, big difference.

Yet trying to make his life better is? I don't see how the death penalty makes us stop to their level anyway.. they kill innocent people.. we kill guilty people, big difference.

Espada12

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Yet trying to make his life better is? I don't see how the death penalty makes us stop to their level anyway.. they kill innocent people.. we kill guilty people, big difference.

-Sun_Tzu-

Court ordered execution is not illegal. I never said we go out and kill them I say the state does it for us legally. Either way OJ was found innocent so....