What do you think about the death penalty?

its 2010.. there's no need for such barbarism anymore. we're trying to have a civilization here.

I have no moral qualms with it whatsoever. To my point of view a murderer forfeits his right to life. Of course I think that extensive evidence against the suspect such as DNA should be required in order to be sentenced the death penalty.

My skepticism of the death penalty is based simply upon questions of efficacy. Cost seems to be a less important issue than crime prevention to me. I have not run across enough information regarding crime deterrence to make a decision, hence I am still on the fence.

Yes. Why pay for jail, a bullet is all you need.optiow

What people dont realize is the cost that it takes to keep these people in prison for life. I recently read somewhere that it takes up $60 of the tax payers money per day to keep them in jail. This is per person. Iantheone

no, what most poeple do not realise is that keeping them alive is actually cheaper. if you average the cost of the average death penalty carried out, it's enormous.

A society needs to have a punishment equal to the crime. We must have a deterrent to keep people from goin out and killin. If anything i think we need to shorten the appeals process for the death penalty. If there is irrefutable evidence such as dna or somthing i say once the trial is over take them straight to the chair. my cousin worked in huntsville tx state prision where we do our executions and he worked on death row there was a guy that had been there since 1984, that was the year my cousin was born and was just executed in 2004. so if the person that posted that its 60 dollars a day that prisoner cost us 438,000 just to sit there before he died. and we need to bring the chair back. this whole drugs to put ya to sleep thats to easy, these murderers and rapists do not deserve an easy out of life. they need to fry.Trollsters

this is an idiotic statement, there is no proof whatsoever that the death penalty is any better a deterrent than life imprisonment. heck, most criminals who do time aren't deterred by the thought of having to go back in.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]What people dont realize is the cost that it takes to keep these people in prison for life. I recently read somewhere that it takes up $60 of the tax payers money per day to keep them in jail. This is per person. jpph

no, what most poeple do not realise is that keeping them alive is actually cheaper. if you average the cost of the average death penalty carried out, it's enormous.

i think they dont deserve to die. we should just put them on a random island far away. :)

Completely and utterly against it. I think Rachel Dawes from Batman Begins said it best: "Justice is about harmony, revenge is about making yourself feel better." The death penalty doesn't bring back your loved one, and it just brings the state down to the level of the criminal. It is a supreme detriment on humanity and should be completely done away with. We don't live in the time of Hammurabi anymore, we live in an advanced society that is trying to be "human." And if someone who is innocent is done away with, instead of being put in jail for life, there is no chance they can get their life back.

there are lots of ways to help people out there, whether it be curing diseases, making traffic safer, or eliminating dangerous individuals. Either way, if a person is deemed as an imminent threat to society, then i believe in death penalty

I am a Canadian and often get into conflicts on this point. I do support the death penalty but would only want it to be used in extreme circumstances.

I figure that people who commit horrendous and hateful crimes are not worth our tax dollars. Providing there is ample evidence that person x committed the crime then I support the death penalty. I am rather indifferent towards lethal injection however; firing squads seem far more efficient and aren't unbelievably cruel (contrary to what some people would have you believe).

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Shall we tear up the constitution anymore, or is that enough?

Trollsters

I giggled. We all know it was Obama who tortured terrorists and put the patriot act into motion.

Also cruel and unusual punishment is in the constitution.

I am pro death penalty. How would any of you feel if one of these insane people hurt any of your family members?n00bkid

The law should not be feuled by revenge. This is not a vigilante system.

To me, the death penalty is actually a better sentence than life in prison. I'd prefer people be given life without parole over the death penalty. However, in the extreme cases (i.e. the most serious of criminals: serial rapists/killers, repeat child molesters, etc.) the death penalty is best. Might as well rid the Earth of those who commit the worst of crimes.

[QUOTE="n00bkid"]I am pro death penalty. How would any of you feel if one of these insane people hurt any of your family members?Pixel-Pirate

The law should not be feuled by revenge. This is not a vigilante system.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="n00bkid"]I am pro death penalty. How would any of you feel if one of these insane people hurt any of your family members?Vandalvideo

The law should not be feuled by revenge. This is not a vigilante system.

The law should not take in peoples emotions. If we want it fueled by revenge, why even have a justice system? Just have a street Judge system like in Judge Dredd, or a vigilante system.

I don't mind it...

The law should not take in peoples emotions. If we want it fueled by revenge, why even have a justice system? Just have a street Judge system like in Judge Dredd, or a vigilante system.Pixel-Pirate

The mindset of justice. Which I feel is rarely carried out, or is tainted with emotion. Too often I hear of someone being put in jail or convicted or the news slandering a suspect because they have emotional outrage and want SOMEONE punished, even if it isn't the right person/it wasn't that persons fault.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

The law should not be feuled by revenge. This is not a vigilante system.

Pixel-Pirate

The law should not take in peoples emotions. If we want it fueled by revenge, why even have a justice system? Just have a street Judge system like in Judge Dredd, or a vigilante system.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] What should it be fueled by?iowastate

The law should not take in peoples emotions. If we want it fueled by revenge, why even have a justice system? Just have a street Judge system like in Judge Dredd, or a vigilante system.

Would that include Judges retiring to the long walk?

I understand you don't like what we lawyers call Retributive Theory, but I was curious what school of thought you fall into. With what intentions should we punish or benefit criminals? Vandalvideo

Personally (and yes, I know I am not Pixel-Pirate :P), my views on free will have strongly influenced my views of the proper justice system. The way I see it, humans are logical creatures, who act in a predictable fashion to external stimuli based on their given set of preconditions. Anyone who does something "bad", in my view, does so not because they are a bad person, but rather because a set of external stimuli coupled with their set of preconditions led them to the belief that doing so would best achieve what they considered to be a desirable goal. Because of this, I view the concept of punishing someone "because they deserve it" to be a fundamentally nonsensical and unconscionable notion, one that fails to adequately separate actions from their doers.

I feel, as a result, that punishment ought to only have one of two purposes: behavioral change - that is to say, the changing of a given person's preconditions (or, in the case of punishments for the purposes of deterrence, other people's) that would cause them to have different goals they consider desirable - or, failing that, the protection of society from one whose behavior cannot be changed. Obviously this is not a ready-made legal system that could be implemented as is, but this is the high-level philosophy that I feel ought to underscore any system of justice.

I personally think that we should go back to the days of the Romans and set up the death penalty to be like thegladiatorialfights. Cheap and it sets a warning to everyone while providing entertainment for others.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I understand you don't like what we lawyers call Retributive Theory, but I was curious what school of thought you fall into. With what intentions should we punish or benefit criminals? GabuEx

Personally (and yes, I know I am not Pixel-Pirate :P), my views on free will have strongly influenced my views of the proper justice system. The way I see it, humans are logical creatures, who act in a predictable fashion to external stimuli based on their given set of preconditions. Anyone who does something "bad", in my view, does so not because they are a bad person, but rather because a set of external stimuli coupled with their set of preconditions led them to the belief that doing so would best achieve what they considered to be a desirable goal. Because of this, I view the concept of punishing someone "because they deserve it" to be a fundamentally nonsensical and unconscionable notion, one that fails to adequately separate actions from their doers.

I feel, as a result, that punishment ought to only have one of two purposes: behavioral change - that is to say, the changing of a given person's preconditions (or, in the case of punishments for the purposes of deterrence, other people's) that would cause them to have different goals they consider desirable - or, failing that, the protection of society from one whose behavior cannot be changed. Obviously this is not a ready-made legal system that could be implemented as is, but this is the high-level philosophy that I feel ought to underscore any system of justice.

I'm Pixel-Pirate and I approve this message.

I've always been for rehabiliation over punishment.

I personally think that we should go back to the days of the Romans and set up the death penalty to be like thegladiatorialfights. Cheap and it sets a warning to everyone while providing entertainment for others.

FrostyPhantasm

Weren't the gladiators basically the athletes/famous stars of their day? Some would think it inappropriate as you'd be giving "teh evil criminal" stardom.

[QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"]

I personally think that we should go back to the days of the Romans and set up the death penalty to be like thegladiatorialfights. Cheap and it sets a warning to everyone while providing entertainment for others.

Pixel-Pirate

Weren't the gladiators basically the athletes/famous stars of their day? Some would think it inappropriate as you'd be giving "teh evil criminal" stardom.

Death Penalty as its implemented in the US is expensive and meaningless. There's absolutely no reason to keep it if it's just going to stay as it is. If they absolutely want the death penalty, China's method is far more efficient and the extra organs would be useful. Otherwise, stick with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. It's just as effective and far cheaper compared to what the current death penalty inmates cost the state.

[QUOTE="iowastate"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

The law should not take in peoples emotions. If we want it fueled by revenge, why even have a justice system? Just have a street Judge system like in Judge Dredd, or a vigilante system.

Pixel-Pirate

Would that include Judges retiring to the long walk?

All it does is cost money and emotionally scar the family of the executed.

All it does is cost money and emotionally scar the family of the executed.

I support death penalty. It would put murderers and all criminals at their place. These days people commit crime and think "ah im going jail", which to be frank aint anything serious to be honest. Yes you get sum ruff people in jail, but you think the ruffest of people in jail even learn their lesson? nope.