The Death Penalty

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

Hey, how's it goin'?

I was just curious, what are some opinions about the Death Penalty?

I believe that it should only be used in serious cases (such as murder, mass murder, terrorism, bombing a building in Oklahoma City). But that's just me...

[KaneOfNod]

At 5/31/01 11:04 AM, GameboyCC wrote: Hey, how's it goin'?

I was just curious, what are some opinions about the Death Penalty?

I believe that it should only be used in serious cases (such as murder, mass murder, terrorism, bombing a building in Oklahoma City). But that's just me...

I am against it for several reasons:
1. It is not a deterrent of crime.
2. More killing won't help.
3. The legal system is not perfect. Frankly, the fact that I could be judged by other citizens scares me. Innocent people get sentenced; some even have been killed for a crime they did not commit.

[Jonny-Alpha]

At 5/31/01 11:04 AM, GameboyCC wrote: Hey, how's it goin'?

I was just curious, what are some opinions about the Death Penalty?

I believe that it should only be used in serious cases (such as murder, mass murder, terrorism, bombing a building in Oklahoma City). But that's just me...

We have no death penalty, and I can't see one working if it was reintroduced.
People who commit serious crimes for the most part don't think they are going to get caught, so it's use as a deterrant is limited.
The most the government could hope for if one was reintroduced would be the savings made by not having to keep these people.

[TheGiantPeach]

The death penalty is stupid and ineffective. One reason is that it does not prevent future crimes and most criminals aren't afraid of it. How does it serve justice? It doesn't. Those people commit thier crimes and they are fried. It's basically letting them off the hook. They don't have to live with these crimes and they don't suffer for them. It just doesn't make any fuckin sense.

[Freakapotimus]

I'm still very confused on my stance on the issue. But I have noticed a few things... Maybe someone could help me out with some facts, evidence, links, or studies?

Innocent people may be sentenced to die for crimes they did not commit. Perhaps the evidence was misconstrued. How many people innocent people have been killed? I know we may not know for certain, but have there been any cases where innocence was proven after death? What about people "freed" when innocence is finally proven, before death?

People on death row often appeal their sentence. What's the average length of an appeal? I've heard it can take years. What's the percentage of death convictions that were appealed and overturned?

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

One problem with the death penalty is that the person on death-row may be innocent. I heard that's why the UK no longer uses it!

[Perdix]

At 5/31/01 06:58 PM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 5/31/01 11:04 AM, GameboyCC wrote: Hey, how's it goin'?

I was just curious, what are some opinions about the Death Penalty?

I believe that it should only be used in serious cases (such as murder, mass murder, terrorism, bombing a building in Oklahoma City). But that's just me...

I am against it for several reasons:
1. It is not a deterrent of crime.

It shouldn't be used as a deterrent, it changes the whole concept.

2. More killing won't help.

Help what? Aren't you supposed to be punishing/getting rid of the person convicted?

3. The legal system is not perfect. Frankly, the fact that I could be judged by other citizens scares me. Innocent people get sentenced; some even have been killed for a crime they did not commit.

By that logic, we shouldn't even imprison people.

[Bucephalus]

At 5/31/01 09:03 PM, Jonny_Alpha wrote:

The most the government could hope for if one was reintroduced would be the savings made by not having to keep these people.

They couldn't really hope for that either. In the US at least it takes many times as much to kill someone as to imprison them for life, mostly due to the appeals process.

And on the "revenge/punishment issue"...Even GW Bush, the biggest asshole in the country, doesn't say that the death penalty should be used as revenge. He *says* that he thinks it's a deterrant, although that is pure BS....Revenge should not be the business of the government.

[reddeadrevolver]

At 5/31/01 11:04 AM, GameboyCC wrote: Hey, how's it goin'?

I was just curious, what are some opinions about the Death Penalty?

I believe that it should only be used in serious cases (such as murder, mass murder, terrorism, bombing a building in Oklahoma City). But that's just me...

First off, the death penalty is just a waste of tax dollars. It cost way too much many to set up an electric chair, or a lethal injection chamber. Plus, the criminals are able to appeal their verdict, so most who may be deserving of the death penalty will never recieve it.

I somewhat like the idea of banning capital punishment, and bringing back medevil torture. After the legal system starts to get serious about punishment, crime may eventually drop. The fact that no appeals, and no second chances are awarded, will frighten many people.

There is always the issue of the innocent being charged for something they have not done. This is always a concern for any legal case. I also, do not like the idea of being judged by fellow citizens, because a jury may not always be neutral. Prejudice or a certain mindset may prevent a fair trial from being served.

Many people are very opinionated about this subject. I for one wish that people would just let eachother live, without any conflict. But this can never happen. As long as there are humans, there will always be conflict.

[CoorsOriginal]

I believe that a lot of people use are skirting their true intentions when they support the death penalty because "its a deturrant," or to "help victims live without fear." The very real, and very relavent support for the death penalty is that its revenge. This is not to say I don't support the death penalty, Revenge is human emotion, its been part of us since the beginning of time. If someone were to rape and murder my mother or sister, I would want to see their head on a stake. Because of that, I cant support denying anothers right to revenge.

[MysteryClock]

there should be a death penalty for economic reasons, but we must also tackle the problem of people becoming criminals in the first place. this world is very fucked up.

[KaneOfNod]

At 6/1/01 11:18 AM, Perdix wrote:

2. More killing won't help.

Help what? Aren't you supposed to be punishing/getting rid of the person convicted?

I believe that a life sentence serves that purpose fine.

[Perdix]

At 6/5/01 06:28 PM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/1/01 11:18 AM, Perdix wrote:

2. More killing won't help.

Help what? Aren't you supposed to be punishing/getting rid of the person convicted?

I believe that a life sentence serves that purpose fine.

Then we are agreed. Your point of "More killing won't help" is not a valid argument.

[HornedReaper]

At 5/31/01 11:04 AM, GameboyCC wrote: Hey, how's it goin'?

I was just curious, what are some opinions about the Death Penalty?

I believe that it should only be used in serious cases (such as murder, mass murder, terrorism, bombing a building in Oklahoma City). But that's just me...

I think the death penalty is perfectly fine. After someone kills somebody else(mass murder, that stuff) who the hell wants heshe back in society? I really need a better modem :)

[KaneOfNod]

At 6/6/01 11:01 PM, HornedReaper wrote:

At 5/31/01 11:04 AM, GameboyCC wrote: Hey, how's it goin'?

I was just curious, what are some opinions about the Death Penalty?

I believe that it should only be used in serious cases (such as murder, mass murder, terrorism, bombing a building in Oklahoma City). But that's just me...

I think the death penalty is perfectly fine. After someone kills somebody else(mass murder, that stuff) who the hell wants heshe back in society? I really need a better modem :)

If he is rotting in jail, is he back in society? Think.

[reddeadrevolver]

At 6/5/01 06:28 PM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 6/1/01 11:18 AM, Perdix wrote:

2. More killing won't help.

Help what? Aren't you supposed to be punishing/getting rid of the person convicted?

I believe that a life sentence serves that purpose fine.

I don't think a life sentence fits at all. When you send someone to prison for life, they are just fucking you over in a different way. Instead of killing, raping, ect., they are just taking money out of your pocket. It is the tax payer that pays for the life sentence. So would you want to waste money on the convict, or just exterminate him/her? At least you know that the person won't be able to hurt any more people after they are dead.

I don't think someone really deserves to live after they have committed a very serious act like murder or rape.

[Slizor]

I don't think a life sentence fits at all. When you send someone to prison for life, they are just fucking you over in a different way. Instead of killing, raping, ect., they are just taking money out of your pocket. It is the tax payer that pays for the life sentence. So would you want to waste money on the convict, or just exterminate him/her? At least you know that the person won't be able to hurt any more people after they are dead.

I don't think someone really deserves to live after they have committed a very serious act like murder or rape.

Why don't you put them in a manual labour camp until they die?

[reddeadrevolver]

Why don't you put them in a manual labour camp until they die?

You could do that, or you could send them to a South American or African voodoo tribe. The natives could use the convicts for human sacrifices. I'm sure the convicts would also pose a tasty meal to some of the cannibalistic tribes.

[Bucephalus]

Ok people listen this time..... I already said that IT COSTS MANY TIMES MORE TO KILL SOMEONE! THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT CAN ONLY BE USED BY ANTI-DEATH PENALTY ADVOCATES!! jeez....

[ladyluck69]

The only time that I can see our government the OK on killing someone else is when we have someone who is actually a proven (not just from some other country that they NSC doesnt like) terrorist and the possibility of them living is a threat to national security. As in Timothy McVeigh or the head of some other radical group like the guy that was going to have nerve gas pumped into the NY subway system.

Any other time, I have a very difficult time with our government saying that it is OK to kill another human being.

[KaneOfNod]

At 6/10/01 02:51 AM, ladyluck69 wrote: The only time that I can see our government the OK on killing someone else is when we have someone who is actually a proven (not just from some other country that they NSC doesnt like) terrorist and the possibility of them living is a threat to national security. As in Timothy McVeigh or the head of some other radical group like the guy that was going to have nerve gas pumped into the NY subway system.



Any other time, I have a very difficult time with our government saying that it is OK to kill another human being.

How is he still a threat to national security in a max-security prison?

[ladyluck69]

How is he still a threat to national security in a max-security prison?

If they are still alive there is still always a chance for an escape or for someone like that to get in contact with their allies.

I just can't justify allowing a terrorist to live.

[WanDabada]

Look, the fact of the matter is that the death penalty is state controlled murder (just like war is frankly), and as such it can't be agreed with on moral or ethical terms. And it is used by the victims of families as a form of ultimate revenge, as in the case of the really fucked up woman who actually wants to be there to see the Oklahoma bomber killed. The message sent out by the government is essentially that killing someones okay if there's a reason for it. Oh yeah, and just because the Uk doesn't have the death penalty doesn't change the crime rate. Our streets are crammed full of complete degenerate scum, while a fuckload of money is spent on keeping convicted criminals in jail. Funding should be used not to imprison people or to execute them, but rather to aid social revival to stop serious crimes happening. But thats just idealiam for you. Of course, the worst criminals could simply be put in the army where they can kill to their hearts content, in a cool Dirty Dozen kinda way.

[WanDabada]

And in response to the Oklahoma bombing and terrorism, how come the US still finds it necessary to fund a shitty terrorist group like the IRA, whose idea of a party is to blow up innocent people?

[loudog888]

At 5/31/01 11:04 AM, GameboyCC wrote: Hey, how's it goin'?

I was just curious, what are some opinions about the Death Penalty?

I believe that it should only be used in serious cases (such as murder, mass murder, terrorism, bombing a building in Oklahoma City). But that's just me...

Here's what I think; The death penalty is wrong. Killing is murder even if it is carried out by a government. Plus, it does nothing for the families of the victims. It only causes more anger and the desire for vengeance only grows. But the prisons are overcrowded. The United States makes up only five percent of the world's population but has twenty-five percent of the world's prison population. How do we correct this? Simple. Make the prisons really shitty. Do away with these stupid, supertough drug laws, and make prison hell on earth. Criminals don't mind going to the gray bar hotel when they know they'll have TV, and boxing matches, and trash novels, and cigarettes, and jack-off magazines, and hot food waiting for them. Prison should suck. Cells should be 8X10, the only exercise should be hard labor, there should not be any forms of entertainment, and the food should be even worse than it is. See how much the crime rate drops after that. My take is, no one will think that crime is worth prison.

[ladyluck69]

How do we correct this? Simple. Make the prisons really shitty. Do away with these stupid, supertough drug laws, and make prison hell on earth. Criminals don't mind going to the gray bar hotel when they know they'll have TV, and boxing matches, and trash novels, and cigarettes, and jack-off magazines, and hot food waiting for them. Prison should suck. Cells should be 8X10, the only exercise should be hard labor, there should not be any forms of entertainment, and the food should be even worse than it is. See how much the crime rate drops after that. My take is, no one will think that crime is worth prison.

We used to have prisons that were like that, only problem is that the courts deemed that it was cruel and unusual punishmnent. And in other countries the prisons are like that, you know what happens, prison riots. Guards and inmates kill each other, I think even at some point in time the criminals held the prison hostage.

:And in response to the Oklahoma bombing and terrorism, how come the US still finds it necessary to fund a shitty terrorist group like the IRA, whose idea of a party is to blow up innocent people?

I'm with you on that, I don't think that the US has any right to go around terrorizing anyone who is innocent, be they here at home or abroad.

[Mowkloo]

Hey there GameBoyCC, here is my opinion.

The death penalty might be a deterrent. But there is no proof. Never has been.

I believe capital punishment is wrong. There is no way to justify the premature ending of someone's life. Killing is wrong no matter why or how it is done.

I know many people believe in the death penalty is okay in the case of killing some complete bastard of society; I understand your anger. I also believe it is more of a punishment to let them live out the rest of their natural lives in a concrete box. Death is the easy way out, they should not be granted it.

As for the comment about the Britains, the UK still holds capital punishment legal in cases of treason and piracy.

[WanDabada]

At 6/11/01 01:07 PM, Mowkloo wrote: As for the comment about the Britains, the UK still holds capital punishment legal in cases of treason and piracy.

Hmmm, thats news to me, and I live there. I'm pretty sure that that isn't the case (unless you're talking about the feudal rights of the monarchy, and they can't do anything). If there is legislation allowing for capital punishment, then it sure as hell would never be used in a million years, and it would be pretty much a legal relic that hasn't been completely done away with.

[KaneOfNod]

At 6/10/01 03:04 PM, ladyluck69 wrote:

How is he still a threat to national security in a max-security prison?

If they are still alive there is still always a chance for an escape or for someone like that to get in contact with their allies.

I just can't justify allowing a terrorist to live.

Okay, what are the numbers for escape?

I think they're a little lower in max-security prisons than the amount of innocent people who get in.

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

At 6/10/01 03:04 PM, ladyluck69 wrote: I just can't justify allowing a terrorist to live.

...or a murderer of children.