First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply What are your thoughts on the death penalty?
2331 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / athens, greece.
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

Ranwolf wrote:


hum1d wrote:


Haha, okay.


Wasn't a joke mate.


Never said it was.
Posted 12/8/15
Eye for an eye. If you want to punish someone, lock them up in the shoe.
13127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 12/8/15 , edited 12/8/15

Ranwolf wrote:


sundin13 wrote:



a) In the US, the death penalty tends to cost about the same as life imprisonment

b) Committing a crime does not mean you lose the protection of the legal system. A sizable part of the legal system is designed to protect criminals from injustices.

c) The goal of the justice system is rehabilitation, not punishment.


a ) A .416 PGW round is two dollars a shot, I'd donate the use of my C14 and even my services for free.

b ) In my mind it does, those who can't abide by society's laws have no right to it's protections.

c ) Why bother, scum will never change nor should they be given the chance. We aren't talking about some kid that stole a mars bar here.


a) In order to reduce the cost of the death penalty, you must first throw away the protections against executing an innocent individual.
b) Well the legal system disagrees with you.
c) Specific recidivism rates for individuals who are convicted of homicide tend to be fairly low, even without a strong focus within our prisons on rehabilitation.

http://nj.gov/corrections/pdf/REU/Recidivism_Among_Homicide_Offenders.pdf
"In conclusion, none of the 336 homicide offenders committed another murder."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178912000882
"Specific recidivism (i.e. committing another homicide) is very rare."
38892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Your friendly nei...
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
Do it
4733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Chicago, Illinois
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
I'm fine with it. If someone kills 10+ people, or rapes dozens of women, you think they deserve living off of your tax dollars?
Posted 12/8/15

hum1d wrote:


stars201 wrote:

An eye for an eye.

If someone kills someone I love, I won't sit back and do nothing.


An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
- Mahatma Gandhi



I get it.
But I'm still not against the death penalty.
8792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Places
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
I am going to leave you all with this.


Some assholes just need to die.
2331 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / athens, greece.
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

AirMarshall wrote:

I'm fine with it. If someone kills 10+ people, or rapes dozens of women, you think they deserve living off of your tax dollars?


While I agree with this, it leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

This thought process works in a world where you only have mass murdering monsters and accidental killers, but what about the middle of the spectrum? At what point do they cross into "they're a monster and deserve to die" territory? Even someone who kills one person is a pretty fucking bad person and you could argue that their disregard for human life has caused untold pain and suffering, but does that mean that everyone who kills someone gets the death penalty? "Monster" could mean "someone who kills a group of people with no remorse" but that's implying that a scorned lover who killed their ex is somehow less responsible. If they planned out the murder and acted in a premeditated way, what makes them different from someone whose plan targeted more people? Does body count matter? Because if so, what about something like The Richmond Hill Gas Leak where they didn't mean to kill the neighbors, but did? Are they monsters or just stupid?

Unfortunately, there isn't really an empirical measurement for this. It's just what we consider to be particularly heinous, and that's what makes it a slippery slope. If it's just "they're monsters", then that varies by who you ask. If you ask the parents of the teenager that was shot, then they're all monsters, but John Q. Public may not agree. Or maybe it should be by how much damage was done by the victim's death, in which case killing a drug dealing father would be more of a crime than killing a 26 year old bachelor who isn't that close to his family yet they're both murders.

I agree with your point for the high-profile serial killers who are the subject of manhunts and CNN specials and taunt the police, but it doesn't address the people in the middle. It's all relative, and until there's a more black and white way to classify things, there will always be debates around it.

Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

sundin13 wrote:


a) In order to reduce the cost of the death penalty, you must first throw away the protections against executing an innocent individual.
b) Well the legal system disagrees with you.
c) Specific recidivism rates for individuals who are convicted of homicide tend to be fairly low, even without a strong focus within our prisons on rehabilitation.

http://nj.gov/corrections/pdf/REU/Recidivism_Among_Homicide_Offenders.pdf
"In conclusion, none of the 336 homicide offenders committed another murder."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178912000882
"Specific recidivism (i.e. committing another homicide) is very rare."


So let me get this straight, in your mind a convicted and hardened monster deserves pity, sympathy, and a second shot at life because they said sorry...I am sorry, so very sorry your parents never taught you right from wrong and that when you commit something wrong sorry isn't enough. Especially when that wrong ended a life somebody took simply for their own pleasure.

I was raised to always pay for my mistakes, no matter what that cost maybe. Nothing excuses a man to of the cost that must be paid..nothing. And for taking a life unjustly there is only price that can be paid.
10589 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Offline
Posted 12/8/15
the problem we might have is people lumping everyone who kills a person in one group, when distinctions need to be made:

those who killed in self defense
those who accidentally killed someone unintentionally
those who killed others because of psychological trouble (ex: school shootings)
those who brutally and mercilessly murder their victims

the first two deserves a warning and a fine at most, and a possible psychological evaluation
the third one should be taken to a mental hospital where they can be treated
the fourth one should be disposed of.
13127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

Ranwolf wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


a) In order to reduce the cost of the death penalty, you must first throw away the protections against executing an innocent individual.
b) Well the legal system disagrees with you.
c) Specific recidivism rates for individuals who are convicted of homicide tend to be fairly low, even without a strong focus within our prisons on rehabilitation.

http://nj.gov/corrections/pdf/REU/Recidivism_Among_Homicide_Offenders.pdf
"In conclusion, none of the 336 homicide offenders committed another murder."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178912000882
"Specific recidivism (i.e. committing another homicide) is very rare."


So let me get this straight, in your mind a convicted and hardened monster deserves pity, sympathy, and a second shot at life because they said sorry...I am sorry, so very sorry your parents never taught you right from wrong and that when you commit something wrong sorry isn't enough. Especially when that wrong ended a life somebody took simply for their own pleasure.

I was raised to always pay for my mistakes, no matter what that cost maybe. Nothing excuses a man to of the cost that must be paid..nothing. And for taking a life unjustly there is only price that can be paid.


I believe that there is no room for emotion in the pursuit of justice. I believe that society will be better and stronger if the prison system focuses on rehabilitation and not punishment. I believe that the death penalty does not belong in such a system.

I believe that you are leading with your heart and checking your head at the door in this discussion. I believe you should ask what practical purpose does the death penalty serve that life imprisonment does not?
2331 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / athens, greece.
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

Ranwolf wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


a) In order to reduce the cost of the death penalty, you must first throw away the protections against executing an innocent individual.
b) Well the legal system disagrees with you.
c) Specific recidivism rates for individuals who are convicted of homicide tend to be fairly low, even without a strong focus within our prisons on rehabilitation.

http://nj.gov/corrections/pdf/REU/Recidivism_Among_Homicide_Offenders.pdf
"In conclusion, none of the 336 homicide offenders committed another murder."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178912000882
"Specific recidivism (i.e. committing another homicide) is very rare."


So let me get this straight, in your mind a convicted and hardened monster deserves pity, sympathy, and a second shot at life because they said sorry...I am sorry, so very sorry your parents never taught you right from wrong and that when you commit something wrong sorry isn't enough. Especially when that wrong ended a life somebody took simply for their own pleasure.

I was raised to always pay for my mistakes, no matter what that cost maybe. Nothing excuses a man to of the cost that must be paid..nothing. And for taking a life unjustly there is only price that can be paid.



Um, where in his post did he say that the people who commit a crime shouldn't get what they deserve?

You can punish someone without killing them, you know.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

sundin13 wrote:



I believe that there is no room for emotion in the pursuit of justice. I believe that society will be better and stronger if the prison system focuses on rehabilitation and not punishment. I believe that the death penalty does not belong in such a system.

I believe that you are leading with your heart and checking your head at the door in this discussion. I believe you should ask what practical purpose does the death penalty serve that life imprisonment does not?


I ask what right does a murderer have to keep drawing breath? And what would greater good would be served to by keeping him or her in a cage or help me rehabilitation? They weren't fit beings before, a man does not change, only the mask he wears does. Deep down inside he will always be the monster, nothing will change that and so he should be put down like one does with an animal beyond saving.
13127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

Ranwolf wrote:


sundin13 wrote:



I believe that there is no room for emotion in the pursuit of justice. I believe that society will be better and stronger if the prison system focuses on rehabilitation and not punishment. I believe that the death penalty does not belong in such a system.

I believe that you are leading with your heart and checking your head at the door in this discussion. I believe you should ask what practical purpose does the death penalty serve that life imprisonment does not?


I ask what right does a murderer have to keep drawing breath? And what would greater good would be served to by keeping him or her in a cage or help me rehabilitation? They weren't fit beings before, a man does not change, only the mask he wears does. Deep down inside he will always be the monster, nothing will change that and so he should be put down like one does with an animal beyond saving.


You have demonstrated no proof that people are incapable of changing (and I think virtually everything about human nature and human biology disagrees with you).

Additionally, the death penalty is extremely expensive, prevents the family of the victim from moving on due to continued trials, contradicts a system of rehabilitation and lacks any foolproof method of ensuring the innocent aren't put to death. Besides, asking for justification for not killing someone is an extremely backwards way of thinking about it. First you need to justify killing someone, then you need to weigh the pros and the cons. You have yet to take the first step.
3117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / United States, WI
Offline
Posted 12/8/15

Ranwolf wrote:

Here's my two cents. They are murdering scumbags who killed solely for their own twisted pleasure. Why should we spend the millions it will take to house him in a correctional institution, in effect rewarding him with free room and board with no effort on his part other then indulging his sick and twisted desire for killing. When a nearly cost free solution exists to rid him forever from our midst.


Except for in reality, it's not only murderers and rapists who are killed by the death penalty. Innocent people have been killed, this has been proven. To me, that's reason enough for the death penalty to be illegal. Way too risky, the line between who should live and who should die is much too indeterminate. Reminds me of what my dad used to say to me, "I would want the death penalty to be legal if I were the one who decided who died". hahahahah
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.