First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply What are your thoughts on the death penalty?
Posted 12/9/15
I don't oppose it on moral grounds but plenty of innocent people have been executed for me to even consider the death penalty anymore.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/9/15 , edited 12/9/15

descloud wrote:

The only legit one you stated is being forced to. In which case, can be self defense and ect. The rest, no, they are not excuses to be taken seriously.


So if a child is born to extremist, terrorist parents and is taught their entire life to believe in the principles and actions of that group, they're deserving of the same punishment as someone who joined it of their own volition?

So if a person is clinically insane and/or traumatized, we should hold their actions to the same level that we would hold the actions of a perfectly sane and rational individual?

So if someone tricks the perpetrator of a murder into consuming a drug which results in violent tendencies, we should act as though the murderer's actions were the product of an unimpaired mind?

So if a criminal honestly wants to make amends and regrets their actions, we should forcefully rip their life away from them and prevent them from even attempting to do so?

So if someone is brainwashed by a group or person, we should hold them accountable for anything that group or person forced them to do?
3021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / The Void
Offline
Posted 12/9/15
It's not the death penalty I'm against, in fact I'm all for getting rid of disgusting, irredeemable scumbags, rather, it's the process judging if someone is innocent or guilty and deciding if the punishment is fitting the crime that I don't have faith in. The innocent who have been accused falsely and/or judge based on bias, flimsy evidence, and false witness are the the ones who I worried about, worried that they would suffer a grave injustice with a punishment that is extreme and irreversible that we can never make right again.

But for the worst criminals, the complete monsters, I have no problem with putting them down; they can't be rehabilitated and they harmful to society and have no place in it.
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 12/9/15 , edited 12/9/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


descloud wrote:

The only legit one you stated is being forced to. In which case, can be self defense and ect. The rest, no, they are not excuses to be taken seriously.


So if a child is born to extremist, terrorist parents and is taught their entire life to believe in the principles and actions of that group, they're deserving of the same punishment as someone who joined it of their own volition?

So if a person is clinically insane and/or traumatized, we should hold their actions to the same level that we would hold the actions of a perfectly sane and rational individual?

So if someone tricks the perpetrator of a murder into consuming a drug which results in violent tendencies, we should act as though the murderer's actions were the product of an unimpaired mind?

So if a criminal honestly wants to make amends and regrets their actions, we should forcefully rip their life away from them and prevent them from even attempting to do so?

So if someone is brainwashed by a group or person, we should hold them accountable for anything that group or person forced them to do?


Ah yes, the stunningly original what "if" argument.

Essentially your saying it's okay for people to commit atrocities so long as they have a good reason.

The way you say it, and how I am interpreting it.

It's okay to crash planes into buildings because I grew up in a rough area.
It's okay to shoot civilians because mommy and daddy didn't teach me right from wrong.
it's okay to do whatever the stranger says without once thinking about why I am being asked to do a specific task. That may or may not lead to the death of another.

This is literally what you are saying.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/9/15

descloud wrote:

Ah yes, the stunningly original what "if" argument.

Essentially your saying it's okay for people to commit atrocities so long as they have a good reason.

The way you say it, and how I am interpreting it.

It's okay to crash planes into buildings because I grew up in a rough area.
It's okay to shoot civilians because mommy and daddy didn't teach me right from wrong.
it's okay to do whatever the stranger says without once thinking about why I am being asked to do a specific task.

This is literally what you are saying.




My argument isn't that the crime is okay, but that spilling more blood solves nothing. It's that the circumstances of one's life affects their mental state and the actions they commit. In cases where someone is born into a terrorist group and taught to think, act, and behave a certain way, they're likely going to have those teachings ingrained into their moral values. External stimuli and factors influence who a person becomes far more than you're giving them credit for.

No one is born a white supremacist, or a school shooter, or a mass murderer. While I would argue that human beings have an inherently evil and selfish side to them, that alone isn't what creates a criminal.

When a person can be rehabilitated and reintroduced into society as a productive, law-abiding citizen, I say we do so.
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 12/9/15 , edited 12/9/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


descloud wrote:

Ah yes, the stunningly original what "if" argument.

Essentially your saying it's okay for people to commit atrocities so long as they have a good reason.

The way you say it, and how I am interpreting it.

It's okay to crash planes into buildings because I grew up in a rough area.
It's okay to shoot civilians because mommy and daddy didn't teach me right from wrong.
it's okay to do whatever the stranger says without once thinking about why I am being asked to do a specific task.

This is literally what you are saying.




My argument isn't that the crime is okay, but that spilling more blood solves nothing. It's that the circumstances of one's life affects their mental state and the actions they commit. In cases where someone is born into a terrorist group and taught to think, act, and behave a certain way, they're likely going to have those teachings ingrained into their moral values. External stimuli and factors influence who a person becomes far more than you're giving them credit for.

No one is born a white supremacist, or a school shooter, or a mass murderer. While I would argue that human beings have an inherently evil and selfish side to them, that alone isn't what creates a criminal.

When a person can be rehabilitated and reintroduced into society as a productive, law-abiding citizen, I say we do so.


If it were some thing like stealing from a store, or maybe even stealing a car. I believe they can redeem themselves even then.

But it's really not our problem how they were brought up. Murder is murder and nothing excuses it. Rehabilitation for someone who goes on a shooting spree just means the lives lost were really not worth much.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/9/15
Just another form of population control.
30777 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fraxinus
Offline
Posted 12/9/15
Is it really a punishment, though? I mean, once you're dead, that's it. You no longer around to care about being dead. If it's a punishment, isn't it pretty flat? Torture's a much fuller punishment. They won't be not dead, but you'll be subjecting them to treatment that would make them wish they were...

I can assure you, I am perfectly sane.
11750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 12/9/15

hum1d wrote:

What I think:

It’s moronic and completely hypocritical. To look at it simply, what they’re saying is, ”Don’t kill people. Oh, you killed someone? Now we’re going to kill you. It’s okay when we do it.” Which makes zero sense to me. If you want someone to pay for what they did, take away their freedom, not their life. Lock them up for life. No one deserves to die, no matter what kind of horrid things they do. Not to say their actions are excused. Every action must bear a rightful consequence, and for the more horrid things, there should be more horrid consequences - but not death. Never death.

If someone killed someone you love and all you can think about is how much you want that person to “get what they deserve” and get the death sentence, then that makes you no better than they are. We should be able to think of better ways of dealing with transgressions than death. Humans are inherently innovative creatures, but it seems our judiciary system has failed to adhere to that concept.

What do you guys think? Also, please try to keep religion out of this; I've had enough of that today. Thanks.


There's a difference between premeditated murder and a widely known set penalty for people who do horrible things. It may be small, but it is there. Not saying I agree with it either way, but still. If you knew you were going to be killed for stabbing John Doe, and you stab him to death anyway, is it really undeserved?

I've heard some people say that "If their sentence, plus their current age equals more than 120, they should get the DP. Taxpayers shouldn't have to support criminals their entire lives, it's like an all inclusive welfare. Sure, nobody 'deserves' to die, but every human on earth has died." That kind of stuff.

You seem to be so against the death penalty, but what would you have them do instead? You say "Every action must bear a rightful consequence, and for the more horrid things, there should be more horrid consequences - but not death. Never death." Is torture okay? Starving them almost to death, and then feeding them? Every day, many people choose to die, whether by suicide, hospice cancer patients, to alleviate pain, etc..

Are you saying this with something in mind, or are you saying "This is wrong, someone else fix it"?
I'm not disagreeing with you, just asking your opinion.
48449 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / AZ
Offline
Posted 12/9/15
I agree with it.
There are some heinous and evil crimes that deserve the death penalty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
22950 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / Bay Area
Offline
Posted 12/9/15
Not a big fan. Why not invite the public if it so great instead of only a handful of people because the American people have guilty conscience.
4980 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / ireland
Offline
Posted 12/9/15
For serial rapists/killers it seems a good option imo.

21009 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Šumeru.
Offline
Posted 12/9/15 , edited 12/9/15

hum1d wrote:

What I think:

It’s moronic and completely hypocritical. To look at it simply, what they’re saying is, ”Don’t kill people. Oh, you killed someone? Now we’re going to kill you. It’s okay when we do it.” Which makes zero sense to me. If you want someone to pay for what they did, take away their freedom, not their life. Lock them up for life. No one deserves to die, no matter what kind of horrid things they do. Not to say their actions are excused. Every action must bear a rightful consequence, and for the more horrid things, there should be more horrid consequences - but not death. Never death.

If someone killed someone you love and all you can think about is how much you want that person to “get what they deserve” and get the death sentence, then that makes you no better than they are. We should be able to think of better ways of dealing with transgressions than death. Humans are inherently innovative creatures, but it seems our judiciary system has failed to adhere to that concept.

What do you guys think? Also, please try to keep religion out of this; I've had enough of that today. Thanks.


If you kill someone for a reason other than Euthanasia/protecting yourself/someone else from harm/death, you've basically forfeited your life. Same with other life-destroying crimes like rape/pedophilia. There's just no reason for that person to live anymore.

It's just how I see things, but I'm mentally challenged so it's all fine.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 12/9/15 , edited 12/9/15

zinjashike wrote:



And remember, for those going on how cheap bullets are - if you're issuing a death penalty will you pull the trigger? How will you make amends to their family if wrong? Something about eye for an eye wasn't it?


If the a court of law and irrefutable evidence proves the man I killed was indeed innocent then I would be the one with the price to be paid. I wouldn't flinch at making someone else pay the price that must paid and I wouldn't flinch at being the one who pays the price. And thus I would ask the family of the man I wrongfully executed what price they would demand of me, if it be my life so be it. I

For the world is black and white, there is no grey. And I am disgusted and repulsed by those in this thread acting like there is. People like you are why this world is in the shape it is in now.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/9/15

descloud wrote:

If it were some thing like stealing from a store, or maybe even stealing a car. I believe they can redeem themselves even then.

But it's really not our problem how they were brought up. Murder is murder and nothing excuses it. Rehabilitation for someone who goes on a shooting spree just means the lives lost were really not worth much.


There are different circumstances and factors behind each individual case. If we wish to call what we do justice, then we have to consider them and remove ourselves from any emotionally-driven lust for blood we may have. Otherwise, we may very well end up simply adding another victim to the pile.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.