First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Death Penalty Debate
Posted 10/18/09

DomFortress wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Your proposal of rehabilitation intrigues me, for I think in that sense alone, the death penalty serves a purpose to rehabilitate only the innocents. When the death penalty cannot prevent the guilty criminals not to commit crime in the first place.


I didn't say that we should use the death penalty as a form of rehabilitation. There's already various programs in prisons across the U.S that help common criminals (mainly former gangsters, petty thieves, and drug dealers) find better ways of supporting themselves than resorting to crime, and I think we should continue to do that when possible, since most criminals are not psychotic and have the potential to become productive members of society. I believe death should only be for severe crimes, mainly murder and rape. Of course individual circumstances would be taken into account, since not all murders kill people for no good reason, and not all cases of rape involve the man violently forcing the woman to have sex with him (a common one-stand can be considered rape if the woman was intoxicated). They should only be sentenced to death when it can be proven beyond all doubts that they are guilty, and when it is made clear that they are psychotic or insanely violent and have no hope of becoming functioning members of society.

Ah good. Just making sure that we don't start seeing the court going on a killing spree with the death penalty, that's all.


no it's not texas after all with over 100 DP a year >.>
Posted 10/20/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Your proposal of rehabilitation intrigues me, for I think in that sense alone, the death penalty serves a purpose to rehabilitate only the innocents. When the death penalty cannot prevent the guilty criminals not to commit crime in the first place.


I didn't say that we should use the death penalty as a form of rehabilitation. There's already various programs in prisons across the U.S that help common criminals (mainly former gangsters, petty thieves, and drug dealers) find better ways of supporting themselves than resorting to crime, and I think we should continue to do that when possible, since most criminals are not psychotic and have the potential to become productive members of society. I believe death should only be for severe crimes, mainly murder and rape. Of course individual circumstances would be taken into account, since not all murders kill people for no good reason, and not all cases of rape involve the man violently forcing the woman to have sex with him (a common one-stand can be considered rape if the woman was intoxicated). They should only be sentenced to death when it can be proven beyond all doubts that they are guilty, and when it is made clear that they are psychotic or insanely violent and have no hope of becoming functioning members of society.

Ah good. Just making sure that we don't start seeing the court going on a killing spree with the death penalty, that's all.


no it's not texas after all with over 100 DP a year >.>
Look at the link, it's about a "court in China overturned the death penalty" on "a drunk driving case", when "Sun Weiming, 30, was sentenced to death after being convicted for a fatal accident last December that killed four people and injured another in southwestern Chengdu. It was reportedly the first time a death penalty had been given in a drunk driving case in China."

No, this isn't Texas where "the crime of 'capital murder' or a conviction for the rape of someone under 14 is eligible for the death penalty".
Posted 10/20/09

DomFortress wrote:


CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Your proposal of rehabilitation intrigues me, for I think in that sense alone, the death penalty serves a purpose to rehabilitate only the innocents. When the death penalty cannot prevent the guilty criminals not to commit crime in the first place.


I didn't say that we should use the death penalty as a form of rehabilitation. There's already various programs in prisons across the U.S that help common criminals (mainly former gangsters, petty thieves, and drug dealers) find better ways of supporting themselves than resorting to crime, and I think we should continue to do that when possible, since most criminals are not psychotic and have the potential to become productive members of society. I believe death should only be for severe crimes, mainly murder and rape. Of course individual circumstances would be taken into account, since not all murders kill people for no good reason, and not all cases of rape involve the man violently forcing the woman to have sex with him (a common one-stand can be considered rape if the woman was intoxicated). They should only be sentenced to death when it can be proven beyond all doubts that they are guilty, and when it is made clear that they are psychotic or insanely violent and have no hope of becoming functioning members of society.

Ah good. Just making sure that we don't start seeing the court going on a killing spree with the death penalty, that's all.


no it's not texas after all with over 100 DP a year >.>
Look at the link, it's about a "court in China overturned the death penalty" on "a drunk driving case", when "Sun Weiming, 30, was sentenced to death after being convicted for a fatal accident last December that killed four people and injured another in southwestern Chengdu. It was reportedly the first time a death penalty had been given in a drunk driving case in China."

No, this isn't Texas where "the crime of 'capital murder' or a conviction for the rape of someone under 14 is eligible for the death penalty".


well that's china for ya, it's communism at it's finest and to be honest i don't care what they do in their country i am trying to sort out my own problems here and help people out in my home town i can't fix the world lol but that is messed up
538 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 10/25/09

EverlastingDivinity wrote:


hitachiin_hikaru wrote:

death penalty is a good form of punishment because it lessen crimes and deters others from committing crimes. but it still depends on the country if it is going to use death penalty. a country's culture and beliefs affect the choice of implementing death penalty in that country


Actually you're wrong. There's no proof that the DP deters people from committing crimes (my area of focus). And so many innocent people have been wrongly put to death by the DP. Honestly, I think there's a cleaner and better method in dealing with those in prisons.


it is the prosecutors' fault if there were innocents convicted to death..
Posted 10/25/09

hitachiin_hikaru wrote:


EverlastingDivinity wrote:


hitachiin_hikaru wrote:

death penalty is a good form of punishment because it lessen crimes and deters others from committing crimes. but it still depends on the country if it is going to use death penalty. a country's culture and beliefs affect the choice of implementing death penalty in that country


Actually you're wrong. There's no proof that the DP deters people from committing crimes (my area of focus). And so many innocent people have been wrongly put to death by the DP. Honestly, I think there's a cleaner and better method in dealing with those in prisons.


it is the prosecutors' fault if there were innocents convicted to death..


No. It's not. Because he doesn't decide whether or not he dies. The jury does. And that just means the defense attorney didn't do a good job of arguing on behalf of his/her client
538 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 10/25/09

EverlastingDivinity wrote:


hitachiin_hikaru wrote:


EverlastingDivinity wrote:


hitachiin_hikaru wrote:

death penalty is a good form of punishment because it lessen crimes and deters others from committing crimes. but it still depends on the country if it is going to use death penalty. a country's culture and beliefs affect the choice of implementing death penalty in that country


Actually you're wrong. There's no proof that the DP deters people from committing crimes (my area of focus). And so many innocent people have been wrongly put to death by the DP. Honestly, I think there's a cleaner and better method in dealing with those in prisons.


it is the prosecutors' fault if there were innocents convicted to death..


No. It's not. Because he doesn't decide whether or not he dies. The jury does. And that just means the defense attorney didn't do a good job of arguing on behalf of his/her client


you are right about the attorneys. they are sometimes to be blamed, but if there are enough evidence, innocents won't be convicted.
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 10/28/09

hitachiin_hikaru wrote:


EverlastingDivinity wrote:


hitachiin_hikaru wrote:


EverlastingDivinity wrote:


hitachiin_hikaru wrote:

death penalty is a good form of punishment because it lessen crimes and deters others from committing crimes. but it still depends on the country if it is going to use death penalty. a country's culture and beliefs affect the choice of implementing death penalty in that country


Actually you're wrong. There's no proof that the DP deters people from committing crimes (my area of focus). And so many innocent people have been wrongly put to death by the DP. Honestly, I think there's a cleaner and better method in dealing with those in prisons.


it is the prosecutors' fault if there were innocents convicted to death..


No. It's not. Because he doesn't decide whether or not he dies. The jury does. And that just means the defense attorney didn't do a good job of arguing on behalf of his/her client


you are right about the attorneys. they are sometimes to be blamed, but if there are enough evidence, innocents won't be convicted.


there will always be innocent people convicted, its a weak arguement for the DP debate. in every situation there is always that 10% of people who F things up. You have to adapt for them, for thier job is to F things up.

And there is no "solid" evidence for the deterence of crimes through the DP.peace over war
6693 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 10/29/09
yup. im all for the death penalty being allowed. but only for crimes such has, multi-murder, rapists, torturers. I am not religious so i dont give a shit about wether people deserve second chanes or not, sorry!
Posted 10/29/09
Enough suffering in life for certain people is far worse than death. Stick the really creepy ones in solitary confinement to be alone with their thoughts until death.
2613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 1/5/11
I go with death penalty, why? Because have any of you ever consider life imprison is a form of torture? Spending the rest of their life with no freedom. They would have suicide, but why some of them didn't? Because in prison, there no weapon allow them to died unless, they try to harm themselves in a painful way by bumping into wall, bite their tongue... ect... isn't it more easy to get a shot in the heart/head?
Crime must be provide with absolute evident since the justice system have generally improve overtime, Crime must fit the punishment. If the person not in for death penalty and release after long period of imprison, the family of the victim will go eye for eye= revenge. This is long.
ANy way, there are a bunches of reason I can counter with those against death penalty, but each person have own opinion. IN religion, they believe death penalty is wrong, but I think life imprison is more cruel in itself. One say, they choose freedom over life. and the population increase, what space to hold all these prisoner ? You know that a person average lifespan is about 70 years old, and the people who commit crime enter prison almost everyday in the world. and I'll stop here. (even myself get lazy to re read my long paragragh.)
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/5/11 , edited 1/8/11
I believe that the Death Penalty should be used more often as a mode of saving money- if we use an engine to execute people that is cheap to make and can be used repeatedly, say a Guillotine, and use it immediately after the verdict- we save money on food to feed and maintain prisioners and prisons, cut spending on that sector, and use the saved money to, I don't know, pay off our debt or maintain the city for us, regular folks who actually abide by the law.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/10/11

longfenglim wrote:

I believe that the Death Penalty should be used more often as a mode of saving money- if we use an engine to execute people that is cheap to make and can be used repeatedly, say a Guillotine, and use it immediately after the verdict- we save money on food to feed and maintain prisioners and prisons, cut spending on that sector, and use the saved money to, I don't know, pay off our debt or maintain the city for us, regular folks who actually abide by the law.


The death penalty ensures that a case will be appealed all the way to the top costing loads and loads of money. The accused and his counsel will fight like mad beasts and they will use every possible trick however detrimental to the budget. If you want to, noticeably, decrease costs associated with convicts, you have to do away with this procedure, which will leave the country concerned wide open to miscarriages of justice. In other words, it would be a stupid move. Keeping a prisoner alive in reasonable conditions for years comes with a negligible cost compared to the legal fees and expenditures and the time of the court. By not threatening to kill them, you don't scare the accused into marauding through the whole bureaucracy and wasting heaps of money.
Posted 1/10/11 , edited 1/10/11

DerfelCadarn wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

I believe that the Death Penalty should be used more often as a mode of saving money- if we use an engine to execute people that is cheap to make and can be used repeatedly, say a Guillotine, and use it immediately after the verdict- we save money on food to feed and maintain prisioners and prisons, cut spending on that sector, and use the saved money to, I don't know, pay off our debt or maintain the city for us, regular folks who actually abide by the law.


The death penalty ensures that a case will be appealed all the way to the top costing loads and loads of money. The accused and his counsel will fight like mad beasts and they will use every possible trick however detrimental to the budget. If you want to, noticeably, decrease costs associated with convicts, you have to do away with this procedure, which will leave the country concerned wide open to miscarriages of justice. In other words, it would be a stupid move. Keeping a prisoner alive in reasonable conditions for years comes with a negligible cost compared to the legal fees and expenditures and the time of the court. By not threatening to kill them, you don't scare the accused into marauding through the whole bureaucracy and wasting heaps of money.
Agreed, in fact I would like to point out the real hidden cost of our sense of twisted justice; what is the "revolving door" justice system. Furthermore my criticism illustrates a fact about our general societal attitude as a whole; we're less forgiving about failure, more partially leaning towards success, yet contradicting ourselves with just such demands. When what we really are is that our society had become so superficial, we're afraid of our own shadows.

Although I cited a Christian site which believe that social justice is a matter of the faithful, but I personally don't share such religious viewpoint when I'm more of a sociologist. To be honest I just find that criminalizing those who aren't responsible for their actions, due to the fact that they were manipulated by misleading misinformation, is simply unfair and condescending.
32377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Liverpool, Mersey...
Offline
Posted 7/9/11
I don't care about it...either way they suffer :))
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 7/10/11
I'm against the death penalty for several reasons, but my main reason is that even 1 innocent person being excecuted is way too many.
And it's a fact that sometimes innocent people get convicted, this also goes for the death penalty.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.