Death Penalty

Colt wrote: Can I just reiterate, I sit on the fence with this but the debate is very one-sided and I'm being a bit of a devils advocate here.  I'd like to know how many people, who are totally against the penalty of death, have experienced first hand an abhorrent crime against someone very close to them? "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

Usually i'm the one playing devil's advocate but not this time

Here in the US - WAAAY too many people have been wrongly executed only to be proven innocent by DNA testing after the fact. There are many  families of victims who have actively tried to stop the death penalty from occurring because of their religious beliefs to no avail because the state has made a business out of death.

Personally i have fortunately never experienced anything horrendous of the sort but i am of the mind set that revenge never makes anything better. I saw a really good documentary a few years ago about the different prison systems of the world and in the countries that actually engage in rehabilitative practices and teach the miscreants how to interact with society actually have the lowest crime rates in the world. Scandinavian countries were some of the best but Japan was an interesting case too because they started out very lenient and gave the person a chance but if they blew it they did the worst.

Also according to statistics states or countries with the death penalty show that it does nothing for prevention of terrible crimes.

Women of high standing though were usually beheaded, so as to preserve their modesty

Colt wrote: Triceratopsoil wrote: Costs more money than imprisonment for life and has a chance of killing innocent people.  Even if I were a bloodthirsty neocon piece of shit I couldn't support it. That's down to the way the penalty is managed. With Scott's example, where there is no doubt whatsoever, that would not apply.

This is true.  If there were to be death penalty I wouldn't support any option more expensive than a bullet.  I still think the entire practice is barbaric and wrong.

Can I just reiterate, I sit on the fence with this but the debate is very one-sided and I'm being a bit of a devils advocate here.  I'd like to know how many people, who are totally against the penalty of death, have experienced first hand an abhorrent crime against someone very close to them?



"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

Bosh66 wrote: Colt wrote: Having said all that, if a similar act was committed on any of my children I would serve the death penalty, personally. For once that is not easier said than done. If someone "hurt" one of mine, I know damn well I'd hunt them down, and take the punishment coming. Which is why we place justice out of the hands of the man in the street and serve it dispassionately.

I agree.

However, it would be nice to see those that prey on the weak and defenceless have the tables turned on them for once.

siLLy puPPy wrote: Too many cases of innocents being convicted, law enforcement misconduct and the like. How can a society say killing is wrong and then kill? Prison sounds like a worse punishment any ways

Too many cases of innocents being convicted, law enforcement misconduct and the like. How can a society say killing is wrong and then kill? Prison sounds like a worse punishment any ways

Costs more money than imprisonment for life and has a chance of killing innocent people.  Even if I were a bloodthirsty neocon piece of shit I couldn't support it.

rushfan4 wrote: There are definitely different levels: To me, a monster who walks into a school or shopping mall, etc. and starts opening fire indiscriminately who is caught in the act and lives to tell about it deserves the death penalty.  Situations like this where there is no doubt who the perpetrator is I don't really have a problem with the death penalty.  The exception to this situation might be the case where there is no doubt the person did it but they did it because someone had kidnapped their child and would kill them unless they committed this atrocity.  I would probably still give them a life sentence though because despite the unenviable situation it still isn't an excuse to kill other innocent people. On the other hand, situations where a body is found and there are no eyewitnesses and the suspect is someone who is convicted based on circumstantial evidence, if the suspect vehemently denies committing the crime but is convicted anyways, I am more likely to error on the side of caution and that person away for life.        -  The majority of murders probably fall into this category.

bartosso wrote: One question: Should it be all about punishing people, or socializing them so they never do this again? And if there's no way to rehabilitate them, then just keep them from harming anyone else. No need to kill anyone.

Edited by ProgMetaller2112 - 17 Oct 2014 at 3:10pm