155 replies to this topic

[TheDR]

I agree with no death penalty because if i was wrongly convinced i would like to know that i still had a chance to live.

[CJ]

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 12:07, said:

Why? Can the family of the murderer not feel sorrow for the death of their relative?

You can't have it both ways, man. If you want to have "sadness over death" as an excuse for killing the murderer, then the murderer's family has that complete right as well.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Sorrow of the murderer's family is not justified, he has not been wronged or anything like that. He deserved to die for what he did unlike his victim.

[Alias]

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 22:41, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 12:07, said:

Why? Can the family of the murderer not feel sorrow for the death of their relative?

You can't have it both ways, man. If you want to have "sadness over death" as an excuse for killing the murderer, then the murderer's family has that complete right as well.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Sorrow of the murderer's family is not justified, he has not been wronged or anything like that. He deserved to die for what he did unlike his victim.

How is it not justified? His family is just as capable of feeling emotion as yours.

Your rule is a huge double standard.

[Sgt. Rho]

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 12:41, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 12:07, said:

Why? Can the family of the murderer not feel sorrow for the death of their relative?

You can't have it both ways, man. If you want to have "sadness over death" as an excuse for killing the murderer, then the murderer's family has that complete right as well.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Sorrow of the murderer's family is not justified, he has not been wronged or anything like that. He deserved to die for what he did unlike his victim.

Yes, he has been wronged. No matter what you do, you never deserve to die.

[CJ]

@Alias : As I already said so many times, and since you don't seem to understand what I meant by that, I'm gonna have to rephrase it : The death of the victim cannot be compared to the death of the murderer. If you prefer, the murderer was asking for it, he deserved it, and his family can be sad for him, but still that doesn't change the fact that he's being punished for what he did, please stop playing on words.[/color]

Edited by CJ, 27 January 2011 - 12:38.

[Sgt. Rho]

I do very well understand what you mean, however, I disagree with it.

[CJ]

@Rho: My last post was actually directed at Alias but got delayed by the slow loading of the page. I'm well aware that you did understand my point.
And you won't convince me if you base all of your posts on your conviction that nobody deserves to die, you obviously have been living a perfect life, because if you had faced what my compatriots have faced I can assure you there would be quite a great number of persons you'd love to see dead.

Edited by CJ, 27 January 2011 - 12:42.

[Mbob61]

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 12:07, said:

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

THIS ^

If you ever want a good reason why there shouldn't be a death penalty, try going to some pages like these - Wiki exonerated list

Mike

Edited by Mbob61, 27 January 2011 - 12:40.

[CJ]

Mbob61, on 27 Jan 2011, 13:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 12:07, said:

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

THIS ^

If you ever want a good reason why there shouldn't be a death penalty, try going to some pages like these - Wiki exonerated list

Mike

That is only a good proof that the law system in those countries is flawed, they're distributing death sentences without even verifying the guilt of the presumed criminals in these cases...

[Alias]

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 23:22, said:

@Alias : As I already said so many times, and since you don't seem to understand what I meant by that, I'm gonna have to rephrase it : The death of the victim cannot be compared to the death of the murderer. If you prefer, the murderer was asking for it, he deserved it, and his family can be sad for him, but still that doesn't change the fact that he's being punished for what he did, please stop playing on words.

I do understand what you mean, but that doesn't mean I feel its less wrong. Nobody deserves death under no circumstances at all. I would not execute Hitler. I would not execute Saddam. Hate the crime, not the criminal.

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 23:46, said:

Mbob61, on 27 Jan 2011, 13:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 12:07, said:

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

THIS ^

If you ever want a good reason why there shouldn't be a death penalty, try going to some pages like these - Wiki exonerated list

Mike

That is only a good proof that the law system in those countries is flawed, they're distributing death sentences without even verifying the guilt of the presumed criminals in these cases...

The only major flaw of the law system in these cases is the death penalty being the final verdict. In a real judicial system the death penalty should never be an option as it can never offer compensation to the falsely accused.

Most of the exonerees were decided to be 'guilty' in court, and by your system they should be executed as fast as possible after the verdict.

[Wizard]

What you are trying to say is that two wrongs make a right, which to a lot of people, they probably don't. But by that same logic the 2nd wrong must be righted with another wrong and *divide by zero to infinity*.

You are justifying homicide with homicide in the name of "revenge" mascarading as "justice".

[CJ]

Well since that's a masquerade, let's just leave the families of the victims without proper justice, they'll be so happy to know that the responsible for the crime is in prison, living at their expense...

[Alias]

I've already said it before, it would cost the family more to have him executed than to have him away for life.

Some people (like myself and most other anti-execution people) consider rotting in prison to be a much more 'painful' punishment, is one way to put it.

[Wizard]

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 13:07, said:

Well since that's a masquerade, let's just leave the families of the victims without proper justice, they'll be so happy to know that the responsible for the crime is in prison, living at their expense...

That's the problem, there is the law and then there is justice. No one said they have to be the same thing. Life is horrifically crappy. There is no way to right a wrong done to you or someone else. The law should punish people for breaking the rules of society, it can never bring justice.

[Golan]

Death Penalty for the purpose of deterrence is ineffective. The problem being, the crimes that are punished with it are too extreme to make it likely that the delinquent actually worries about the penalty. Mass murderers, murderers, such people don't think about whether they might get caught: when done out of an inner, uncontrollable drive, then its like penalizing breathing with death - people will do it anyways, for they have to. When done out of sociopathy, then the extremeness is likely to give the deed even more of a kick. When done to get rid of that annoying stepmother of yours, then you think you have the perfect plan and would never be caught anyways.
Furthermore, the penalty itself is too extreme. Most people have been locked up in a confined space for some time in their lives, either because they had abusive parents or they got stuck in an elevator once. People know that this sucks and can thus relate to the notion that being locked up for a long time, possibly even your entire life, sucks HARD. Likewise, most people have experienced pain and most other penalties. Death, that's something no one has experienced. So, the death penalty is abstract - it's something you can't relate to. Sure, it's very likely very unpleasant, but there's no true relation to the act of dying. It's like telling a kid not to touch a warm hotplate - unless they experience it for themselves, there is nothing deterrent about it.

Death penalty for the purpose of justice - an hour of agony that is likely to shorting your pain receptors or rotting away in a 2x2m cell for 60 years, I guess option b) is more like it. It is also very likely to be much more effective on your standard sociapathic, sadistic murderer, who might actually enjoy the show otherwise.

Death Penalty for the purpose of vengeance - well yeah, that's not The Law's job.

Death Penalty for the purpose of cleaning house - look at how many people on death row have been wrongly convicted. I'll leave it at that.

[Mbob61]

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 12:55, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 23:46, said:

Mbob61, on 27 Jan 2011, 13:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 12:07, said:

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

THIS ^

If you ever want a good reason why there shouldn't be a death penalty, try going to some pages like these - Wiki exonerated list

Mike

That is only a good proof that the law system in those countries is flawed, they're distributing death sentences without even verifying the guilt of the presumed criminals in these cases...

The only major flaw of the law system in these cases is the death penalty being the final verdict. In a real judicial system the death penalty should never be an option as it can never offer compensation to the falsely accused.

Most of the exonerees were decided to be 'guilty' in court, and by your system they should be executed as fast as possible after the verdict.

Exactly. If you have such an extreme punishment such as the death penalty as the ultimate punishment, there is no room for backtracking if new evidence comes to life and its proven that the person was actually innocent.
Being imprisoned for 20 years is pretty awful but at least they get a chance to be freed if they are deemed innocent.

Also, i would much rather a killer rotted for 50-60 years in prison than be given an easy way out. If you kill them after a short time, they haven't really been punished for what they did. being told you are never going to be released from prison would be a lot more hurtful to the murderer. Its also a lot less barbaric. We have evolved from the dark ages.

Mike

Edited by Mbob61, 27 January 2011 - 16:10.

[TheDR]

Mbob61, on 27 Jan 2011, 16:01, said:

Also, i would much rather a killer rotted for 50-60 years in prison than be given an easy way out. If you kill them after a short time, they haven't really been punished for what they did. being told you are never going to be released from prison would be a lot more hurtful to the murderer. Its also a lot less barbaric. We have evolved from the dark ages.

From what i have seen it's been CJ vs the forum (D:) so far. However he didn't say that locking in prison wasn't a worthy punishment, he said that the system in some cases is broken and people who have killed have been let out of prison after 5 to 10 years, which is unacceptable. However, yeah sure, the death penalty would of stopped this but surely there has to be a better way of dealing with the extreme cases, it seems its more longer sentencing is needed rather than something so severe as the death penalty.

[CJ]

TheDR, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:27, said:

Mbob61, on 27 Jan 2011, 16:01, said:

Also, i would much rather a killer rotted for 50-60 years in prison than be given an easy way out. If you kill them after a short time, they haven't really been punished for what they did. being told you are never going to be released from prison would be a lot more hurtful to the murderer. Its also a lot less barbaric. We have evolved from the dark ages.

From what i have seen it's been CJ vs the forum (D:) so far. However he didn't say that locking in prison wasn't a worthy punishment, he said that the system in some cases is broken and people who have killed have been let out of prison after 5 to 10 years, which is unacceptable. However, yeah sure, the death penalty would of stopped this but surely there has to be a better way of dealing with the extreme cases, it seems its more longer sentencing is needed rather than something so severe as the death penalty.

Exactly, I'm not saying that we should sentence every criminal to death penalty, I said from the start that it should be used only for those who commit crimes too severe to even consider forgiving them (such as Jack the Ripper and other psychopaths)

[Sgt. Rho]

leaving someone to rot in prison for the rest of their life is more of a punishment than death is, simple as that. You may fear death, but personally, I'd prefer death over sitting in prison for 50-60 years.

[Chyros]

Personally I'm very strongly against the death penalty and have difficulty accepting people actually condone it. I consider it barbaric, even for crimes other people might use it for. In my opinion, especially not giving the death penalty to someone when all others would is a measure of civilisation. The way I see it, there is no crime that should be punishable by death, even if guilt is incontrovertibly proven (which is impossible, I might add). Especially the argument of costs horrifies me since we're still talking about human lives here - if someone wanted to cut on costs you might as well shoot anybody who reaches 60 years of age since after that people start to deteriorate anyway.

Quote

From what i have seen it's been CJ vs the forum (D:) so far.

That's not true. The tally shows 2 for atm - I'm interested who this is and why. I'm also very interested in other people's opinions from countries that still regularly execute people like our Singaporean or American members.

[Ion Cannon!]

I would consider serial killers, serial rapists, drug lords and crime bosses eligible for the death penalty, but it should only be used if the evidence is overwhelming. These kind of people have forsaken morality and thus there shouldn't be any moral feelings that killing them is wrong. In their lives all they have done is hurt, and hurt badly. Crime bosses and drug lords may not always do direct harm, but the indirect effects can be massive. Serial killers and serial rapists treat life like it means nothing, they commit crimes so horrible most people cannot even comprehend how they could do such acts. They haven chosen to treat others lives like that and I think we should treat them the same. Why waste £28,000 a year keeping some horrid person locked up when you can just kill them instead.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 27 January 2011 - 17:28.

[TheDR]

Chyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:19, said:

Quote

From what i have seen it's been CJ vs the forum (D:) so far.

That's not true. The tally shows 2 for atm - I'm interested who this is and why. I'm also very interested in other people's opinions from countries that still regularly execute people like our Singaporean or American members.

Sgt. Rho, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:11, said:

Ugh. Can you somehow remove my vote? I accidentally voted yes >.<

Note to self: Wake up before doing anything

I will change his vote to No.

[Sgt. Rho]

Again, killing someone doesn't solve anything really, other than satisfying the victims. Throw them criminals in prison with no possibility to get set free again.


@Chyros: One was indeed mine, erroneously, thanks Dr for fixing it

Edited by Sgt. Rho, 27 January 2011 - 17:45.

[Chyros]

Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:27, said:

I would consider serial killers, serial rapists, drug lords and crime bosses eligible for the death penalty, but it should only be used if the evidence is overwhelming. These kind of people have forsaken morality and thus there shouldn't be any moral feelings that killing them is wrong. In their lives all they have done is hurt, and hurt badly. Crime bosses and drug lords may not always do direct harm, but the indirect effects can be massive. Serial killers and serial rapists treat life like it means nothing, they commit crimes so horrible most people cannot even comprehend how they could do such acts. They haven chosen to treat others lives like that and I think we should treat them the same. Why waste £28,000 a year keeping some horrid person locked up when you can just kill them instead.

That's still assuming people consider death worse than life in prison.

Tbh, I think people underestimate how bad prison can be. Dutch prisons are regularly criticised for being "hotels" here (which is true to a relative extent when compared to other countries' prisons, even Western ones) but a bunch of judges my father knows once volunteered to spend one full day in prison - they were shouting to get out by evening, though.

[Ion Cannon!]

Chyros, on 27 Jan 2011, 17:47, said:

Ion Cannon!, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:27, said:

I would consider serial killers, serial rapists, drug lords and crime bosses eligible for the death penalty, but it should only be used if the evidence is overwhelming. These kind of people have forsaken morality and thus there shouldn't be any moral feelings that killing them is wrong. In their lives all they have done is hurt, and hurt badly. Crime bosses and drug lords may not always do direct harm, but the indirect effects can be massive. Serial killers and serial rapists treat life like it means nothing, they commit crimes so horrible most people cannot even comprehend how they could do such acts. They haven chosen to treat others lives like that and I think we should treat them the same. Why waste £28,000 a year keeping some horrid person locked up when you can just kill them instead.

That's still assuming people consider death worse than life in prison.

Tbh, I think people underestimate how bad prison can be. Dutch prisons are regularly criticised for being "hotels" here (which is true to a relative extent when compared to other countries' prisons, even Western ones) but a bunch of judges my father knows once volunteered to spend one full day in prison - they were shouting to get out by evening, though.

For me its not about the fact death is worse, you could argue that prison is far worse. Some prisons are horrible, some not so much, but thats another topic. No the thing for me is that these people no longer deserve to live and certainly not at the publics expense. I'm not saying human life is worth nothing, human life is. However the lives of these people is another matter. Furthermore the money that would be used to keep them locked up could be better spent on schools and hospitals.