Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Bree Bree Jul 7 2009, 04:05 PM

Well, to begin with. In Nebraska, they approved Lethal Injection as a form of the death penalty, as the electric was found as cruel and unusual punishments. BUT, from what I heard from my teacher (A total brainiac...) he said that the Lethal Injection takes about 5-7 mins to kill them and they feel like they are on fire. I would find that as a cruel and unusual procedures.

And, people say that we are wasting money on the life sentence, keeping the creepers in jails for however long they live.

Now, I want to hear what others have to say about this. But I like links that might help prove your point .

Posted by: Troll Jul 7 2009, 05:40 PM

Lethal Injection is cruel, in my opinion. I'd prefer a less torturous, quicker means of killing someone, myself, no matter what they've done.

As far as the death penalty goes as a whole, it costs more money to kill someone than keep them in jail for life. I'm against.

Posted by: Bree Bree Jul 7 2009, 10:10 PM

That's what I've been told. They have to go through the medicines, then the legal stuff. But I'm sort of all against it. No matter the penalty.

Posted by: Banette Jul 8 2009, 07:49 AM

I think that if they already took another's life for some stupid reason, then they should be knocked off immediately. Let 'em suffer! No one has a right to take someone's life away from them, but if you do it anyway, you deserve equal punishment.

Posted by: Iulius Caesar Jul 8 2009, 08:52 AM

How is death suffering? Death is the easy way out of everything. All forms of execution used today (and even some that were used in more primitive times) are meant to be quick and [usually] painless. No modern execution lasts for more than ten minutes, tops. So, in reality, they're not suffering at all. They're getting the easy road out of it, and most should, or will be, satisfied that they won't have the life sentence.

No, Capital Punishment is not right. First, like Troll said, it's more expensive. Second, it's not good enough. Mind you, some people will never reflect on what they did with an open mind. Some people, especially the socio- and psychopaths, will never actually feel bad for what they did. But most people will eventually, if they're allowed to live, be haunted by what they did, or think about what they did. That will, hopefully, bring them to the point where they can't bear what they did, and go insane. And that, my friend, is suffering.

Posted by: Annakyoyama358 Jul 8 2009, 02:17 PM

First off, there are 3 injections. The first one PUTS THEM TO SLEEP so they can't feel the burning. Therefore, it's not cruel, we numb the pain.

Second off, it actually costs LESS to put an inmate in prison for life then to sentence them to death, because of the number of appeals involved.

Now, if they change the fucking appeals court, I'd be ecstatic. I want these loser to fucking DIE. Not live in a comfy prison with 3 meals a day, and a paycheck, and sometimes even computers and ipods and tvs!
Fuck that.

Posted by: The Enigmatic Trainer Jul 8 2009, 02:50 PM

i hope this thread doesnt end up like the last one about the death penalty.

i dont know a whole lot about lethal injection so ill just stick with what i do know. if it really does make you feel like youre on fire for 5-7 min., and costs so much then im against. isnt there a simple, cost efficient, and quick way to execute someone? there must be ONE way out there somewhere.

Posted by: Zoreta Jul 8 2009, 04:27 PM

Well, there's always beheading and hanging (fast, cheap and environmentally friendly!), but the cost of capital punishment has nothing to do with the injection itself- the cost comes from the many appeals and court cases that have to occur before the person gets destroyed, because it isn't like you can bring the person back if it turns out they had the wrong person.

Capital punishment is a very touchy subject, and the only time I would support it would be if a criminal has a mental disease that makes them fundamentally violent without possibility of rehabilitation or the ability to understand their crime. That is, if someone will be absolutely hopelessly violent until the day they die and there is no way to make them 'better'.

Posted by: eagleblackbelt Jul 27 2009, 05:56 PM

I'm for the death penalty even though I'm Catholic. I feel though that only those who by their being alive endanger even their prisonmates should be put to death though...

Also child molesters, but not a 18 to 21 year old who had consential sex with his or her underage boyfriend or girlfriend. I'm talking predators that look for little kids to steal their innocense by raping them... I feel that that is the ultimate crime and should end in the ultimate sentence... death.

Posted by: Lord Raven Jul 27 2009, 08:00 PM

against. I don't care if they're a danger or not, it costs far too much to kill them off unless the case is 100% valid. Honestly I'd only consider looking into putting select people into death row if they're that damn dangerous, but only if it would cost more to kill them than, say, keep them in jail for life.

Posted by: emberwing Jul 27 2009, 08:13 PM

Against. i mean, people who are that dangerous have had difficult lives. not that thats an excuse, but they probably had no love or family. A bit of positive thinking and attention can change anyone. I firmly believe in peace.

Posted by: eagleblackbelt Jul 28 2009, 12:26 PM

Peace? Awww what's the fun in that. Sure maybe not all serial killers should be killed but I'll have to stick to my opinion on the termination of child molesters. They have no place in this world.

Posted by: DragonMaiden Jul 28 2009, 04:10 PM

Im for it, on conditions. If your going to kill someone as payment for a crime, it should ALWAYS be the penalty. I mean you see some serial killers kill like 20 normal people and only go to jail, on the flip side you see a person kill just 1 person and for some reason they get the death penalty that the other person did not. The Death Penalty shouldn't be subjective like this. The penalty shouldn't change on a case by case basis. The penalty for murder should always be the death penalty, or it should always be jail. It shouldn't be both. If this were the case, then people would always be aware of the consequences of their actions without any question in their minds, and if they know for sure that they get the death penalty for murder, it would most likely cut down on the people who would choose to do so. I believe murder is the only crime the death penalty should be applied to though. If were gonna stick to the saying of an eye for an eye from the bible, it should be the same here. A death for a death. As for the fact that many of these people have had difficult lives, that isn't a reason for sympathy. MANY people in the world have suffered as much if not more then many of these people and not all of them chose the course that the criminal did. Crimes are a matter of choice and not circumstances and should be treated as so.

Posted by: Dark Chidori Jul 28 2009, 04:20 PM

Isn't there already a topic on this? I posted in the last one about the death penalty.

Posted by: Iulius Caesar Jul 28 2009, 04:35 PM

Yeah, but that one's over the necroposting limit, so it's okay.

I'm against the death penalty. I hope you all "let's kill them to make them suffer" supporters realize that all modern forms of execution last less than ten minutes. Suffering? Hardly. Don't pull the "eternal damnation" game either because nobody on Earth has neither the ability nor the right to judge a person's afterlife.

These people who openly kill, rape, and destroy others and have no remorse will be happier in death. Why? They're getting the slap on the wrist and they don't have to live with the guilt. No, instead they deserve to live, so that they will, one day, realize what they did. The guilt will attack them, haunt them--the people they hurt will always burn forever in their memory.

That is suffering.

Posted by: dragingrl76137 Jul 28 2009, 06:14 PM

I agree with the death penalty. Why should a person who kills be allowed the gift of life when they are not willing to let others live as well.

I don't think that they will ever have any remorse or feel guilt for what they did. They are too self absorbed to care about anyone other than themselves so taking their life is the only punishment that fits them.

As a rape victum I agree I think that those that attack and rape people and child molestors should be put to death.

Posted by: Lino Ludocx Kaito Jul 28 2009, 06:19 PM

I feel keeping them in jail for life is crueler, maybe they deserve it, but I dont want them on the streets if they are dangerous but i think death should be the outcome, if they can kill alot why shoulddnt they be killed of course this does not apply in all cases, actually after reading other comments i am going to be a hypocrite and agree with Iulius her point makes such sense.

Posted by: Iulius Caesar Jul 30 2009, 10:10 AM

You mean his.

Posted by: MystykFyre Aug 11 2009, 05:18 AM

As in the thread about abortion, the song "What if Jesus came back like that?" seems fitting here.

What if Jesus came back like that?
Where would he see our hearts are at?
Would he
Let us in or turn his back?
What if Jesus came back like that?

Would he cry when he sees where our hearts are at?
Would he
Let us in or turn his back?
What if Jesus came back like that?

Hey, what if Jesus came back like that?


The song tells us about people we shun... A beggar, on the side of the street, homeless, with no wife or family. A person born to a mother on drugs, being unable to perform certain brain functions very well. It asks us, what if Jesus came back like that? Would we let him in, or turn our backs? Then it tells of His glorious appearance in the manger, a star above his head and kings bowing before him. If he came back like that, would he let us in, or turn his back, when he saw what we have been doing? Killing our own?

Everyone deserves an equal chance at life. I know that many people believe some people "deserve" the ultimate sentence for their crimes. In some cases, I would agree, before I realized that they had not had a chance to repent. Why speed their judgment day on the road that leads either to Heaven or to Hell? If you give them a chance to truly repent of their sins, then God may finally be satisfied with us humans and our many faults. We kill our own, every day in fact. We are no better than savage beasts, killing for our satisfaction. And then, once we have killed, we are still not satisfied. We are never satisfied. We must learn to be satisfied, else we will wipe out our race or, worse, what if Jesus came back and saw us like this? What if the world is truly going to end in just over two years, and he comes to take us home with him, but he sees us as not worthy to go with him? That is the ultimate sentence, and we would do well to avoid it.

Posted by: Cho Aug 11 2009, 08:10 PM

I'm against the death penalty. I'd rather have the prisoner get tortured for the rest of his/her life non stop instead of dying. It serves them right. Make the prisoner tied against an electric chair tight and make them watch the Mcdonalds Roll non stop.

Posted by: Bigbadbologna Aug 11 2009, 11:44 PM

I think that The death penalty can be inhumane sometimes, (see spoiler for details) but it must be used. I bet if we get rid of the Death penalty, we'll be up to our heads in Taxes, paying for the prisoners to live in jail.

Lethal injection is fine with me, but the electric chair was Brutal...

Posted by: MystykFyre Aug 12 2009, 01:42 PM

'Up to our heads in taxes'? What's so expensive about bread and water?


Put prisoners in rooms with speakers that play the Barney friendship song nonstop. Now that is the way to punish people.

Posted by: Tyranisaur Aug 12 2009, 02:50 PM

If someone is to dangerous to be kept alive(is that from a movie or something) they should be killed.

Do they take extra apeals because someone could get death penalty?
Shouldn't the criminal admit and then get his punishment?

It would always be better to get killed than sit in jail for the rest of the life.

Posted by: koolchick Aug 13 2009, 10:05 AM

I agree with death penalty for murders and them only. Reason being is they have made someone feel fear and pain probably knowing they are going to die for no reason apart from the murder feels like killing them or enjoys seeing them suffer. So why not show them what it feels like I don't see why the death penalty should try to make them die without suffering they probably didn't think of killing their victim without making them suffer. Cheapest way would be just shut them in a cell and leave them no food or water yes they would suffer but why should any one care when they didn't. People should be treated how they treat others. Also by just putting them in a cell there is no set person that kills them.

I understand arguments against it as once they are dead they are free and some people would prefer to die than be in prison all their lives but for me I would rather be in prison than killed which is part of my reason for being in favor.

Another good argument against it is there could be inncent people put to death, which obviously is not fair.

Posted by: Blueberry Aug 13 2009, 05:16 PM

Ugh. Let's see...prisons offer cable, internet, free place to stay, three meals a day. Ug....Oh and this is the guy that raped your daughter and killed her Yea...no. The world would save A LOT of money and there wouldn't be a such thing as crowded prisons because they would give 'em the Lethan Injection. Sorry but the injection ISN'T cruel. They got rid of the chair cause THAT was cruel. Most people put down their animals the same way. (almost, different drugs) So now is that cruel?

Posted by: DigitalEon Aug 14 2009, 10:22 PM

Strangely enough, I believe something totally different - that the death penalty should at least include rapists and child molesters rather than mere murderers (well, the worst of them, obviously - and I guess the worst would have killed, too).

Obviously, the system would need lots of changes to make the death penalty less expensive, and could only be used in cases where there is very little if any doubt about the criminal being guilty (preferably one who has committed multiple crimes; I don't understand how they could sentence someone to death for one murder where they could easily be innocent). But where there is no question of guilt, and they are likely to be a repeat offender, sure. I don't view it as a tool for revenge or even punishment, but rather a way to ensure that criminal can never commit an offense again.

As for cruelty, is it any less cruel to lock someone up for the rest of their life, in a setting where abuse is likely? What about solitary confinement? That's not exactly desirable, either.

Posted by: Galahawk Aug 17 2009, 01:45 PM

Well to me, the life sentence and death penalty are two entirely different things. I'm personally in favor of either, depending on the circumstances.
More often than not, I'm in favor of a life sentence. It not only seems a lot less cruel, but it would still be giving them an adequate punishment for misdeeds.

Posted by: Lord Raven Aug 17 2009, 04:11 PM

Wrong.

The world would save a lot of money if the appeal system wasn't so fucking tedious. It's stupid that it costs more to probably kill them off than keep them in a luxurious environment.
It costs ~35K a year to keep someone in prison iirc, and I think we can easily reduce the crime rate by changing the meaning of the word "crime". See marijuana topic.


It is pretty fucking cruel anyway. It's sick to see someone want to suffer like that before they die regardless of what they've done. Yes arguably the crime done is probably really sick too considering they're getting a lethal injection for it, but my point stands either way.

Posted by: RheaDark Aug 22 2009, 06:43 PM

I am for the death penalty, but honestly think that injection's a stupid way to go. A shot to the head's quicker, if not as... what was the word? Dignified?

And as above said...

Posted by: penguinJAM Aug 27 2009, 02:01 PM

I strongly believe in the death penalty. Anybody who would kill or rape another person (especially children), deserves much more than murder. In fact, money aside, I prefer torture as a means of punishment. Years of torture, medieval style, for those who kill and rape!

Posted by: Iconox Oct 4 2009, 06:20 PM

I don't personally like the death penalty, but someone who takes someone's life definately deserves a severe punishment.

Posted by: Kiseki Lin Oct 7 2009, 06:58 PM

I find myself thinking this: "Why do we deserve to have power on who can live and who dies?" As far as the death penalty goes, even I sometimes think it's the way for murderers, but then I find myself going back to the question. People who kill others or rape them deserve to suffer a severe punishment, but I don't think the death penalty is the way to go. Nothing's wrong with a life sentence as you're in there for the rest of your life, maybe being forced to think over what you've done, never getting the chance of getting out to see the world. No, you're stuck in prison for the rest of your life.

Posted by: FueledByPokemon Oct 8 2009, 02:24 PM

I prefer life sentence to be honest .

And a life sentence where I live isnt exactly life sentence . Its 20 years and you get out earlier if you behave yourself so it would really only be max 15 years .

And Injection is Cruel and 7 minutes of pain like that , it isnt the best send off , is it ?

And If You Kill Someone , You should pay the time , not get killed and only pay 7 minutes of pure agony .

And I Think If You Take Someone Elses Life With an Injection You Should Take Your Own

Posted by: Libie Oct 9 2009, 07:27 AM

I am against the death sentence simply because killing someone for killing someone? Hypocrite alert? So what is the penalty "an eye for an eye"? I mean would you rape a rapist?? Of course not! And like loads of people say, life sentence is in many ways worse than the death penalty. When criminals are dead they CANNOT redeem themselves anymore, they cannot be hurt or feel anguish or guilt. Death is preferable, a million times, to a life sentence! Do you think living in a comfortable jail for the rest of your life is fulfilling?? Guess what - it's not! Even if they get let out (as the poster above says, "life" can be as little as 15 years) who's going to employ them? Who's going to marry them? Their life is ruined, and they will have learned their lesson. Life sentence is about as harsh as it gets.

Of course for extremely dangerous/psychopathic/sociopathic/crazy people, I guess they would probably prefer the jail, but then again a crazy person isn't responsible for their actions :/ *technically*

And about lethal injection, I have obviously little knowledge about it, but it *is* supposed to be painless. Since they put them to sleep first, like they do when euthanising animals.

Posted by: squorgblatt Oct 13 2009, 01:52 AM

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. On the one hand, I do believe that some crimes definitely "merit" a death penalty (serial rape, mass murder, etc.). On the other hand, I wish we were beyond needing executioners (since somebody's gotta flip that switch/trigger that injection), and do not feel the additional cost of executing a prisoner (as opposed to a life sentence) is worth it (whatever that may mean).

Posted by: GreenEclipse Oct 13 2009, 01:43 PM

This is quite a sensible topic .
I agree if a certain number of essencial proofs and testimonials are credible are achieved. I think like that cause i know that some trials are just corrupt and unfair sometimes and imagine you being condened to death sentence without being guilty. But i actually prefer death sentence then life imprisonment cause life imprisonment is too unhuman, being lock in a cell smaller then a bathroom for 23 hours of the day doenst make people reagreat just makes them go completly maniac

I dont agree with Libie because the death sentence is not hypocrite, knowing the prisons nowdays "maniac" people wouldnt prefer beiing locked up for the rest of their lifes

Posted by: laskuraska Oct 13 2009, 01:54 PM

I believe that prison should be a place of reform, not punishment. However, I feel that there are some who are un-reformable, and that un-reformable individuals willing to go out and commit more heinous crimes should get fried for no other reason than that in losing responsibility for that individual we become more free to help others who have a chance of reforming to do so. In all honesty, capital punishment isn't and has never been a deterrent or crime would have been wiped off the map in the middle ages with all the outlandish tortures they invented, and the death penalty is no different than the French rack or the Judas cradle in that respect. However, in cases where an individual has killed a family of six, been sent through reform programs without showing improvement, keeps killing other inmates, and says in interveiws that the only thing he regrets is being caught; well that guy best be put out of our misery. There's nothing we can do for him.

Posted by: iNinetales Oct 13 2009, 03:55 PM

For me, it's all depends really. I mean, there is that small chance that they could be wrong. They usually aren't, but there is still that chance and if they are wrong, they would be killing someone innocent of that certain crime. I actually am for the death penatly for certain crimes, but whenever they use it, that always comes to mind.

Posted by: qgag Feb 22 2011, 10:16 PM

Yeah! An eye for an eye!

And for other things, if they have the life sentence they shouldn't be living comfortly, they should be living miserably. Let them suffer! Let them regret what they've done!! If they live in prison with cable, they might be better off in prison then at home! Think about it: If the guy's in his late forties, is too poor to afford a house, a TV, food, he just goes around, asks smart people (because if he was a smart person he wouldn't be in this mess anyway) what crimes gives a life sentence, and Bam! you got a pleasurable rest of life!

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Feb 23 2011, 10:14 AM

that's cruel, inmates are people too...

Posted by: MoogleSam Feb 23 2011, 06:36 PM

Agreed. They are people too and though they may not be nice people, that doesn't mean they should be treated horribly. I mean, seriously, you are taking away their freedom and putting them somewhere that they are likely to be treated horribly by the other people there, the 'nice' people don't have to be horrible to them too because then they are no better than the people in jail.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Feb 23 2011, 11:23 PM

Furthermore, regret isn't attained through pain. In fact, pain and misery have the off-chance of magnifying horrible tendencies and it actually makes them even more distant than the ideal social prototype. The only instance in which any sort of capital punishment should be given is through any STRONG argument in favor of public safety.

Prison is more for rehabilitation and not punishment these days due to the interest of not only upholding the constitution but also due to trying to keep the public safe AND give inmates another chance. People fuck up, and unless they're completely irredeemable, they should be given a second shot.

Posted by: rileyup Feb 24 2011, 05:24 PM

yes however injections are often admonistered inncorrectly so many times it can feel like fire,i perfer old sparky less pain
but im for the life scentence because it is even cruler i think they should make the life scentence more tortures though

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Feb 24 2011, 08:43 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution You award punishments based upon cruelty? Criminals aren't all bad people and crazy arsonists...

Posted by: MoogleSam Feb 27 2011, 02:15 AM

To continue your point, thieves are criminals for example, but thieves are often desperate and steal to support their families. It doesn't make them bad people, it makes them people that are desperate and doing whatever they can to look after their family. Though there are some that do it just because they can, most don't from my knowledge, they usually have a financial problem of some kind or live in a poor country.

Posted by: swiftphantom Feb 27 2011, 08:45 PM

I honestly like Life Sentence.

It'd be totally unfair to cut someone's life short with Lethal Injection.
Life Sentence isn't painful, though.

Plus, it isn't "wasting" money.
Wasting money would be more like burning it.

But, spending it meaning it'd still be there later.

So I think Life Sentence is a better situation, unless dealing with a serial killer.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Feb 27 2011, 10:25 PM

wasting money is what like 70% of inmates are there for :|

Posted by: Obsidian Judge Feb 27 2011, 11:52 PM

Firstly, a thief is not likely to get the death penalty. Secondly, what about the store owner? He is trying just as hard to provide for his own family, and doing so legally. Why should we cater to those who can not respect the laws set in place? Prison is meant as punishment; rehabilitation is useless on a thief. What does he need rehabilitation for? He/she isn't suffering from some mental issues. (kleptomania excluded)

Seriously, this "pity for the criminals" is disgusting. They chose to break the law, and, in doing so, left them open to the consequences.

Death penalty, because some people don't deserve to live the lives the took away.

Posted by: MoogleSam Mar 3 2011, 08:19 PM

The point I was continuing was that not all criminals are bad people or crazy arsonists, nothing to do with the death penalty but more of a reason why life sentences don't need to be cruel as hell.

Yes, the store owner is trying to provide for his/her family too but the store owner is likely to have money saved up which if necessary, could be used for food meaning his/her family isn't likely to starve to death. The thief is more likely to be poor and unable to afford food for his/her family which is you know, necessary for living. You are basically saying you'd rather condemn a poor thief's family to death because the way the person is trying to keep them alive is through crime, which I find horrible.

I say crimes like theft when necessary to keep your family fed, are completely excusable. What else are you going to do if you can't get a job, have lost your house, can't gain benefits from the government, have no homeless shelter in your town/city, have no living relatives that will give you money, have no friends that will take you in or give you money and have no way to gain money and food except through stealing? Let your family slowly and painfully starve to death? I doubt it.

I find it shocking that you don't see it from their point of view, you only seem to see it from the point of view of people that haven't broken the law. Yes, they chose to break the law but the reasons behind it are important too. The intention and reasoning behind what they did are what decide if they are a good person, a bad person, or someone with a mental condition, not the actual crime itself.

Posted by: Verinia Mar 6 2011, 12:03 AM

I would prefer life sentence, where you could live a life of misery but at least, well, live...
Over death because of a lethal injection, because if you die as a criminal, you are forever indeed one...

Posted by: Iconox Mar 6 2011, 07:23 PM

I personally don't like the death penalty (Cesare Beccaria ftw!). I see life in prison as a better alternative. For me, it's still taking a life in a way to execute a criminal. The death penalty functions on the assumption that a serious crime makes one inhuman and therefore allowed to be killed. That just doesn't sit right with me on a philosophical level. Now if I were a father and someone murdered my son/daughter, I would likely feel different out of anger/sadness/shock; however, I still don't think that most if any crimes warrant taking someone's life.

Posted by: Ladida Mar 8 2011, 05:20 PM

@Verinia
You serve a life sentence in prison as a criminal. Let alone a murderer, you still are one...dieing for it doesn't change any fact. It more so stops people from talkin about you or worrying what you would do if you we're ever out again in the real world.

Personally I am for the Death Penalty. I think having it split between that and Life in prison should be judged upon their mentality and actions. Sometimes the legal system just doesn't cut it.

Around where I live, we had a guy who was an obvious rapist a few years ago. Must have went to prison for like 10-15 years prior, got out and about a year later. He kidnapped a young woman and killed her. Now how is that fair to let someone like him get out and do that? It was pretty much expected out of him...He gets to live in prison in a cozy cell now and not have to work for any of his food. He has no family to worry about and noone worries about him, noone cares. Basically gets to live his entire life as if he was rich, just under house arrest.

That family has to live with that pain for the rest of their lives because the legal system let him out to end her life. He gets to live his with no real grief because he's pretty much unstable and he is fine with that. Obviously even ending his life through the death penalty never heals the families wounds.

Posted by: Obsidian Judge Mar 16 2011, 12:56 AM

I never said all criminals were bad people. You don't need to be a bad person to break the law, nor do you need to break the the law to be a bad person. Punishment has nothing to do with someone's moral standing.



So, I should dig into my savings because someone can not provide for themselves? I'm sorry, but I already pay taxes to deal with things like that.



Well if we are going to be dealing with speculations: The thief is likely to be a drug addict who can not pay for his addiction. You shouldn't illogically generalize, it doesn't help your argument.



Firstly, you are illogically generalizing.
Secondly, your forgetting that there are programs to deal with poverty, and not taking advantage of them does not excuse crime.
Thirdly, who is now responsible for all the stolen possessions?



I say differently, as does the Judicial System.



Oh yeah, and how many times does this situation come up? I can tell you it isn't enough to change the way theft cases are handle.



So we should give all criminals the benefit of the doubt? OH WAIT, we already do that.



Again, punishment isn't determined on if the person is good or bad.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Mar 16 2011, 09:28 AM

Punishment does nothing in terms of public welfare. The purpose of incarceration these days is a more noble one than punishment; it's rehabilitation which is actually much less likely to fuck people up than actually punish them. They don't deserve to suffer for their crimes; they're human beings, wouldn't it just be better to just have them learn from their mistakes?

Clearly they aren't going anywhere useful. Charity doesn't even do nearly the best job of taking care of things like that. It's just showing the store owner is greedier for letting a couple bucks slide as opposed to the thief being greedy for stealing it.

Your taxpayer money goes even more to waste with the death penalty. In fact, more of it probably goes to the death penalty than what you're saying it goes it.

It's not an illogical generalization, it's just a generalization. In which case, I'm not sure if you were just using the first half of your statement as a counterargument, but that's just wrong to assume about everyone who doesn't have money. Considering the unemployment rate, his idea is actually very far-fetched from the actual scenario; it just so happens that the media sucks and doesnt like covering news like that.

The government run shit is crappy. The only "poverty"-like thing you get from the government is a $200/week unemployment check and medicare. The only good one is the latter, considering $200/week to pay for your housing and food on top of savings is absolutely nothing unless you have A LOT saved up... in which case, why would you be robbing a bank?

The way a criminal is defined is one who broke the laws. Given the amount of stupid laws, the term "criminal" holds very little substance to me, and I'm sure 85% of the United States (or this forum population) is considered a "criminal" by those laws that you have so much faith in. If you find disgust in finding pity for criminals, then you are pretty much talking down on most of your fellow countrymen, or even your fellow human beings in the world.

Now, to my real point; laws are not the determination of what garners pity. They are merely words. It's humanity that determines pity. The least pitiful of criminals are the ones that I would support the death penalty over if only in the interest of public safety and nothing more, because not all "criminals" are mass rapists/arsonists/murders. In which case, seeing as they are human, they are still likely to change; giving them at least another chance after years of rehabilitation isn't too much to ask for.

We feel pity because we are human beings not used to seeing death, and frankly when I think of death sometimes (like SERIOUSLY think of death) it just freaks me out. You should try hard to think about the concept of death yourself before freely and blindly supporting the death penalty as you do.


I'm ignoring the shit dealing with the thief scenario. That has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty. Petty theft doesn't even really land you in jail.

My opinion, cruel as it may be, is that they probably wanted to figure out the most cost-efficient way to keep him out of the way in terms of public safety. If he's on house arrest, he can't really do anything. It'll prevent him from doing anything else though, which is the thing you should be thankful for; having him tortured or punished simply in the name of revenge is no more human than the crimes he committed.

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42. Think of how many kids can be put through college with that money.

Posted by: Obsidian Judge Mar 16 2011, 05:08 PM

Really? I was under the assumption that punishment was used to deter crime. So as not to promote anarchy.


What about the people who suffered because of said crimes? Should we just right off rape victims, the families of murder victims, and the people who were stolen from? I guess they deserved it didn't they?


Wait, the store owner is greedy because he doesn't want to pay for what a thief stole? Really?! Not to burst your bubble, but that isn't how society works.


Not sure about our facts now, are we?


Unless most people who are charged with theft (51%) then yes, it is a illogical generalization.


Uh, no. It was another illogical generalization, to point out that the previous generalization was illogical. It was not serious.


So stealing other people's money is excusable? And may I point out; there are many people who get by on $200 week. Being unemployed doesn't mean you're living in a hovel.


Problem found. See, subjective reasoning.


[CITATION NEEDED]


I never said they were.


No, the are not "merely words." Laws are rules, to which you agreed to as part of the inherent social contact that comes with citizenship.


I think that is pretty obvious.


Not all people are insane enough to need rehabilitation. Sociopaths and psychotic killers can go for the insanity plea. There are people who understand what they are doing and still do it.


See ad hominem.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Mar 16 2011, 06:00 PM

Deterrent from crime is basic human instinct. Notice how very few humans even commit major crimes to begin with. In terms of public welfare... jail is what keeps prisoners off the streets, proper education helps it moreso, etc, not punishment.

So you place the condemned in jail, where they suffer to some extent (not entirely, because that would be inhuman), while they repent and go through what is essentially rehabilitation. You're not writing off anyone by allowing the accused criminal to be rehabilitated.

Store owner's greedy if he doesn't let a couple bucks slide. There's a difference between a thief and a criminal; a petty thief steals a couple items of food, whereas the criminal empties the register and threatens the guy at gunpoint. Massive difference.

Semantics. If you don't have a real counter for it, then don't counter it at all. Furthermore, I posted a source later, which should make it damn apparent that I know the facts.


51% is a majority but only a slight majority; not enough to even say "most". It is by no means illogical; logical generalizations can easily be made given the circumstances and what you know, regardless of the real world statistics. But once again, this is just semantics, and has nothing to do with the content of debate.

Apartment costs are roughly 1000 at least per month. 4 weeks in a month is ~800 dollars. Yeah, ok. Government welfare woo-hoo. My parents are running on unemployment and we only get by due to savings. Even that is drying up. After that, we'll have an extremely difficult time getting by.

When did I say something about stealing other people's money? If it was the bank comment, I apologize, I have no clue what I was trying to say there (i wrote that post up when I just woke up).

This is what someone says when they can't counter a point properly. You used the term criminal, I have shown proof why it holds very little substance, and then stated that I do not deem it a good term to use to refer to people

It was a rough, logical generalization based on the fact that many, MANY people torrent, download ROMs, download music, etc. You're essentially calling me and many of my friends on this site a criminal and you're saying it's disgusting that people can feel pity for criminals.




A criminal is someone who breaks the law. You say that the action of pity towards a criminal is disgusting.

In terms of what you can and cannot pity? Yes, laws are merely words, and breaking the law has nothing to do with the pity you get.

Uh-huh.

Yep because that's what every single criminal is. I think it's sad that I have to tell you that the statement was sarcasm, seeing as you seem incapable of reading the point rather than the wording.

Rehabilitation isn't for just the insane, you know.

Ad hominem doesn't apply because I'm not making a counterpoint. I'm making a statement that you don't grasp the concept of death as well as you should, and I'm trying to make you get a little perspective before spewing crap like you are. A logically fallacy applies to logic, not a non-logical statement that's essentially a plea for you to think closely about what you're saying before you say it.



And clearly you don't respect me enough to not only acknowledge all my points, but counter specific portions for my wording and not my content. I abhor this play-to-win mentality behind debates that you are expressing right now.

Posted by: Obsidian Judge Mar 17 2011, 12:06 AM

What?


Exactly how do you rehabilitate a thief? They already know stealing is bad, yet they still chose do do it. Most rapists, murders, extortionists, and con-artists understand what they are doing is wrong, that's why they go to such lengths to cover up what they did. How do you rehabilitate someone who already understands what they are doing is wrong, and still does it?


See subjective reasoning. Greed can be expressed many ways, even by giving money away. You can't simply categorize someone as greedy because they want to protect what is theirs.


You might as well say there is a difference between a square and a polygon. A thief is a criminal, just as a square is a polygon.


I'm not sure. I think I was reading more than one comment at the time, and got confused. I can guarantee it isn't the first or last time it'll happen.


Perhaps if you worded your points with more confidence? If you stat a fact then it is a fact. You shouldn't twiddle with the strength of facts.


....?


I was not saying that everyone should feel disgust towards criminals. It was subjective reasoning; I might as well have said, "I find pity for criminals disgusting." It is my opinion, and, as such, holds no power.


Well, you were using subjective reasoning, an opinion.


Actually, a criminal is someone who has been found guilty. You are innocent until proven guilty. All your friends are not criminals; at least until they go to court. You should only refer to people that have been convicted or are guilty of a crime as criminals.


I don't think you know what sarcasm is.

Sarcasm n
-harsh or bitter derision or irony
-a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark

How is your previous comment sarcastic?


Fine, what type of rehabilitation would you assign a thief, or con-artist? We already know that a psychopath, or sociopath would be assigned Psychiatric rehabilitation. This wouldn't help someone who does not have a mental disability, or has become mentally unstable. How do you rehabilitate someone who's only problem is breaking the law?


You still have yet to prove what I'm saying is crap. You may not agree with it, but not agreeing with something doesn't make it crap.

As to the concept of death, what would you have me think? Baww people are dying, bawwwww. Yeah people have been dying for far longer than recorded history. They've died for a plethora of reasons, and will continue to die.

I don't see anything wrong with a jury condemning someone to death for the crimes they committed. I don't see anything wrong with a person dying for the crimes they've committed. I don't see any reason to change this either.


No, I don't respect you. I don't know you or care to know you.

Wording is a critically important part of any argument. I'm not going to ignore poor wording, as neither should you.


I don't really care :3

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Mar 17 2011, 01:10 AM

Yes, humans have a natural tendency to obey the laws that are set forth. Either that, or they have a natural tendency to mind their own business as well as not kill others/rape others/etc unless they've got something wrong in the head or truly needed to.

Of course they know what they're doing is wrong. Rehabilitation isn't teaching them that something is wrong; it's essentially re-wiring the way they work so while they know what they're doing is wrong, they resist the urge to do that again.

Yes, you can if they want to protect what's theirs. It depends on their reaction to losing something compared to how much they lose. If they react enough to call the police when a little bit is taken, then yes that can easily be considered greed.

How can greed be expressed in giving money away? Unless it's unwillful -- even that is situational -- then there's no possible way it's an emblem of greediness.

A criminal in your definition is quite a large bit different than a criminal in my definition. I don't see a criminal as one who breaks the law, I see a criminal as one who breaks the law but noticeably disturbs the peace. That is consistent with the negative connotations of the word as you describe it. A petty thief is not a criminal, in that sense.

You know damn well what I meant. I said it with plenty of confidence, and you're just messing around with semantics to make yourself seem smarter when it makes your debating tactics comparable to that of a tool or a troll.

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42. That is a lot more that goes to simply "charity."

I'm pointing out how absolutely disgusting I find your opinion with my own opinion. And frankly, I'm appalled by your attitude towards criminals, even if they did commit terrible acts.

A debate is held between opposing opinions and each opinion is backed up by fact. I stated an opinion, you use fact to fight it. It's simple. Subjective reasoning my ass, if you can't counter it without stating the name of a logical fallacy, then you simply cannot counter it. Certainly, if it were fallible as you said, you'd be able to counter it in your own words as opposed to bringing up some random debate fallacies you found on wikipedia?

There are http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal, in which case there is an extremely negative connotation attached to it; something that is more important than words.

Also, even in consistency with your definition, I am still a criminal, I've been caught speeding.





Still irrelevant to my full argument, but not every criminal is as you describe. My comment was sarcastic because I said "Yep because that's what every single criminal is!" which is completely false.

The first two do not get incarcerated. Psychopaths/Sociopaths are those that deserve a life punishment and maybe even the death penalty. Bearing in mind, I do not argue in favor or against the death penalty -- just in special cases where letting a man live is indeed far worse for us than letting them stay alive and in jail -- I am mainly arguing against your point of view where a criminal is trash that does not deserve any sort of human emotion.

Not necessarily. Opinion is sometimes bullshit, sometimes not. People go around stuff like "I'm anti gay marriage and that's MY opinion so stfu" but the train of thought they have is foolish for many reasons. With opinions, in certain cases there is a wrong way out, and your equating criminals to crap is clearly ignorant.

And this doesn't frighten you in any way? I think about death far more deeply than that, especially if my loved ones were the ones dying. It's the cessation of life, the fact that you'll never get that person back again, and the hopelessness behind it. And just thinking of their body not being able to move by themselves ever again... doesn't make you the least bit sad?

It's especially frightened me because my dad's almost died through sickness many times throughout both his own life and my own life. My grandmother even died (and my mom's scream after finding out still lingers in my mind from time to time) that causes this emotion to occur. And frankly, this is what results from a premature death, where it was not natural. Natural deaths I can live with, because the person died peacefully; but disease and hell, this lethal injection and just a human being -- no matter who -- forcing someone else to just stop living? That's just sick in my opinion, especially considering the human being killed most likely has a great deal of human attachment to this world.

If they were a sociopath or psychopath then I'd have no reason to care, because they're dead inside. But every other criminal, even those on death row, have an attachment to this world and even though they fucked up a couple times, it seems extremely inhumane to end someone's life when they can just live the rest of their lives somehow. Even if it is in jail, where they at least have some luxury available to them.

"Baww people die" is a gross simplification, and using your own words an "illogical generalization," and just a terrible thing to say. Spouting memes does not good, or even witty, conversation make; a fact that many people should actually learn.

I may not believe in a God or a higher deity, nor do I actually care, but it's still up to me that a human is not in the right to determine the fate of another human that can feel emotions much like their own unless it's the only way to protect themselves. For most criminals on death row, most of them would not even have any means to break out of jail and take their stuff one step further. Hell, some of them might even prefer prison; they're not hurting anyone, it's more cost efficient, and they're isolated from the rest of the world as a near-perfect failsafe. Jailbreaks don't even happen very often.

Don't go lightly swinging the godforsaken fucking death penalty when you're only using your stance as a way to win this debate and when people's lives are on the line, and then turn my argument into a fucking semantics war just to boost your own ego. This issue has far more magnitude than you think, and you truly are ignorant given the way you're arguing in favor of it.

That's nice, I guess I don't have to hold back much either.

No, when you don't debate like a complete tool, wording means jack shit. It's the actual point that matters, especially considering this is far from a formal debate.

So you only debate to flaunt your e-penis? Almost nobody in this board except you debate for sport. That's a pretty terrible reason to vocally condemn all criminals as you have, at any rate.



I still enjoy the fact that you skip crucial points. It really makes you look worse.

Posted by: Ruins Apr 10 2011, 08:00 AM

To sum up my opinion on this, I'd have to quote Gandalf:

- Frodo and Gandalf discuss the traitor and murderer Gollum.

Posted by: Skins T Apr 13 2011, 07:07 AM

I'll never agree with the death penalty. While I do wish ill for murderers/rapists/molesters and wish they WOULD die, I don't think they actually should. They'll have it far worse in prison among other disgusting humans.

Posted by: hotanddangerous Jul 4 2011, 11:50 AM

Then we are just as bad as the murderers. The death penalty should be banned. It is against human rights. No, I don't have some amazing alternate way of dealing with criminals, but killing them is wrong. Simple as.

Also, Comic Sans in your signature for fuck's sake

Posted by: Cloud Nine Dec 5 2011, 12:02 PM

I am completely unagainst it. I study psychology and research shows that the Death Penalty should not actually be given as a sentence, not only is it far more costly and does not actually end overcrowding in prisons, but judges who give the sentence of the Death Pentalty are more likely to give it based on your race.
It's completely subjective to the Judge and the country.
Not to mention it is incredibly barbaric. We're humans after all. We should think logically. If you take a murderer to an electric chair, or to the lethal injection, that's a life you've ended right there.
Sure, he took a life. But so have you now. And even though you will say 'An eye for an eye', you still took the life of that man. And it will forever be seen that way.

Posted by: Cassowary Jan 1 2012, 04:08 AM

I'd be for it if there was a night 100% certainty of it being the right person. Who qualifies for the death penalty depends, though.

The way I see it, jail should be for reforming people, not a punishment. Punishment is ineffective and only begets more crime as well as an inherent distrust of the system. Those who can't be reformed - repeat offenders, etc. - and/or who are a serious detriment to society, are the ones to be slated for the death sentence.

Posted by: Reyo Jan 1 2012, 07:24 PM

I used to be completely for the death penalty to a point where I'd even accept the job giving the lethal injections, but I took a social psych class that revealed just how easy it is for truly innocent people to be convicted for crimes they've never committed. Now I'm only for it if there's 99.999% certainty that the individual is the one who committed the crime, and isn't on death row just because of a faulty witness testimony, or a forced confession, both of which do still happen apparently.

Posted by: Blaziman Jan 2 2012, 01:13 AM

I'm for it. But honestly, if they've done sonething bad enough to be killed, make it hurt them. And put them in a lie detector first. Besides, wouldn't cost less to just blow off their heads with a rifle rather then the LI?

Posted by: Cassowary Jan 2 2012, 03:20 AM

1. If we "make them hurt", we're hardly any better than they, are we?
2. Lie detectors aren't very reliable - not the sort of things we want to depend on if we're going to be sending a person to their death.
3. Perhaps, but it makes more of a mess, and hardly looks good (publicity, public image, etc.)

Posted by: vaporeongirl2010 Jan 18 2012, 04:49 PM

I think the death penalty is like taking the easy way out. If they are a true endangerment to others, then I can see why they would go with that, but not everyone who is given the death penalty is a true hazard. Some crimes automatically get the death penalty (at least where I live...) and I think that isn't right. I say that they should keep someone under close supervision to determine whether or not the death penalty is absolutely necessary.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Jan 19 2012, 06:24 PM

Already posted this shit, but many of my views are summed up http://forums.gtsplus.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=14921&view=findpost&p=1687550 in this thread for reference. I'm going to be merging the two threads now.

Posted by: Disgracik Jun 10 2012, 11:37 AM

Life Sentence. Why? The answer is simple: doing Lethal Injection will make you same as that person, you also killed someone, so why shouldn't you be sentenced for death... It's like closed circle. Plus, if person has life sentence, he/she has time to think about what was done...

Posted by: Hexxy Jun 21 2012, 01:12 PM

Totally, totally against death sentence. This is coming from someone who lives in a place where the electric chair is also acceptable. It's barbaric, disgusting, and completely and utterly against what I believe is a natural human right. It's amazing that anyone can honestly think that sentencing a person to their death is ever okay. Yes, murderers are bad, but murdering murderers are just as bad, ya dig?

That, and the fact that I honestly believe we as people are automatially prone to gamble other people's lives because they are simply not us. You can't possibly be cold-blooded enough to think that killing ever solves anything? Maybe it's because I'm entirely pacifist and it's just my thing to protect murderers from LI or the chair, but...

Posted by: LucarioandDialga Feb 24 2013, 11:30 PM

While those prisoners are in jail for their life sentence, we practically pay for whatever they do. There were some cases that criminals use the money that we (as in government) give them to go back on trail to get off their life sentence spot free.

Some jail facilities have state of the art tennis courts. When I ponder about this, how can jails be treating their prisoners with such luxuries when there are thousands of schools that are lacking the funds they need for books, windows, heating and cooling system, and/or whatever else.

I would support the death penalty. And going back to the cruel and unusual punishment, if you haven't we live in an unusual world with many things are considered cruel and unfair. It's cruel that little children and teenagers are raped. It's unusual to see your someone you know at a vacation resort. It's cruel that thousands are going to bed starving.

Posted by: Mister Blah Feb 25 2013, 02:25 AM

The sponge is dry!

^Schools are pretty much the same as prisons, really. Only you get to leave at the end of the day.

Considering the world is overpopulated, death sentence is fine with me. Maybe sometimes someone innocent gets killed, but how often compared to the actual criminals?

Posted by: Zer0hundred Feb 26 2013, 02:33 PM

I think that, if ther is enough proof that the person is a criminal, that death sentence should actually be used more.
Ther is literally less than no use in keeping a person locked up for life, unless the gov. allows us to test our new products on criminals, but you know that may never happen.
all they're doing is sittingaround wasting our money basically.
I mean, your taking their life anyway, why even bother keeping them alive and eating up all our food and money? Especially the ones who have no family to visit them, theres literally no point in having them live. If its guarenteed that they are that serious of a criminal, whats the point in the life sentance? it does nothing but waste all our money...