Should death penalty be abolished - General

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;22430423]Since when is justice based on revenge? wat On the second point, they could just as easily let him out of jail so they don't have to pay for him to be in there. The amount they would donate to that cause collectively is minuscule. How is this even a viable argument? You know that the families spend more money in appeals court, right?[/QUOTE] It's not an argument, it's more of a sorta creepy fact, you pay for someone who ruined your life, y'know? And why spend so much on someone who can't work in society?

So country with only 300,000 people and the size of Maine is used as a prime example of a crime-free nation? Of freaking course, it's a very small country with a very small population. You're not expecting racial tensions or poverty, and I don't think Mafiosi and Drug Cartels are trying to open up an Icelandic Front anytime soon. France has the highest Quality of Life, hardly anyone has the desire to resort to crime as a last resort making the Death Penalty redundant in that country, now what of the other 100 nations that do not share these two country's qualities?

If I were imprisoned, I'd rather die than live,oh, lets say 40 years in prison. Think of it, the death penalty is the EASY way OUT!

[QUOTE=DogGunn;22430823]That's bloody rediculous. It's been shown time and time again that the reintroduction of the death penalty in the US did fuck all for the crime rate.[/QUOTE] It should in theory help the economy or something, less money going into the jails.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;22430882]So country with only 300,000 people and the size of Maine is used as a prime example of a crime-free nation? Of freaking course, it's a very small country with a very small population. You're not expecting racial tensions or poverty, and I don't think Mafiosi and Drug Cartels are trying to open up an Icelandic Front anytime soon. France has the highest Quality of Life, hardly anyone has the desire to resort to crime as a last resort making the Death Penalty redundant in that country, now what of the other 100 nations that do not share these two country's qualities?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates[/url] how about some examples from within the states, then?

Yes, killing them will make them rest in peace. They should suffer the rest of their lives.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;22430549]I would rather pay for the bullets destined to enter their skulls rather than food and lodging that could have been given to others NOT in prison for life.[/QUOTE] Either you have a personal problem with murderers, or you're an internet tough guy. For the former, I can understand why you're like this, but it's not a good thing, we should at least be clean about it.

Yes, it should be abolished. The state shouldn't have the ability to end the lives of its citizens. Killing someone removes any chance of appeal and therefore implies that the court is infallible.

There's only 10 states without the Death Penalty as compared to the other 40 states. They're trying to collectively combine the murder rate of the population of these 10 states to the rest of the 40 states? [QUOTE=Gummylamb;22430977]Either you have a personal problem with murderers, or you're an internet tough guy. For the former, I can understand why you're like this, but it's not a good thing, we should at least be clean about it.[/QUOTE] I'm not blatantly calling out for an Einsatzgruppen Squad to go to each prison and start doing work. I'm just saying is that it doesn't make sense to pay for a murderer or a serial rapist that will eternally remain in jail for the rest of his/her life. Either we can rid of him/her and dedicate money to fund crime prevention and many other things that could put a stop to crime.

It shouldn't be abolished. Just changed to where you are tortured to death. I mean, nobody actually enjoys being tortured (even those weird porn people), so I think this would put fear into criminals and crime rates would go down.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;22430988]Yes, it should be abolished. The state shouldn't have the ability to end the lives of its citizens. Killing someone removes any chance of appeal and therefore implies that the court is infallible.[/QUOTE] >Implying murderers are worth the same as regular citizens [editline]07:43PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;22431010]It shouldn't be abolished. Just changed to where you are tortured to death. I mean, nobody actually enjoys being tortured (even those weird porn people), so I think this would put fear into criminals and crime rates would go down.[/QUOTE] ...no

[QUOTE=Gummylamb;22431011]>Implying murderers are worth the same as regular citizens [/QUOTE] Just because a court finds someone guilty doesn't mean they actually are.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;22430989]There's only 10 states without the Death Penalty as compared to the other 40 states. They're trying to collectively combine the murder rate of the population of these 10 states to the rest of the 40 states? [/QUOTE] how about you provide some evidence that the death penalty actually works to reduce crime?

[QUOTE=Lazor;22431040]how about you provide some evidence that the death penalty actually works to reduce crime?[/QUOTE] All you have to do is look at a place like Norway where the maximum punishment for anything is 21 years to see that harsh punishments don't mean less crime. In fact, it usually seems to be the opposite.

[QUOTE=Gummylamb;22430907]It should in theory help the economy or something, less money going into the jails.[/QUOTE] Hahaha, no. It costs more to put someone through trials to instate the death penalty than it does to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives.

[QUOTE=Gummylamb;22431011]>Implying murderers are worth the same as regular citizens [/quote] not every murderer take some sort of sick pleasure in killing this isn't csi or law and order [editline]10:46PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;22431057]All you have to do is look at a place like Norway where the maximum punishment for anything is 21 years to see that harsh punishments don't mean less crime. In fact, it usually seems to be the opposite.[/QUOTE] it's small so it doesn't count :downs:

And Gummylamb, a murderer IS worth the same as regular citizens. Anything otherwise is legislating morality which is p. bad

[QUOTE=Gummylamb;22430907]It should in theory help the economy or something, less money going into the jails.[/QUOTE] Helping the economy by not spending so much on jail would be achieved by ceasing to jail people for petty crimes, like drug possession. Not by killing people. I don't feel like going back to quote you again, but yes, murderers are still citizens protected by law; they are not lesser human beings.

I'm just saying that the survey is little crooked.

[QUOTE=Lazor;22431059]it's small so it doesn't count :downs:[/QUOTE] That's usually the conservative's response, yeah. Just throw the words "per capita" at them and they go away.

[QUOTE=Egevened;22415041]the problem is, who decides who is so bad?[/QUOTE] Easy. A person rapes and kills 14 3 year olds. A person grows some weed in his house. Which one is worse. [editline]10:54PM[/editline] Also the argument that "Well, they could be innocent" is stupid. False accusations rarely happen, and when they do, there is something called an appeal. Also, further in time you can be proven innocent, like that guy who was in jail for killing his parents, but he was proven innocent by DNA like 40 years later and released.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;22431146]Easy. A person rapes and kills 14 3 year olds. A person grows some weed in his house. Which one is worse. [/QUOTE] Well they should both be jailed.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;22431146]Also the argument that "Well, they could be innocent" is stupid. False accusations rarely happen, and when they do, there is something called an appeal. Also, further in time you can be proven innocent, like that guy who was in jail for killing his parents, but he was proven innocent by DNA like 40 years later and released.[/QUOTE] Are you a fucking spaz? The fact that you admit they do occur means that the death penatlty should be taken off the table, for any case. And you kinda just contradicted yourself there. I have no idea if you're in support of the death penalty or not.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;22431146]Also the argument that "Well, they could be innocent" is stupid. False accusations rarely happen, and when they do, there is something called an appeal. Also, further in time you can be proven innocent, like that guy who was in jail for killing his parents, but he was proven innocent by DNA like 40 years later and released.[/QUOTE] Actually, the number of cases of innocents being convicted is pretty high. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates[/url] And that's just the ones that have been exonerated, not counting those who are still awaiting evidence to prove their innocence. Appeals are great, but also expensive. The majority of the time, tax-payers must pay for a state-appointed lawyer.

government shouldn't have the right to kill people unless it presents a clear and present danger to someone. Killing a prisoner because "he might escape and kill again" isn't valid reasoning.

[QUOTE=thisispain;22431391]government shouldn't have the right to kill people unless it presents a clear and present danger to someone. Killing a prisoner because "he might escape and kill again" isn't valid reasoning.[/QUOTE] Neither is letting repeat sex offenders or child molesters live around our familys and not seperating them in their own district of a city because of their nature. I agree with you, but seriously I wouldn't mind letting these people live if I knew I would be safe every night. I want you to imagine living next door to a repeat sex offender or a seriel killer that got out of prison. Imagine how freaked you would be that he might rape you or kill you, or both.

[QUOTE=BlueSaint;22431537]Neither is letting repeat sex offenders or child molesters live around our familys and not seperating them in their own district of a city because of their nature. I agree with you, but seriously I wouldn't mind letting these people live if I knew I would be safe every night. I want you to imagine living next door to a repeat sex offender or a seriel killer that got out of prison. Imagine how freaked you would be that he might rape you or kill you, or both.[/QUOTE] you think no death penalty means those people just get to be free?

[QUOTE=BlueSaint;22431537]Neither is letting repeat sex offenders or child molesters live around our familys and not seperating them in their own district of a city because of their nature. I agree with you, but seriously I wouldn't mind letting these people live if I knew I would be safe every night. I want you to imagine living next door to a repeat sex offender or a seriel killer that got out of prison. Imagine how freaked you would be that he might rape you or kill you, or both.[/QUOTE] The likelihood of a convicted serial killer living next door to you is so impossible, you don't even know. Child molesters is slightly more valid, but still incredibly unlikely. I'm not sure why you're afraid of a child molester raping you though, unless you're a child--which would explain your seemingly overly zealous sense of fear towards everything. Not to mention, quite a few sex offenders are only sex offenders because of statutory rape, not because of violent sexual assault.

Nope. A life sentence in, say, isolation, is much worse than death. Death means "no more anything". Where as life means "waiting until the moment you die, surrounded by emptiness". Life in isolation is a MUCH better sentence than death. Really fuck with their heads.

I don't think you can have a state, that shows that sort of violence against a person regardless of what they've done and expect people to accept the very code and morality of treating people equally and not showing violence towards them.