Do you support to death penalty for extreme cases? - General

I find the death penalty to be a bunch of redneck shit

[QUOTE=Recurracy;50453510]i'd rather have people suffer while they're alive than have them enjoy the emptiness of death, and if someone commits a crime that gets them incarcerated for life at a relatively young age, well congratu-fucking-lations, you ruined the one chance you had at living a proper life, enjoy having to deal with that wow that sounds edgy but still i hope you understand what i mean[/QUOTE]I get what you mean, but it still seems pretty edgy. I've never been able to understand people who are against the death penalty on the grounds that it doesn't make the criminal suffer enough. Granted, I'm on the other extreme. I believe punishment should only be used as a deterrent, and anything beyond that is immoral. We should try to minimize suffering wherever we can, even if the person has done horrible things.

I'm not adverse to it in cases where people are absolutely 100% without the shadow of a doubt guilty, as in mass shootings or terror attacks where they are caught on scene, but I'd rather not give up the lack of death penalty for it, so I voted no.

[QUOTE=Wingz;50453360]contrarians shouldnt be ignored unless theyre doing it for the sole purpose of enciting anger[/QUOTE] No, I'm going to ignore people unless they actually make a case for their argument. Is Charles Manson a good person or not? Are we supposed to be saving this guy because he [I]might[/I] be better later or not? Because he hasn't. He isn't going to. He might come up with some weepy apology before he dies but that's really it - he's not going to go out and save people. He's not interested in other people. He's interested in himself. He has no interest in getting better because he has no interest in you. By saying, "we should save people because they might get better" is suggesting that we should keep Charles Manson alive because he might get better. It's just wishful thinking. We can all agree Charles Manson is a piece of shit, save for the people that are going to object just because they're chasing after preserving the "sanctity of life", which ironically isn't something Charles Manson gives a damn about. The point I'm trying to make is that some people can't fit in society. They can't fit with others. They cause more problems than they are worth. You could put them into a prison, but what then? They just become a problem in your back pocket. And you have to remember to feed them, clothe them, shelter them - all while remembering to convince yourself that one day they might learn to like humanity a little more. And you either have to convince yourself that after rehabilitation they won't go out and be a dangerous person again, or convince yourself that keeping them in the hell that is prison is a fitting way to treat another person - that it is some how far more moral than killing them. And this high-maintenance mindset stems from the belief that people are always equal, no matter what. Furthermore, a case has to made for whether or not they deserve to even get their chance to improve, or whether they should be considered after senselessly taking the lives of others. Maybe you [I]shouldn't[/I] get a second chance, sometimes. Not killing others is a pretty damn easy thing to do, so if you're killing others knowing that you shouldn't do it, you're fucked up and need to go, and if you're out of control and can't help it, you're fucked up and need to go.

[QUOTE=Wizy;50452594]no. I don't believe in God, but only God can judge them. what I mean, noone should slaughter them. they just should sit and rot in cell till they're heart stops beating.[/QUOTE] Seems more like keeping them alive for them to suffer rather than removing them from society, which is what we want for paedophiles, child rapists, etc etc

[QUOTE=Wizy;50452594]no. I don't believe in God, but only God can judge them. what I mean, noone should slaughter them. they just should sit [I]and rot in cell till they're heart stops beating.[/I][/QUOTE] Literally? That's killing them. :-)

No but I think that people who are sentenced for life should have a right to suicide.

well it's cheap and it doesn't rip off tax payers, so i guess i'll say yes

[QUOTE=wauterboi;50453796]No, I'm going to ignore people unless they actually make a case for their argument. Is Charles Manson a good person or not? Are we supposed to be saving this guy because he [I]might[/I] be better later or not? Because he hasn't. He isn't going to. He might come up with some weepy apology before he dies but that's really it - he's not going to go out and save people. He's not interested in other people. He's interested in himself. He has no interest in getting better because he has no interest in you. By saying, "we should save people because they might get better" is suggesting that we should keep Charles Manson alive because he might get better. It's just wishful thinking. We can all agree Charles Manson is a piece of shit, save for the people that are going to object just because they're chasing after preserving the "sanctity of life", which ironically isn't something Charles Manson gives a damn about. The point I'm trying to make is that some people can't fit in society. They can't fit with others. They cause more problems than they are worth. You could put them into a prison, but what then? They just become a problem in your back pocket. And you have to remember to feed them, clothe them, shelter them - all while remembering to convince yourself that one day they might learn to like humanity a little more. And you either have to convince yourself that after rehabilitation they won't go out and be a dangerous person again, or convince yourself that keeping them in the hell that is prison is a fitting way to treat another person - that it is some how far more moral than killing them. And this high-maintenance mindset stems from the belief that people are always equal, no matter what. Furthermore, a case has to made for whether or not they deserve to even get their chance to improve, or whether they should be considered after senselessly taking the lives of others. Maybe you [I]shouldn't[/I] get a second chance, sometimes. Not killing others is a pretty damn easy thing to do, so if you're killing others knowing that you shouldn't do it, you're fucked up and need to go, and if you're out of control and can't help it, you're fucked up and need to go.[/QUOTE] I wasn't arguing that we should spare the lives of murderers and rapists because they might get better, I am arguing that only because they might never get better is not a good reason in practice because there are so many factors involved other than the criminal themselves. I would agree that Charles Manson deserves to die, but I don't trust myself enough - or anybody else for that matter - to carry out death sentences. Not only have there been repeated cases in history of innocents being sentenced to death because at the time people considered them just as bad as Charles Manson but there simply isn't a need for a death sentence when we have prison.

Also not only in extreme cases, but ultimately if we as a society want to have death as a possible punishment, then so be it. Yawning during working hours? Death penalty! Whether some policy or practice is rational, that's a different question. We're just being asked if we support the idea of death penalty as a possible punishment, and only in 'extreme' cases apparently. Would I personally want death penalty in active use? Or in any use at all? Yes, I think death penalty should remain as a possible punishment to impose on criminals. And only after a final appeal for life by the defendant is found unsatisfactory by some board of jurors, in a prison system that primarily focuses on productivity and employing prisoners (for a variety of jobs) while they're in prison. Notably for the life inmates, churning out profits for the state while also benefiting from it enough so that they hopefully continue to work without problems. While also retaining the right to vote, adequate but high-security living conditions, etc.

If someone willingly kills a bunch of people and admits to it with no shame (Breivik for example), then yes.

[QUOTE=Araknid;50453910]If someone willingly kills a bunch of people and admits to it with no shame (Breivik for example), then yes.[/QUOTE] Agreed, he should be up for death penalty. Potentially get it. However, in my above post, Breivik could still appeal for Life in prison, and is likely even accepted especially if Breivik uses lawyer's advice in writing it, and also because Breivik is seen as able-bodied and productive individual who can be employed for a very foreseeable time, at relatively cheap costs, hopefully outweighing the cost of his living. Same applying to all criminals, equally.

Just end the madness.

only when their madness and bloodlust is irreparable, in which case it'd be more of a mercy killing.

[QUOTE=matt000024;50452977]One should only end another human's life if they are about to harm someone else and there is no other way to stop them. Due to the modern world's concept of prison there should never be a situation where an execution by the state is necessary.[/QUOTE]This, and it's impossible to reverse an execution in the event of an incorrect conviction; whereas someone can be released from a prison sentence. They may have lost many years of their life, but at least not all of them. I personally find the possibility of wrongly executing an innocent to be utterly repugnant.

I support the death penalty for people who clearly are evil and cannot be rehabilitated. I mean in cases where they were cold and calculated or mutilated their victims and raped little kids to death or something like that. IMO mentally ill people should (However they should be proven mentally ill, some people are just evil) be forced into mental hospitals and placed there for life if they murder someone. (That's another topic, maybe we wouldn't need stuff like the death penalty if there was enough mental help in this country, but I digress.) However, we should definitely have a quicker and more humane way to execute criminals, IMO the firing squad/anesthesia. Give them enough painkillers so they can't feel any pain, and then a shot to the heart and they are blacked out and dead within a second. Hell you can even just have like a robot gun thing that does it so guards don't have to do it. Much more humane than the chemical injections or gas which IIRC can take a while and the guy ends up suffering. We shouldn't torture criminals if they have to be executed. Plus it would free up a ton of money that would otherwise be wasted on expensive drugs. We also need to speed up the judicial process somehow while still finding them guilty or innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Our system is slow and outdated and we have so much technology now. The death penalty wouldn't be such a huge issue if our system actually fucking worked.

hi i support death penalty for this reason: what if someone raped your daughter in her room, in your house, then chopped off her head and you entered to watch the scene with a gun in your disposal? the correct, natural reaction/feeling would be killing the killer in place, as revenge. The problem with fucktards who don't support death penalty, is because they probably haven't taken it personal, or haven't dared to see through the victim's eyes and his/her family. -it's a fucking crime on the family of the victim if that killer was sheltered in a jail and allowed freedom later, the blood of the victim went down right the drain if that was the case. -it's justice if the killer was killed. Revenge and relief for the family of the victim. And NO we won't be criminals/killers fpr executing a scumbag murder, you fucktards who think that way. The killer had blood on him, a crime that enables spilling his blood, thus his blood is free to spill.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50452758]Absolutely never, it doesn't matter if it's Hitler 2.0 or Ted Bundy 2.0, [b]the state should never have the ability to end someone's life[/b].We must stay above them and not act upon emotion.[/QUOTE] Sure didn't stop a murderer from having the ability to end someone's life. And what about war then? The state is sending its own civilians to fight and kill for them so it's also ending someone else's life indirectly. This so-called "state should not kill" argument is BS.

why give them the easy way out and kill them? imprison them for life and have them be tortured for their wrongdoings.

[QUOTE=xbon;50469925]why give them the easy way out and kill them? imprison them for life and have them be tortured for their wrongdoings.[/QUOTE] Tortured seems a but inhuman, plus leaving people in cells who just don't give a shit and will kill again isn't the way to go. It also costs a lot to feed them and keep them in cells. Best thing to do is lock them up and make them have a date to the death penalty. In which they don't know when it will happen.

[QUOTE=EddieLTU;50453891]well it's cheap and it doesn't rip off tax payers, so i guess i'll say yes[/QUOTE] This is factually incorrect, it's actually much more expensive executing criminals and having the additional infrastructure and appeals system for the death penalty than just having prison. Also it seems like you didn't really put very much thought into agreeing with it. The death penalty has such serious consequences that it's the responsibility of anyone who advocates it to have fully weighed the decision comprehensively. If you're on the fence about it, or just 'guessing you'll say yes', then you really ought to not support it until you've put more consideration into it. If you sent someone to prison and it turns out they're innocent, then that's at least reversible. Death is a finality; you owe it to society to be sure in your convictions. I actually have a problem with the title of this thread/the question being asked in the poll. I've heard a lot of people say that they "only support the death penalty in extreme cases", but that's a tautology intended to make their views seem less extreme. Nobody who advocates for the death penalty does so with the intention of jaywalkers being killed, it's always for 'extreme cases only'. It's almost like you're saying, "should we kill people that we definitely know are guilty?", but that logic isn't based in reality. We pretty much never know for sure that someone has committed the crimes that they're accused of, so again, stating the question like this is dishonest. Even if there were people we knew were guilty for sure, like Ted Bundy or Hitler, you sentence them to death because you're sure, and it creates a precedent for other people to be sentenced to death.

In my Oppinion the deathsentence is something so cruel and babaric that it shouldnt exist, but then again there are people all over the world that do even more cruel things to other humans. Honestly If you murder someone just for the Pleasure or Joy you deserve being grilled alive... Same goes to Rapists and other Sick fucks.

My personal view on the death penalty is that it isn't immoral. There is nothing inherently wrong with killing a heinous criminal. I think it is just. My problems with the death penalty are entirely practical. The death penalty is expensive. It is irreversible. And all justice systems make mistakes and wrongly convict. As a result, I oppose it being reintroduced to the UK.

[QUOTE=SulliG99;50470417]In my Oppinion the deathsentence is something so cruel and babaric that it shouldnt exist, but then again there are people all over the world that do even more cruel things to other humans. Honestly If you murder someone just for the Pleasure or Joy you deserve being grilled alive... Same goes to Rapists and other Sick fucks.[/QUOTE] "Grilled alive" "Sure" [editline]10th June 2016[/editline] You didn't mention the use of anesthesia though, or what's your stance on that?

Fuck rehabilitation, why should you be given a second chance if you voluntarily take or ruin the life of somebody? So you just get a fresh start, while the smoking ruins of the person you left behind continues to smolder and choke everyone around it? Yeah, that's real fucking fair.

[QUOTE=Cureless;50486899]Fuck rehabilitation, why should you be given a second chance if you voluntarily take or ruin the life of somebody? So you just get a fresh start, while the smoking ruins of the person you left behind continues to smolder and choke everyone around it? Yeah, that's real fucking fair.[/QUOTE] Why not just give them lifetime imprisonment, and put them to work while in prison? It's a win-win. They get to follow the same old daily prison routine for the rest of their lives, while contributing to society for relatively little pay. Hopefully enough to outweigh the cost of housing and their food, which sounds only so good on paper but in practice I have no idea if it would work.

I'd have them all put on an obscure island, and then only have a coastguard to assure the prisoners stayed there. Calling it the "almost certain" death penalty, as all of them can do as they please on the island far away from the sane world's society. [B]edit:[/B] Hell put it on national TV stations and call it the new coliseum.

No... There is too much to be learned from these people and how they became who they are/how they got away with their crimes for so long. killing them would be a missed opportunity.

Let them suffer in prison. Why let them die and give them what they want?

[QUOTE=Vericool;50500201]Let them suffer in prison. Why let them die and give them what they want?[/QUOTE] So we should kill and reanimate them for absolute Punishment?