PDA

View Full Version : Death Penalty?


Rtael
May 8th, 2004, 06:32 PM
Do you support the death penalty?

Rtael
May 8th, 2004, 06:36 PM
Personally, I say sometimes. There is one crime which I believe should receive an automatic death penalty: rape. Murder, most of the time, but there are reasons for murder which might justify only jail time instead of death penalty, like an unfaithful husband/wife or something like that.

emptyhead
May 8th, 2004, 06:37 PM
Yes

Martian Willow
May 8th, 2004, 06:42 PM
Personally, I say sometimes. There is one crime which I believe should receive an automatic death penalty: rape.

...even if the person who was raped is against it...?...as I would be... :confused:

emptyhead
May 8th, 2004, 06:49 PM
Why Willow, were you raped?

Martian Willow
May 8th, 2004, 06:51 PM
...erm, no, were you...?...or Rtael...? :)

emptyhead
May 8th, 2004, 06:54 PM
I never mentioned hanging rapists, Rtael did

daniela86
May 8th, 2004, 07:16 PM
I voted for sometimes: there are a lot of innocents people who were killed for nothing and I am for giving another chance for some criminals (for example if they were young when they killed etc..)
But I am for killing some criminals : pedophils like Marc Dutroux who rapped,tortured and let starved to death more of 10 childrens,and who will keep on killing if they escape from jail!

tfannis
May 8th, 2004, 07:30 PM
No..killing is useless. And on top of that innocent people get executed from time to time.

emptyhead
May 8th, 2004, 07:33 PM
There are lots of people I would kill

Crazy Canuck
May 8th, 2004, 07:43 PM
I don't support the death penalty, but not because of the reason given in the poll.

I don't have enough faith in the justice system to trust them not to screw up and kill the wrong person every now and then. I would rather have my tax dollars go to housing these criminals for life than have them used to occasionally kill an innocent person.

emptyhead
May 8th, 2004, 07:45 PM
Think of all the money we would save, you would only be killing a few innocent people, be worth it

Crazy Canuck
May 8th, 2004, 07:49 PM
Think of all the money we would save, you would only be killing a few innocent people, be worth it
I just made it extremely clear that I don't believe it is worth it. Did you miss that part?

emptyhead
May 8th, 2004, 07:51 PM
What makes you think I was refering to what you said?

OUT!
May 8th, 2004, 07:52 PM
Think of all the money we would save, you would only be killing a few innocent people, be worth itThat's the argument they used in the post-bellum American South when thousands of innocent African American men were sentenced to death (or should I say murdered) for rape and other alleged crimes , merely for political means.

emptyhead
May 8th, 2004, 07:54 PM
Who cares about Africa or somewhere down the rain forest, I don't

OUT!
May 8th, 2004, 07:56 PM
Who cares about Africa or somewhere down the rain forest, I don'tI said African American. Besides, I do care about the rainforests and the African continent.

emptyhead
May 8th, 2004, 08:01 PM
Look here's a good example, The good old USA are spending billions of $ on the war in Iraq, why? Why don't they just nuke'm , now there would be an outcry for a while but like who's gonna do anything about it? Europe? lol theyre a bunch of dickwads, so instead of pussyfooting around it would have been already over

fifiricci
May 8th, 2004, 08:38 PM
I think it should be considered for certain crimes, if guilt is totally certain (eg because lthe DNA is irrefutable). Otherwise, no.

OUT!
May 8th, 2004, 08:39 PM
Who cares about Africa or somewhere down the rain forest, I don'tLOL I just realised your (mis)interpretation. The post-bellum American South refers to the American Southern States after the American Civil War circa 1865.

emptyhead
May 8th, 2004, 08:42 PM
Nah, you were correct the first time, I never read what you said properly, lol

Paneru
May 8th, 2004, 08:47 PM
Look here's a good example, The good old USA are spending billions of $ on the war in Iraq, why? Why don't they just nuke'm , now there would be an outcry for a while but like who's gonna do anything about it? Europe? lol theyre a bunch of dickwads, so instead of pussyfooting around it would have been already over

Then why not just let wars be no holds barred,
everyone gets nuked and no more conflict! :)

Earth and human race wiped out,
problems solved! :)

emptyhead
May 8th, 2004, 09:12 PM
Yep I agree
Do you think if the USA had no nukes and the A-rabs had they wouldn't nuke the USA?

Look it's easy to kill something, have none of you never killed anything?

Belgium = Best
May 8th, 2004, 09:37 PM
No! :wavey:

emptyhead
May 8th, 2004, 09:41 PM
Look we can't keep locking everyone up in the bighouse, it's about time we started offing most of them
People who are agaisnt the death penalty are always the same, see if someone knicked their car, they'd want the thief strung up by his bollocks

Lynx
May 8th, 2004, 09:42 PM
No..killing is useless. And on top of that innocent people get executed from time to time.
1) I agree.

2) And very true, alas :mad:.

I'd like to add one more thing: the death penalty is also an instrument of discrimination. Isn't it a fact that many more black people are executed in the US of A than whites - and I'm not talking about some distant past? (And DON'T tell me it's because there are more black "heavy" criminals.)

emptyhead
May 8th, 2004, 09:58 PM
Killing is not useless, how you don't want to kill child murderers is beyond me

Farina Elia Fan
May 8th, 2004, 10:46 PM
A life for a life, in my opinion!!!

Black Mamba.
May 8th, 2004, 10:59 PM
I would support it if they could work out a lot of the disparities and problems with it. I mean there are people right now on death row who are actually innocent, but if they die and they find out they killed an innocent person there is nothing you could do to fix the situation.

bw2082
May 8th, 2004, 11:17 PM
We need to bring back stoning. yea... a good public stoning will fix em. :lol:

Knizzle
May 9th, 2004, 12:12 AM
No, I don't support it.

CC
May 9th, 2004, 12:23 AM
The means by which these people are put to death is literally very sickening to me. I could never understand how people go to view an execution and not throw up. Granted, these criminals often committed horrifc crimes, but the punishment is just as baffling to me.

decemberlove
May 9th, 2004, 12:25 AM
i found it very hard to support it after seeing dancer in the dark and crying like a lil bitch.

Wigglytuff
May 9th, 2004, 12:30 AM
Personally, I say sometimes. There is one crime which I believe should receive an automatic death penalty: rape. Murder, most of the time, but there are reasons for murder which might justify only jail time instead of death penalty, like an unfaithful husband/wife or something like that.


i will as soon as we have a system that can make sure only the guilty go to jail and the innocent go free.

however, i think for rape, the prisonners should have to wear shirts saying what exactly they did, and i have a feeling the other prisonners would see that justice is done...EVERYDAY!!! WOOOOOHOOOOOO!!!

CC
May 9th, 2004, 12:31 AM
Every movie I have seen that featured this topic in some way have left me very upset:

Dead Man Walking
The Green Mile
The Life of David Gale
Monster's Ball
etc.

Bezz
May 9th, 2004, 12:31 AM
I agree when we are 100% certain beyond all doubt that someone like dutroux or mira hindley, or the wests did in fact commit all these things then yes they should be killed aswel. Why keep them alive?, whats the point, many crimnals dont feel remorse for what they have done, most will re-offend so why should we pay for them after they have devestated ppl's lives?. We shouldnt.

Lynx
May 9th, 2004, 12:48 AM
The law is not about revenge, but about keeping society as safe as possible for as many people as possible.

I don't have the statistics, but if I'm not mistaken a society which has the death penalty is NOT in any way safer than a society which hasn't - rather on the contrary. The death penalty doesn't seem to prevent similar crimes any more than any other penalty. Therefore it is useless.

The only possible advantage of killing a criminal is a financial one... but I'm not sure if that is such a big advantage: there is still the trial, there is death row, there are the (many?) appeals...

The hideous disadvantage is that mistakes are irreversible - and mistakes have happened in the past and will probably keep happening: and that alone should raise an outcry. Just imagine it was you - or someone you loved very much...




yes, i support it. if you take a life without need for self defense? if you rape and murder children? if it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that you commited that deed? then you need to die.
"Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is all too often a matter of opinion. How can you put that in a law? You can't. Whose doubt? That of a jury? Jury's have been known to be wrong...


There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that Marc Dutroux has abducted, abused and killed several girls. I'm convinced he is a sociopath. I wouldn't mind him dying a slow and painful death - preferably locked up in a small hole behind the wall off a cellar.

I might feel so, but society CAN NOT sink that low. For the benefit of us all, it has to be rational and cool (and as humane as possible) - and the rational truth is that there is never any need to kill a criminal, while there are reasons not to. What message does a society gives its citizens if it kills? That you can right a wrong by killing (which you CAN'T)... and thus some citizens may try that if they feel/ think they've been wronged...

And that way leads to the law of the strongest, and there was never anything just about that.

Thierry's_Ladee
May 9th, 2004, 12:53 AM
If its a mass murderer or paedophile and you've got DNA evidence that it IS them then hell yeah.

Lynx
May 9th, 2004, 01:06 AM
If its a mass murderer or paedophile and you've got DNA evidence that it IS them then hell yeah.
DNA never tells the whole story.

It IS possible, you know, to put another persons hair somewhere (hair is rather easy to come by)... leaving "evidence" that that person has been there, even if s/he never was.

It is even possible to get some sperm from an unsuspecting innocent, and use that sperm to incriminate him.

DNA is a very good instrument, but it is rarely conclusive.

Rtael
May 9th, 2004, 01:31 AM
Of course I have to say if you have 100% certainty, and maybe you can never have 100% certainty of anything in this life, but I think we can come close enough for it to count. For one, yes there is a financial reason for this. It takes many resources to keep these prisoners rotting in jail for their whole lives. But another thing is that not all murderers, not all rapists have life sentences, and some escape, and I bet you a majority of the ones who do get out or escape will do it again. and again. and again. and again.

[S@nti]
May 9th, 2004, 01:35 AM
No

Thierry's_Ladee
May 9th, 2004, 01:41 AM
Your right Lynx The whole electropherisis thing can get messed up giving results that are inaccurate, but we would have to take loads of samples to decrease the chances of getting incorrect ones and i mean eye witnesses, other supportive evidence the whole shabang in order to get the right person.

Colin B
May 9th, 2004, 01:46 AM
No.

The death penalty is neither an effective deterrant, nor is it an adequate form of retribution.
It may even (depending on your belief in an afterlife/existence of Heaven and Hell etc), actually foreshorten the period of punishment.

:)

~ The Leopard ~
May 9th, 2004, 02:48 AM
I'd be happy to kill the people who have committed the worst tortures, murders, rapes, etc, or have committed these crimes on multiple occasions, if there really was no shadow of a doubt. I think they have forfeited their right to be treated as our fellow human beings.

There's always some doubt, I suppose, so let's just lock them up and throw away the key. :D

~ The Leopard ~
May 9th, 2004, 02:51 AM
People always say that the death penalty has no deterrent effect greater than life imprisonment, but I'm not sure that really is what the research says. I've got a feeling that it is a popular misconception. Still, I don't want to kill people who just might turn out to be innocent, so I'll stick with locking 'em up and throwing away the key, as in my last post.

Colin B
May 9th, 2004, 03:18 AM
People always say that the death penalty has no deterrent effect greater than life imprisonment, but I'm not sure that really is what the research says. I've got a feeling that it is a popular misconception.
I read a study which found that in most cases, a death penalty was no deterrent because:

a) in cases where a murder was carried out 'on the spur of the moment', the perpetrator is unlikely to be thinking of the consequences and b) in the case of pre-meditated murder, s/he is seldom planning to get caught.

I've no idea whether studies have been made in America where some states use capital punishment and others don't.

:confused:

alextreiber04
May 9th, 2004, 03:20 AM
I say no. Countless amount of times are they wrong, and I'm glad as a Canadian that we don't have that rubbish in our system.

TennisSTUD
May 9th, 2004, 03:43 AM
100%

Mateo Mathieu
May 9th, 2004, 04:15 AM
I'm against it yet I support it for depends on criminals how bad they are, for example, the Port Arthur Massacre (Australians know what I talk about). In Australia, we don't have death sentance here.

sirius21
May 9th, 2004, 04:21 AM
i'm for it depending on the circumstance in which the crime was commited. some ppl are just hardcore criminals. menace to society...

~ The Leopard ~
May 9th, 2004, 04:50 AM
I read a study which found that in most cases, a death penalty was no deterrent because:

a) in cases where a murder was carried out 'on the spur of the moment', the perpetrator is unlikely to be thinking of the consequences and b) in the case of pre-meditated murder, s/he is seldom planning to get caught.

Even if it's a spur of the moment thing, you might pause and think if you know you'll maybe die for it. Still, I wouldn't execute people for those kinds of crimes, even if there was no doubt at all. Such people are probably not such dangers to society that it is better for them to be dead. Just impose a stiff prison sentence. In some cases, such as people who kill those who have abused them, I'd even let them go free. They've probably done us all a service in killing an abusive person.

If it's premeditated, you might think you've planned carefully enough to avoid detection. Once again though, it might give you pause if you thought you might die for it if there turned out to be a flaw in your cunning plan. ;)

I did read one account by a pretty reputable academic who claimed that studies show there actually is some deterrent effect. People are always claiming the opposite but it's one of those widespread memes which you can never easily trace back to the original studies, or to any follow up studies.

Harju.
May 9th, 2004, 04:53 AM
I don't mind get killed.. What can I do to get death penalty.. someone tell me please..

azza
May 9th, 2004, 05:24 AM
We Dont have that here in Aus :) but in America Kill them all :)

wta_zuperfann
May 9th, 2004, 05:32 AM
That is very true: Mark Fuhrmann got into trouble for publicly admitting that he planted DNA evidence at crime scenes. Happens all the time.

Sad but true.

ys
May 9th, 2004, 06:11 AM
I am against. Take some island in the middle of nowhere. Guard it from sea and from the space. Put those who you think deserves to die onth at island for the rest of their lives to leave with each and nobody else. Airdrop them food and water if needed.

Rtael
May 9th, 2004, 06:22 AM
I am against. Take some island in the middle of nowhere. Guard it from sea and from the space. Put those who you think deserves to die onth at island for the rest of their lives to leave with each and nobody else. Airdrop them food and water if needed.
Yeah, that'll work. :rolleyes:

skanky~skanketta
May 9th, 2004, 07:27 AM
i voted for sometimes.

rapists, most murderers, pedophiles....all need to be shot in the balls.