Capital Punishment (Death Penalty)

May 21, 2013

What's your take on it? My views will become apparent during the debate.
Have fun, guys.


Comments

yes, i think @eliw should be shot for bringing this one up. jkjk
may i say yes, the death penalty is okay? there's got to be a good reason, though.
hey, i posted the first comment here!
In my opinion, it depends on the crime they committed, and how serious. Like for example, a mass murderer has been killing for seven years, and they finally got him. They should give him a taste of his own medicine. Or like that one case on the news with the three teenagers being kidnapped and continually raped by some guy named "Ariel Castro." To top it off, if one of the girls got pregnant, he killed the baby! This has been my opinion on the whole thing.
I certainly agree with capital punishment, but as Big Johnny said it depends on the crime. Serial killers, people who murder torturously, and rapists all deserve capital punishment. That Castro guy is a prime example. (But even if they decide to just put him in prison, people speculate the inmates will kill him because even they hate his sick crimes.)
that awful abortion doctor fellow deserves the electric chair eleven times.
Now, I don't agree with torturous capital punishment. Unless it's like Adolf Hitler or something.
Yeah, torture makes you no better than them.
What's the most serious crime someone could commit without getting the death penalty, in your eyes?
My opinion is that the punishment should fit the crime. If you go on a shooting spree you should be put to death. But if women do the same exact crime, they deserve the same punishment.
@eliw97
Robbing a grocery store. I mean, seriously, who goes up to the counter and says,"Give me all of your lettuce!"?
The evidence must also be irrefutable (video evidence, DNA, etc.), as several death row inmates have been released because DNA exonerated them, otherwise the death penalty is allowable.
^I agree with MaestroMoi.
@eliw For me the most serious crime before the execution could be kidnapping, and it deserves life imprisionment. If he kills the victim, well, he must be executed.
Big Johnny, what if it's a different kind of store that's robbed? Like a bookstore or jewelry store or something. Does the person get death for either of those?
For most cases, I oppose the death penalty; for especially difficult ones, such as Gosnell or Ariel Castro, I think about it, to be sure. The one exception to the rule (i.e. the one guy I would definitely have die) is Hitler, of course; the fact that I'm Jewish just strengthens that exception.
I think that for robbery the robber should face prison term and the payment of the stolen goods. Unless he killed a person in the robbery, which earns him the death penalty.
I agree with ISG
I don't think that death penalty should be given unless there was killing or torture involved
I second CM but add rape to that (which I guess could fall under torture).
I would try to eliminate "Prison" as much as possible. The theif should pay double what he stole, maybe over time by working. I hate to say it, but having people sitting around in prison isn't really good for them. Besides, it costs the general public money, so the convicted theif steals twice. First when he goes out and steals, and then when he sits in jail making everyone pay for his room and board. There may be some cases where it is needed as an institution, but I think the jail is an overused form of punishment. The criminals mostly do unproductive things in prison.
Just saying, if we want the death penalty, we have to be consistent about it. We cant be saying the death penalty is okay for "really bad people", and we just arbitrarily get to decide that Hitler is really bad. There has to be an objective standard for when a criminal gets the death penalty.
I would agree with ISG, that the death penalty should be for killing or torture (I might also add some very bad cases of kidnapping where the kidnapper destroyed part of the persons life, which is a lot like ending it)
I agree with jail productiveness. Here at my country jails are terrible, drug lords still direct operations from the inside, there is so much corruption that sometimes criminals have the keys of the cells. Jails are crime universities, when the prisoner is released they come out with a Master Degree on Criminal Procedures and go to commitworst crimes.
Also some jails are more comfortable for the inmates than some nursing homes are for their patients. Some convicts commit crimes again after they're released from jail just so they can get back in. For some it's a life with no worries and everything's provided for you. That's not punishment at all. But don't get me wrong, most jails are as terrible as they should be.
It is inhumane. It's murder no matter how you look at it. If someone goes and kills 30 people, let's just keep killing by executing the killer. No good can come from it.
It's not murder if the person deserves it. Death penalty isn't just a punishment, it's also to protect everyone else. Sending the person to prison is a) not enough of a punishment, and can be in some ways a reward and b) a possible danger to the inmates and guards.
True, it is technically justice to kill the killer, in my opinion.
iCompose, that is good rhetoric, but how about if I said this: Its stealing no matter how you look at it. If someone goes and steals 100 dollars, let's just keep stealing by taking 100 dollars from him. Im not trying to imply that they are equitable situations, just saying that we could not apply that logic to all cases.
If a burglar steals 100 dollars he must pay back those 100 dollars besides the prison term to teach him not to rob.

Here on my part I'm glad when drug criminals get shot by the army, there is so much corruption that if they are taken alive they are probably going to be released. Justice is swiftly applied by my country´s army.
May come as a shock to some of you who know my political views, but I don't support the death penalty. I think that the Bible condemns it, frankly. One example is, of course, Jesus asking who would cast the first stone. I know the point of that wasn't the death penalty, but I think it implies that it is wrong. Plus the idea behind a lot of parables is the idea of forgiveness for wrongdoing no matter how heinous, and we're not to judge, for God is the Judge.
@IHC The Bible does support and order the death penalty! The case you are referring of the stoning was a matter of religious law, and applicable only to Judaism. Later the Apostle Paul would mention that the government does not carry the sword in vain.
@IHC
I used to think that too, but that's for individuals. We individuals are to forgive everyone. However, the government, as ISG mentioned, bears the sword for a reason. According to your reasoning there, we shouldn't even go to war. But war and execution are not of the individual, but of the government. The government is to enact justice here on earth. It's their duty for now. God is the Judge who chooses what to do with peoples' souls, the government chooses what to do with their bodies, be that imprison them or kill them. Also, just because we forgive someone it doesn't mean we should withhold proper punishment. That's something my dad always made clear to me. Whenever I did something wrong when I was younger, he forgave me but still punished me.
To all the oppositors here, the argument between IHC, ABM, and ISG was an argument BETWEEN US AND ACCORDING TO OUR BELIEFS. No need to bash us.
To be honest, if I lived at the US I would buy a pistol and maybe the permit to carry it.
I don't know, the government is a little tense with the whole "gun" thing.
The problem are not the pistols, the real problem are high capacity magazines and assault rifles.
What I don't get though, is that you could just as easily kill someone with a knife. It's not just guns.
But its easier to stop a killer with a knife than with an assault rifle.
Not if he's REALLY skilled and has a bunch of throwing knives.
But a cop can easily shoot him, just when he is throwing a knife.
Just look at Indiana Jones...
Or if he's Indiana Jones, or Batman.....
@ABM True, but its more fun in LEGO.
Most things are better in LEGO.
A little late here (:

I don;t like the death penalty, but in the case of terrorism or planned mass murder I'm alright about it. I am firmly against torture though. I believe that murder in self defense is not deserving of the death penalty, and frankly not even unplanned murder, though that does deserve grave punishment. I would support reformatories more.

At ISG, If your were to rob 100 dollars, you should have to pay 150 or a likewise ratio back, along with getting tagged with a tracker.

The goal of punishment is not to only make the criminal pay back, but to put him lower than he was before. I definitely would condemn greedy crime, but if, for example, a poor person were to steal 100 dollars, I would want the 100 dollars to be returned, but for the subject to at least be nourished and housed.
One thing in there, I would agree with most of it, the goal of civil punishment is to make restitution to the people who were harmed, and to keep the criminal from doing the bad thing again. I don't think that the criminal has to be "put lower than he was before". although I don't understand what is meant by that :P
Otherwise, I think the death penalty should apply in some other cases than terrorism or mass murder. Destroying another humans life is no serious thing.
I think that death penalty applies on any kind of murder.
Except in self defense
Ah, but self defense isn't murder. And manslaughter is accidental killing, which is not murder either.

Your comment

Only members of a group can post to group discussions, so Join Capital Punishment (Death Penalty)