The Death Penalty

[brooksieb]

Killing another conscious human being is wrong. Even Christianity got that part right. Hell yeah, I think the guy in Alabama deserves to be slapped around, kneecapped, castrated, strangled, stoned, and immured. But the fact of the matter is, he is human. He has the right to life. This right should be inalienable. He should be removed from society for our safety, but I cannot see any reasonable justification for killing him.

Well, unless he wants to die. That's a different thread though...

yer but the person he/she killed has a right to life too and he broke the victims rights therefore the murderer should die

[Symmetry]

A lot of people who support the death penalty here seem to see crime as something easy to prove and to recognize. The plain fact of the matter is that many people have been convicted of murder (and, of course, that's not the only crime that the death penalty is used for), and been executed, only to have been found innocent later.

As much as I might want death for a murderer of someone I love (and I, unlike many many people who use the "what if a member of your family was killed by a psycho pedophile axe murderer" argument, have actually had a member of my close family murdered), I still don't believe that the justice system is good enough to take a life.

In my opinion, if you support the death penalty then you support a system which has been proven murderous to innocent people.

Imagine pulling the switch on an evil psychopath and later finding that DNA showed that it was someone else, or that the witness testimonies were false. It's happened, and it's happened too often to call it uncommon. Can you really, after simply being told that someone was bad, kill them and say "I was just following orders"? ( sorry Godwin's law enthusiasts)

[heavycola]

well said.

Something else occurred: there is an argument that has surfaced here in the past, something like - if the crime is proved 100%, then the death penatly is OK, because this ensures that the justice system cannot put an innocent person to death.
But that's bullshit, because then people would be executed for being worse at murdering than other murderers. If there is a reasonable doubt, you need to let the accused off. Either there is enough evidence to convict, or there isn't. You can't say, 'you get 40 years because we're only 99% sure here.'

Prison convo:
Frightened inmate #1: How come you didn't get the chair for murdering that kid when that other psycho pedophile axe murderer did?
Tobias Funke (hey, AD fans!): Because I am better at murdering, and left fewer clues. That other dude was a hack and deserved to fry.

[Neoteny]

Killing another conscious human being is wrong. Even Christianity got that part right. Hell yeah, I think the guy in Alabama deserves to be slapped around, kneecapped, castrated, strangled, stoned, and immured. But the fact of the matter is, he is human. He has the right to life. This right should be inalienable. He should be removed from society for our safety, but I cannot see any reasonable justification for killing him.

Well, unless he wants to die. That's a different thread though...

yer but the person he/she killed has a right to life too and he broke the victims rights therefore the murderer should die

Perhaps, but the state is responsible for preserving everyone's rights, even a murderer's. He can be punished and separated without being killed.

[The Weird One]

I realize that this will most likely be considered 'below the belt' or somesuch, but, in your opinion, what should have happened to Sadam Huisein [yes, I know I just butchered that name]?
should he have lived after commiting all of those atrocities?

[Guiscard]

I realize that this will most likely be considered 'below the belt' or somesuch, but, in your opinion, what should have happened to Sadam Huisein [yes, I know I just butchered that name]?
should he have lived after commiting all of those atrocities?

Yep. Imprisoned for life.

We categorically don't have the right to take lives away.

[The Weird One]

I realize that this will most likely be considered 'below the belt' or somesuch, but, in your opinion, what should have happened to Sadam Huisein [yes, I know I just butchered that name]?
should he have lived after commiting all of those atrocities?

Yep. Imprisoned for life.

We categorically don't have the right to take lives away.

well, if you dump him in prison for life, he has no life anymore. I say that a simple hanging was too lenient for the bastard, but that's just me.

[Snorri1234]

lol why not simply just yes or no? I agree with three of the options on the poll..

Yes, yes yes yes yes yes yes yes, kill them!
People say that it's not up to us to decide who gets to live and who dies, that if we kill them we are no better than them and that prison life is worse than death..
First of all, they made the choice themselves when they committed that crime. No it's not up to us, it's up to them. Most people know damn well that they will get punished for crimes and if we have the death penalty, they basically killed themselves when they committed the crime.

If people stopped to think rationally before committing a crime, the death penaly would function as a deterrant. But it doesn't. People usually don't think of the consequences of their actions.
And even then, it's still not up to us. It doesn't matter what they did, it's what we do.

And quite frankly, prison can't be that bad can it? The constitution clearly makes cruel and unusual punishment illegal, so I'm guessing they all get food and water in there, and some fresh air every now and then, and a bed all to themselves. lol

Ever been locked up? Prison is bad because you have no freedom, you don't start to realise it until it's gone, but freedom is a big part of what makes a person happy.

As for the economical part, that's a part of the reason why I'm for death penalty. What's the point in wasting money, space, and oxygen on people like that? Just get rid of 'em.

The death penalty costs more than locking someone up for life, and many convicted criminals take up the space for 15 years anyway.

btw it's ridiculous that people are arguing lethal injection to be cruel unusual punishment! They made it, to cause less pain, to help them.

Yeah, they made it for that purpose. But it seems it isn't without a lot of pain.

[Fieryo]

btw it's ridiculous that people are arguing lethal injection to be cruel unusual
punishment! They made it, to cause less pain, to help them.

I find the debate about how to kill people truly amazing.

Hang them! - No, because unless it's weighted juuuust right, their neck won't break and they'll end up suffocating to death which is cruel...and unusual.

Shoot them! - Ow! Period.

Electrify them! - No, It often takes multiple zaps and the prisoner catches on fire every now and then, that's painful and degrading.

Kill them with gas! - Well, that's a danger to people around the killing since some might escape and how can we tell if the person is suffering or not if we can't get near them? Ok, fine. But ONLY in California!

Inject them with stuff to kill them! - No, because:

a) it requires a human to inject the person since individual veins can only take fluid at a certain speed, too fast and the needle pops out, too slow and it's not concentrated enough. So not only do we need a person to kill the inmate, we need someone with medical knowledge, a doctor or a paramedic. Damn it! They all took an oath to do now harm!

b) there are three chemicals used to kill the person and if the first one isn't delivered right then the person lies there, unable to speak or move most likely feeling pain as they suffocate. This case is currently before the US Supreme Court.

In the end I see no way how killing someone in theory nor in practice can be implemented without violating ethical standards and the US Constitution prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment [from being] inflicted".

[apey]

I would personally like to save the government money take a bunch of murderers let them beat the bloody shit out of the person that is to die until they are dead. Yeah it is cruel but the people that are doing it already have a killing under their belt so who cares god can't punish u for more than one eternity families get justice and it didn't cost a penny more than we were spending anyway 8)And on the cruel and unusual problem who really cares they didn't kill the people that they killed nicely and with dignity so why extend them that luxury

[Snorri1234]

I would personally like to save the government money take a bunch of murderers let them beat the bloody shit out of the person that is to die until they are dead. Yeah it is cruel but the people that are doing it already have a killing under their belt so who cares god can't punish u for more than one eternity families get justice and it didn't cost a penny more than we were spending anyway

And we totally could make a tv-show out of it!

[apey]

that is a multi billion dollar Idea let's do it

[Neoteny]

btw it's ridiculous that people are arguing lethal injection to be cruel unusual
punishment! They made it, to cause less pain, to help them.

I find the debate about how to kill people truly amazing.

Hang them! - No, because unless it's weighted juuuust right, their neck won't break and they'll end up suffocating to death which is cruel...and unusual.

Shoot them! - Ow! Period.

Electrify them! - No, It often takes multiple zaps and the prisoner catches on fire every now and then, that's painful and degrading.

Kill them with gas! - Well, that's a danger to people around the killing since some might escape and how can we tell if the person is suffering or not if we can't get near them? Ok, fine. But ONLY in California!

Inject them with stuff to kill them! - No, because:

a) it requires a human to inject the person since individual veins can only take fluid at a certain speed, too fast and the needle pops out, too slow and it's not concentrated enough. So not only do we need a person to kill the inmate, we need someone with medical knowledge, a doctor or a paramedic. Damn it! They all took an oath to do now harm!

b) there are three chemicals used to kill the person and if the first one isn't delivered right then the person lies there, unable to speak or move most likely feeling pain as they suffocate. This case is currently before the US Supreme Court.

In the end I see no way how killing someone in theory nor in practice can be implemented without violating ethical standards and the US Constitution prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment [from being] inflicted".

I think a knockout dose of anesthesia plus a (primarily) potassium cocktail is the most humane way to go. It stops muscle contraction (most importantly the heart, but the lungs will stop too), but the loss of oxygen to the brain should, ideally, take effect before the actual physical nociception of suffocation, especially when anesthetized. Still wrong though. Even for Saddam, who was notoriously kind of a dick.

[Napoleon Ier]

Fieryo : we're waaay ahead of you there...

[suggs]

You can't have the death penalty and be a civilised society. Simple as.

[got tonkaed]

the guillotine was pretty notorious for not always working right, and frequently needing more than 1 chop to take someones head off.

Pretty civilized times those were in paris.

[apey]

And they let everyone in the freakin world that wanted to watch

[got tonkaed]

And they let everyone in the freakin world that wanted to watch

well i mean whats the point if your not going to use it as social control...really you should make people watch.

For whatever V for Vendetta may have had wrong about it, the idea that everyone should have a party run tv system was full of win.

[Skittles!]

Those who are supporting the death penalty, like "Kill them, they are a waste!", you are no better than the murderer themselves. Wishing death upon someone is probably worst than actually killing someone.

[jnd94]

Aye. Just because a person killed someone doesn't mean they should die themselves. An eye for an eye just makes everyone blind.

[muy_thaiguy]

Aye. Just because a person killed someone doesn't mean they should die themselves. An eye for an eye just makes everyone blind.

No, that makes everyone a pirate. Everyone wears an eyepatch because they all lost an eye.

[JACKAZZTJM]

I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY ITS INSANE A CHILD RAPING SERIAL KILLER SHOULD BE TORTURED FOR DAYS THEN RELEASED TO RABID DOGS SO THEY CAN FEED ON HIM WHILE HES STILL ALIVE

[The Weird One]

I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY ITS INSANE A CHILD RAPING SERIAL KILLER SHOULD BE TORTURED FOR DAYS THEN RELEASED TO RABID DOGS SO THEY CAN FEED ON HIM WHILE HES STILL ALIVE

or, they can give a bunch of convicted murderers clubs and let them at him in the prison yard.

[Skittles!]

I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY ITS INSANE A CHILD RAPING SERIAL KILLER SHOULD BE TORTURED FOR DAYS THEN RELEASED TO RABID DOGS SO THEY CAN FEED ON HIM WHILE HES STILL ALIVE

I LOVE CAPS LOCK BECAUSE IT GETS MY POINT ACROSS A LOT MORE THAN NORMAL.

As I said before, wishing death upon someone, even if they caused death, is probably worst than causing death yourself. In this day and age, and especially in the Western cultured world, it's barbaric to still have it.

[The Weird One]

I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY ITS INSANE A CHILD RAPING SERIAL KILLER SHOULD BE TORTURED FOR DAYS THEN RELEASED TO RABID DOGS SO THEY CAN FEED ON HIM WHILE HES STILL ALIVE

I LOVE CAPS LOCK BECAUSE IT GETS MY POINT ACROSS A LOT MORE THAN NORMAL.

As I said before, wishing death upon someone, even if they caused death, is probably worst than causing death yourself. In this day and age, and especially in the Western cultured world, it's barbaric to still have it.

that's right! let's all be like the chinese. prison labor all around!!!