(June 7, 2011 at 6:18 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Against the death penalty -- until we can restore life.

Because a mistake in putting someone to death who is innocent isn't a mistake -- it is a crime.

It's just that the government can't arrest itself for unlawfully killing someone and bloodthirsty morons with financial motivations will always support its right to kill it's own citizens.

I always wondered that if murder et al are so illegal and terrible, then why do we practice it? Looks awfully pot calling the kettle black if you support the death penalty but are against dealing death to others (homicide)...

Trust me when I tell you that my view on supporting the death penalty HEAVILY considers what you have to say.

I want the death penalty to be far and few between because of that

I have to say I'm somewhat conflicted on the death penalty. I used to be all for it, because if you're willing to take a life I think you should forfeit yours. This, however, makes the assumption that our justice system is perfect, and with all the people being released because of DNA evidence, we know that to be far from true. My problem with not having the death penalty is that there are hardened criminals out there to whom a jail sentence is not a deterrent, and the only thing they fear is the death penalty. So I am against the death penalty mostly, but I think it should still be reserved for the most egregious, intentional crimes where DNA evidence is available. I don't like the idea of the government getting to say who dies anymore than anyone else, but there are criminals out there that only fear one punishment, the death penalty. That is why I see it as a necessary evil that should be highly limited.

Against. Not happy that executing innocent people, for proof is never 100% in any criminal matter and miscarriages of justice are ever-present, is how a civilised society acts.

(June 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: My problem with not having the death penalty is that there are hardened criminals out there to whom a jail sentence is not a deterrent, and the only thing they fear is the death penalty.

Really? Countries with the death penalty don't see any significantly lower rates of murder than countries that don't have the death penalty. Some are even higher. I honestly don't think the death penalty is a deterrent, and I can't remember seeing any evidence that suggests it is.


That doesn't mean I'm necessarily against the death penalty, but I really don't see it as actually stopping any murders/crimes happening.

(June 12, 2011 at 7:34 am)Skipper Wrote: Really? Countries with the death penalty don't see any significantly lower rates of murder than countries that don't have the death penalty. Some are even higher. I honestly don't think the death penalty is a deterrent, and I can't remember seeing any evidence that suggests it is.

Well, deterrent of crime probably isn't the best description. I was thinking more along the lines of a bargaining chip for prosecutors. Criminals will be lining up to give up important information that could be used to save lives and stop crime if it means avoiding the death penalty.

Don't be silly... hell I'd rather die than sit in prison for years on end.

You want a bargaining chip? Pain. Retribution their family/friends. Torture. Or you could do it my (slower) way and get them to trust you with the information. Torture scarcely provides one with correct data.

Criminals are not lining up to give up important information. They either do not posses this, or they don't trust you to not kill them after they give it to you.

Leave your barbaric methods where they belong: today. Make better methods tomorrow

Quote:Criminals will be lining up to give up important information that could be used to save lives and stop crime if it means avoiding the death penalty.

I would question the reliability of any information obtained in such a manner. If they are already "criminals" why would you assume they would not lie in order to make a better deal for themselves?

(June 12, 2011 at 1:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I would question the reliability of any information obtained in such a manner. If they are already "criminals" why would you assume they would not lie in order to make a better deal for themselves?

Simple, if the information doesn't pan out, stick a needle in their arm.

I think we should stone adulterers. Nuff said.

(June 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

(June 12, 2011 at 1:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I would question the reliability of any information obtained in such a manner. If they are already "criminals" why would you assume they would not lie in order to make a better deal for themselves?

Simple, if the information doesn't pan out, stick a needle in their arm.

Waste of muscle. They caught by the lawmaker are already dead.

Napoleon Wrote:I think we should stone adulterers. Nuff said.

And further defend the moronic monogomists? I think not.