Views on the Death Penalty? (a poll)

[Ravenshire]

Against.

Along with all the reasons given by those before me, I have to say that the death penalty has little to do with justice. It's state sanctioned vengeance and I cannot support that.

[rexbeccarox]

You're only considering the guy to be killed, Becca, you're forgetting about the guys doing the killing.  The general idea is that if a person is "guilty enough" then maybe we can get behind it....and I get that (I really do).  But is his being "guilty enough" a reason for you to pull the switch, to become a killer yourself?

Wait... me?  Or Beccs?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, I caught that (and edited).  LOL, I call you Rox though....don't I?

@Catholic....whats up...are we disappointing you with our general lack of bloodthirsty savagery?  Stumping for the headman, really? 

[Whateverist]

I voted against, but not on moral grounds. As has been brought up, our system (in the US) is too far from reliable to even think about endorsing the death penalty.

However, if that wasn't the case I would be for it wherever the perp is a clear danger to society. I disagree that in our day and age we should be able to provide life in prison instead. We have a very limited amount of wealth and far too many important things are already not provided for. But, since the legal system here is totally unreliable I voted against.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's -more- expensive to kill them, than it is to keep them, Whatevs.

[Whateverist]

Yes but so long as we're spitballing utopian solutions, I'd go for offing the dangerous ones if we had perfect intel. (Like most hypotheticals, this isn't even possible.)

[The Valkyrie]

You're only considering the guy to be killed, Beccs, you're forgetting about the guys doing the killing.  The general idea is that if a person is "guilty enough" then maybe we can get behind it....and I get that (I really do).  But is his being "guilty enough" a reason for you to pull the switch, to become a killer yourself?

To me, it's not all that different from giving a soldier a gun, sending him to a combat zone and saying "there's your enemy, shoot him" except that the executioner, if that's what you want to call him/her, would have to be a volunteer - someone who is prepared to do the job, not necessarily someone who wants to do the job.

I'm not talking about a slavering psychopath with an urge to kill, here.  I'm talking about a carefully vetted individual who would be prepared to do the job.

And, honestly, with my limitations on the death penalty, I doubt many would qualify for it, anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's quite a bit different.  Soldiers don't have each other peacibly incarcerated and sitting in trial amidst the trappings of civilization and society before a jury of their peers removed from their opportunity to victimize and potentially in that state until their deaths. We don't -have- to execute inmates.....soldiers -do- have to kill or be killed, if they value their lives. I understand where you're coming from nevertheless. You're okay with asking the state to kill someone, though, or with granting the state the power to execute it's citizens?

[Minimalist]

I think those who are voting against and then saying "except for in such and such cases", should vote for.

The poll doesn't specify in how many cases or in what particular cases. If you think it should be used in any case at all, vote for. :p

You only get to ask the question.  You don't get to answer it, too.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yeah, I caught that (and edited).  LOL, I call you Rox though....don't I?

@Catholic....whats up...are we disappointing you with our general lack of bloodthirsty savagery?  Stumping for the headman, really? 

Nothing's up... just reading the responses.

Thanks everyone, for participating.