Do you support the death penalty?
0 voters
I’d just like to get everyone’s thoughts. I know that most Western countries no longer have the death penalty, so I’m especially curious to see what non-Americans think about it. Of course, I also welcome my own countrymen’s thoughts 
I am from South-Africa…and the way things are going over there…wow. Sometimes I wonder if it would have been better if we had the death penalty.
Jail is (just like in any other country) just another place where shoplifters are crammed into cells with killers, and come out abused, belonging to some gang and with a lot more anger and knowledge on how to commit a crime when they get out.
Some of my friends were brutally murdered while watching the sunset on a mountain pass…2 19 year old girls who were forced to throw the corpse of their friend over the edge of a cliff…then were forced to jump after him. Only one survived and she had to go into police protection…we never saw her again. All of this because some idiots decided that they wanted to take their car.
I wanted to go out and slaughter those guys myself…but then their parents will kill me…and so on, and so on.
tricky…
I’m for it…let 'em fry.
Opposed.
Ineffective, no parole in case of error.
The death penalty has never been a deterrent, and so many have been found not guilty posthumously that I cannot support it.
As Battery9 pointed out, the prison system is not effective when run the way it is. But there can’t just be two options, surely? I think we need to improve the prison system while learning from countries with low crime rates to discover how we could run our countries differently to address the problem.
Death to the death penalty, I say, and I would happily parade through the streets pitchfork aloft professing so, if I only had a pitchfork.
I’d support it if I had total confidence in the police and in the legal system - of any country. I don’t, so I’m against the death penalty.
Agreed, but some days I think it just makes so much sense. The last Taiwanese I recall copping the death penalty was Chen Ching-hsing, I thought that was fair enough. Apparently he was forgiven, they still shot him though.
HG
So what? Deterence has always been a possible side effect. Punishment of the wicked is its purpose.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Opposed.
Ineffective…[/quote]
If you’re referring to its value as deterence, it seems to be [i]very[/i] effective in Singapore.
if the is certainty beyond ANY doubt, i don’t have a problem with it. most of time that’s not case so in general i am opposed.
If you are not opposed to it from a moral standpoint you might be opposed to it from a fiscal one. It
I’m opposed to it. Capital punishment is barbaric and should have no part in civilized society.
So is rape, murder, child abuse, and the Teletubbies.
It’s a big mucking fess.
So is rape, murder, child abuse, and the Teletubbies.[/quote]
None of which are state sanctioned. Well, maybe the Teletubbies. 
I think the state should meet the standards of the better angels of our nature rather than go eye-for-eye with the demons.
My angel is St. Michael.
Don’t fuck with him. His vengance is swift and sure.
(nota bene the following is the diametric opposite of what thoughts I would have expressed on the matter prior to the start of my life as a Husband and Father…makes all the difference in the world)
Can nobody see the fundamental egregiousness of this line of reasoning?
The rank stupidity of this argument (no offence, MM, I mean in general) never ceases to stupify me.
So what we’re saying is “We actually think it’s OK to exact this punishment on actual perpetrators, but we as a society can’t manage to figure out a way that our justice system can function properly, so…ah, fuck it, they all walk.”
What kind of madness is this?
Despite the fact that it kind of makes my teeth hurt, I agree here with CS, this has nothing to do with deterrence, it’s simple retribution.
How can you possibly argue that your system is just when Perp continues to enjoy privilege that he himself consciously denied his victim?
Buddy is directly responsible for the fact that another human being is prevented from ever again, just once:
seeing another sunrise;
holding their parent, spouse or child;
enjoying the fruits of longevity;
Or any of the other things we consider to be the most basic privileges of being alive.
EVEN the present capital punishment parameters are rife with inequity.
See the above, any Death Row resident will be able to enjoy EACH of those things, many times over, before being called to atone for their actions.
Additionally, note that the victim(s) didn’t enjoy the luxury of entire organizations working 24/7 to guarantee that their untimely demise was swift, painless, and conducted with the utmost regard for their rights and dignity.
IF your system is so FUCKED UP that you dasen’t dare allow your punishments to be enacted, for fear that you have the wrong guy, well, just spitballing here…FIX IT.
Also note that only a percentage of the groups arguing against CP are doing so because of the margin of error in convictions.
The rest are objecting on humanitarian or compassion-based grounds.
I’m a pretty compassionate and humanitarian dude, ask anyone.
I have limitless compassion for those who suffer unfairly at the hands of others, for anyone who is taken unfair advantage of, and I will always do everything in my power to see that the weak are NOT hurt by the strong.
That’s why I support Capital Punishment.
Or, alternatively, if one of Mine ends up being the victim, I have no qualms about visiting fair retribution on their behalf.
And, as much as I hate to shill for these asinine right-wing homophobic muttonheads, see here for the truth on most common anti-CP stances:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/06-03-2002/vo18no11_fallacies.htm
[quote=“the chief”]Can nobody see the fundamental egregiousness of this line of reasoning?
The rank stupidity of this argument (no offence, MM, I mean in general) never ceases to stupify me.
So what we’re saying is “We actually think it’s OK to exact this punishment on actual perpetrators, but we as a society can’t manage to figure out a way that our justice system can function properly, so…ah, fuck it, they all walk.”
What kind of madness is this?[/quote]
Ok, say we’re talking about a truly vicious, dangerous individual. No doubt of guilt; no chance of rehabilitation; no measure of restoration: it’s all and only about retribution.
Solitary lockup: 23.5 hours/ day, 7 days/ week, 365 days/ year, forever.
vs.
10 years waiting, an hour in the act, then an end to it all.
It’s about retribution. Who suffers more? Suffers longer?
hmmm… If you think the fear of imminent death makes the convict suffer more, you could institute a Russian roulette-style method of execution: make it a one-in-a-thousand shot that they must go through a specific time each day. In the morning, before breakfast, if you think staying up all night is worse, or before bed, if looking forward to it is more troublesome.
[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“the chief”]Can nobody see the fundamental egregiousness of this line of reasoning?
The rank stupidity of this argument (no offence, MM, I mean in general) never ceases to stupify me.
So what we’re saying is “We actually think it’s OK to exact this punishment on actual perpetrators, but we as a society can’t manage to figure out a way that our justice system can function properly, so…ah, fuck it, they all walk.”
What kind of madness is this?[/quote]
Ok, say we’re talking about a truly vicious, dangerous individual. No doubt of guilt; no chance of rehabilitation; no measure of restoration: it’s all and only about retribution.
Solitary lockup: 23.5 hours/ day, 7 days/ week, 365 days/ year, forever.
vs.
10 years waiting, an hour in the act, then an end to it all.
It’s about retribution. Who suffers more? Suffers longer?[/quote]
Jabs, first, wouldn’t we agree that most people, all rhetoric aside, at the last minute, would choose any life over death (this is kind of a defining paradigm of modern civilization, isn’t it? That all life is preferable to death?)?
More germane, you’re missing the point that the victim wasn’t given a choice!
How then can you possibly warrant providing the killer with a choice?!?!
I would agree that most people, save the best, worst, or most desperate, would choose any life over death.
But how am I missing your point that the victim wasn’t given a choice? I’m not providing the killer with any sort of choice. Lock 'em up forever. No choice there, save how to live within the very small sphere of life allowed to him.
Or in my hypothetical, lock 'em up and let chance decide, daily.
Either way, there’s not much choice allowed the convict. The choice is ours: how much, for how long, and in what fashion, do we collect on a debt that can never be paid in full?
You’re quite right there. In fact I do trust the Australian legal system to a point of around 95%, it’s the US system that concerns me. The incidence of mistakes, allegations of poor representation, etc, appear far too common not to think where there’s smoke there’s definitely fire.
This is after all the very same legal system that let OJ Simpson off the hook, for fecksake. While that was erring on the side of the accused, it’s easy to imagine it all going the other way hsould a suspect not have the financial means to reasonable legal aid.
Still, I do see the appeal of dragging the obviously guilty in an open and shut case out behind the courthouse and putting a round through their head.
HG