170 replies to this topic

[Beckys_Mom]

WoIverine, on 04 February 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

I'm sure there are already some who would kill all Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Russians, Jews, North Koreans, Afghans, Iranians, Isrealis, Gays, and so on, regardless of whether a crime is involved, or not.

Basically someone out there would like to kill just about everyone and anyone..even if no crime was committed....Can you explain what you mean?

[Goblin-5]

For it for murder in the first degree (including terrorist action) and treason but only when there is incontrovertable proof of guilt (DNA evidence). It should only be used in extreme cases.
My worry is that the State bodies (police/intelligence agencies) may either withhold or manufacture evidence to secure a conviction because they "know" someone is guilty. In such cases the death penalty should be applied to these people as well if their actions result in a wrongful conviction, regardless of whether the death sentence was carried out or not.

[eight bits]

Opposed on non-religious grounds.

I live in a state which has not had an execution in about 80 years. Nevertheless, death is allowed here for a small number of crimes, such as contract killing, or killing a law enforcement or corrections officer. Generally speaking, the role of the death penalty is to motivate defendants to plead guilty to different charges. I'm not so sure about the ethics of that, either.

[G Donnelly]

Definetly,utterly against it! There's too many miscarriages of justice to make it a viable option.You only have to look at the obvious examples of Colin Stagg and Barry George.

Colin Stagg was sent to the dock by dubious means in the form of an honey trap.It was a typical case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.Because an other group of detectives were more switched on and alert when it came to Robert Napper.Then there's Barry George who despite having stalking tendencies and loads of newspaper clippings of celebrities including Freddie Mercury didn't show any interest in Jill Dando.It's also been proven that his medical condition would have stopped giving him a steady aim of the gun.Then there's the controversy of the gun residue which was contaminated.I personally blame Serbian hitman on the orders of Milosevic but that's only an opinion.

I might re- consider if there's definite proof that the perp is responsible for at three murders.Besides Colin Stagg and Barry George were alleged have done one murder apiece.Though it has to be said that capital punishment is cheaper than letting murderers living the life of riley at the taxpayers expense.

But there's no way I would recommend anything less than murder to justify the death penalty.

Edited by Medium Brown, 04 February 2013 - 09:32 PM.

[lightly]

I thought i was completely against it all my life so far...  but now i'm not so sure .    It almost seems like fair punishment for some Murders.

[Mr Walker]

As an atheist, and as a theist, I have always been in favour of capital punishment. Human right to life is,  and always has been, conditional and society sets those conditions. IMO, any person society feels should be locked up for life should rather be executed. I would extend the death penalty to more crimes but also use the money saved to establish rehabilitation and education programmes for criminals who  did not deserve the dealth penalty and who will eventually go back into society.

I differentiate quite clearly between murder, and the taking of an innocent life; and execution after due process, and the taking of a life where the person has chose to harm others.

This is not vengeance but justice, and also what is right, logically.

I would continue, for example, to love a person who had raped or murdered, but still want them executed. They have lost their right to human life by acting in an inhuman way. Mental incompetence where a person was not ABLE to make an informed choice would be  reason not to execute someone, as would  being too young to understand the consequences of one's actions.

Further, where a person demonstrated an inabilty to control their actions, even where that did not lead to a serious crime, I would lock them up until they could (with or without professional help) demonstrate that they could control their lust or anger, greed or envy etc.

Why should a society let any person who demonstrates an inabilty to control themselves, and thus be an ongoing danger to self or others, roam freely?

Edited by Mr Walker, 05 February 2013 - 01:07 AM.

[Kazahel]

I have always been against it and always will be.

I think if capital punishment is considered a norm it only teaches society/people that death is a form of punishment for wrong doings. So in the times where people feel the need to punish another(in the heat of the moment), death has been programmed/condoned as a form of punishment. So I believe inorder to teach that life is precious to society you must teach that life is precious to everybody in it, no matter what the crime.

And I believe the same thing in regards to spanking children and in regards to fighting. You teach by example, not with violence. I understand in the heat of the moment things can happen and people will lash out but at the end of the day I think its best not to, and best not to teach that violence is a normal reaction to a wrong doing.

I also think only God has the right to end a life(He knows all the in's and outs). But I believe people can call out to God and ask for punishments in their frustrations and anger and if He wills it, it will be.

Edited by Kazahel, 05 February 2013 - 03:34 AM.

[Jinxdom]

Against, for non religious reasons. It's more expensive then keeping them alive and it's way to easy of a way out. Make prison for what it should be a punishment. Lock them in a little tiny room and give them the bare essentials to live and make them work the crappy jobs that nobody wants to do we all benefit from. They tried to exploit society in their favor, let us exploit them for over favor.
If you know you are going to die and don't care about death the threat of punishment doesn't work. Losing your freedom and any luxuries that are gained by freedom will put a lot more people on pause. If they cannot work with the public then solitary. They broke the law, now you lose all rights that come with it. Not against killing somebody but people who deserve capital punish should get fates worse then death.

Lesser crimes should be reduced time and have a different punishment setup(education, mental health) to help fix their problems.

Death penalty is not cheaper, after you factor in court time, appeals, and special(Food the chemicals to kill them bleh bleh) treatment. Remember we as tax payers also pay for that stuff too.

Edited by Jinxdom, 05 February 2013 - 03:55 AM.

[pallidin]

Beckys_Mom, on 04 February 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

Interesting outlook you have there  -  It's not OK to have it legally done by law, but it is OK to illegally do it yourself...!

BM, I think you're misuderstanding my position.

I am against Capital punishment by any country.
But if I come up against someone brutally rapping my daughter, and if to stop it requires lethal force, yes, I will do it.

I see absolutely no contradiction there, because they are wholly different circumstances.

[Cradle of Fish]

Atheist and opposed. Firstly I do not consent to my Government having the power to execute citizens. Regardless of how watertight their case is. Bevan Spencer von Einam, Ivan Milat and Martin Bryant are exactly where they belong, serving life. The way I see it is Government already screws up enough, so how can they be trusted to ensure that a truly guilty person is put to death?

Not to mention a miscarriage of justice can be better rectified if the person is serving time in jail instead of in the grave.

I wouldn't say my inclination towards atheism informs my view on the matter all that much.

[pallidin]

Cradle of Fish, on 05 February 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

The way I see it is Government already screws up enough, so how can they be trusted to ensure that a truly guilty person is put to death?

Not to mention a miscarriage of justice can be better rectified if the person is serving time in jail instead of in the grave.

I like it!

[mysticwerewolf]

I am in favor of capital punishment, But I am in favor of it as an immediate action  it is  cruel to make someone wait 20 or 30 years and a half dozen appeals it should be appealed once, the appear may take no longer than three months. and once the grounds are established for the reasons of the appeal the court MUST force the appeal process to be done and done correctly within said time limit.. the capital punishment MUST be carried out within 6 months
  mentally il is not an appeal issue
i'm to fat to be killed is not an appeal issue,
i'm sorry for what i did is not an appeal issue
   and when the  capital punishment is carried out it should be a prime time TV show
self defense is acceptable as an appeal if it was used in the first trial as a defense.
the  person accused of being the green river killer  Plead guilty to over fifty murders and lead investigators to the disposal areas he used To avoid the death penility. It could be a deterrant if done correctly and it would save governments money to waste on other things why should we let a murderer  of over fifty people ( one of whom i went to school with)  sit in jail at 50 to 100 grand a year out of The taxpayers pocket
we need to re-instilll respect of the rules in our children.  if you can't do the time, and or are not willing to face the punishment you should not do the crime  and if we catch you you will face punishment. period
and the most important part   why should they get  a lesser  sentence, their victims didn't get a lesser sentence

edited to addd     >  atheist.

Edited by mysticwerewolf, 05 February 2013 - 05:48 AM.

[mysticwerewolf]

and two further thoughts capital punishment should also be handed out to the cops and lawyers  that  helped find an innocent person guilty As Well As  the lawyers who got the guilty man off as innocent
too often cops steriotype people the instant something happens

[Paranoid Android]

mysticwerewolf, on 05 February 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

and two further thoughts capital punishment should also be handed out to the cops and lawyers  that  helped find an innocent person guilty As Well As  the lawyers who got the guilty man off as innocent
too often cops steriotype people the instant something happens

That would also mean that genuinely mistaken human beings who followed where they thought the truth was can then later be executed for.... *wait for it* - doing their jobs!  You see nothing wrong with that?

I don't agree with your previous post either (a wrongful imprisonment followed up by a death penalty still means an innocent person has been executed - a posthumous pardon does nothing for friends and family of an innocent).

[Frank Merton]

Killing people does not undo what was done, nor is there any reason to think it deters anything (after all, they did it anyway), and revenge and hate do harm to those with those motives.

There is always the possibility that an innocent person is executed -- it does happen fairly regularly, probably far more so than we will ever know.

Capital punishment also perverts the justice process -- when a person is subject to the death penalty there is a morbidity introduced and sometimes juries become less likely to convict.

I would not say that executions should be stopped completely.  They could be allowed in limited situations -- places such as mass murders or murders of kidnap victims or murders of law enforcers, but even then in a limited way, such as perhaps taking the capital aspect out of the trial and putting it in the hands of a governor or President only after conviction of a capital offense has happened in normal procedure.