Sentenced to death

well... hmm. I'm for it because it'll not put someone in our over crowded prisons for life. And if u do certain things, u should die. I really don't like it cause the criminal doesn't really suffer. Even though it usually takes 10 years of appeals and whatnot before they actually kill them. I would like to see that cruel and unusual punishment part be undone. U beet people with bamboo sticks and other crazyness, well, that's a pretty good deterant..
 
I like the idea that if More than 2 people saw you committ the act then you should be Killed faster, lets say within 2 weeks of being sentenced.
Click to expand...

Because witnesses are always reliable and honest. Because memory is like videotape that can be reliably recalled at any given moment with complete accuracy.

right? :rolleyes:


I find it hilarious how some of you want the appeals process removed. Yeah, just put a bullet in the guy's head five minutes after sentencing. It's not like dozens of known innocent men have been put to death and it's not like over a hundred innocent men were released from death row after being proven innocent.

For a group of guys that pretends to care so much about the sanctity of life and protection y'all are really gung-ho about killing someone that has never done anything to you.
 
BerettaCougar said:
I hope this thread takes off, and doesnt flop.

What is the general opinion of the death penalty here on TFL?

My opinion: It does not do what it is put in place for, and that is a crime deterant. People who are hellbent on killing someone will not for a second have the chance of being executed by the system go through their head.
Click to expand...


Why is it that you treat as a given the idea that it is intended as a deterrent?

I don't think that's what it is. Criminal punishment of some sort has probably been around since the dawn of man, and I don't think it was until very recently that people tried to use prison as "rehabilitation" or "deterrent". It is PUNISHMENT. Society has a right to exact punishment, and the worse the crime, the stiffer the punishment justified. Death for murder. I am strongly in favor of it, but I go a step further and say that if anyone -- ANYONE -- within the system that prosecutes capital cases is found to have engaged in corruption, they themselves should face the death penalty for it. That should address the worry that it is not done fairly.

-azurefly
 
steelheart said:
1: Use a weapon - ANY weapon - and kill someone = death penalty within one year of scentcing.

2: Use a weapon - ANY weapon - and injure/maim/cripple someone = life in prison at hard labor with NO chance of parole, ever.

3: Use a weapon - ANY weapon - to commit armed robbery = 30 years in prison at hard labor with NO chance of parole.

4: Strongarm robbery (no weapon) or robbery by intimidation = 20 years in prison at hard labor with NO chance of parole

5: Rape/molest/sexually assault a person - ANY - person = life in prison at hard labor with NO chance of parole, ever.
Click to expand...


I have to wonder why there could ever possibly be opposition to the idea of these suggestions. They are sane and rational and reasonable. To argue against them is to argue that society should have to put up with criminals who know that their crimes will not be severely punished. It would be to argue that criminals should actually be looked out for by society.

The issue really is plain: Why should we tolerate criminal behavior in our society and not throw immense weight behind the effort to punish offenders and show them that we simply will not allow them to victimize us? The only way to protect society from criminals is to be very very serious about it, and to exact excruciatingly harsh punishment on offenders. Society has the right and responsibility to protect its members.

-azurefly
 
rivers said:
I believe strongly in the death penalty. It's better to execute one innocent man than to let 10 guilty ones go free. When guilty guys go free, more innocent folks die or their lives are ruined.
Click to expand...


You are very bold to state this, as it is quite an unpopular stance. I applaud you.

I am inclined to agree -- as long as we are talking about executing the innocent person despite the best effort possible having been made to prevent such a mistake. Mistakes happen. But it is a very compelling claim, to say that far more damage is done by allowing 10 guilty murderers go free to do more killing.

-azurefly
 
So some of you object on the basis of innocent people being executed?

Fair enough.

Is an innocent man who is imprisoned for 20 years any less wronged?

Can you wash your hands of responsibility for those because they
weren't actually executed?

No system is perfect, and we should be doing our utmost to get it right,
even when the penalty is $500 or six months in county jail.

BTW, can anyone name me anyone executed in this country in the last 40
years, who was later PROVEN innocent? 50 years?

Anybody?

EC
 
Ac1d0v3r1d3

the death sentance...

is revenge, pure and simple. dont give me any of that "punishment" or "deterrent" crap
Click to expand...




Revenge has its place as well. If you think you're above revenge I would say

1) you may lack some insight into yourself as well as into human psychology generally.

2) The snarling tone of your post seems to support 1). ;)



matis
 
Ac1d0v3r1d3
the death sentance...
is revenge, pure and simple. dont give me any of that "punishment" or "deterrent" crap
Click to expand...
When your child has been hacked to pieces and left dead to rot in an unknown location, you do not want deterrence or punishment. You want revenge.
The revenge factor is why I advocate letting the victim's families take an active role in the execution. Sometimes being a spectator is not enough.
These monsters need to be removed from society with the greatest level of contempt.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matis
But no one seems to pay much attention to the fact that the value system upon which this country and western civilization was built comes straight from the bible.



Actually, it predates the Bible by a while.
Click to expand...



Lord Nikon, if, as a non-believer, you mean that the bible is derivative -- that's fine. In that vein I'd say rather that it's cumulative. You are still making my point.


But it's hard to argue (rationally) against the idea that western civilization, (especially in the United States) with all its myriad faults, brings a better life to more people than any previous civilization. And this was built, avowedly, on Judea-Christian values.


I haven't found a civilization meeting the criterion in the above paragraph that boasts as it's basis, the Code of Hamurabi or similar.


And, speaking for myself, the Code of Hamurabi makes a lot more sense than the legal and moral morass we live with today, resulting from our enlightened rise above "primitive" religion.


matis
 
I have no issue with the death penalty, so long as it is consistantly applied.
I do not believe an innocent person, however occasionally it might happen, should be sacrificed just so "we can get at the bad guys". I'd rather some guilty go free than to execute an innocent.
That is not justice at all, and only serves to protect the system, rather than the individual.
What I would like to see is the criteria changed-rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt, it should be changed to "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in cases where the person will be put to death. If that means an additional trial, then so be it.
 
And also, those peope who want a short time period between, sentencing and implementing, never for once think...what if the guy in the spot light is you....and no matter how much you plea your case, or swear your innocence..nooone cares, youre just another scumbag off the streets.

And also the death penalty even since the guillotine days, the reason for execution has always been mostly intimidation (deterrence)... showing people what the outcome of their crimes can be....

So we here, gun owners, carrying and owning firearms to save our lives if need be, also carrying to save our families lives or other stranger if we can, cannot agree on saving an innocent man from death from the system? Thats pathetic.
 
I used to think it should be public to make it more of a deterrent. But that might just make it easier to ban. So I'm on the fence about that aspect.

I think that there should be airtight proof, DNA plus televised confession so that there could be no coercion. Rather than appeals, there should be several reviews, to make as sure as possible that nothing was missed.

Under those conditions, I favor the death penalty only for violent forcible crime having a victim or victims.

Life in prision should replace the death penalty when those conditions are not met, since if the accused is later exonerated, at least part of the damage is reversible.
 
Redworm, funny I was on the same site.

And I found this.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...d=1505&scid=64
Click to expand...
so there's an example of the execution of a possibly innocent man

What if that man was your best friend? Your brother? Father? Son? His life still worth the execution of ten guilty men? People tend to ignore that.

I'm not against the death penalty to remove the most violent and heinous people from society but in its' current form it is not reliable. It's not reliable enough to know that everything is being done to prevent innocent men from being executed, it's impossible to prove whether or not it's a reliable form of deterrance (claiming that murder rates go down in states that enforce it is ridiculous and a gross misunderstanding of how statistics work), and it's not even applied evenly in accordance to the crimes commited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye
 
Wow Redworm, good find with the Cory story.
That would of been a good bit for the swat styled entry thread.
Matter fact I'm going to paste that link in that thread, so we can further discuss the dangers of forced entries.
 
from Dictionary.com

re·venge ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-vnj)
tr.v. re·venged, re·veng·ing, re·veng·es
To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).
To seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person); avenge.
Click to expand...


is revenge, pure and simple. dont give me any of that "punishment" or "deterrent" crap
Click to expand...

So, according to the definition of revenge, inflicting punishment is part of its essence. Would there then be any punishment, for any crime, that wouldn't be considered revenge?

It is a consequence, for one's actions, as has been previously stated.
 
okievarmint:

I'm not seeing much "anti death penalty" espoused here. I'm seeing "wouldn't wanna be the 1 in 10 innocents given the death penalty" espoused more.

I'm for the death penalty when the crime has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. The shadow.

When somebody breaks my door down in the middle of the night, I'm sure, beyond the shadow of a doubt, he means me harm.

There is no inconsistency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top