Death Penalty: Your Views

Scroll to see replies

Against it.

It can be very expensive to use the death penalty, and more costs are added if there's appeals and such leading up to it. Sometimes they can be botched too, recently I think there was a man in the US where it took two hours for him to die. Hardly humane when mistakes like that take place. Which evidently do, even if uncommon.

The state should not have the power to kill people. It's hypocritical.

So are you in favor of our current system or life imprisonment?

Reply 81

ozzie2

Original post by Undisclosed 15

As for your first point, if someone is convicted of murder 3 times, we have to assume they committed murder 3 times. They will have at least committed murder once. I doubt there has ever been anyone convicted 3 times and all the convictions have been overturned so people wont get wrongly executed if the death penalty is only for repeat offenders.

As for morals, that purely comes down to each individuals beliefs so I can accept being against the death penalty on moral grounds.

Yeah of course, if it's for repeat offenders, the there won't be a miscarriage of justice. However most of the time people are given the death penalty after 1 offence. This really depends on how someone would introduce the death penalty, in terms of crimes, method etc.

Reply 82

username418231

Original post by MattBerry96

Against it. It's barbaric and doesn't prevent crime

This.

Reply 83

Amphiprion

Much worse to spend the rest of your life locked up in a max security prison, I think many killers etc would rather be executed than spend the rest of their natural lives behind bars. Even in what may be a "cosy" prison, prison is prison.

Literally don't like it because I feel it's the easy way out for people who deserve worse.

Reply 84

Kash24411

Serves justice, scares other from committing the same or similar crime and lets the victim and victim's family be at more peace knowing that the person who committed the crime is now dead.

Reply 85

Old_Simon

I am completely opposed in all circumstances. But if it comes to it a decent hanging as carried out by Mr Pierrepoint seems as humane a way to off them as any of the USA hit and miss tortures.

Reply 86

Odysseus94

Have them shot straight after trial. If it's the wrong guy, get out there and find the actual criminal and have him shot as well

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 87

Undisclosed 15

Original post by Amphiprion

So you think we should torture killers? Why domt we be more extreme and make the punishment mor severe i.e. proper torture, rather than a lower form of torture.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 88

Amphiprion

Original post by Undisclosed 15

So you think we should torture killers? Why domt we be more extreme and make the punishment mor severe i.e. proper torture, rather than a lower form of torture.

Posted from TSR Mobile

No, I do not. Unless you consider prison torture, which it sort of is I suppose. I don't know where you got the T word from though, I certainly didn't use it. Life inprisonment.

Might wanna take it easy on the old high horse there captain jack if you're advocating murder.

Reply 89

Undisclosed 15

Original post by Amphiprion

I mentioned the 'T word' because you mentioned a form of the 'T word' and recommended the use of it.

I am not advocating murder. I don't know where you got that from.

Reply 90

Undisclosed 15

Another point, many are saying that the death penalty is hypocritical but I disagree. It is not illegal to kill someone if have a valid legal reason to do so e.g. self defense. Thus, the death penalty is not murder because it would be legally allowed as it would be a form of lawful killing.

Reply 91

Amphiprion

Original post by Undisclosed 15

I mentioned the 'T word' because you mentioned a form of the 'T word' and recommended the use of it.

I am not advocating murder. I don't know where you got that from.

You advocated murder in the same way I advocated torture; you didn't. See my point?

Unless you do consider life inprisonment torture. I however, don't consider it torture, not in the traditional sense of the word. Either way it feels weird to be accused of being immoral for being anti-death sentence lol :confused:

Reply 92

nimrodstower

Yes, lets hang 'em high, they have been tried, found guilty and Judged, give it 'em baby, but what if someone lied? No way will I consent to this form of social control. I am amazed by the way, how many of the followers of loving/God judges belief systems, actually agree with Capital Punishment.

Reply 93

lamyers1

Original post by Undisclosed 15

A (real) life sentence in prison is torture as the individual will be in pain for their entire life. Others against the death penalty have already tacitly accepted this as they believed that life imprisonment is worse than the death penalty, which is accepting that it is torture.

It is not physical torture. They have food, they have shelter, they sometimes get benefits on death row like being able to have a cat if they are on good behaviour.

They are not being harmed.

Do you not think it is torture for a family to have a child or parent ripped away from them through murder? Do you not think that it is torture for someone who has been paralysed or left on life support because of another human's selfish actions?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 94

slade p

yes it should be there for vile and horrific offences.

Reply 95

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by Undisclosed 15

By that logic, so is life imprisonment as that is torture. The poster said he believed in life imprisonment because it was worse than death. It is worse because it is a low form of torture.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes. That is one of the reasons I don't like that we as a society imprison people for life. I realise that it's necessary, to keep those people off the streets where they could cause further harm, but I don't agree with doing it purely to punish people.

Reply 96

nimrodstower

Original post by slade p

yes it should be there for vile and horrific offences.

Who decides what is vile and horrific?

Reply 97

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by tazarooni89

But why does that imply that the death penalty is not a deterrent? Isn't it possible that those states have the death penalty because their crime rates are so high, and so they use the death penalty to try to reduce them - and while it may work to some extent, it doesn't bring them right down to the levels of other states?

I mean by this logic, you could also say that doctors don't help cure disease, because hospitals (which are full of doctors) have more sick people than everywhere else.

I think that there have also been studies that actually showed how the precedence of crime in states increased as the death penalty began to be used. However, that's just hearsay - I can't actually cite anything that says that, and I don't have the time at the moment to look it up.

If you're interested, I suppose you could look it up. I'm not trying to cop out here - I realise I should be the one to back up my own argument.

Reply 98

tazarooni89

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

It's odd that the crime rates would actually increase once the death penalty started being used. Ineffectiveness as a deterrent is one thing, if it causes no significant reduction in crime rates - but if what you say is true, I'd be interested to know why people would become more likely to commit crimes if they know that they could potentially be executed for it...

Reply 99

nimrodstower

Original post by tazarooni89

When Britain had the death penalty for simple crimes like theft, it did not reduce crime, it just increased execution. Are you not just agreeing to execution, because it fits in with your "peaceful religion"?