Death Penalty

[Digital]

Originally Posted by cbtslave4u2

Personally, I am in favor of the Death Penalty as long as the evidence is there to prove beyond a 95% certainty they committed the crime.

So you're okay with a one in twenty chance of an innocent person being killed?


I don't support it personally, rehabillitation is always possible..

[Darkwater]

Originally Posted by Bigbear

Ok for all you who say no Death Penalty is wrong your not in that situation put yourself in the shoes of a Family whos son or daughter was kidnapped raped multiple times and then buried alive (actual case)see if then you dont agree with the death penalty

Put yourself in the shoes of a kid who has a dad who is innocent, but is still locked up for years an then put to death (let's say he is raped when in prison too, to make it even worse). See if you still agree with the death penalty! (or in other words, it's a useless way to argue a point since you can easily flip the situation).

[silverwall]

Also it is important to think what would happen if you were in that situlation. Let's say your the one who gets the death pently when your actually innocent. Think you would feel different then?

[cbtslave4u2]

Originally Posted by Sharp Nacelle

Fortunately, I'm not in that situation. But when choosing the appropriate sentence for a crime, society should make a rational decision. That's why we have judges, juries, lawyers and legal processes rather than mob rule. Sentences should be chosen to reflect what society as a whole thinks is most appropriate, taking into account fair punishment, a deterrent effect on that offender and others, and a proportionate retributive desire. Just doing what the victim wants isn't true justice.

that is exactly why we still have the death penalty. society chooses to keep it because they feel it is fair and appropriate. in Conneticut for instance, they were about to abolish the death penalty. abolishing it was popular and it was about to pass both houses and be signed by the governor until those 2 men tortured and killed that man's wife and daughters that i mentioned before. members of both houses, the governor and the public literally said "nevermind, we might have to kill these guys". of course since it being a state in New England that hasn't executed anyone in a decade or two it will take up to 15 years to execute them. oh and they plead guilty.

[Blank]

The death penalty is wrong, lets punish murder with murder, hypocrites much?

[dragonator]

Originally Posted by Blank

The death penalty is wrong, lets punish murder with murder, hypocrites much?

i disagree, i am a firm beleiver in the saying an eye for an eye. (and for all of you who say "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind" i disagree with that too, as i've never killed someone, so obviously this saying is not true atleast in the cases of the more extreme, like gouging out someones eye)

and its not murder anyways, its simply justice, something this country is in a low supply of as it is, even WITH the death penalty, i shudder to think without it.

[DareMeNow1]

Originally Posted by Sharp Nacelle

If you look at each case individually then it is indeed unlikely that an innocent person will be killed. But we're being asked to choose a penalty for murder in general, not in one specific case, and when looked at in general it's not unlikely. In fact it's so likely that it's practically inevitable. So how many innocent deaths are acceptable to you? But no matter how many you think is acceptable, a punishment for killing innocent people that itself kills innocent people doesn't sound like a very sensible option to me.

Idk if you know how it's done in the States but there are no penalties that are the same even if it's the same crime(although it happens). And technology has become so great the odds of an innocent being convicted is very small. And like I said guns kill innocents so does that mean they should be outlawed?

[ZombieLincoln]

I support the death penalty in cases where the crimes is horrendously brutal (ie multiple murders, rapes etc.) where the evidence of guilt is so extremely overwhelming that there can not be any doubt, and the criminal is beyond rehabilitation.

[cbtslave4u2]

Originally Posted by Digital

So you're okay with a one in twenty chance of an innocent person being killed?


I don't support it personally, rehabillitation is always possible..

that is not what i said... i said a 95% chance that particular criminal did it. in statistics there is never 100% ALL businesses use a 95% confidence interval. i know this because i am in a statistics 2 business course at university. we talk about 95% confidence intervals everyday, that is why i choose 95%. not for all total cases, for each individual case.

[Sharp Nacelle]

People have suggested that murderers should only be executed when there is almost no chance of wrongful conviction. Here in the UK, nobody is ever convicted of any crime unless there is almost no chance of wrongful conviction. How does it work elsewhere in the world?

[Captain Harkness]

We are too soft on the hard crimes and too hard on the soft crimes in Britain. tough there are worse fates than death which i'd rather those worthy of the death penalty endured however since those are against human rights we'll carry on with the Death Penalty. Some criminals have a better life on the inside and for serial Killers etc they should be terminated.

[cbtslave4u2]

how do you all feel about those two British guys on vacation in Florida who ended up deep in the hood and were murdered? the murderer is a 16 year old thug who was arrested for shooting into a car two weeks earlier. he is being charged as an adult and since it's Florida they will more than likely seek the death penalty.

[Blank]

Originally Posted by dragonator

i disagree, i am a firm beleiver in the saying an eye for an eye. (and for all of you who say "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind" i disagree with that too, as i've never killed someone, so obviously this saying is not true atleast in the cases of the more extreme, like gouging out someones eye)

and its not murder anyways, its simply justice, something this country is in a low supply of as it is, even WITH the death penalty, i shudder to think without it.

No its murder, no matter what the case is, by saying eye for an eye is like saying revenge is good. Killing someone is Murder and makes you just as bad as them.

[HeartsnSpades]

Eh no... I personally think if the offense is big enough they should suffer n rot in prison. Death means no longer suffering. Espicially if your catholic you can have a priest to cone and forgive you and yeah.

[PurplePirate]

Originally Posted by HeartsnSpades

Eh no... I personally think if the offense is big enough they should suffer n rot in prison. Death means no longer suffering. Espicially if your catholic you can have a priest to cone and forgive you and yeah.

I personally always agreed that suffering in prison is the worst of the two; and that the death penalty was always the "easy way out". But when you put a criminal in jail for life its your money that goes towards keeping him alive.

I don't know if I want my tax dollars used to help keep a murderer alive.