# Death penalty: For or against?



## sad vlad (Nov 9, 2013)

Is it really a cruel and/or unfair punishment? Isn't a lifetime sentence more cruel? Should dangerous criminals be handled with pink gloves? Aren't there lost causes for rehabilitation that should be suppressed so they won't comit new crimes?

Are you willing to pay more money out of your pocket so criminals could stay longer periods of time in jail, instead of only contributing for the expenses of a fast painless death?


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

A lifetime in prison sounds infinitely worse to me, but that's just my point of view. I'm for the death sentence, but only for the most dangerous criminals whose crime has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Voluntary euthanasia should also be an option to inmates, with checks and balances to make sure it isn't coerced. A painless death is much preferable to a pointless existence in a bleak environment surrounded by unsavoury individuals. As for the moral implication, I really don't get that argument. It's not OK to take someone's life, but it _is_ OK to hold them against their will and keep them alive to suffer with no way out? It's pretty clear which one will result in more misery.


----------



## Grog (Sep 13, 2013)

All for the death penalty when no hope is left for rehabilitation 
and their organs if any good should be harvested


----------



## TuxedoChief (Jan 11, 2015)

Off them. they're not going to change.


----------



## tea111red (Nov 8, 2005)

I'm not really for it, but I guess I can see why some people would be.


----------



## TicklemeRingo (Jan 11, 2013)

Risk of mistake
Too much power for the state to have over it's citizens
No real effect on crime
Massively costly 

Life w/out parole is a better option.


----------



## sad vlad (Nov 9, 2013)

TicklemeRingo said:


> Massively costly


Feeding them, treating them, guarding them and so on, for a lifetime, is far more costly than getting rid of them with a bullet or an injection.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

sad vlad said:


> Is it really a cruel and/or unfair punishment? Isn't a lifetime sentence more cruel? Should dangerous criminals be handled with pink gloves? Aren't there lost causes for rehabilitation that should be suppressed so they won't comit new crimes?
> 
> Are you willing to pay more money out of your pocket so criminals could stay longer periods of time in jail, instead of only contributing for the expenses of a fast painless death?


 Do you really think it matters whether people support it or not? TPTB are going to do what they want with issues like this regardless of what people think of it. And if they really believe they need public support before they do it, they will simply do whatever it takes to change public opinion to fit their needs.

Whatever is being done now is being done because the people who run the show want it that way. Whatever will be done in the future will be for the exact same reason. There aren't enough everyday people who are capable of thinking for themselves to change public opinion on issues like this significantly. Most people will look to someone else for what they should think.


----------



## Choci Loni (May 12, 2011)

I'm strongly against it.
Edit: I'm also against lifetime imprisonment except in a few extreme cases (war criminals etc.)


----------



## TicklemeRingo (Jan 11, 2013)

sad vlad said:


> Feeding them, treating them, guarding them and so on, for a lifetime, is far more costly than getting rid of them with a bullet or an injection.


Actually it isn't. There have been studies. The amount of extra court time needed (appeals etc) ends up costing more.


----------



## sad vlad (Nov 9, 2013)

TicklemeRingo said:


> Actually it isn't. There have been studies. The amount of extra court time needed (appeals etc) ends up costing more.


The court time should no be included in the costs because those costs will exist no matter there will be a death sentence or not.


----------



## TicklemeRingo (Jan 11, 2013)

sad vlad said:


> The court time should no be included in the costs because those costs will exist no matter there will be a death sentence or not.


It doesn't seem to be the case, from memory. People on death row get more appeals, and make use of them more. That process often drags on for years, by which time more money has been spent than otherwise would have been.

Even if there was a higher cost, in my view it's worth it to eliminate the possibility of killing someone who turns out to be innocent (which has happened).


----------



## Choci Loni (May 12, 2011)

sad vlad said:


> The court time should no be included in the costs because those costs will exist no matter there will be a death sentence or not.


Why shouldn't the total cost be concidered?


----------



## probably offline (Oct 8, 2012)

I'm very much against it.


----------



## sad vlad (Nov 9, 2013)

Choci Loni said:


> Why shouldn't the total cost be concidered?


There are costs in any trials no matter a death penalty will be applied or not. So I consider the post trial costs to be the most relevant.

Besides, for example, Ringo was trying to make a point that those on the death row could make more appeals and that would make their court time costs to be higher. But...usually, the criminals that would be sentenced to death(if there would exist such a punishment) are also far more likely to be recidivists. If the death penalty would not exist they would be judged several times, so their total court time costs would be greater than if they would have been judged just once and receive the death penalty. I think it's called an opportunity cost.


----------



## TicklemeRingo (Jan 11, 2013)

sad vlad said:


> But...usually, the criminals that would be sentenced to death(if there would exist such a punishment) are also far more likely to be recidivists. If the death penalty would not exist they would be judged several times


Life without parole instead of death penalty = no chance of recidivism.

It's not as if the only options are either execution or a slap on the wrist + release.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

Against it.


----------



## villadb (Dec 30, 2012)

I think it should be reserved for people traffickers, people behind sex slavery, gang warfare, burglary on a huge scale. Murder is often just a crime of passion or insanity, whereas those other crimes are deliberate prolonged campaigns of human misery on wide scale and the people behind it should be put down like sick animals.


----------



## Shameful (Sep 5, 2014)

Completely against. I'm not a fan of vengeance based justice.


----------



## Nonsensical (Mar 29, 2013)

If I were sentenced to life without parole I'd request an execution.


----------



## sad vlad (Nov 9, 2013)

So far it's 50-50.


----------



## Occasional Hope (Dec 9, 2012)

I am against it on the basis that there's no going back. If 20 years down the line it turns out they were actually innocent then a prisoner can at least be released and the state can try to compensate them in some way. You can't give back a life though and the state taking the life of an innocent is surely one of the biggest injustices there can be.

Having said that I don't like the idea of the state taking the life of a criminal either. Even with a serial killer I don't see how taking another life delivers justice. However, I can see the argument that the death penalty could in some cases be preferable even for the criminal compared to serving life in prison. That is one situation I would find difficult to come to a clear decision over: a criminal condemned to a life sentence who would rather die. Should they be allowed to take their own life if they are seen as mentally fit to make that decision?


----------



## Famous (Sep 6, 2011)

_Guilford 4_, _Birmingham 6_, 
two cases where prosecutions were gained by use of false evidence, the convictions were eventually overturned and the persons released. 
How could the death penalty in a case be reversed if the evidence was later found to be false?


----------



## persona non grata (Jul 13, 2011)

Against.

In the US (and I don't expect it to be worlds different elsewhere) it's pretty clear that innocent people end up in jail. The racial component of who gets sentenced to death is very strong also. I don't think we're doing such a perfect job with our trials that we really need to be handing out punishments that can't be reversed. 

Been said, but it's also incredibly expensive to execute people with no real deterrent effect on crime.


----------



## Ignopius (Mar 19, 2013)

Against. We all know that white Southern Judges are going to give the death penalty to a young African American the very chance that they get. 

Aside from that I think giving the state the ability to execute Citizens has a potential to be expanded and abused.


----------



## sajs (Jan 3, 2015)

If the world were a wonderful place with justice, yes.

But the thing is .. even I am on favour of it, the ones who are going to die are not necessarily the people who commited crime, because the system always catch someone to make him pay even if its not guilty, so ...


----------



## mimu (Feb 16, 2015)

It’s such a complicated issue and it’s hard to just pick one or the other. On one hand, it’s hard to accept that there’re horrible people who’ve ruined and taken so many peoples lives and they don’t even have to give up their own. On the other, some of these people are emotionally traumatised from early ages and/or are genetically predisposed to do the things they do, some just don’t feel emotion or empathy towards other people, and I’m sure if they were ‘normal’ and had the choice, a lot of them wouldn’t want to be that way. It just seems kind of ****ed up to kill someone for something that they can’t control. Telling them not to do whatever they’re into (rape, murder etc.) is really no different to telling someone with social anxiety to just go out and talk to everyone they see and get over it.... kind of a bad analogy considering anxiety does't really affect anybody else, but you get what i'm saying. 

I would probably lean towards being against it, but I can definitely see both sides.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

If they quit trying to complicate it with useless, expensive, and messy injections, absolutely.

All it takes is a tank of carbon monoxide. Cheap, 100% effective, and completely painless.


----------



## SD92 (Nov 9, 2013)

I'm against it as there's always a chance that an innocent person could be killed. It's happened in the past.


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

Sounds a lot more humane than life in prison. If they aren't going to let the person out then why would an inmate bother living? At minimum give the prisoner sentenced to 20 to life an option to have assisted suicide.

Life prison sentences in solitary confinement is cruel an unusual punishment, a sentence no longer issued in most civilized countries(America being the land of the barbarians). If they cannot be rehabilitated give them the option to end their life.


----------



## Srylance (Apr 20, 2014)

I'm for it, if the crime is so bad and there will be no way for these people to ever get in society again. They will be locked up for life, and will cost everyone money. I'm only talking about really severe crimes, which are pretty much unforgivable. Dispose of them if they are a menace to all. A good example would be suicide terrorists, these people intended to die and take others with them. No trial, just plain execute them without further do. Another example is plain psychopath serial killers. don't waste resources on people who are beyond redemption.


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Oct 28, 2008)

It's too much power for a government to have and the judicial system is way too screwed up.



sad vlad said:


> The court time should no be included in the costs because those costs will exist no matter there will be a death sentence or not.


The cost of the process of sentencing someone to death is a lot more.

I agree that a life sentence sounds worse than death but human instinct doesn't work that way. The instinct to survive is usually too strong but suicide should be an option.


----------



## yeahl (Oct 29, 2014)

for it 

sucks it cost so much 

kinda makes it not worth it

n idk y they do lethal injection

bullet to the head is humane enough for an animal

idk y it has to be so difficult for some evil person

esp when they didnt show their victim any sympathy 

then ppl whine when the injection goes wrong n the monster suffers

waiting for a bogus lawsuit to happen


----------



## Arkiasis (Jun 29, 2013)

No, there is simply way too much of a risk for executing an innocent.


----------



## TabbyTab (Oct 27, 2013)

I think criminals being killed for the extremes of their crime is okay. But I think letting them have appeals is useless. It's like it's own torture. Why let them keep trying to save their life for like 10 more years to only probably lose, and die anyway when they could've gotten it over with like 10 years ago?

But I don't have a really good grasp on how this works so I'm probably wrong. Do the prisoners get to choose if they want to use their appeals ? Or could they just ask for immediate death?


----------



## blue2 (May 20, 2013)

TabbyTab said:


> I think criminals being killed for the extremes of their crime is okay. But I think letting them have appeals is useless. It's like it's own torture. Why let them keep trying to save their life for like 10 more years to only probably lose, and die anyway when they could've gotten it over with like 10 years ago?
> 
> But I don't have a really good grasp on how this works so I'm probably wrong. Do the prisoners get to choose if they want to use their appeals ? Or could they just ask for immediate death?


Your grasp is fine its the innocent people that get charged falsely is why the appeals must happen, just because the law says its right doesn't mean its so


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

TabbyTab said:


> I think criminals being killed for the extremes of their crime is okay. But I think letting them have appeals is useless. It's like it's own torture. Why let them keep trying to save their life for like 10 more years to only probably lose, and die anyway when they could've gotten it over with like 10 years ago?
> 
> But I don't have a really good grasp on how this works so I'm probably wrong. Do the prisoners get to choose if they want to use their appeals ? Or could they just ask for immediate death?





blue2 said:


> Your grasp is fine its the innocent people that get charged falsely is why the appeals must happen, just because the law says its right doesn't mean its so


 Well, really, the problem is that the system was never meant to be so heavily loaded down. These cases should be pretty rare but when you have 300+ million people in a country, you're going to have a lot of crime and randomness going on. The system should be able to take it's time with things and do everything just so but like anything else, when you load it down and work it constantly, bad stuff is gonna happen.


----------



## Alone75 (Jul 29, 2013)

For, I wish we still had it in the UK. Lots of people deserve to be hung and worse.


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

Rehabilitation, not punishment. Studies have proven countries with worse prison conditions such as the US have far more crime than countries where the conditions are better, like the scandinavian countries. Of course there's other factors, but if anything it shows that the threat of death penalty and awful prison conditions do nothing to stop crime. So what's the point? And don't quote me on this, but I heard that the death penalty is actually quite expensive to go through with, so you won't be saving a lot of money.

I guess there are a few exceptional cases where some perhaps high level criminals are too dangerous to be kept alive, but that's a rare exception, and making laws to accommodate for such cases would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Other than that, I don't see why the death penalty is ever necessary.


----------



## Batcat (Nov 19, 2014)

I'm actually for it, but for extreme cases which have completely solid evidence for their conviction. It's nothing to do with rehabilitating people or deterring crimes, some criminals deserve death as their punishment.


----------



## Invisiblehandicap (Jul 31, 2011)

No parole ever for serial killers and 100 years not 25. I believe this would be an adequate solution.


----------



## Dissonance (Dec 27, 2011)

I'm for the death penalty in cases when it is confirmed without a doubt this person has murdered several people and has proven to be a menace to society. In the case of a single case of murder this person should be fined harshly, and either go into a program and prove he can be integrated back into society but in a different city/town/state a good distance away or he be exiled from the country, his citizenship revoked and to never return or he shall be treated a criminal and shot on sight. Second offense of murder when a person has come back into society after a previous murder is when we should consider the person a threat and heavily consider the death penalty.


----------



## Sinatra (Mar 13, 2013)

Life in prison is far more cruel on everyone. 

For the prisoner: you are stuck there for the rest of your life which could be a very long time (prisons overall pretty high life expectancies here in the states) with no hope of freedom. 

For the law abiding citizen: you are forced to pay to keep criminals nice and healthy for the rest of their lives.


----------



## losthismarbles (Jul 5, 2014)

I was for it before for some things, but then I found out that states that stop having the death penalty actually go down in crime afterwards. I read that somewhere. Maybe people are just generally less violent when they aren't met with the threat of death. If I saw someone doing something really terrible I might try and kill them, but I think it's better for the state not to do that as a punishment.


----------



## Nekomata (Feb 3, 2012)

For. There wouldn't be as much overcrowding in jails, and with the idea of getting put to death much less people might break the law.


----------



## Mxx1 (Feb 3, 2015)

For, but just in extreme cases. Most of the criminals doesn't change anyway and when they get out they will just start doing the same thing again.


----------



## knightofdespair (May 20, 2014)

I am strongly for it - but not as a punishment.

There are plenty of people that should not be in society and aren't really safe to release into society. Locking them up just means they are a danger to other less dangerous prisoners or guards. I think our prison system is a joke and could easily be reformed for minor/major crimes. For minor crimes they should pay back society via community service or short term lockups. For anything longer they should be executed and not cost the taxpayers millions to waste their lives bored.


----------



## Cletis (Oct 10, 2011)

Yes. But only for murder and high treason.


----------



## JustThisGuy (Mar 24, 2012)

Invisiblehandicap said:


> No parole ever for serial killers and 100 years not 25. I believe this would be an adequate solution.


Don't disagree. Empty the prisons of small time b.s. and put in the lifers.

Death Penalty costs more than life sentence. Fact.


----------



## knightofdespair (May 20, 2014)

JustThisGuy said:


> Death Penalty costs more than life sentence. Fact.


Shouldn't though.. Seriously how can it cost less to feed, clothe, and house some mentally deficient moron for decades than 2 cents worth of lead in the head. I can't see our ancestors putting up with this bull****.


----------



## Kiyomi (Mar 4, 2015)

Against, but I do think assisted suicide should be an option for criminals serving life sentences.


----------



## bluecrime (Jan 27, 2013)

I can’t put into words how much I oppose the barbaric institution of capital punishment and how disgusted I am of anyone who supports it. I don’t feel proud about a lot of things in my country, but I’m very proud we don’t execute people any more. The state has no right to sentence people to death in any circumstance.


----------



## knightofdespair (May 20, 2014)

bluecrime said:


> I can't put into words how much I oppose the barbaric institution of capital punishment and how disgusted I am of anyone who supports it. I don't feel proud about a lot of things in my country, but I'm very proud we don't execute people any more. The state has no right to sentence people to death in any circumstance.


But its fine if they all get raped at will right?


----------



## boas (Jun 9, 2013)

Under certain conditions, I'd support it. It's obvious that certain people are never going to be able to return to civilised society; as such, it's pointless keeping them alive. Seems rather problematic to decide upon and impose such a standard though.


----------



## caelle (Sep 9, 2008)

For it. Although I think it should depend on the victims families and what they want. If the families don't agree with killing the person, then they should live their life in prison.


----------



## MoniqueS (Feb 21, 2011)

I will be forever against it.


----------



## Cmasch (Jan 24, 2015)

I'm against it for a couple reasons. 
1.Sitting in prison for life would be worse in my opinion.
2.On the off chance they are innocent, they will have enough appeals and an outside chance of getting a decision reversed?

On the other hand, it does cost tax payers money. Very tough situation.


----------



## Kevin001 (Jan 2, 2015)

I'm for it, allows people like me to not suffer living and leave this world. Easy ticket out, except waiting sometimes years before actually getting executed. The problem is I could never do something worth getting the death penalty.


----------



## wrongnumber (May 24, 2009)

I used to be against, back when I was less jaded and thought everyone could be helped, and that it was hypocritical of society etc, etc. But now, if it were cheaper and more prompt, I'd be all for it for serious offenders. Some people deserve a bullet in the head, mainly because they're a waste of space / time / resources. I'm also just generally offended by the existence of violent sociopaths in the world. I'd exterminate them all if I could.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Cmasch said:


> I'm against it for a couple reasons.
> 1.Sitting in prison for life would be worse in my opinion.
> 2.On the off chance they are innocent, they will have enough appeals and an outside chance of getting a decision reversed?


 I see. So you're against the death penalty because you want potentially innocent people to be tortured endlessly until they die of natural causes?

:haha

You're joking, right?


----------



## Cmasch (Jan 24, 2015)

WillYouStopDave said:


> I see. So you're against the death penalty because you want potentially innocent people to be tortured endlessly until they die of natural causes?
> 
> :haha
> 
> You're joking, right?


Tell that to the people who are released all the time due to overturned or corrupted DNA evidence. And ask them if they would still rather be in prison, or free now. But it's not you in there so who cares right...


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Cmasch said:


> Tell that to the people who are released all the time due to overturned or corrupted DNA evidence. And ask them if they would still rather be in prison, or free now.


 They would still be in prison if they never managed to prove their innocence. Which is probably what happens in the vast majority of cases where someone is innocent and just can't prove it.

So tell all those people you're against the death penalty because sitting in prison for life is worse than death and your sadistic side is more pleased with that. I'm sure that will comfort them through their long nights of sleeping in a concrete box for life.


----------



## Cmasch (Jan 24, 2015)

WillYouStopDave said:


> They would still be in prison if they never managed to prove their innocence. Which is probably what happens in the vast majority of cases where someone is innocent and just can't prove it.
> 
> So tell all those people you're against the death penalty because sitting in prison for life is worse than death and your sadistic side is more pleased with that. I'm sure that will comfort them through their long nights of sleeping in a concrete box for life.


Well I obviously can't speak for them, but I would rather have a shred of hope then none at all. It's irrelevant anyways since it can take 20+ years before they are killed anyways. If they wanted to don't you think they would kill themselves anyways.


----------



## Imbored21 (Jun 18, 2012)

No. Everyone deserves another chance.


----------



## slyfox (Nov 18, 2007)

I'm for it, depending on the individual. There are some real scum in this world


----------



## drummerboy45 (Jul 29, 2010)

Fo'


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

The only reason I'm against it is the possibility of false convictions. I don't have any moral objection to it. If you say that it's too much power for the state to have, or that the state has no right to take someone's life, then why is it any less objectionable for the state to lock them up in a cell for decades?

I dispute the idea that death is the worst thing that can happen to someone, and that it should be treated with some special moral scrutiny compared to other punishments.


----------

