Poll: The death penalty, are you for or against?

The death penalty, are you for or against?

  • For

    Votes: 221 42.6%
  • Against

    Votes: 243 46.8%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 55 10.6%

  • Total voters
    519
Then there will still be room for error. I don't think we'll ever be able to guarentee guilt in 100% of cases and therefore the dealth penalty is still too risky in my opinion.

I'm fascinated to know how you can predict what we'll be able to do in the future. You're convinced we'll never be able to say someone is guilty with 100% certainty? Given that you can't even spell guarantee then I'm not convinced by your argument.

However as I said I will need both prerequisites to be met before I'd be in favour of it, and if you meet both prerequisites then it will not be needed. So I cannot think of any circumstances in which I'd support the death penalty.
 
I'm fascinated to know how you can predict what we'll be able to do in the future. You're convinced we'll never be able to say someone is guilty with 100% certainty? Given that you can't even spell guarantee then I'm not convinced by your argument.

However as I said I will need both prerequisites to be met before I'd be in favour of it, and if you meet both prerequisites then it will not be needed. So I cannot think of any circumstances in which I'd support the death penalty.

lol...:rolleyes:
 
Andreas Breivik is 100% guilty

But he's an example of someone where there's no benefit in the death penalty.

For someone as mental as that the death penalty would not act as a deterrent. So it does no good there. In fact it possibly does harm. If you're crazy enough to murder dozens of people in a blaze of glory then being killed by the state may appeal more than life imprisonment.

Finally, there's a relative cost of approximately nil compared to GDP in Europe for looking after mass murderers until they die in prison. The cost argument doesn't work there.

As for the "justice" for the victims argument - that's just cold blooded vengeance.

So he's not a good example to use in favour of the death penalty.
 
I agree he is a poor example to use and actually the way he has been tried and will be imprisoned (or sent to a psychiatric care indefinitely, he wants prison as he wants to be seen as a martyr, he'd probably love the idea of a public beheading) is a model of the society he wanted to destroy and which hasn't let him do that.

The fact that he would love a public beheading is another reason not to want one..who wants to be like him really.
 
In December 1999, Iqbal sent a letter to police and a local Lahore newspaper confessing to the murders of 100 boys, all aged between six and 16. In the letter, he claimed to have strangled and dismembered the victims - mostly runaways and orphans living on the streets of Lahore - and disposed of their bodies using vats of hydrochloric acid. He then dumped the remains in a local river. In his house, police and reporters found bloodstains on the walls and floor with the chain on which Iqbal claimed to have strangled his victims, photographs of many of his victims in plastic bags. These items were neatly labeled with handwritten pamphlets. Two vats of acid with partially dissolved human remains were also left in the open for police to find, with a note claiming "the bodies in the house have deliberately not been disposed of so that authorities will find them."[1]

Iqbal confessed in his letter that he planned to drown himself in the Ravi River following his crimes but after unsuccessfully dragging the river with nets, police launched what was, at that time, the largest manhunt Pakistan had ever witnessed. Four accomplices, teenage boys who had shared Iqbal's three-bedroom flat, were arrested in Sohawa. Within days, one of them died in police custody, allegedly by jumping from a window, though a post-mortem suggested that force had been used against him.[2]

It was a month before Iqbal turned himself in at the offices of the Urdu-language newspaper Daily Jang on the 30th December, 1999. He was subsequently arrested. He stated that he had surrendered to the newspaper because he feared for his life and was concerned that the police would kill him.[1]

Although his diary contained detailed descriptions of the murders, and despite the handwriting on the placards in his house matching Iqbal's, he claimed in court that he was innocent and that the entire affair was an elaborate hoax to draw attention to the plight of runaway children from poor families. He claimed that his statements to police were made under duress. Over a hundred witnesses testified against Iqbal and he and his accomplices were found guilty.[citation needed]

Iqbal was sentenced to death by hanging.

The judge passed sentence saying "You will be strangled to death in front of the parents whose children you killed, Your body will then be cut into 100 pieces and put in acid, the same way you killed the children".

I find the judge's comments strangely satisfying.
 
The judge passed sentence saying "You will be strangled to death in front of the parents whose children you killed, Your body will then be cut into 100 pieces and put in acid, the same way you killed the children".

I find the judge's comments strangely satisfying.

I can understand that, but do you also feel it's wrong to do that to another human, regardless of what they've done?
 
The judge passed sentence saying "You will be strangled to death in front of the parents whose children you killed, Your body will then be cut into 100 pieces and put in acid, the same way you killed the children".

I find the judge's comments strangely satisfying.

I find it a bit peculiar anyone would find satisfaction in any part of that story, from the sorry, hideous, awful crime to people wreaking revenge and basically saying its ok to be the guy as long as you are on the side of the state and are doing it to someone who has done the same thing. I think that's a sad mess and a mockery of the justice system myself.
 
Back
Top Bottom