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
Gackt said:
To support the death penalty you have to be okay with killing innocents.
Click to expand...

An innocent person can be killed at the hands of a murderer. So I'm ok with the killer being killed.

As castiel posted its all fine and well saying you don't support the death penalty but if someone in your family was murdered you'd want that person to pay for destroying your life rather than have nice wee chats with a psychologist asking them why they did such a naughty thing.....
 
Derek W said:
As castiel posted its all fine and well saying you don't support the death penalty but if someone in your family was murdered you'd want that person to pay for destroying your life rather than have nice wee chats with a psychologist asking them why they did such a naughty thing.....
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with anything?.

All that proves is that people are irrational/angry when family members get killed, is this supposed to be some wise insight?.

Just because person A has a desire for vengeance, it doesn't make it right.

What about if the state executes an innocent man?, do you execute the Judge who murdered him? - who is punished for killing that man?.

The entire concept of killing somebody as a punishment for killing somebody is about as stupid as it gets.
 
TrUz said:
For it. Especially for pedophiles and rapists.
Click to expand...
Do you want more dead children & women then?.

As the evidence suggests it just increases the chances of rapists/paedophiles murdering them after.

This is why the public should NEVER be asked it's view on these issues, they lack the will or the inclination to do the leg-work involved in obtaining an informed opinion & spout the kind of flawed illogical arguments we see on here.
 
Originally I was for it (hence my post in the other thread regarding this) but I think ill change what I was originally going to say.

In Theory I am for it as I believe certain crimes deserve this kind of punishment for example mass murder and serial rapists/pedos (no not those 16 yr olds as mentioned above) and I do not see why the tax payer should be footing the bill to keep these people alive for 10/15/20/30 years, But in practice for this to ever work the entire system would need to be reworked to ensure that innocent people did not get executed for the wrong crimes but personally I cannot think of a way to be 100% sure as many a time innocent people have been found guilty of a crime they never did.

I guess multiple trials by different judges/panels may work but then its additional expense again and not sure if this would outweigh the cost of just keeping them detained.
 
For.

In cases where there is no doubt about guilt and the criminal is never going to be released because he/she poses too greater risk. In these cases it makes more sense to just kill them rather than keep them locked up forever, IMO.
 
JaWalks said:
For.

In cases where there is no doubt about guilt and the criminal is never going to be released because he/she poses too greater risk. In these cases it makes more sense to just kill them rather than keep them locked up forever, IMO.
Click to expand...

Define "no doubt"; even the most watertight of cases can be easily overturned with the right evicence.

And why does it make more sense to kill rather than keep them locked up forever? It's far cheaper and far more humane to do the latter.
 
I believe in hard justice.
Violent criminals that show no mercy to their victims shall receive none upon sentencing. Punishment should include hard labour, vital organ donation and high-risk human drug testing or just execution.
 
Against it, no question. We can't even begin to have this conversation until we can guarantee the accuracy and truth of our verdicts one hundred per cent, and not a fraction less. The slightest possibility that an innocent person is put to death is far more repulsive than the idea of a rapist spending their life in prison.

That's before you even get into the inhumanity of the death penalty itself, but we can't even have the debate without being able to absolutely guarantee guilt, which we cannot.
 
Isn't there a story at the minute of a 21 year old Briton who was caught selling drugs (20g of cannabis) in the UAE and is facing the death penalty, its a whole new can of worms, but personally its way over the top for that sort of crime.

I am against it though and countries like the USA ought to know better by now.
 
Naffa said:
Against it, no question. We can't even begin to have this conversation until we can guarantee the accuracy and truth of our verdicts one hundred per cent, and not a fraction less. The slightest possibility that an innocent person is put to death is far more repulsive than the idea of a rapist spending their life in prison.

That's before you even get into the inhumanity of the death penalty itself, but we can't even have the debate without being able to absolutely guarantee guilt, which we cannot.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.

I'd also like to know what those in favour of the death penalty for murder think should happen when somebody innocent is killed.

Do they think the judge/jury should be execute for murder?, how exactly does it work when this happens?.

Would we have a system in which it's OK for the state to murder, but not citizens (if nobody was executed for the crime).

The entire concept falls apart with even the most basic scrutiny, which I believe is a good indicator as to how flawed it really is.

The people who support it can't get past the anger of "OMG WHAT IF THEY KILLED MY MOMMY, ID KILL THEM - SO THE STATE SHOULD" - thinking the mindset of somebody who just lost a family member is fit to decide how our justice system should work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom