Death Penalty Debate Thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Do You Support The Death Penalty?

  • Total voters
    74
Chongqing said:
What the hell?

He's dead to rights.

There's something to be said for that, but that's just an argument to not use it often, like in Texas.

There are many cases where the guilt is not in doubt and the convict deserves death. For example, there was that case in Ohio of that black guy who kidnapped little girls, held them and raped them in a dungeon for years (decades?), impregnated them and forced them to give birth as children, which crippled their bodies in unusual ways. He tortured them, raped them, and mistreated them for almost their whole lives.

And there's no doubt that he did it. The death penalty is what every sane person wanted.

But they didnt have it in his state. So they had to spend money to house and feed him in a prison. That means the same people he had victimized now have to pay a tax to support the life of their attacker.

And then a few years later, wouldn't you know it, he "committed suicide," Jeffrey Epstein style, exactly the outcome everyone wanted in the first place.

The death penalty is great, it's just overapplied.


Lastly, the death penalty should be carried out by one member of the national guard using an automatic rifle, no blanks. No bullshit where we obfuscate the fact that the government is violently killing someone.

Lethal injection is the biggest bullshit ever.
Click to expand...
Yes, a single shot to the back of the head with a single .22 bullet would be the cheapest and most efficient, most humane way to do it.
 
I know many talk about wrongfully accused and no doubt about that but there are so many cases of rapists, child touchers, murderers, serial killers who are clear as day convicted and actively revel in their actions that I do not see what would be the harm in giving them execution
 
I'm against it for 2 reasons. Well, 3, but the third is the most controversial by far.

Firstly, we already know that people have been wrongfully executed, which should be enough of an argument against it by itself.

Secondly, the idea that the state can execute its own citizens will never sit well with me.

There's always lots of appeals to emotion by the pro camp. It's easy to think some multiple child rapist should be thrown into a wood chipper. It's not so easy to pull him out of that chipper of it turns out he was innocent though. Also, you are trusting the state to decide what crimes are worthy of the death penalty, which is foolish IMO. Also, I think some of the pro folks mistakenly think that it's cheaper to just execute someone than to keep them locked up for life, but that's not true either.

As for the third reason, do people even have free will?
 
Toji Suzuhara said:
It is necessary in various specific but important instances. Child rapists, serial killers, mass shooters, acts like treason or rebellion, very high-profile corruption cases. Events in which the condemned cannot possibly do something to pay back their crime, while at the same time have proven themselves unwilling to change or accept guilt
Click to expand...
If this were a perfect world where everything strange was just a coincidence, I would agree. But dead men tell no tales.
 
...what does "cruel and unusual punishment", mean?
 
My desire for vengeance says yes, but reason says no.

There's just too much risk this power can be abused and it deprives the person of opportunities to repent and perform acts of restitution for the crime. Killing them doesn't bring the murder victim back or repay anyone for the crimes committed. Whether you believe in an afterlife or oblivion, they're free from our human control now.

Being sentenced to die in prison is a harsh punishment in and of itself. In many ways I think this is better for satisfying justice in a capital crime because the person is paying through the suffering of endless years in prison with nothing but death as an escape. Immediate execution ends it then and there.
 
FATTESTCUNT 2.0 said:
Of course, because then it no longer becomes about choice.

Some philosophers who believe that we don't have free will think that we should keep up the pretence that we do for this exact reason.
Click to expand...
It's a philosophical argument in and of itself, if determinism is totally indistinguishable from our perspective as having free will, is it really determinism at all?

Kind of similar to the Ship of Theseus paradox when it comes to time and replacement.
 
FATTESTCUNT 2.0 said:
I can't tell you. That's for you to figure out for yourself.
Click to expand...
So... If I happened to be a juror, or even a judge, I would be perfectly justified in finding someone who has been sufficiently proven to me as having committed a heinous crime worthy of the death penalty.
 
HandsomeDan said:
First as a Christian I would say justified executions for criminal and evil actions are most certainly permitted by he Word of God. Forgiveness which is most certainly required also does not equate to no consequences or no punishment. We should not relish or celebrate these executions and they should be quick and swift. If anything a quick and emotionless execution is more appropriate and says more to fact that the one being executed no longer has our consideration and is now being released to receive God's judgment which is the true threshold of punishment.

It is better that ten guilty men go free than to let a single innocent man suffer.

As to this above statement that often gets used, I really dont agree with this as we dont make decisions on something based off of a chance of someone on rare occasions dying from it. The point of executions are punishment and not really even a deterrent and not enforcing a punishment on the chance that someone is falsely accused is not reason enough to end said punishment. I agree about incontrovertible evidence, I think that there is generally very good "proof" in most cases and as an aside if you really study alot of these "innocent man" on death row cases, the individuals in question may have been innocent of that specific charge but were/are generally part of a criminal element guilty of crimes. Not that this justifies an incorrectly applied death sentence, but I would say the overwhelming amount of these innocent man cases were not just some random family man or business owner pulled from nowhere.

My main issue with modern executions is the time and cost associated with the whole process, there is no reason for this and in and of itself cant be used as a justification for ending executions either.
Click to expand...
Let me guess-you're Southern Baptist, right? ( Broke off from based "Northern" Baptists in order to justify keeping their slaves lol)
 
Black Spruce said:
I'm hitting no only because the government is only good at bombing children and destroying the economy. They're shit at everything else. You'd have to be insane to trust them with this.
Click to expand...
"Conservatives"- the state is waistin' muh money. I don't trust them with spending it wisely, so lower muh taxes

Also "conservatives"- don't care if the state is pissing away hundreds off mio to ritually sacrifice some criminals (compared to i.e Obama, small c criminals)

Clowns.
 
FATTESTCUNT 2.0 said:
Of course, because then it no longer becomes about choice.

Some philosophers who believe that we don't have free will think that we should keep up the pretence that we do for this exact reason.
Click to expand...
See, I really disagree. I think if someone does something wrong, they should be punished.

There should be no "not guilty by reason of insanity" for murderers or child rapisrs. At a certain level of brutality, the reasoning becomes irrelevant.
 
I'm coming around to the death penalty more and more, especially for killers, that nigger Marcellus Williams was definitely guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom