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
Given we already have laws preventing crime ... and that still doesn't stop criminals from existing it's pointless to think in such a way.
Laws only serve to punish and even death penalty doesn't prevent people from killing eachother.
 
I see zero difference between life in prison and the death penalty, practically speaking. They should go one step further and remove life in prison entirely, instead having a max possible sentence of, let's say, twelve years in jail, and then offer the ability to charge for the death penalty on the truly awful stuff.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is already the legal standard in most places in the world anyways, and you could use the "but there could be a false positive" argument to disestablish the entire justice system if you wanted to. No thanks.
All the protection that is needed is a 12-0 conviction standard for the death penalty, which most places already have, and life goes on. Even better if this "lethal injection" ego-saving bullshit gets taken down and we go back to the cheap firing squad being the way to take out the trash.
 
With such a blank statements it is most likely you that will face the wall.
We had such governments in the past and lessons we have learned is it is better not to have it. Look at any country that changed regime over night and shot the opposition. There's nothing preventing government to make false charges, plant false evidence, make crazy laws and use corrupt judges to put you into ground. The government hates you, always did and that will never ever change. You are allowed to live if you play by their rules and once you are used up you are left to rot without any support.

Troubled Iowa veteran sought help from VA hospital before freezing to death
Click to expand...

We shall not remember them. We shall not remember Herbert Morrison, who was the youngest soldier in the West India Regiment when he was led in front of the firing squad and gunned down for desertion. A 'coward' at just 17.
Click to expand...

The report, by the historian Antoine Prost, part of a scientific team preparing the French centenary, said that about 600-650 men were shot in France for issues relating to military disobedience, with about 100 more shot for spying or crimes such as murder.
Click to expand...
 
HandsomeDan said:
No...wrong again, Im WELS.
Click to expand...
Ehm...nah, I'm technically correct- Theosperg incoming-

ChatGPT:​


WELS and the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) share a similar theological background and were historically connected, but they are now separate denominations with distinct identities.

Early Relationship:​

  • In the 19th and early 20th centuries, WELS and LCMS were closely allied. Both denominations were part of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, a coalition of conservative Lutheran synods founded in 1872 to promote unity in doctrine and practice.

Doctrinal Differences:​

  • By the mid-20th century, doctrinal disagreements began to surface. The main issues involved differing interpretations of church fellowship and other theological matters, such as biblical interpretation and social engagement.
  • Church Fellowship: One of the primary reasons for the split between WELS and LCMS was how each church understood fellowship with other Christians. WELS held a stricter view, believing that fellowship should be withheld from other Christian groups unless there was complete agreement in doctrine. The LCMS, while still conservative, began to adopt a more moderate position on this issue.

The Split:​

  • These differences led WELS to break from the Missouri Synod and leave the Synodical Conference in 1961, marking a formal separation between the two.

Current Relationship:​

  • Today, WELS and LCMS remain separate entities. Both are conservative Lutheran bodies, but WELS tends to hold more strictly to its positions on fellowship and doctrinal purity. They no longer have official ties, although they still share many similarities in their theological foundations.
 
SSj_Ness said:
Understandable, but my primary concern is what's best for the country and myself, which means lower crime, and the optimal method of doing that is maximizing deterrents.
Click to expand...
"Deterrent Justice" is a corrupting concept that arises from the minds of law abiding people, who are already sufficiently deterred by the reasonable harm imposed on criminals by Separative Justice, who mistakenly think that criminals would be deterred if the sentences were more severe... which, again, is a very law-abiding-person way of thinking.

Criminals do not think far enough ahead for deterrence to be a reasonable justification for permitting the State to harm you.
 
Raven of the Burning God said:
Criminals do not think far enough ahead for deterrence to be a reasonable justification for permitting the State to harm you.
Click to expand...
This may be what "the science" says but I doubt it's actually true. On a visceral level, if you watch TV and you watch car thieves get the firing squad, your lizard brain is eventually going to associate car theft with dying. It's not going to stop crime altogether, but it will absolutely reduce crime. See crime rates in all societies with this kind of penalty.

The manipulation of the lizard brain is also why I think corporal punishment needs to come back as a replacement for extremely long prison sentences (which don't seem to rehabilitate anyone anyway).
 
Nonlethal punishments are already sufficient to deter serious crimes, if that were the issue. If the goal is genuinely to prevent crimes, the solution is to address the underlying socioeconomic factors that cause them. Murderers and child molesters should be paid a generous stipend until they stop killing/raping.
 
I don't believe the death penalty or torture deters people, because people will still do this kind of shit no matter what punishment they get because criminals don't think that far ahead in general. I do believe a society that's built on respect, a government that holds criminals accountable with real justice while giving rehabilitation to those who deserve it, and a good society in general prevents crime because people have more to lose. I support the death penalty though because some people don't deserve to live and family members of murder/sa victims should have the opportunity to have an execution or not for closure. There are criminals that can be rehabilitated and those who can't/repeat offenses should be executed.
 
Owlbear said:
your lizard brain is eventually going to associate car theft with dying
Click to expand...
That's not car thieves dying while stealing a car. The connection between the state executioner killing someone and car theft has several conditional layers between them. Remember: What if the car thief hadn't eaten breakfast?

The criminal's answer to the long chain of events of do crime, get caught, get charged, get prosecuted, get convicted, get sentenced, get executed, when you point out those those criminals being executed on television? "I won't get caught." What if you do get caught? "But I just told you I won't get caught." In the unlikely event that you're able to get them to understand the hypothetical conditional where they do get caught... "I won't get charged."

That is what "maximum deterrents" are up against.

And that's not even bringing up "Police be racist and shit.", where you point to the convicted criminals being executed on television and that has nothing to do with the consequences of stealing a car, because those are innocent proud black men being murdered by whitey.
Owlbear said:
punishment needs to come back as a replacement for extremely long prison sentences (which don't seem to rehabilitate anyone anyway).
Click to expand...
EVEN IF deterrence, punishment, or rehabilitation DID work, telling the government it is justified to harm you in order to deter, punish, or rehabilitate are sufficiently horrifying paths to go down that it's not worth the risk of even considering such claims reasonable.

Stick to separative justice. In which case, "extremely long prison sentences" are extremely effective in stopping the imprisoned criminal from committing further crimes against free society for the extremely long duration of their extremely long prison sentence.
 
In theory I agree that some people deserve to die for their crimes, but I don't trust any government or individual to hold that power. If someone dies in the heat of the moment don't sweat it, but in a court of law take it off the table lest it be a kangaroo court.
 
I think there is a certain subset of criminals who will never be rehabilitated in any meaningful way and should be put down for crimes like murder.

Most people who bitch about the death penalty are usually just arguing against the process rather than the concept itself. Like how in the current system someone on death row can spend years and fuckin years filing appeal after appeal before someone finally sticks a needle into their arm for lethal injection. Only to fuck it up because pharmaceutical companies refuse to sell states the proper chemicals for lethal injection procedures but have no problem providing Canada with thousands of doses a year of suicide drugs for MAID.

So my argument would be to speed the system the fuck up, having executions take place within 90 days of sentencing using proven methods like MAID drugs or nitrogen asphyxiation, but make the burden of proof for the death penalty really high. Like high enough that if the person wasn't caught on video doing it then they're not getting the death penalty. While that would prevent a lot of people who deserve the death penalty from getting it, it would ensure that those who definitely deserve it get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom