Do you support death penalty?

[gfm7175]

I do not support the death penalty. And for 2 reasons.

#1 - Are we ever 100% sure we got the right person? Not 99%.

Nobody is perfect, so errors can be made; that's why any death penalty sentence should not be handed out lightly.

#2 - If we prosecute someone for killing someone, how can the penalty be death? We The People should not be killing our fellow citizens.

Eye for an eye.

 

[Magats_Love_NHB]

For trump, YES

 

[gfm7175]

No. It's like WinterBorn says. And added to that, it's discriminatory,

How so?

 

[gfm7175]

If killing is wrong and against the law, are we not doing wrong and breaking laws by doing it too.

It is not wrong or against the law to punish someone for committing a crime.

Lifetime in jail is a horrible enough punishment.

Depends on the crime committed. Depends on a number of factors, such as if the person is remorseful or not.

 

[gfm7175]

I do, when there is 100% proof of a crime worthy of a death sentence.
That bastard who burned that unsuspecting sleeping woman to death on the subway should be doused with lighter fluid and burned to death as just punishment. Let that woman's family light the match.

BINGO! In that case, it's 100% verifiable what the guy did, and that he's actually the guy who did it, so he should have to serve the same fate as his victim. The punishment would perfectly fit the crime that he committed. Eye for an eye.

If we'd start issuing out 'eye for an eye' punishments like that, then you'd see crime numbers go WAY down.

 

[gfm7175]

There is no such thing as 100% proof of anything,

Incorrect.

so you are basically saying you are against the death penalty.

No, he's saying that he's FOR it under certain circumstances.

 

[gfm7175]

So eyewitnesses and cameras aren't reliable enough proof?

Apparently not when it comes to illegal alien invaders committing heinous crimes.

However, find him a child inside of its mother's womb and he will be all FOR the death penalty, all because that child's existence was determined by its mother to be an inconvenience to her.

 

[gfm7175]

There is not a person who would be against the death penalty if their family had been slaughtered...

Yup. It's always fine to libtards whenever it is "somebody else" "way over there" being affected, but when it's them personally being affected, then they quickly change their tune.

 

[gfm7175]

Death is easy. It's everlasting peace.

Quite the opposite, actually. Death is eternal separation from God. It is everlasting agony.

LIFE is everlasting peace... LIFE is everlasting fellowship with God.

 

[gfm7175]

The question is do we deserve to kill, not do they deserve to die.

No, it's about THEM. It's about the crime that they committed and issuing a just punishment for that crime.

 

[gfm7175]

Why should we pay to house them for life? There are certain circumstances that should warrant the death penalty. That bastard that burned that woman to death is one example.

Precisely!

You're the one advocating shooting angry Trump supporters as a national pastime. You're the one saying shoot them in the back of the head (like you know anything about marksmanship ). You have some unethical fantasies, coward. Don't preach to me about hate. You cannot own a firearm.

Bingo. He wants to put "MAGAts" to death, but doesn't want to put to death the bastard who burned the woman to death.

 

[gfm7175]

For trump, YES

What crime has Donald Trump committed that warrants the death penalty?

 

[Magats_Love_NHB]

What crime has Donald Trump committed that warrants the death penalty?

All of them

 

[martin]

No, it's about THEM. It's about the crime that they committed and issuing a just punishment for that crime.

Your reasoning is confused. When the question is the right or wrong of an act, the answer "is about" the actor. You acknowledge this in your second sentence.

 

[gfm7175]

All of them

Such as?

 

[gfm7175]

Your reasoning is confused. When the question is the right or wrong of an act, the answer "is about" the actor. You acknowledge this in your second sentence.

The crime (and the punishment for it) is about the person who committed the crime and who deserves the punishment.

Where the issuer of the punishment comes in is whether or not the punishment being issued properly fits the crime that was committed.

 

[Nordberg]

Absolutely. When you sentence someone to life in prison without parole, and they continue to commit capital crimes in prison, they deserve to die for it. Why should we keep someone around who was imprisoned for life for such crimes and then have no means to punish them for doing those crimes in prison?

Why should another inmate, or a guard, or staff, in a prison be subject to rape, murder, or the like by a prisoner who knows they will suffer no consequences for their act? Solitary isn't punishment for someone like that. It's simply an attempt to minimize that prisoner doing it again. Note, that won't stop them entirely and they could still commit further crimes. Death is the only sure solution.

There are also crimes so heinous, so vile, that they deserve something more than simply putting someone in prison for life. Without a death penalty what would you give such a person, multiple life sentences without parole? How stupid is that? Hell, such a person might take it as a challenge to see how many they can rack up.

The death penalty is a deterrent, an absolute deterrent, that prevents the person put to death from committing further crimes.

Without a death penalty there will be those in our society that see they can spend their life committing murder, rape, or whatever, be it in prison or on the street and face no penalty for their actions. Eliminating them from society by death is the only sure option open to dealing with such a person.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. The attention they get from the press and justice results in copycat crimes. Murder is not a choice made in fear.
The DP is an end to that person committing more murders. It is also the end of his possibility of being freed for a crime he did not commit. The Innocence Project has pulled many people off death row. They got crappy treatment by justice. DNA has saved many from suffering penalties for crimes they did not commit.
I know, you do not care about them.
Jail stops them from committing more crimes.

 

[Walt]

So eyewitnesses and cameras aren't reliable enough proof?

Eyewitnesses especially are not 100%. Even cameras are not 100%.

You started out by claiming that only in cases where it is 100%, and now you are saying that it just needs to be "reliable enough." So lets say we are 90% sure someone is guilty, is that good enough? We can say for every innocent person we execute, we execute 9 guilty people.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The question is do we deserve to kill, not do they deserve to die. Apart from competing moral considerations, a baseline requirement for the right to kill is a perfect justice system, a system that guarantees innocents will not be put to death, which society has never had. So, no, we do not deserve to kill.

There are times and places where violence IS the answer. No justice system is going to be perfect in every case. So long as we try and do our best to ensure that the justice system is as fair and accurate in how it works, the outcomes can be considered fair. We should strive to make the system fairer, but also punctual. I'd say the biggest issue with our current justice system is it is anything but speedy. It can take years for a case to wind through the courts and appeals. That's as bad or worse than making a mistake in a case.

As for your original question here: do we deserve to kill, not do they deserve to die, there are times when yes, someone deserves to die and we have an obligation to carry that out to stop further killing by the person condemned to die. If a person has exhibited through word and deed that they are willing to murder, rape, or violently assault others, and that punishments such as prison will not stop them, then yes, they should be put to death. It is far worse that we accede to their actions by keeping them alive.

That is, in putting them to death we used the only sure method available to stop them from committing more murders, rapes, or violence. Those who would be victims of this person's future crimes, which are all but ensured to occur, and have been exhibited by their behavior to present, are saved from that fate by the person's death.

The question back to you is, Which is worse, allowing someone to live who goes on to commit more violence and death so we can somehow claim superior moral standards, or putting that person to death and stopping their endless violence and death?

 

[Walt]

Ummmm....yes there is. Consider James Fields or the asshole who drove his car into a crowd of German Christmas shoppers. If their brakes failed, that's one thing. If they did it deliberately, that's another.

Still, life in a box without parole is better, IMHO.

I certainly believe he is guilty, and think it is beyond a reasonable doubt... But that is not 100%. Beyond any possible doubt is an unachievable goalpost.

So my question becomes, should beyond a reasonable doubt be enough to execute a suspect? I think it is reasonable to say yes, but let's not pretend we will ever reach "beyond any possible doubt, 100%, even if everyone is lying, the suspect is still guilty" standard.

The counter argument is that if you put a convicted person in prison without parole, and he turns out to be not guilty, you can just release him. That is a strong argument, but not an absolute argument.