Who thinks the death penalty is right? I do. Should't someone who has taken someones life have theres taken from them?
If someone stabbed you little brother don't you think they should be stabbed or killed? Don't say that just put them in prison for life. Because A they never get put in for life and B becasue prison is not a hard place to be. You will get 3 meals a day. Newspapers , Ps3s and much much more and you don't have to pay for it the public do. Why should they be not be killed? I meen you don't have to kill them you could test on them indstead of animals.

What do you guys think?

I'm traditionally against the death penalty. It's uncivil. We're in the 21st century - shouldn't we be acting more civil? As a society we say that killing someone is wrong. How can we say that and then put someone to death? Isn't that the ultimate in hypocrisy? The death penalty unfortunately doesn't protect the public and makes no economic sense.

The United States has a death penalty. Whereas Mexico and Canada doesn't. Neither does France, Germany, or Italy. I'm from the U.S. and think it should be abolished. So what do you guys think?

Appeal to sympathy arguments.

1.The punishment is the same as the crime committed - killing a person. Shouldn't the government lead by example?

Not all countries have a death penalty for killing. Some are notably less. Singapore is a country which carries a mandatory death sentence for those caught with more than 15 grams of heroin.

2.It is the wrong way to use revenge. The same thing that happens to someone sentenced the death penalty happens to your grandma. How does this "revenge" or "feel better" do any significance?

Statistical arguments.

3.The death penalty is not a deterrent. Data suggests that this form of punishment doesn't stop the crime at all. Probably because people that kill others are mentally unstable, or their crime is 1 of passion most that can kill have major personality disorders, so the death penalty doesn't stop them.

Economic reasons.

4.It's far cheaper to house someone for the rest of their life then it is to exhaust their appeals. What population percentage of people sentenced the death penalty don't actually appeal?

Mistakes from the past.

5.The governments has at many times sentenced an innocent person - this isn't acceptable. Even the chance that we put *1* person to death that doesn't deserve it means that the whole thing should be stopped. The state murdered an innocent - so do we go and put the government to death? Or is someone going to make the argument that this is just an acceptable loss?

On April 23, 2007, D.N.A. cleared its 200th person another milestone for a technology that has not only reversed convictions but has also prompted a more critical look at flaws in the justice system - from crime lab work to the way arson cases are investigated. The 1st reversal case was in 1989. The 100th case happened in 13 years, but 5 to double that number.

Historical bias.

While the death penalty in the United States has far improved, it has had a huge historial bias, particular on race.

Blacks.

Between 1930 and 1976, 405 of the 455 men who were executed for rape, a capital offense until 1977, were black.

More than 80% of those who have been executed since 1976 were found guilty of killing whites. This has been verified by the U.S. Accounting Office, which in a 1990 review, stated, "Those who murdered whites were found to be more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."

Only 6 executions since 1976 have seen white prisoners put to death for killing blacks.

Juveniles (under 18).

Between 1973 and 1998, of the total 6,300 imposed deaths, 173 of them were juveniles, and 11 of them have been executed, 8 since 1990.

In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court set the minimum age limit of the death penalty to 16 (in the Thompson versus Oklahoma case). On March 1, 2005, they upped it up to 18.

Studies show that the majority of juveniles convicted of violent crimes had been subjected to abuse as young children.

Then maybe more black people committed that crime, who's to say that there were 500 white men and 500 black men (who raped someone and got caught) and that only 50 white men were charged? You have to get all the facts about it, not just say 'well more black people were killed' because maybe black people might have actually committed that crime more than white people or any other race for that matter. Unless I see a figure saying that both sides were equally charged or close to it, then that cannot be a relevant statistic for this argument.


However, I'm torn on my stance about the Death Penalty. I feel, like 2x4b, that people like pedophiles, murderers and serial rapists should be brought to death, but I also feel that two wrongs don't make a right. However, our prisons in the US are somewhat overcrowded and we don't need more people there if we can simply kill them off. I think our ways of the death penalty are much better than they were, it is much more humane than lynching or the electric chair. The Death Penalty might not deter people from committing murder, or arson, or treason, or rape, but it sure as hell scares me from even thinking of killing someone. Imagining myself strapped onto a bed with doctors poking needles in me so I can die doesn't seem like a good thing to me. I think that people who dislike the death penalty are somewhat right because two wrongs don't make a right, but murdering someone point blank with a shotgun doesn't equal getting injected with a poison, the poison is much less harmful (the injected rarely feels pain and dies instantly).

So I'm unsure what my real stance is. :(

What's the difference betwen a rapist and a pedophile?

Isn't a pedophile just an intent crime?

A paedophile is someone who preys on children while a rapists just... rapes adults. This is if I remember correctly. I probably don't though.

I find "yes, no" polls really irritating.

I'm for the death penalty. My state does 'firing squad' Sorry, I just think it's great way to get rid of the scum of my state. Has anyone heard about that man that killed a young boy's & girl's family in Coeur d'alene and kidnapped and raped them? Then he killed the little boy and left him in a field in Montana... The little girl was seen when he brought her back to Idaho for some reason, and people managed to get her away from him. I think he deserves the firing squad. IN FACT, I'd love to do it, I'd love to be the one that takes his life... It's disgusting how people like him are allowed freedom, but knowing his crime IN IDAHO he'll get what's coming to him. Seriously people like that don't deserve to live out their life in prison to think about what they did... Countries that don't have the death penalty should probably bring it back, but only for severe cases.

http://mylifeofcrime.files.wordpress.co ... shasta.jpg (An image of Shasta & Dylan Groene)

Being a pedophile means that they have a sexual attraction to children (which can't be helped, you can't change what you're attracted to). It doesn't exactly mean that they'll "prey" on children all the time, though some do.

As for myself, I am a bit torn on the issue of the death penalty, but I lean a bit more towards "no". It just doesn't seem completely right to me. A person should be punished, yes, but sometimes just killing them isn't really the way to go in my opinion.

When it comes to court, it's a matter of which side tells the best story. You have someone accused, and someone accusing. However, just because one tells a better story, does not mean it's always right. There's always the chance someone will get sentenced to death without actually committing said crime.

Capital punishment works well in theory, but the chance of mistakes is too high. I don't support it.

This is exactly what I thought.

I'd obviously like to draw a line between pedophiles and rapists. It seems a pedophile is just an intent crime. Suppose a 13 year-old girl bent down to tie her shoes in front of a 60 year-old man, and he got a good half-a-second look at her cleavage, and liked it. Would you call him a pedophile?

In that case, all rapists are pedophiles but not all pedophiles are rapists.

In any event, the death penalty seems to make the most sense for murderers. Those certainly can support the death penalty for rapists, but I really don't see why they should support the death penalty for pedophiles.

I'm wrong if our definitions of pedophile are wrong.

A pedophile could also be someone that has a lot of pornography in his computer.

Unless someone rapes someone that is of legal age, more than 18 years old. Then a rapist is just a rapist, and not a pedophile. <_>

Rapist - one who forcibly commits an action of $3><ual nature.
Pedophile - one who has an attraction to children, and more - usually watches pr0n involving children, forcibly oes an act with a child, or someone who inappropriately touches a child.

Mods - feel free to rephrase my words, I don't know how else to say it without saying $3><




The biggest prblems with the death penalty today...

"It costs more to put them on death row than it does to give them life imprisonment"

That is TRUE, but not for obvious reasons. If someone is on death row, they are given special protecton from hostile inmates, and thus cost more for security.

If we just executed them about a week after their trial, there would be no problems.


"The death penalty is bias against minorities/poor people"

That is explained by poplers. These minorities caused the crimes, not actually held to a higher standard than white people.

500 African American men are involved in homicide (intentional murder)
50 Caucasion men are involved in homicide.

500 African American men were executed under the death penalty
50 Caucasion men were issued death as penalty, but 25 die in prison. 25 were still executed.

Is it biased against African Americans? Absolutely not.

"Minorities cannot afford a good lawyer to protect them from the death penalty"

This one might actually be legit. You have the right to a lawyer if you don't have money, and this lawyer will be appointed by the state/government. Are these the best lawyers? By no means. Then again, you get what you pay for. If you think you can do better, you have the right to represent yourself in the court of law.


"Minorities are handed harsher sentences than white people"

This is false - based on the circumstances, you are going to get the same punishment. If it is under the same circumstances.

Case 1:
A white man hits a young child with his car. The man stops as soon as he can, but it is too late - the child dies.

Case 2:
A minority male hits a young child with his car. The man proceeds to drive away, knowing full well he hit someone. The child dies.

The white man may be served with 10 years in prison, while the minority may receive the death penalty. In this case, the circumstances are very different, as the minority male showed neligence and possible intent, while the white man had shown remorse and that it was an accident, and is thus charged with vehicular (meaning action via car) manslaughter (accidental death/murder).


Okay, so that example may have been a dramatization - but you understand my point.

"The death penalty is cruel, and thus violates the constitution"

This is false - the supreme court has said that done correctly, it is not cruel. As long as it is not bias, and doesn't do something that involves true pain (ie, sticking them on a stick known as impalement, crucifiction, tearing their limbs apart, burying them in the sand to cook, throwing into a body of water with a stone slab), it is legal.

Which leaves
~Electric Chair
~Firing squad (you have this option in Colorado)
~Poisonous injection
~Nitrogen Asphixiation (new, and beneficial - we can now remove the organs from murderers after they are dead, and give it to people that can benefit. These include, but are not limited to: Kidneys, Lungs, Heart, Liver)

Most would assume that gas chamber is allowed, but it was in fact unofficially banned - after the horrors in Germany, it was thought best to do so.


I'm not saying this is how it is around the world - I just know this for the United States.

I agreed with 90% of what you said, but I disagree completely with this. I think that there could also be a chance
that in that one week/month/year that new evidence will show up and prove the prisoner's innocence. So execution one week (or even a month) afterwards wouldn't be good because it would rule out later evidence that could be found and prevent him from living because of it. I'm not saying that people should stay that long and then face the penalty, but there should be some good median in between, 5 years maybe.

I've seen some well thought arguments for both sides in this topic. While I might not have as lengthy of an answer as my fellow Psypokes, I have to say that I can't make up my mind even though most times I sway towards 'no'.

My friends have asked me this same question, and I used to flat out say no without thinking. One day my friend said, "What if they killed your little brother? Small and defenseless?" Without a doubt, I'd want to have a go at the b*astard that would lay a hand on him (that goes for anyone that was killed in the world). And that's where I contradict myself.

I used to say, "I realize, obviously, that murders and such have no right to take a life away. But we'd be no better by taking theirs away, it's almost like playing God." While many might say, "Leave religion out of this," that's fine but I'm a religious and spiritual person and that's just how I feel. To me karma will always follow through.

This might not make sense, but to me in a weird way it does.

That would apply to most teenagers/quite a few children. You need 'an adult' put somewhere in there.

I don't agree with death penalty, because no one gains anything really from the criminal dying. Things like community service are helpful, alongside punishment. I'm not saying that someone who's commited murdered someone should be let off with a few hours of decorating or something though. They should be locked up and trained so they live like normal people, then released.
I personally think that some amounts of torture would be more worrying than the concept of death, and put people off crime more.

I'm personely against the Death Penalty. Luckily, there is none here in Canada, but no amount of crime would let someone deserve death.
As I always use to say, 'Giving somone a death penalty is like being a murderer, only you don't get arrested.'
My opinion still stands today.

You don't have to be an adult to be considered a pedophile. If the individual is a postpubescent* minor aged 15 years or over, he may only have at most a 5 year difference between the prepubescent person to whom he is attracted and himself. It is also important to note that adults who possess sexual attraction to any postpubescent minor is not considered a pedophile. This is the general criteria for this paraphilia.

*While pre- and post- pubescence varies between children, for general diagnostic purposes, postpubescence is usually defined as ?12-years-old.

If it's 5 (or 6 - forgot) years diff. and the subject is under 16 then it's paedophilia.
It's not 'pedophile' that's like a pedometer. Which is lol.




On topic...

'Thou shalt not judge lest he be judged'. Besides, who are we to call God? We can't decide who is worthy of life, in my opinion that is for massive ego's. A death penalty is ironically murder. It creates no peace, it creates fear and sorrow. I feel civilization has lost it's purpose. It is just zation now. Which sounds quite lame. Surely we must progress to a better future. As for the alternative, heck, send them to the moon, it worked for Australia. I see it as a risk to your own safety, everyone gets caught up in the moment. I am proud that I live in an area where there is no death penalty, and I fear for those of you who don't. Here endeth thy rant.

I see your point and everything, but honestly don't you believe that some very disturbed individuals have it coming? What if someone murdered someone very close to you, wouldn't you want them to get what they'd deserve? You'd probably want to do it yourself.

About it creating fear & sorrow, it's not always the case. Look at Charles Manson, he welcomes it and personally, I believe he deserves it. For some though, the fact that they will receive death is one of the things from stopping them from going out and murdering people.

This topic is in the gray area, you can't just say yes or no to this. These things are all substantial. In my opinion an eye for an eye, if you do somthing really wrong, like killing someone innocent then yes, you need to die. But then there are those cases, where it could have been an accident or maybe the person in question, was accutaly innocent, these things all make this subject to hard to decide on.

Therefore you are pro-death penalty... you're not really asked to match punishments to crimes or to roleplay the jury in this thread.



Life without parole? But yeah I get your point, but I dunno, the death penalty seems to be a bit.. stooping to other's levels or something.. which is why I'm against it. I don't really have charts and pie graphs to support my position, but it's more of a personal preference I guess.

I am against capital punishment, I think the whole "eye for an eye" argument is ridiculous. "eye for and eye" is savage, primitive and goes against Christianity. I'm not saying we should let them off without punishment, of course not, but killing them makes us just a bad as them.

There have also been studies that say that capital punishment is more expensive than life in jail, by an enormous margin too. I have mentioned this before when arguing against DatVu, and he pointed out that these studies are quite possibly unreliable and biased. You'll just have to decide for yourself, here are some links.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-murderersalive.htm

http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

There's also the final point that any for of capital punishment is inhumane, it's torture. I'm not referring the huge debate about lethal injection (although that's certainly something to think about), I'm not talking about physical torture at all, I'm talking about the psychological torture that knowing you are about to die brings. Any sane person (and now-a-days only sane people can be executed) will suffer terror unmatched by anything else when walking helplessly towards death, it's impossible not to feel it, every animal has the survival instinct. Capital punishment has been used as torture, they'd make a prisoner think he/she was getting executed then stop at the last minute, a tool used to break captives psychologically, much of the same stuff behind waterboarding. And, as the supreme court just recently verified that torture (and waterboarding) is not legal then it follows that capital punishment cannot be legal.

@1st bold: ...well the American government isn't based off Christianity, and they even said that the government and church should be separated, see: Constitution. So that argument is flawed.

@2nd bold: Psychological Torture < Physical Torture, honestly, they murdered someone, they themselves tortured someone. They psychologically tortured the family of the victim, so the murderer gets to torture countless amounts of people involved, yet he doesn't get a taste of his own medicine? The Death Penalty isn't torture at all. You make it seem that each convict is a totally regular civilian ... and they aren't.

The death penalty isn't inhumane at all, I'm probably going back on my other argument and makes me seem like a hypocrite, but whatever, can't win them all.

So because something goes against Christianity, it is wrong? Hell going to your communion and giving 15% of your income to a fascist organization that wants to 'spread' its message is wrong.

While you pointed out some nice heart-touching links, the first one is nonsense. The sources are nothing more than departments and the Miami Herald I like the second one though. Very thought through. Kudos.

You will never be able to prove that the death penalty is more expensive than keeping a man in jail. If there was a surge of mass deaths by the penalty, then I would concede to you. However, while the death date is ensured for someone on death row, it is no ensured for someone in jail who would be up there until the end of his natural life. That whole life thing can take years and years and years and cost daily amounts of food and personnel and money.

I would be all for letting whomever committed a heinous crime to rot in jail for the rest of their life. That would be
better rather than ending the pain so quickly. But if it's my money that pays for these little to live,why bother? It all depends on the crime. For you to sit here and argue 'dat dere jesus is da way of life' is selfish. If some man, be it whatever race and whatever nationality, came into your house tonight and murdered your father, raped and murdered your mother, and be it what else to any siblings, I find that you're heart would be singing a different tune.

Capital Punishment is primal? We, sir, are still primal. The name has changed but the game still remains the same. You think this world is civilized? You're in for a heart break, my friend.


Any sane person wouldn't commit such a heinous crimes in the first place to be wound up in there. You see... it's the people who decide who lives and who dies. We play god. Blame your fellow man if you want to start a war. Don't argue that capital punishment is primal when you begin to bring up primal instincts.


Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but capital punishment has yet to be verified as 'torture' and is supported by the state it is hosted in. Please squeal that swan song to the families of victims who only want revenge. Not everybody else is as enlightened as you are and 'see the way'. While you can bring propositions of laborious withdrawal from the human psyche, that in itself is a field totally separate from the wrongs these people have committed.

Have your beliefs and personal opinions, but let me be the first to laugh when it happens to you and you're that lonely, broken person in court looking for the extreme to end the misery.

As Mr. T says,
I pity the fool!