[Wizard.]

I used to think no, but in certain cases I agree with it. You might know about that family who died in a fire, the mum and the children recently and it's near where I live. A few people have been arrested, and basically the guy not only set fire to the house with innocent children in it but also got his mates to set fire to all escape routes - they knew what they were doing.

Now I'm not saying lets hung, drawn and quarter them in public like medieval times, but privately, and in this case and in similar cases, make sure it's painful.

[Glenn.]

Yes. Convicted murderers where the evidence is sufficient and child molesters etc.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Yes for revenge and closure

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by Good King Glennceslas

Yes. Convicted murderers where the evidence is sufficient and child molesters etc.

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

Yes for revenge and closure

Here here!

And I don't think these days that there would be a problem of "oh but what if they've been wrongfully convicted"

Well if the evidence is based on circumstances maybe they get a prison sentence but if it is based on factual DNA evidence then they did it.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Definitely not. For two reasons:

a) if we allow it for certain extreme cases, where do we draw the line? Everybody has a different idea of what constitutes extreme cases and when jt should be used.

b) There have been far too many miscarriages if justice in the past where the death penalty would have been used if it had been available. If only one inmocent person is killed for a crime they didn't commit, then that is one too many to justify the death penalty.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

Definitely not. For two reasons:

a) if we allow it for certain extreme cases, where do we draw the line? Everybody has a different idea of what constitutes extreme cases and when jt should be used.

b) There have been far too many miscarriages if justice in the past where the death penalty would have been used if it had been available. If only one inmocent person is killed for a crime they didn't commit, then that is one too many to jistify the death penalty.

name 3

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

name 3

The website deathpenaltyinfo.org lists many examples in America of people who were on Death Row and exonerated, as well as people who were executed but their guilt has been called into question.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocen...reed-death-row

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

It is also worth pointing out that some of the above cases were in the last few years, and several involved DNA. As good as our justice system is, no system will ever be perfect. There will always be mistakes.

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

The website deathpenaltyinfo.org lists many examples in America of people who were on Death Row and exonerated, as well as people who were executed but their guilt has been called into question.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocen...reed-death-row

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

Okay but the most recent conviction was 2002, and so if they have been found innocent in 2017 it proves that technology now is so advanced that you can prove with hard factual evidence that someone committed the crime.

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

Definitely not. For two reasons:

a) if we allow it for certain extreme cases, where do we draw the line? Everybody has a different idea of what constitutes extreme cases and when jt should be used.

b) There have been far too many miscarriages if justice in the past where the death penalty would have been used if it had been available. If only one inmocent person is killed for a crime they didn't commit, then that is one too many to jistify the death penalty.

A) It is common sense where to draw the line. Child murderers and serial killers, terrorists etc... who have no chance of rehabilitation or who do not deserve rehabilitation. It would also solve the overcrowded prisons.

B) Yes but they were a decade ago. Advances in technology means that the likelihood of DNA evidence being wrong is very small.

I actually think jury's should get to decide whether someone should receive it. All 12 have to agree or it doesn't happen.

[smudgie]

I have nothing against the death penalty, as long as it is carried out humanely.
Beyond reasonable doubt is not good enough either, it would have to be totally beyond doubt that the person was guilty.
Murder and not manslaughter as well, premeditated is a lot different to accidental.

[Shaun]

Something that interests me on this topic is that those who are in favour of the death penalty are more than often also the same people who want to see captured terrorists suffer, rather than receive immediate (or, 6 months down the line) death in a relatively humane way.

Even without the "easy get out clause" point for deluded fanatics and religious murderers/terrorists, state-endorsed killing is still killing IMO.

It just makes no sense in some parts of America anyway, some murders are punishable by death but others are not?

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by Carole of the Bells

Something that interests me on this topic is that those who are in favour of the death penalty are more than often also the same people who want to see captured terrorists suffer, rather than receive immediate (or, 6 months down the line) death in a relatively humane way.

Even without the "easy get out clause" point for deluded fanatics and religious murderers/terrorists, state-endorsed killing is still killing IMO.

It just makes no sense in some parts of America anyway, some murders are punishable by death but others are not?

I don't understand how people think that punishment by death is any more 'worse' than making someone rot in jail for their whole lives. People let their guilty conscience rule over their moral judgement.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

I don't understand how people think that punishment by death is any more 'worse' than making someone rot in jail for their whole lives. People let their guilty conscience rule over their moral judgement.

Because death is an immediate consequence and imprisonment *should be* punishing. If someone is ready to die and decides to take out a couple of his/her classmates or work colleagues with them, what's the point in killing them anyway? I know that if I lost a loved one and that person killed themselves, or was put to death, I'd effectively be left with no answers as to why they did it. In actuality I did lose a cousin in a stabbing nearly fifteen years ago and the perpetator received a ridiculously short amount of jail time (roughly 6-8 years, IIRC). Does that make me angry? Of course. But only because of the length of the sentence. I don't feel I'd have any more resolution with what happened if he'd been killed. But then I was very young at the time and I can't really say I was "incredibly close" with him (he was twice my age) so I know I can't directly speak for all grieving relatives/partners. I just think the reason we can call ourselves civilized is because the law isn't dealt out with emotive interests and vendetta.

The glamour of taking a vengeance to the grave and becoming a martyr to whatever cause they're pushing, or indeed whatever mental illness they're taken over by, just seems to create more killers.

I don't doubt that prison's too easy in some cases. Of course prison costs are not ideal but the figures spent on lethal injections are on the rise at a bizarre rate (at least in America, because anything pharmacological is ) And I also don't have a lot of sympathy for child rapists/killers being killed in retribution / by other inmates, of course, but that would really be their actions and not society's.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

I don't understand how people think that punishment by death is any more 'worse' than making someone rot in jail for their whole lives. People let their guilty conscience rule over their moral judgement.

So if it's not any worse, what's the point in it?

And what's moral about killing anyone, no matter who that person might be?

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by Mariah_Carey

So if it's not any worse, what's the point in it?

And what's moral about killing anyone, no matter who that person might be?

The point is the statement that the punishment makes.

And yes I would have no problem killing someone who was a terrorist about to carry out an attack on my home country or someone breaking into my house threatening my family. Yes it probably better to try and debilitate them but when faced in that situation I'm sure you wouldn't cry if you killed them in self-defence.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

The point is the statement that the punishment makes.

And yes I would have no problem killing someone who was a terrorist about to carry out an attack on my home country or someone breaking into my house threatening my family. Yes it probably better to try and debilitate them but when faced in that situation I'm sure you wouldn't cry if you killed them in self-defence.

A terrorist and someone who breaks into your home are two opposing ends of a very large spectrum. I'd hope the "line" would be a lot clearer were this to become a reality.

What statement does this punishment make? Killing is wrong... except when a jury of strangers decide it isn't?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

The point is the statement that the punishment makes.

And yes I would have no problem killing someone who was a terrorist about to carry out an attack on my home country or someone breaking into my house threatening my family. Yes it probably better to try and debilitate them but when faced in that situation I'm sure you wouldn't cry if you killed them in self-defence.

That's totally different. Its called self defense.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

I used to think no, but in certain cases I agree with it. You might know about that family who died in a fire, the mum and the children recently and it's near where I live. A few people have been arrested, and basically the guy not only set fire to the house with innocent children in it but also got his mates to set fire to all escape routes - they knew what they were doing.

Now I'm not saying lets hung, drawn and quarter them in public like medieval times, but privately, and in this case and in similar cases, make sure it's painful.

I don't believe anyone (other than in war) has a right to take a life. A soldier that goes out at the field and shoots at known enemies is very different to someone sitting in a court room, looking a man in the eye and passing a death sentence. That makes us as bad as them. It makes us cold blooded murderers.

Look at the Middle East. An eye for an eye and all that bullsiht. Its backward thinking.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I don't believe anyone (other than in war) has a right to take a life. A soldier that goes out at the field and shoots at known enemies is very different to someone sitting in a court room, looking a man in the eye and passing a death sentence. That makes us as bad as them. It makes us cold blooded murderers.

Look at the Middle East. An eye for an eye and all that bullsiht. Its backward thinking.

Why is killing a child rapist in the middle east with the parents watching backward

is letting him live for 30 years watching sky, wanking over children and his rapes and playing a ps4 progress??

i dont think so

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

Why is killing a child rapist in the middle east with the parents watching backward

is letting him live for 30 years watching sky, wanking over children and his rapes and playing a ps4 progress??

i dont think so

That's an argument for looking at the prison system, not for killing someone.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

Why is killing a child rapist in the middle east with the parents watching backward

is letting him live for 30 years watching sky, wanking over children and his rapes and playing a ps4 progress??

i dont think so

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I don't believe anyone (other than in war) has a right to take a life. A soldier that goes out at the field and shoots at known enemies is very different to someone sitting in a court room, looking a man in the eye and passing a death sentence. That makes us as bad as them. It makes us cold blooded murderers.

Look at the Middle East. An eye for an eye and all that bullsiht. Its backward thinking.

When someone does something as evil as take someone else's life then frankly it doesn't make us as bad as them as all their rights go out the window. I think it's more 'humane' to kill someone than to send them to somewhere like Guantanamo Bay for torture.

And it's not an eye for an eye, it's levelling up what is deemed as the appropriate punishment for a certain type of crime. The only reason these people don't want to get caught is because they want to carry on committing their crime whether it be a serial killer or child rapist, they're not scared of prison and certainly not scared of being killed. Once they've been caught they would probably rather die because they can't continue being evil bastards, and frankly let them.

[Black Dagger]

I'm not blood thirsty enough.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Kylie Christmas

I'm not blood thirsty enough.

the victims family may disagree

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

the victims family may disagree

And plenty don't.