[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[Black Dagger]

I'm not blood thirsty enough.

[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

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Kylie Christmas

I'm not blood thirsty enough.

the victims family may disagree

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

the victims family may disagree

And plenty don't.

[DemolitionRed]

Another thing,

A human hand is still needed to kill a person. Yes, we call it a 'state killing' but its a physical being that has to turn that switch, press that button, pull that trigger or put a noose around that persons neck. A human has to live with his actions of killing someone.

And what about the doctor who needs to assess if the prisoner is fit enough for execution and declare the prisoner dead after the deed is done. A doctor who has taken an oath to never deliberately hurt or kill someone.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Originally Posted by Mariah Christmas

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.

Eh? You need to look further up the list- it's not in order of conviction date. There are several much more recent. Also, if you look at the right hand side of the table, many of these cases involved DNA evidence, which proves that even modern techniques don't always get it right.

[lewis111]

Parts of America have the death penalty yet they have the largest percentage of their population in prison worldwide
A suggestion for both countries would be, instead of just killing people off to make room, stop giving people prison time for petty drug crimes and focus more on rehabilitiom for smaller crimes rather than pure punishment

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Originally Posted by lewis111

Parts of America have the death penalty yet they have the hugest percentage of their population in prison worldwide
A suggestion for both countries would be, instead of just killing people off to make room, stop giving people prison time for petty drug crimes and focus more on rehabilitiom for smaller crimes rather than pure punishment

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by lewis111

Parts of America have the death penalty yet they have the hugest percentage of their population in prison worldwide
A suggestion for both countries would be, instead of just killing people off to make room, stop giving people prison time for petty drug crimes and focus more on rehabilitiom for smaller crimes rather than pure punishment

I just read that it costs an average $250 million for every prisoner that is executed.

A murder trial with the prosecutor calling for the death penalty costs millions more than one where the sought verdict is life without parole. Additionally, the accommodation of death row prisoners is several times more expensive than that of regular prisoners, and the procedure itself also costs a ridiculous amount of money, especially if the method of execution is lethal injection. The drugs that are used are very specific and can’t really be replaced or substituted without risking horrible side effects (Pancuronium Bromide, the drug used second in the sequence, relaxes the muscles and paralyses the body, including the diaphragm, causing the prisoner to slowly suffocate to death unless they’re not given the other two drugs as well, which knock them out and stop the heart). At the end of the day, even if you hold someone in prison for 50 years, that’s still not going to cost nearly as much as an execution would.
http://www.cuadp.org/why-the-death-penalty-is-wrong/

[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.

[joeysteele]

I've always had times of yes and no on this issue.

If there was a vote to bring it back I'd vote no at this time.

Those who murder children particularly have me wrestling with this issue.

However one mistake,for me anyway,would be in itself too many and unacceptable.
I really think no matter the criteria mistakes could occur.

So for me,no.