Your Stance on death penalty?

[columbus]

I think medium scale drug dealers (not to mention the big time) kill more people than most murderers do.

Tom

I am in favour of death penalty on cases of murder. But totally and completely opposed to it when it comes down to drug selling ( of any kind ).

 

[columbus]

Are you in favor of death penalty or not, and why?

From my religious point of view and from humane perspective i believe death penalty is needed. Its effective.
People will think twice about committing murder or dealing in hard drugs.

I believe it is immoral for human beings to choose death for other human beings, so I generally oppose the death penalty.

Tom

 

[Koldo]

I think medium scale drug dealers (not to mention the big time) kill more people than most murderers do.

Tom

The intent is completely different.

 

[Cephus]

In many times the punishment outweighs the crime. just the fact that innocent people have been put to death for crimes they didn't commit, I think, should be enough to make us want to try to find a better way. I personally think much of our "punishment" system needs an overhaul, with more focus on rehabilitation in most cases. Our prisons are too full, with punishments harsher than the crimes committed in many cases. It is just my opinion that we need to grow, need to evolve, need to come up with something better.

When the death penalty is used primarily for murderers, how can he punishment outweigh the crime? I honestly don't think that "innocent" people being put to death is a sufficient reason not to put the guilty to death, it just means that we need to be more careful and learn from our mistakes. Is it tragic? Certainly. Is that sufficient reason not to do it? No.

The only reason the prisons are full is because we are imprisoning people who have no business being there. Drug users should not be in prison, they should be in treatment programs. Murderers should not be in prison, they should be executed. The fact that it takes over 20 years to actually kill one of these monsters is absurd. Clear out those two classes and you eliminate a large percentage of the prison population.

 

[Cephus]

The intent is completely different.

I think intent isn't as important as people pretend that it is. Regardless, someone is dead. I don't think their families much care if their death was intentional or not, they have still lost a loved one. Now if something is an accident, done without having any idea of the potential consequences, that's one thing. Drug dealers are peddling a poison, known to harm or kill users. There is no way they don't understand the potential consequences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When we can prove guilt 100% and there is no longer even the hope of a chance of mistake, we can kill people for their crimes in good conscience. Not before.

Not even then. Not until killing the offender serves some legitimate, overwhelming purpose that life in prison doesn't.

In a free and just society, every new law - or every law made more severe - must be supported by compelling justification.

 

[columbus]

[QUOTE="Cephus, post: 4125666, member] I honestly don't think that "innocent" people being put to death is a sufficient reason not to put the guilty to death, it just means that we need to be more careful and learn from our mistakes. Is it tragic? Certainly....
The fact that it takes over 20 years to actually kill one of these monsters is absurd.[/QUOTE]

You don't see the contradiction here? We invest years and millions and still make mistakes.

That isn't my point though. Mine is that killing humans when there is another viable option is detrimental to the human situation, do it's wrong.
I don't lose any sleep over it though. There are too many more pressing issues.

Tom

 

[Vinayaka]

I think its absolutely barbaric, and am glad I live in a country where it is abolished.

 

[Draka]

When the death penalty is used primarily for murderers, how can he punishment outweigh the crime? I honestly don't think that "innocent" people being put to death is a sufficient reason not to put the guilty to death, it just means that we need to be more careful and learn from our mistakes. Is it tragic? Certainly. Is that sufficient reason not to do it? No.

The only reason the prisons are full is because we are imprisoning people who have no business being there. Drug users should not be in prison, they should be in treatment programs. Murderers should not be in prison, they should be executed. The fact that it takes over 20 years to actually kill one of these monsters is absurd. Clear out those two classes and you eliminate a large percentage of the prison population.

You are certainly free to disagree with me, but I still hold out hope for a better system, a better way of doing things. Until then, we unfortunately have to make do with what we have.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Against it. Doesn't really work as a deterrent. Innocents have been put down. Ties up our legal system with costly appeal after appeal. It makes the state, the legal system, no better than the ones being "punished".

I find it pathetic the state tells us not to murder, and then it bestows upon itself the "right" to murder, just as long as they call it something other than murder.

The death penalty was never meant to be a deterrent, it is a punishment. It is inherent for the State to enact and enforce this punishment on those that purposely take another's life. There is obviously no true deterrent to crime, but the death penalty certainly deters this particular felon from committing any more violent acts.

The risk of putting the innocent to death is still too high. The very fact that many innocent people have been wrongly put on death row, many of them killed, for committing no crime at all, should be more than enough to abolish it. Imprisoning the innocent is bad enough, but they can be let out. You cannot resurrect the dead.

I think medium scale drug dealers (not to mention the big time) kill more people than most murderers do.

Then we need to put to death the executives of all alcohol companies, all tobacco company executives, and all companies that manufacture opiate-narcotics as well as the doctors who prescribe them, because when it comes to "drugs," those three are the deadliest, most destructive, most addictive, and have destroyed far more lives than the so-called "hard" drugs.

 

[columbus]

The reason i asked this question is becausd Indonesia executed drugsdealers from various countries such as Australia and Netherlands. So i wanted to know your stance.

I would make a big distinction between places like the USA and places where law abiding folks don't get enough to eat or decent clothing and shelter.

Tom

 

[Uberpod]

Are you in favor of death penalty or not, and why?

Not at all. Too many innocent people die. Life in prison protects society about as well with no state sponsored murder. What kind of role model can the state be, if it sees killing as a valid way of solving problems?

From my religious point of view and from humane perspective i believe death penalty is needed. Its effective.
People will think twice about committing murder or dealing in hard drugs.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. People commit many violent crimes impulsively and/ or do not let possible consequences stop their antisocial behavior. Look at the stats.

 

[columbus]

Then we need to put to death the executives of all alcohol companies, all tobacco company executives, and all companies that manufacture opiat

Take it up with Cephus. I oppose CP generally.

Tom

 

[Nietzsche]

I think intent isn't as important as people pretend that it is.

Every individual to ever possess a law degree or legal mind back to the foundation of human society just either had a stroke or is rolling in their grave.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm still against the death penalty because bad verdicts should be reversible.

 

[Nietzsche]

Not even then. Not until killing the offender serves some legitimate, overwhelming purpose that life in prison doesn't.

In a free and just society, every new law - or every law made more severe - must be supported by compelling justification.

Everyone dies. You're not going to avoid it, what matter is it how much sooner it's made if it's your own fault?

 

[Deidre]

Eye for an eye never brings about a greater good. NEVER.
Violence begets more violence. My gosh, look at our war-torn world, if you don't believe that.

 

[Cephus]

You don't see the contradiction here? We invest years and millions and still make mistakes.

We're human, we're always going to make mistakes. Welcome to reality. We're never going to be perfect in anything that we do. If you think we are, you have entirely unrealistic expectations.

That isn't my point though. Mine is that killing humans when there is another viable option is detrimental to the human situation, do it's wrong.

Humans don't generally mean much of anything, sorry. This is just an emotional reaction on your part. The only thing that really matters is society as a whole. Individuals aren't that important. Besides, sticking these animals in a prison for the rest of their life and never, ever letting them out seems absurd. It's expensive, it's a waste of space and a waste of time. So other than making you feel better, what does LWOP actually solve?

I don't lose any sleep over it though. There are too many more pressing issues.

Yet you posted on this thread.

 

[Cephus]

You are certainly free to disagree with me, but I still hold out hope for a better system, a better way of doing things. Until then, we unfortunately have to make do with what we have.

I'd much rather have better people that make all of it unnecessary but I'm not holding my breath. Until we get an entirely better class of people, there are some who have proven they have no right to breathe the same air as decent people.

 

[Cephus]

I'm still against the death penalty because bad verdicts should be reversible.

Bad verdicts are *NEVER* reversible. If you put someone in prison for all of their useful life, only to let them out when they're old, no amount of money that you throw at them will ever make up for the time they rotted behind bars.