Go back
Death Penalty Revisited

Death Penalty Revisited

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Rajk999
Rehabilitating murderers is a luxury some countries just cannot afford.
It's not a luxury. For a society to progress in any way it's a central part of what they must do - develop ways to rehabilitate.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by amannion
I guess I have the view that we should punish but also rehabilitate.
For someone who is truly homicidal and sociopathic then locking them away seems to me to be perfectly reasonable.

But for murderers who's motivation is emotional or economic, why not try to rehabilitate. Let's have a go at actually getting something back from these people - that is, le ...[text shortened]... States
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Nice group to be associated with.
talk about your elitist attitudes ....

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by xs
By your definition, being arrested by the police would be state sponsored kidnapping.
(boing!)

we oughtta put this one in the FAQ.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by royalchicken
Second, it's well-known that trying and executing someone costs taxpayers far more money than trying and imprisoning them does. The execution process could be made cheaper, but at the cost of a less reliable procedure for appeals, making innocents even more likely to be executed.

There are also significant moral arguments against executing actual gu ...[text shortened]... u're interested. The two above reasons are in themselves sufficient for ending this practice.
if it costs far more to try and execute, that's per the will of anti-DP lobby, not the DP lobby, so don't cry about it.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by amannion
It's murder, pure and simple. Actually worse than that, it's state sponsored murder.

Which we get all up in arms about when it's some authoritarian dictatorship ...
It's not murder, aman, it's a case of public justice. When do we get up in arms about authoritarian dictatorships using the death penalty as a punishment for murder?

Vote Up
Vote Down

All I can say is, let the man/woman on death row come stay with you for a night and this is for the anti death pentalty people. I'm talking about Ted Bundy, John Gacy, Nickoli Chickotilo (spelling is not right), Jeffrey Dalhmer, etc. and after they kill you then we will excute them.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
if it costs far more to try and execute, that's per the will of anti-DP lobby, not the DP lobby, so don't cry about it.
No, it's per the will of those who would not have innocent people executed. Would you prefer executions to be carried out quickly and on the cheap, with no appeals process or mechanisms for ensuring that the person being executed is in fact a criminal?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by royalchicken
No, it's per the will of those who would not have innocent people executed.
I'm sure no-one wants that, but what is the average time spent in jail before execution?
Isn't it many many years? This is the reason for high cost for death penalty (incarceration costs + lawyers fees mostly I would guess).
Surely even a very thorough trial and appeal should not stretch out for so long.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by royalchicken
No, it's per the will of those who would not have innocent people executed. Would you prefer executions to be carried out quickly and on the cheap, with no appeals process or mechanisms for ensuring that the person being executed is in fact a criminal?
yes i would, esp. re tying effort expended to the degree of certainty, and eliminating the randomness of a jury trial and judicial discretion in sentencing. the legal industry is an industry, no mistake. everywhere else you see forward progress, but not here.

(p.s. what are you doing on sasquatch's couch? is it a paisley?)

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Varg
I'm sure no-one wants that, but what is the average time spent in jail before execution?
Isn't it many many years? This is the reason for high cost for death penalty (incarceration costs + lawyers fees mostly I would guess).
Surely even a very thorough trial and appeal should not stretch out for so long.
In America the average time on death row before execution appeals run out is something like 15 years, unless you're in Texas, where it's under 20 minutes.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by amannion
It's not a luxury. For a society to progress in any way it's a central part of what they must do - develop ways to rehabilitate.
When you dont have food or shelter, it certainly is.

You dont seem to be a well travelled or knowledgeable person. Where are you from? Have you been anywhere except your hometown ?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
yes i would, esp. re tying effort expended to the degree of certainty, and eliminating the randomness of a jury trial and judicial discretion in sentencing. the legal industry is an industry, no mistake. everywhere else you see forward progress, but not here.

(p.s. what are you doing on sasquatch's couch? is it a paisley?)
Eliminating the randomness of a jury trial? I agree that I would not fancy putting my life in the hands of most randomly selected groups of twelve people (especially after reading a lot of RHP posts), but what's the immediate alternative?

I'm on sasquatch's couch being psychoanalysed.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by amannion
That's idiotic.
Many prisoners become rehabilitated after their period of incarceration is over. Admittedly it could be done better, but how when there are so many like you who'd rather just lock them up and throw away the keys?
Have you ever met a rehabilitated sociopath? No, you couldn't have, because they don't change, ever. All you can do is kill them after they get caught so they don't get a chance to do it again. That's the best option.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by General Putzer
Have you ever met a rehabilitated sociopath? No, you couldn't have, because they don't change, ever. All you can do is kill them after they get caught so they don't get a chance to do it again. That's the best option.
No, the best option is to work towards a society where sociopathic behaviour is not encouraged. That is, a society where we respect people, where we fight poverty, and where everyone has a chance to succeed.
Killing people doesn't really make such a society possible now, does it?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

No, it just keeps a lot of people safe from predators. What's wrong with that?.

P.S> you sound like a big douchebag