|
Death Penalty
|
View this Thread in Original format
| winston |
Amanda O'Brien wrote:
Can't believe 2 weeks of covering the capital murder trial of amy hebert is almost over.just waiting for the jury to decide if she gets the death penalty for stabbing her 2 kids and dog to death.
Amanda O'Brien at 1:58pm May 14 via Facebook Mobile wrote:
You know what knight ryan...she can't help it that satan told her to get the 11 knives (1 of which was electric) and stab her family so they could all go to heaven together. She was just doing what the voice told her to do...jeez
http://www.wdsu.com/news/13931336/detail.html
are you in favor or against the death penalty? should it be abolished or kept? is it beneficial or detrimental for the legal system? |
|
|
| Brian Scott |
Before I go on, I consider myself to lean slightly left of the middle overall. But I am a firm believer in the death penalty and I believe it wholly underutilized.
I'm not opposed to torture in certain scenarios either. |
|
|
| Ian |
| In favour, providing the evidence is concrete. People need more deterrents for things and esp in the UK the justice system needs completely changing. life means life for one. |
|
|
| Brian Scott |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ian
In favour, providing the evidence is concrete. People need more deterrents for things and esp in the UK the justice system needs completely changing. life means life for one. |
I agree 100%. If you are convicted of 1st degree murder, you should be sentenced to death. And I'm not talking about sitting on death row for 25 years. You get one appeal. If you lose that appeal, you get euthanized within 48 hours.
Now for serial murderers and convicted terrorists, the government should have a public viewing of the torture and subsequent death. Sell tickets at the venue and Pay-Per-View for those at home. Instead of spending countless thousands to keep these people alive in prison, we should instead make exponentially more $ by selling it as a must-see event. The benefits greatly outweigh the negatives.
Oh, and why not use our career criminals as human guinea pigs for medical testing? |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
The cost of litigation during appeals in death penalty cases is often so overwhelming that the murder of a few people does not justify the burden of the case being put on the rest of the people in the state. I do not want to pay to keep defending the appeals of some idiots death sentence, I don't care how bad the victims family suffered.
It is cheaper to keep them in prison for life. In most cases if their crime is heinous enough than the prison system will sort out a just punishment via "extracurricular" activities. :) |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| I would favor it if I had substantial confidence in the accuracy of the results of criminal trials. Alas, the conclusion of a gaggle of random idiots picked off the street does not inspire such confidence. Imagine that. |
|
|
| montana |
| the execution scene in bangkok hilton was good. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
Also I question the people who demand blood for blood in criminal cases. Denying someone their freedom, keeping them locked away like an animal with no chance of escape is far more of a punishment.
In death there is freedom.
*edit*
In that regards, death for lesser crimes might be more fitting. Death for grand-theft or other crimes that are easily repeated by people, but do not justify a long prison sentence. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I would favor it if I had substantial confidence in the accuracy of the results of criminal trials. Alas, the conclusion of a gaggle of random idiots picked off the street does not inspire such confidence. Imagine that. |
^ Agree completely. And if the mistaken verdict of the "gaggle of idiots" is eventually found to be erroneous, you can't "take back" the death penalty or even give the wrongly convicted person any compensation, since he's dead. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Brian Scott
I agree 100%. If you are convicted of 1st degree murder, you should be sentenced to death. And I'm not talking about sitting on death row for 25 years. You get one appeal. If you lose that appeal, you get euthanized within 48 hours.
Now for serial murderers and convicted terrorists, the government should have a public viewing of the torture and subsequent death. Sell tickets at the venue and Pay-Per-View for those at home. Instead of spending countless thousands to keep these people alive in prison, we should instead make exponentially more $ by selling it as a must-see event. The benefits greatly outweigh the negatives.
Oh, and why not use our career criminals as human guinea pigs for medical testing? |
First off, that just seems immature, watching the torture of people will do nothing productive. If anything it will make people more violent.
Second, keeping the number of people who are on death row in prison for life would not increase the amount of money by any noticeable margin. In the US they are often on death row for multiple decades while the appeal process is handled. This costs millions of tax payer dollars on top of the cost of keeping that person on death row. It just doesn't make sense.
Life in prison with a minimal and strict set of appeals rules would be the most cost effective way of keeping people who are dangerous and deserving of a life of solitude and confinement while also satisfying international law and scrutiny. |
|
|
| bananas |
| quote: | Originally posted by Brian Scott
Before I go on, I consider myself to lean slightly left of the middle overall. But I am a firm believer in the death penalty and I believe it wholly underutilized.
I'm not opposed to torture in certain scenarios either. |
+1
For example they should cut pedopholiles' balls first and leave them in agony for a lil bit. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by bananas
+1
For example they should cut pedopholiles' balls first and leave them in agony for a lil bit. |
Acting purely on emotion is never a good way to handle anything. |
|
|
|
|
