Death Penalty

[Tribesman]

Kill them all and let god sort out which ones were innocent .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Kill them all and let god sort out which ones were innocent .

But who will kill the killers, after said killers have killed the rest? Do try to think ahead.

Ummm... no I didn't attack anyone here. I attacked a political/moral view and talked figuratively in my historical example. People shouldn't take offense at such things. So if I would say (another topic), that if you support the American government that kidnaps people and hands them over to countries who specialize in torture, you are supporting an inhuman, barbarian practice, would that also be an infractable offense at the Backroom + the thread locked?

Sorry, but you didn't say that. You personally insulted the people who disagreed with you.

CR

[PowerWizard]

Sorry, but you didn't say that. You personally insulted the people who disagreed with you.

No, I didn't. First off, I can't insult ten millions of people personally who support death penalty for no apparent reason other than obstinately sticking to their outdated traditions. Secondly (again), I was talking figuratively in my historical example, not to be meant literally. Come on guys, chill out. Let's continue this debate.

[Vuk]

Kill them all and let god sort out which ones were innocent .

It is like saying that police should not respond to school shootings, because we may accidently inflict freindly fire while saving people's lives. Yeah, it happens, and it really is a shame, but the answer is not to stop doing what saves the lives of innocents, but to take steps to reduce "friendly-fire" by overhauling our ed-up justice system. Sure, it still could happen, just like with the best procedures and plans police could accidently hit innocents when they are saving a classroom from a school shooter, but there is always a chance of that and you should do your best to minimize the chance. Oh dear, innocents are killed in car crashez! Banz auots! hhmmmm...or try to minimize the possibility of that happening. You cannot judge something entirely because there is a chance that mistakes can be made, mistakes can be made in many areas of life that lead to innocent people's deaths. The thing to do is focus on making sure that your system minimises the possibility. The death penalty, like police responding to school shootings saves the lives of innocents, and with both of those (and driving) there is a chance innocents can die, but that does not make them bad.
I believe that every murderer and rapist should be put to death. Mainly because it will deter others from doing the same thing, and because it gets rid of the chance of repeat offenders. Another thing is, that if done correctly (unlike the messed up system we have now), it could actually save a lot of money. Give deathpenalty cases highest priority so we can work through the appeals in a few months, then give them a volley in the head. What would that cost, 32 cents per round? That is pretty cheap. Then turn their bodies over to their families to dispose of, and if they do not want them, dump them into the sea or donate them to research and medicine. If people knew that is what would happen to them if they raped someone or murdered someone, you would have a lot fewer rapists and murderers, and probably a lot fewer total deaths, both innocent and guilty.

[Tribesman]

It is like saying that police should not respond to school shootings

Reading problems

[Vuk]

Reading problems

Was I wrong then in assuming that you were being sarcastic?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't buy the argument that the death penalty is impractical because you can't undo it if someone is later found to be innocent. You can't give someone back 27 years of their life either. With or without the death penalty, a very, very small minority will suffer injustice and be falsely charged. However, this cannot stand as a barrier to having any sort of effective justice system on the larger scale.

People say you have to be as close as possible to 100% certain of a person's guilt before administering the death penalty, but then I would think the same applies to sentencing a person to prison. What do judges say? "Oh well, he's only going inside for a couple of years so it doesn't matter". Hmm don't think so.

[InsaneApache]

I used to be in favour of the death penalty but recent miscarriagies of justice, here in the UK, has changed my mind.

I still think scumbags like Sutcliffe and Neilson should get the chop though. Contradictory? Of course, it's part of the human condition.

[PowerWizard]

What do judges say? "Oh well, he's only going inside for a couple of years so it doesn't matter". Hmm don't think so.

Which judge said that? Quote and link the source or it didn't happen.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Which judge said that? Quote and link the source or it didn't happen.

Of course it didn't happen, that's my point. Should you not be as close to 100% certain as possibe before sentencing someone to prison?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't buy the argument that the death penalty is impractical because you can't undo it if someone is later found to be innocent. You can't give someone back 27 years of their life either. With or without the death penalty, a very, very small minority will suffer injustice and be falsely charged. However, this cannot stand as a barrier to having any sort of effective justice system on the larger scale.

Which is better, to spend 10 years in prison and be executed or 11 years and be released? Removing the death penalty allows for the possibility of new evidence coming to light.

[rory_20_uk]

Which is better, to spend 10 years in prison and be executed or 11 years and be released? Removing the death penalty allows for the possibility of new evidence coming to light.

Not using the death penalty also allows this. There are some situations where guilt is certain. The recent gun rampages america has been enjoying. No doubt they did it. So only use if when certain. The fact that this might not be that often is not in itself a problem. We don't ban nukes just because we don't fire them on a weekly basis.