Death Penalty Question

[Frodo]

I think for death penalty proponents, it's worth thinking about what exactly life imprisonment entails.

And if you read all the accounts of prison rape, forced 'marriages', and auctions of said 'brides', it's easy to understand why such a sentence would be a fate worse than death.  Particularly for those who are not physically gifted by nature.  

Well of course most 'civilized' countries don't include rape and severe emotional and physical abuse in the standard punishment they dole out to even the most banal of criminals. Might want to fix that one too.

Well, it isn't exactly endorsed by the government if that's what you're implying.  It just comes with the territory.  We can't really control what prisoners do to one another when the guard's back is turned.  

At least our prisons no longer resemble Shawshank in which beatings of prisoners by guards were a regular part of life.  

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

I/O: DP - I also support death penalty for drug traffickers.

Fascist.

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

I/O: DP - I also support death penalty for drug traffickers.

Fascist.

Please, explain, what fascistic about executing people who sell death to our children?

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

Please, explain, what fascistic about executing people who sell death to our children?

"Who sell death to our children"

The drug most sold and used in America is marijuana, which has caused...let's see...1, 2, 3, a total of 0 (yes, ZERO) deaths. One would need to smoke a few hundred grams of marijuana per second in order to overdose.

It should not be a crime to put into one's own body what we choose. Hamburgers and steak and ice cream can be just as unhealthy and life threatening as drugs, yet only drugs are illegal. It's only illegal cuz the government can make a hefty profit taxing citizens for a war that needn't even be fought. Politicians talk so much about how our prisons are overcrowded and there's no space to put violent criminals, well then why not make more room by freeing the non-violent criminals who were arrested for having an eighth of a gram of marijuana on their person. It's ludicrous to suggest that just because someone does drugs that they are automatically a violent and deplorable person. Drugs do not make people bad, bad attitudes towards drugs does. The more something is prohibited, the more likely people are to do it. It's why alcohol became a lot more popular in the 20s during prohibition. Tell me, if heroin became legal tomorrow, would you do heroin? Would your family do heroin? Would any logical person on this forum or in the world do heroin? No. Only those who had been doing heroin while it was illegal would still do heroin. It's not like if drugs became legal, we'd automatically forget that they can be dangerous and ruin our lives. In fact, the number of people doing drugs would likely decrease cuz there's no longer that feeling of "wow I'm such a badass for smoking pot even though it's illegal."

[Grumps]

Is the death penaly really a major partisan issue?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If we're heading off topic to drugs, here's my batsh**t crazy stance: I don't care about the facts of drug use. I think there's value in having the psychological moral line of illegal drugs. You succomb, break the law, and show your true character... or you don't. I wouldn't care if a study came out saying drugs were healthy. I think it's a good judge of character because it's a line people encounter regularly, unlike murder.

But that's totally off-topic.

In terms of the death penalty... I used to be all for it. But I got thinking about how pro-life I am regarding abortion, and it just didn't make sense for me to support the death penalty. While I firmly believe that the generic criminal in question would deserve to die, I don't believe it can ever be the state's role to condone institutionalized death.

[muon2]

I read the question as a single murder by a person with a previous record of sexual assault, or with that sexual assault as part of the murder. I would not generally favor the death penalty in that case. If however it was for a subsequent murder I think it should be eligible for the death penalty. This leaves DP as a punishment for serial killers. It also provides for a harsher punishment for murderers who kill again while in prison for life.

[Torie]

I am close to Muon2. In general, death should be left for those who have nothing to lose because they are already lifers, but I also go for Old Sparky for certain murders where the circumstances are aggravated, and kidnapping from a supermarket, and then torturing and raping, some little girl, seem to me to qualify. Fry but fry sparingly, just like we should use the F word, so that when we use it, it just carries more freight, and sends a clearer societal message.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     I oppose the death penalty, unconditionally. Don't really agree with conceding the power of life & death to the state, personally.

[dialectical fetishist]

Please, explain, what fascistic about executing people who sell death to our children?

"Who sell death to our children"

The drug most sold and used in America is marijuana, which has caused...let's see...1, 2, 3, a total of 0 (yes, ZERO) deaths. One would need to smoke a few hundred grams of marijuana per second in order to overdose.

It should not be a crime to put into one's own body what we choose. Hamburgers and steak and ice cream can be just as unhealthy and life threatening as drugs, yet only drugs are illegal. It's only illegal cuz the government can make a hefty profit taxing citizens for a war that needn't even be fought. Politicians talk so much about how our prisons are overcrowded and there's no space to put violent criminals, well then why not make more room by freeing the non-violent criminals who were arrested for having an eighth of a gram of marijuana on their person. It's ludicrous to suggest that just because someone does drugs that they are automatically a violent and deplorable person. Drugs do not make people bad, bad attitudes towards drugs does. The more something is prohibited, the more likely people are to do it. It's why alcohol became a lot more popular in the 20s during prohibition. Tell me, if heroin became legal tomorrow, would you do heroin? Would your family do heroin? Would any logical person on this forum or in the world do heroin? No. Only those who had been doing heroin while it was illegal would still do heroin. It's not like if drugs became legal, we'd automatically forget that they can be dangerous and ruin our lives. In fact, the number of people doing drugs would likely decrease cuz there's no longer that feeling of "wow I'm such a badass for smoking pot even though it's illegal."

Are you trying to use logic with a social conservative?

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

Good point...

[Free Palestine]

I oppose state-sanctioned murder, thank you very much.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Republican; I'm neutral on the death penalty and can see both sides, so to be safe, I said life in prison without parole.

[Old Europe]

Neither.

There's no "life with parole" option.

[I left.]

Neither.

There's no "life with parole" option.

Agree entirely.

99% of life sentences should at least have that option. Extreme cases like Breivik being an exception that I think should not necessarily grant that option.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

No longer support the death penalty, ftr.

[© Tweed the Younger]

false dichotomy in the poll, no?

[opebo]

Where the heck is the reasonable option? 

[Emperor Dubya]

Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

This is a fun new poster.

[Supersonic]

Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

This is a fun new poster.

MustCrushCapitalism vs. Emperor Dubya.

Oh what a treat!

[Dr. Cynic]

Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

Lol.... Moron.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

This is a fun new poster.

Yeah, 'new'....

[Emperor Dubya]

Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

Lol.... Moron.

Forgive me for having no sympathy for serial killers, rapists and child molesters....but of course, its 'societies' fault.