Do You Support the Death Penalty?

Do you support the death penalty?


  • Total voters
    86
Or she's basing it on letting the state kill people to prevent people from being killed.

It almost sounds like a bad science fiction novel.

I wouldn't know I don't read science fiction. Sounds more like a non-fiction bestseller.
 
I don't support the death penalty. No jury or judge can ever be completely sure of guilt.

And DNA evidence can only prove innocence but it cannot prove guilt.

so you're saying that if a victim is raped and murdered and the guys DNA shows up in her vag, that doesn't prove his guilt? really? or if his skin is under her fingernails?

I disagree completely. DNA can prove guilt and it can prove innocence too.
 
so you're saying that if a victim is raped and murdered and the guys DNA shows up in her vag, that doesn't prove his guilt? really? or if his skin is under her fingernails?

I disagree completely. DNA can prove guilt and it can prove innocence too.
No, it only proves that he is the most likely candidate. DNA isn't exact, it just eliminates the majority of the population and narrows down the suspects. It does often help the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement, but it isn't 100% proof.

If your interested I'll see if I can find something for you to read.
 
i couldn't sleep for a month, after reading john grisham's The Chamber, in fact, refused to read another john grisham book after that one! i cried my eyes out, and the old man was guilty that was going to the Death Chamber....at least as an accessory to murder.... but guy that actually did the murder got away with it.....the old man, did not.... disturbing book on the death sentence and death row.... the death Chamber :(

care
 
probably cannot do that if they are electrocuted or lethal injection was used!and most states do not hang anymore!

I watched video of Sadam being hanged the other day, it was disturbing and people were allowed to yell things at him during the process!

On second thought, let's get back to the guillotine. Now we can wish these prisoners can get ahead.
 
On second thought, let's get back to the guillotine. Now we can wish these prisoners can get ahead.
How about a firing squad, it can please cons on both issues of gun control and the death penalty!lol
I nominate Gunny and Retired to the squad!
 
Yes, one of the arguments.

Okay. I accept that societal revenge is a valid point when it comes to sentencing policy. Society is offended when a manifestly inadequate sentence for a crime that offends society's conscience is handed down.

But I would argue against the need for societal revenge, as valid as it is, being a justification for the death penalty. Aside from the fact that it doesn't trump the possibility of execution of innocents, it doesn't reflect that well on a society.
 
Okay. I accept that societal revenge is a valid point when it comes to sentencing policy. Society is offended when a manifestly inadequate sentence for a crime that offends society's conscience is handed down.

But I would argue against the need for societal revenge, as valid as it is, being a justification for the death penalty. Aside from the fact that it doesn't trump the possibility of execution of innocents, it doesn't reflect that well on a society.

What kind of society would be if people committed crimes without retribution?
 
Nonsense. Put the murderers behind bars for the rest of their lives and you have saved lives.

Not necessarily. At that point, they pose a serious risk to other inmates, because they have nothing to lose. Housing inmates who have nothing to lose is a challenge, to say the least. Do you think it is acceptable to provide these convicted murderers with an opportunity to victimize other people? Or, is it that you see prison inmates as less than human, and thus, their victimization doesn't matter?

All morality aside, there are some individuals who are tremendously dangerous to incarcerate, to themselves, to other inmates, and to guards. Some individuals probably should be culled from the herd, for the safety of everyone else.
 
Not necessarily. At that point, they pose a serious risk to other inmates, because they have nothing to lose. Housing inmates who have nothing to lose is a challenge, to say the least. Do you think it is acceptable to provide these convicted murderers with an opportunity to victimize other people? Or, is it that you see prison inmates as less than human, and thus, their victimization doesn't matter?

All morality aside, there are some individuals who are tremendously dangerous to incarcerate, to themselves, to other inmates, and to guards. Some individuals probably should be culled from the herd, for the safety of everyone else.

Death row inmates are segregated from the general population. I disagree with your analogy of 'culling them from the herd'.

They are human beings.

They have to be protected from themselves and others.

Killing them doesn't protect them.
 
Nonetheless, they have opportunities to prey on other inmates, as well as the people who are assigned to guard them. Have you never seen Silence of the Lambs???

tsk, tsk.

Silence of the Lambs is fiction. tsk tsk.
 
Silence of the Lambs is fiction. tsk tsk.

Have you ever been on death row, in real life, Sky? I have. There are still opportunities for inmates to victimize guards and/or other inmates. In fact, this population is one of the most dangerous to guard because they have nothing to lose.

I guess guards don't matter, though.

tsk, tsk. Only violent murderers should be protected....
 
Life matters. All life matters. LWOP is the appropriate sentence. The death penalty is not an appropriate sentence.
 
Have you ever been on death row, in real life, Sky? I have. There are still opportunities for inmates to victimize guards and/or other inmates. In fact, this population is one of the most dangerous to guard because they have nothing to lose.

I guess guards don't matter, though.

tsk, tsk. Only violent murderers should be protected....

I visited a prisoner on death row in San Quentin.
 

Forum List

Back
Top