That is a very extreme exaggeration. We are talking about serious crimes here, not simple assaults. The crimes that people should be sentenced to death for are crimes where they have already shown no regard for human life. Besides, that logic isn't exactly true. There have been plenty of murderers who just gave up, they did not care that they were going to be caught even if it meant the death penalty. I don't think expanding the death penalty would have a serious effect on how reckless criminals are. Considering how reckless some people are to evade a simple traffic ticket I would imagine there would be little to no increase on recklessness from murderers and rapist.

In my opinion, any crime can be a serious crime. As Pavelow has said, if I knew that I was going to be put to death anyways, I'd try to cause as much destruction and suffering as I possibly could. It may seem selfish and cowardly, but at the end of the day, people are dead, and I'm dead as well either way. If I wasn't going to be killed, there's a greater chance that I'd surrender.

In my opinion, any crime can be a serious crime. As Pavelow has said, if I knew that I was going to be put to death anyways, I'd try to cause as much destruction and suffering as I possibly could. It may seem selfish and cowardly, but at the end of the day, people are dead, and I'm dead as well either way. If I wasn't going to be killed, there's a greater chance that I'd surrender.

Pretty sure shoplifting is not a serious crime. Also it isn't based on someone's opinion of what a serious crime is; it is based on what has already been established by our justice system and society deems as a serious crime (i.e. murder, rape, etc).

 

And as I stated in my last post assuming what someone will do just because that is what you would do isn't really a valid argument because they are not you. There are plenty of people who have committed some of the most horrendous crimes and gave up peacefully, meanwhile someone else will run from the police just to avoid getting a speeding ticket.

Pretty sure shoplifting is not a serious crime. Also it isn't based on someone's opinion of what a serious crime is; it is based on what has already been established by our justice system and society deems as a serious crime (i.e. murder, rape, etc).

 

And as I stated in my last post assuming what someone will do just because that is what you would do isn't really a valid argument because they are not you. There are plenty of people who have committed some of the most horrendous crimes and gave up peacefully, meanwhile someone else will run from the police just to avoid getting a speeding ticket.

Shoplifting does have the potential to be a serious crime. It varies depending on the specific circumstances really. A serious crime is an opinion. I may think that speeding is a serious crime because the speeder could have hit and killed several people, and damaged property. But someone else could disagree, because a car can only go but so fast. Just because something is established in a system of law doesn't mean that it's fact. It just means that it's what the majority accepted as true.

 

Assuming that someone would act in a certain way is a valid arguement. Given that they and I are under the same or very similar circumstances. It varies from person to person on what they'd do. In opposition to what you've stated before, there have been plenty of cases where people have pulled to the side of the road for a speeding ticket. Or went and shot up a school and went out with a bang, such as taking their own life along with several others.

Shoplifting does have the potential to be a serious crime. It varies depending on the specific circumstances really. A serious crime is an opinion. I may think that speeding is a serious crime because the speeder could have hit and killed several people, and damaged property. But someone else could disagree, because a car can only go but so fast. Just because something is established in a system of law doesn't mean that it's fact. It just means that it's what the majority accepted as true.

 

Assuming that someone would act in a certain way is a valid arguement. Given that they and I are under the same or very similar circumstances. It varies from person to person on what they'd do. In opposition to what you've stated before, there have been plenty of cases where people have pulled to the side of the road for a speeding ticket. Or went and shot up a school and went out with a bang, such as taking their own life along with several others.

Using that logic means that every crime is a serious crime. You are basically playing the "what if" game. What if the shoplifter shoots a loss prevention officer on the way out of the store? What if the shoplifter pushes someone to the ground causing them to crack their skull open? What if the shoplifter trips and lands on the knife in his pocket? We can what if a scenario all day long and come up with thousands of outcomes. This is basically side tracked from the original point. If you commit a serious crime (and not the BS definition of serious) as I had originally outlined (and I'll say it again because people seem to be ignoring it, murder, rape, child molestation) then the death penalty should be a very serious option. You are completely missing my point, any crime has the potential to become serious but until it does you cannot call it a serious crime. Even then, when someone does kill someone because they were speeding they are not getting thrown in prison because they were speeding, they are getting thrown in prison because they killed someone. If speeding were their only charge then they would just be getting a ticket.

 

You just made my point. It varies from person to person on what they would do so you can't say that just because you would do something that is what everyone else would do. Just because you want to fight the police doesn't mean that everyone else that commits that crime wants to fight the police because, like you said, it varies from person to person.

People that give up are the ones that wanted to be caught (whether they know it or not) or know they just are not getting away. Regardless of if there is a death penalty, people that want to go out in a blaze of glory will do so. In my opinion, it does depend on the seriousness of the crime committed, and even that applies to murder. If it was just one purposeful murder, then life in prison without parole is fine. If it was accidental, then maybe a lessor sentence. (I know there are other words for these besides "murder" but I'm an accounting major, not criminal justice). If it was a killing spree like shooting up a school or a movie theater, then death penalty it is.

A shoplifting cannot be considered a serious crime. Like the user above me said, if someone was killed during the shoplifting then that would be murder, a completely different crime. Believe it or not, the justice system does have specific definitions of the severity of crimes...otherwise everyone would always be sentenced the same regardless of what they did.

Using that logic means that every crime is a serious crime. You are basically playing the "what if" game. What if the shoplifter shoots a loss prevention officer on the way out of the store? What if the shoplifter pushes someone to the ground causing them to crack their skull open? What if the shoplifter trips and lands on the knife in his pocket? We can what if a scenario all day long and come up with thousands of outcomes. This is basically side tracked from the original point. If you commit a serious crime (and not the BS definition of serious) as I had originally outlined (and I'll say it again because people seem to be ignoring it, murder, rape, child molestation) then the death penalty should be a very serious option. You are completely missing my point, any crime has the potential to become serious but until it does you cannot call it a serious crime. Even then, when someone does kill someone because they were speeding they are not getting thrown in prison because they were speeding, they are getting thrown in prison because they killed someone. If speeding were their only charge then they would just be getting a ticket.

 

You just made my point. It varies from person to person on what they would do so you can't say that just because you would do something that is what everyone else would do. Just because you want to fight the police doesn't mean that everyone else that commits that crime wants to fight the police because, like you said, it varies from person to person.

"What if" is why rules and laws exist. Whether or not a crime is serious is an opinion, like I've already said. Every crime can be a serious crime, so every crime should be treated like so. Now don't be misunderstood, I'm not saying that someone should be given the death penalty for shoplifting. Whether or not a crime is serious, is entirely circumstantial. Let's look at South Africa for example. There are 50 deaths a day in South Africa. A bank is robbed in South Africa once a week, and the suspect(s) actively shoot during their attempted escape. To the residents of South Africa, this is not a serious crime because it happens all the time. It's what they're used to, and their law enforcement expect it weekly. However in the United States, we very rarely see a full scale robbery. If a bank was robbed and the suspects were actively shooting in their escape, this would be a big deal to us. This would be considered a serious crime, because we aren't used to seeing it. There is no definition of a serious crime, because it's circumstantial and opinionated.

 

If I helped prove one of your arguments, then I agree with it.

On the other side i have no problem to use my gun in some situations .... but i think this is not the same.

 

I am for the social rehabilitation concept of the federal republic of germany because i think that everyone deserves a second chance...

 

And i mean really whats worse ? Sit for the rest of your life in prison ? (Not always used by the German Law, but often) or die ?

 

I would choose to die and not sit in the Prison for 60 Years.....

Edited March 24, 20197 yr by Flari

I personally disagree with it from a religious standpoint but also from a logical standpoint. I think that getting killed is a ticket out of life in prison. In my opinion, life in prison is a far worse punishment than the death penalty. Just my 2 cents.

That is a very extreme exaggeration. We are talking about serious crimes here, not simple assaults. The crimes that people should be sentenced to death for are crimes where they have already shown no regard for human life. Besides, that logic isn't exactly true. There have been plenty of murderers who just gave up, they did not care that they were going to be caught even if it meant the death penalty. I don't think expanding the death penalty would have a serious effect on how reckless criminals are. Considering how reckless some people are to evade a simple traffic ticket I would imagine there would be little to no increase on recklessness from murderers and rapist.

I should have been more clear in my post, I agree with the death penalty on how it's in use at present. Maybe be refined, but I mostly agree with the death penalty. However expanding it to cover anything less than premeditated murder is lessening the deterrent factor of the punishment in my opinion.

"What if" is why rules and laws exist. Whether or not a crime is serious is an opinion, like I've already said. Every crime can be a serious crime, so every crime should be treated like so. Now don't be misunderstood, I'm not saying that someone should be given the death penalty for shoplifting. Whether or not a crime is serious, is entirely circumstantial. Let's look at South Africa for example. There are 50 deaths a day in South Africa. A bank is robbed in South Africa once a week, and the suspect(s) actively shoot during their attempted escape. To the residents of South Africa, this is not a serious crime because it happens all the time. It's what they're used to, and their law enforcement expect it weekly. However in the United States, we very rarely see a full scale robbery. If a bank was robbed and the suspects were actively shooting in their escape, this would be a big deal to us. This would be considered a serious crime, because we aren't used to seeing it. There is no definition of a serious crime, because it's circumstantial and opinionated.

 

If I helped prove one of your arguments, then I agree with it.

How often a crime is committed is not an indication of how serious it is. In South Africa the minimum mandatory sentence for robbery is 15 years imprisonment for a first time offender. So if robberies are occurring as often as you say they are in South Africa and if they don't see it as serious of a crime like you say then why do they have such a harsh punishment for it? That just goes to show that they do take that crime very seriously because I doubt any country would hand out such a harsh sentence for a crime they didn't see as very serious.

I should have been more clear in my post, I agree with the death penalty on how it's in use at present. Maybe be refined, but I mostly agree with the death penalty. However expanding it to cover anything less than premeditated murder is lessening the deterrent factor of the punishment in my opinion.

Maybe it lessens the deterrent factor, maybe it doesn't. In my opinion I couldn't give two shits if it does or doesn't, there will always be people who commit a crime regardless of the punishment. I feel that those people should no longer be able to live the rest of their life because their victim cannot; even if they are still alive they have to deal with the traumatic experience they went through.

Edited October 6, 201411 yr by l3ubba

I am strongly against the death penalty. When someone is murdered it has devastating effects on their entire family. Causing Distress and sorrow throughout the family. Now if you go ahead and kill the murderer that is going to have the same effect on the murderer's family. So why put more people through distress and mourning. Furthermore is see the death penalty as an easy way out for the Murderer or criminal in question as when they are finally executed they do not have to live with what they have done and are put at peace. (As a side note I'm an atheist so don't believe in heaven and hell. When your dead your dead.) So why should the criminal be able to escape what they have done? Lastly sometimes they get the wrong guy and the REAL criminal can still be at large. Killing innocents cannot be justified. The death penalty is issued on to loose grounds. I think if the death penalty is going to exist (Which I don't think it should) then you need 100% SOLID EVIDENCE.

Small crimes I think should be given a 5-20 sentence dependant on crime.

Murder should be served with life in prison

Serial Killers, Rapists, all that crap should be killed.

 

AND these should only be done WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT IT COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN THEM THAT DID IT

Edited October 6, 201411 yr by JASONROCKS1998

I too am torn. I really only support it for inhumane stuff like decapitations, serial killers, serial rapist or maybe terrorist. Not the 14-1700s where people were put to death fro petty thefts and s***

Definitely agree with you and the Pengilosopher. As a Californian, I'm expected to be liberal. I am, but when it comes do guns, capital punishment, and legalizing the weedz, I am quite conservative. I'd say kill a person, but only if they killed more than one person, or killed/sexually assaulted a little kid. That stuff destroys me when I hear it on the news.

I am strongly against the death penalty. When someone is murdered it has devastating effects on their entire family. Causing Distress and sorrow throughout the family. Now if you go ahead and kill the murderer that is going to have the same effect on the murderer's family. So why put more people through distress and mourning. Furthermore is see the death penalty as an easy way out for the Murderer or criminal in question as when they are finally executed they do not have to live with what they have done and are put at peace. (As a side note I'm an atheist so don't believe in heaven and hell. When your dead your dead.) So why should the criminal be able to escape what they have done? Lastly sometimes they get the wrong guy and the REAL criminal can still be at large. Killing innocents cannot be justified. The death penalty is issued on to loose grounds. I think if the death penalty is going to exist (Which I don't think it should) then you need 100% SOLID EVIDENCE.

This is an excellent argument and a great point. But if I had a son, and he raped and killed a girl, I would lose all respect and I wouldn't really directly want him to be killed, but I wouldn't be able to live with him or live with myself knowing my son killed and raped a girl and that I am the father of that very person. I know it's your kid, but I'd be so ashamed.

How often a crime is committed is not an indication of how serious it is. In South Africa the minimum mandatory sentence for robbery is 15 years imprisonment for a first time offender. So if robberies are occurring as often as you say they are in South Africa and if they don't see it as serious of a crime like you say then why do they have such a harsh punishment for it? That just goes to show that they do take that crime very seriously because I doubt any country would hand out such a harsh sentence for a crime they didn't see as very serious.

Maybe it lessens the deterrent factor, maybe it doesn't. In my opinion I couldn't give two shits if it does or doesn't, there will always be people who commit a crime regardless of the punishment. I feel that those people should no longer be able to live the rest of their life because their victim cannot; even if they are still alive they have to deal with the traumatic experience they went through.

15 years of imprisonment being "harsh" is an opinion. 

15 years of imprisonment being "harsh" is an opinion. 

And how often a crime happens does indicate the seriousness of it. If an officer was killed every hour in the United States, it would be a serious issue.

15 years of imprisonment being "harsh" is an opinion. 

And how often a crime happens does indicate the seriousness of it. If an officer was killed every hour in the United States, it would be a serious issue.

 

So you're saying that an officer being killed isn't already a serious issue unless it is very often?

Hey guys so the book I'm reading this man argues that the death penalty is a broken system that cannot be fixed and that life in prison is a good alternative to the death penalty and it accomplishes the same thing a death sentence would. Said by Jon streeter, bill hing and Diane Bella in the opposing viewpoints series.

So you're saying that an officer being killed isn't already a serious issue unless it is very often?

No. What I'm saying is that the rarity of an issue, usually effects it's severity. An officer killed being classified as a serious issue is an opinion. While I believe that anyone being killed is a serious issue, there are millions of others that would disagree and say that someone being killed isn't really a big deal.

I'd like to make a clear difference between execution and murder. The government is not murdering anyone. Murder is defined as an act of killing with malice. If there's no malice then it is NOT murder.

I'd like to make a clear difference between execution and murder. The government is not murdering anyone. Murder is defined as an act of killing with malice. If there's no malice then it is NOT murder.

 

(I'm not saying this to disagree with the death sentence, just to point out a flaw in that logic) 

 

Using that logic, revenge or avenge killing should be perfectly legal.

(I'm not saying this to disagree with the death sentence, just to point out a flaw in that logic)

Using that logic, revenge or avenge killing should be perfectly legal.

But there's still malice in that act. You're killing them because (for the most generic way if putting it) you don't like them; you're acting with evil intentions.