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.

 

So here's two scenarios:

 

Someone killed my brother or friend or whatever, I found out who it was and had solid evidence that it was him, then killed him.

 

Someone killed a random person, police found out who it was and had solid evidence that it was him, court sentences him to death.

 

I am acting with evil intentions and the court is not?

So here's two scenarios:

Someone killed my brother or friend or whatever, I found out who it was and had solid evidence that it was him, then killed him.

Someone killed a random person, police found out who it was and had solid evidence that it was him, court sentences him to death.

I am acting with evil intentions and the court is not?

Legally they are different. You're acting with evil intentions and wishes. Our of hate and vengeance. The court is following the judgement . The judge doesn't wish evil intentions, nor does the executioner filling the IV.

Legally they are different. You're acting with evil intentions and wishes. Our of hate and vengeance. The court is following the judgement . The judge doesn't wish evil intentions, nor does the executioner filling the IV.

 

Okay, I see your point. I was only asking for the sake of having a better understanding. Obviously I don't believe any one person should act as judge, jury, and executioner; nor do I believe the government is committing murder with the death penalty.

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.

Either you are just trying to be a troll or you have the most screwed up view of the world. Police officers being killed, regardless of how often is a serious issue. Not sure what world you live in but most people you talk to that know what they are talking about would say that it is, especially considering line of duty deaths keep rising each year.

 

15 years imprisonment is a harsh sentence, please find me one reasonable person who says "oh 15 years in prison is nothing".

15 years imprisonment is a harsh sentence, please find me one reasonable person who says "oh 15 years in prison is nothing".

 

It's also harsh letting a violent person roam the streets free so they could potentionally hurt somebody. It's also harsh to "justifiably" end someone's life after they are well secured and put away so they can't hurt nobody. It's just a sanctioned murder no matter how nicely you describe it, lol.

 

Locking them up they got good time to think about what they've done and they can't hurt anybody outside of the facility.

It's also harsh letting a violent person roam the streets free so they could potentionally hurt somebody. It's also harsh to "justifiably" end someone's life after they are well secured and put away so they can't hurt nobody. It's just a sanctioned murder no matter how nicely you describe it, lol.

 

Locking them up they got good time to think about what they've done and they can't hurt anybody outside of the facility.

They committed a heinous crime so the penalty should be severe. Nowhere in this thread did I try to make execution sound nice, it isn't a pleasant subject. Executing someone is a serious matter and should not be taken lightly, but I feel that if you committed such a severe crime then you should be put to death. The video that someone posted earlier gives an excellent example. When a dog attacks someone and injures them the dog usually gets put down, some dogs get put down just because no one wants to adopt them even if they haven't done anything wrong. So what is the difference between putting down a vicious dog and a vicious person? Personally, I don't see a difference. As a matter of fact, putting down a vicious person makes more sense because at least they knew what they were doing (except in certain cases), a dog does not completely understand what it is doing, it is just doing what it's instincts told it to do.

Personally, I think of life in prison without chance of parole as effectively similar to a death sentence -- both have the key effect that you die in prison, never again being out on the street, and both things that should be reserved only for those cases where there's so little chance you could ever be reformed that society can never accept you back among the general public. Between those two, I see no reason to speed up a death -- the main time it has a notably different effect is if someone is later revealed to be innocent (which very much does happen), in which case there's really no argument it'd have been better to kill them before their name could be cleared. Most people would rather be prehumously exonerated than posthumously.

The difference between a dog and a person is that a person is not a dog, and the life of a person is generally considered to be inherently far more valuable than that of a dog. Adopting the standards used on animals to be used on humans would also lead you to conclude police should just shoot people dead on any raid where there might be a threat, because that's pretty much what they do to dogs. We'd also be OK straight-up murdering people with behavioral problems (dogs like that tend to go to shelters, not get adopted, and then euthanized -- sad, but it's not normally considered worth trying to work with them). For that matter, there isn't really such a thing as dog prison, which would have to exist for the comparison to make any kind of sense.

Keep this in mind, too: criminals are people. They aren't subhuman monsters, they're people, often from extremely hard circumstances. The justice system should focus on turning them into not-criminals if at all possible, and discouraging people from becoming criminals; it should not focus on providing vengeance. I know it's an open question whether capital punishment deters crime, but I think the burden of proof ought to fall on those advocating homicide (executions aren't legally murder, but they're undeniably homicide, albeit legally justifiable homicide).

They committed a heinous crime so the penalty should be severe. Nowhere in this thread did I try to make execution sound nice, it isn't a pleasant subject. Executing someone is a serious matter and should not be taken lightly, but I feel that if you committed such a severe crime then you should be put to death. The video that someone posted earlier gives an excellent example. When a dog attacks someone and injures them the dog usually gets put down, some dogs get put down just because no one wants to adopt them even if they haven't done anything wrong. So what is the difference between putting down a vicious dog and a vicious person? Personally, I don't see a difference. As a matter of fact, putting down a vicious person makes more sense because at least they knew what they were doing (except in certain cases), a dog does not completely understand what it is doing, it is just doing what it's instincts told it to do.

 

I get that the punishment should be severe if the crime committed was very heinous, but for it to be so final I find it excessive and immoral. I understand that taking someone's life may be necessary in self defence when no longer there are other options avalible.

 

However, when we're in the court room and this person is in custody, why should they be sentenced to death? Is he/she a threat to all the people in that court in those cuffs? What about in the facility, is he/she a threat to the general public being locked up? No. So why should they be put down? Because they're vicious animals? They're not. They're human beings. Just like you and me, although wired differently and with other physical differences.

 

What makes it really wrong is the fact there has been numerous cases of innocent people on death row getting executed. If they had been serving only a long sentence and they'd be found out, the charges could've been possibly dismissed and those people freed, even awarded money for the damage done. The danger is still out there and rising.

 

I'd like to think rehabilitation has proved pretty effective, (at least in Finland) and it could be applied in some cases in the States. I think it's every 12 years when a convict serving the life sentence is revaluated in regards of them being integrated back to the society. If they're still deemed potentionally too dangerous, they will keep serving the sentence. If not, they could get a second shot.

Edited October 7, 201411 yr by Olanov

I get that the punishment should be severe if the crime committed was very heinous, but for it to be so final I find it excessive and immoral. I understand that taking someone's life may be necessary in self defence when no longer there are other options avalible.

 

However, when we're in the court room and this person is in custody, why should they be sentenced to death? Is he/she a threat to all the people in that court in those cuffs? What about in the facility, is he/she a threat to the general public being locked up? No. So why should they be put down? Because they're vicious animals? They're not. They're human beings. Just like you and me, although wired differently and with other physical differences.

 

What makes it really wrong is the fact there has been numerous cases of innocent people on death row getting executed. If they had been serving only a long sentence and they'd be found out, the charges could've been possibly dismissed and those people freed, even awarded money for the damage done. The danger is still out there and rising.

 

I'd like to think rehabilitation has proved pretty effective, (at least in Finland) and it could be applied in some cases in the States. I think it's every 12 years when a convict serving the life sentence is revaluated in regards of them being integrated back to the society. If they're still deemed potentionally too dangerous, they will keep serving the sentence. If not, they could get a second shot.

Is this something you are assuming or do you have statistical evidence to back up your claims? Because I just did a little bit of research and found a study suggests that approximately 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent. Now, I understand that there is no way of really knowing what the actual number of people is but I have found very few cases (especially from recent years) where people were wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Most of these cases come from 30+ years ago when our forensic technology wasn't as great. There is always a chance that an innocent person could be convicted, but I feel that if they have been through a trial and then multiple appeals and each time they are still found guilty then they are more than likely guilty.

 

Rehab in the U.S. is a joke. I would fully support rehab for certain criminals if our government actually put the right funding into it and did it the right way. Right now the rehab programs we do have are underfunded and are basically pointless. Many of the people who go through it just do it to get their sentence reduced and few of them are actually serious about changing their ways. I know of several countries that have rehab programs for certain offenders and it has worked well, but so far I have not seen it done the correct way in the U.S. and even if it was I don't think murderers should try to be rehabilitated. If they knew what they were doing when they committed the crime then they should be sentenced to death, the person they killed doesn't get to live the rest of their life so neither should they. I know most people see that as a harsh response but I have seen these people and dealt with them and nothing else in this world disgusts me more than them, they act like animals and don't care about anyone except themselves.

Edited October 7, 201411 yr by l3ubba

Is this something you are assuming or do you have statistical evidence to back up your claims? Because I just did a little bit of research and found a study suggests that approximately 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent. Now, I understand that there is no way of really knowing what the actual number of people is but I have found very few cases (especially from recent years) where people were wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Most of these cases come from 30+ years ago when our forensic technology wasn't as great. There is always a chance that an innocent person could be convicted, but I feel that if they have been through a trial and then multiple appeals and each time they are still found guilty then they are more than likely guilty.

 

Even if it's just 4% it could be avoided entirely should there be no capital punishment. Considering the nature of it it is pretty big. It is about taking a life after all. I agree with the latter, though.

 

 

Rehab in the U.S. is a joke. I would fully support rehab for certain criminals if our government actually put the right funding into it and did it the right way. Right now the rehab programs we do have are underfunded and are basically pointless. Many of the people who go through it just do it to get their sentence reduced and few of them are actually serious about changing their ways. I know of several countries that have rehab programs for certain offenders and it has worked well, but so far I have not seen it done the correct way in the U.S.

 

Had no idea how the rehab system is currently in the US, good to know. It would probably be a pretty good idea if they had more funding and was done correctly, though.

 

 

I don't think murderers should try to be rehabilitated. If they knew what they were doing when they committed the crime then they should be sentenced to death, the person they killed doesn't get to live the rest of their life so neither should they. I know most people see that as a harsh response but I have seen these people and dealt with them and nothing else in this world disgusts me more than them, they act like animals and don't care about anyone except themselves.

 

In my opinion, that isn't the way to go. There has been cases in Finland where murderers have been properly rehabilitated and integrated back into the society, one popular case being the one of Lauri Johannson's. He commited two homicides and was convicted to life, for the Finnish justice system doesn't have capital punishment. He eventually admitted guilty and came to faith, I think he now works for the church. I can see it would be questionable if the current rehab system isn't as great but that's why you work for a change.

 

Just because a person has committed something in the past shouldn't completely opt them out of a second shot. That's exactly the type of mentality that makes people want to fight for their freedom,  potentionally harming others and themselves. It is possible to rehabilitate murderes given the right circumstances. Whether they themselves want to turn their life around, is the rehab system itself working properly and funded ect. Sure there's cases where people can't be rehabilitated but that's exactly why they're locked up.

 

One point I forgot to bring up before was that the cost of a case involving capital punishment is also far more expensive than just imprisoment for life. I know I wouldn't want to pay for that.

There's a line that, when crossed, makes your life forfeit, as you've likely already caused someone else to forfeit theirs. Life in prison, on the public's dime (including the friends and family of the victim), with amenities that many law-abiding citizens don't even have access to? There's no "justice" in that.

Either you are just trying to be a troll or you have the most screwed up view of the world. Police officers being killed, regardless of how often is a serious issue. Not sure what world you live in but most people you talk to that know what they are talking about would say that it is, especially considering line of duty deaths keep rising each year.

 

15 years imprisonment is a harsh sentence, please find me one reasonable person who says "oh 15 years in prison is nothing".

Now you're trying to force your opinion on me, and this causes me to lose respect for people. Well to be honest, I never had any respect for you from the start, but now it's just dropped below an acceptable level. You're one of those people that try and force their opinion on others. I've been trying to be reasonable and open-minded to your opinion, but when you just shoot my opinion to the ground as you just did... Makes it exceedingly difficult for me to even take you seriously. If you actually think that I'm trolling, then you must have down syndrome or be mentally challenged, which then I would understand. But nobody I know would jump to that conclusion so quickly, especially under circumstances such as these.

 

15 years of imprisonment being harsh IS AN OPINION. It's NOT a fact for crying out loud. Not only have you completely misinterpreted what I've said, but you've twisted what I said to make it seem like I'm a careless, twisted person. I have no respect or sympathy for someone like that.

Fast Facts: 

As of 1976, 5,000 people have been sentenced to death here in the u.s

 

• In 2005, the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons struck 

down the death penalty for juveniles. 22 defendants had 

been executed for crimes committed as juveniles since 1976.

In my opinion, that isn't the way to go. There has been cases in Finland where murderers have been properly rehabilitated and integrated back into the society, one popular case being the one of Lauri Johannson's. He commited two homicides and was convicted to life, for the Finnish justice system doesn't have capital punishment. He eventually admitted guilty and came to faith, I think he now works for the church. I can see it would be questionable if the current rehab system isn't as great but that's why you work for a change.

 

Just because a person has committed something in the past shouldn't completely opt them out of a second shot. That's exactly the type of mentality that makes people want to fight for their freedom,  potentionally harming others and themselves. It is possible to rehabilitate murderes given the right circumstances. Whether they themselves want to turn their life around, is the rehab system itself working properly and funded ect. Sure there's cases where people can't be rehabilitated but that's exactly why they're locked up.

 

One point I forgot to bring up before was that the cost of a case involving capital punishment is also far more expensive than just imprisoment for life. I know I wouldn't want to pay for that.

That may be true and there have been cases in the U.S. where murderers have turned their life around after they spent time in prison however I do not think it is fair. Where is their victim's second chance? Their victim doesn't get a second shot to continue on with their life so why should the person who took it get one? That is just my view on the subject, obviously there is no right answer on the death penalty because people see things differently. I am just basing my opinion off my experiences in the real world and the research I have done on the topic. There are valid points out there against the death penalty (such as executing an innocent person) and I acknowledge and respect those points however I feel the overwhelming amount of points for the death penalty outweigh the cons.

 

Now you're trying to force your opinion on me, and this causes me to lose respect for people. Well to be honest, I never had any respect for you from the start, but now it's just dropped below an acceptable level. You're one of those people that try and force their opinion on others. I've been trying to be reasonable and open-minded to your opinion, but when you just shoot my opinion to the ground as you just did... Makes it exceedingly difficult for me to even take you seriously. If you actually think that I'm trolling, then you must have down syndrome or be mentally challenged, which then I would understand. But nobody I know would jump to that conclusion so quickly, especially under circumstances such as these.

 

15 years of imprisonment being harsh IS AN OPINION. It's NOT a fact for crying out loud. Not only have you completely misinterpreted what I've said, but you've twisted what I said to make it seem like I'm a careless, twisted person. I have no respect or sympathy for someone like that.

Where did I say you had to accept my opinion? I am simply responding to what you said, no where in any of my posts did I say you had to change your opinion. If you don't want to accept my opinion then don't, it won't hurt my feelings and I won't think any less of you. Not sure why you don't have any respect for me (or didn't from the start) but that just goes to show that you probably didn't have as open of a mind as you say you did. In my opinion (DISCLAIMER: You do not have to accept my opinion) you are just upset that I am bringing up points that you can't find a response to. The whole point of a debate is that one person says what they want to say then the next person has what is called a rebuttal (aka tries to counter what that person says). I am not shooting down your opinion, I am shooting down the points that you are using to back up your opinion with points of my own, that is how a debate works.

 

The reason I think you are trolling is because your past few responses have just been to state what you think and then italicize the word that is opposite of what I said. I would say that how often a crime occurs does not indicate if that is a serious crime or not and I would back it up with facts then you would just respond with the same sentence but just say the opposite of what I said and italicize "does" then not provide any background as to why it does. Which by the way you contradicted yourself, you used an example where bank robberies happen often in South Africa and how they don't see it as serious of a crime as we do in the U.S. and now you are saying that if a police officer was killed every hour in the U.S. that it would be a serious issue. So first you are saying that crimes that happen a lot are not seen as serious because they happen frequently but now you are saying that if another crime was committed every hour it would be serious.

 

If anyone here has misinterpreted something then I think it is you because my original opinion was that people who commit serious crimes (and then I gave examples of serious crimes) should be sentenced to death. Then you come in and start talking about how any crime could be serious depending on the circumstances when I clearly already listed crimes that I said were serious. It isn't like I said "I think the death sentence should be for serious crimes" and then left it open ended, I listed specific crimes.

 

But I see you have resorted to name calling so I can already tell this is no longer a real debate.

 

I'll put in one last disclaimer so that there is no confusion: No one is forced to accept these opinions, they are just that, opinions.

That may be true and there have been cases in the U.S. where murderers have turned their life around after they spent time in prison however I do not think it is fair. Where is their victim's second chance? Their victim doesn't get a second shot to continue on with their life so why should the person who took it get one? That is just my view on the subject, obviously there is no right answer on the death penalty because people see things differently. I am just basing my opinion off my experiences in the real world and the research I have done on the topic. There are valid points out there against the death penalty (such as executing an innocent person) and I acknowledge and respect those points however I feel the overwhelming amount of points for the death penalty outweigh the cons.

 

Yeah, fair enough. It's an interestic topic, that's for sure.

Edited October 7, 201411 yr by Olanov

That may be true and there have been cases in the U.S. where murderers have turned their life around after they spent time in prison however I do not think it is fair. Where is their victim's second chance? Their victim doesn't get a second shot to continue on with their life so why should the person who took it get one? That is just my view on the subject, obviously there is no right answer on the death penalty because people see things differently. I am just basing my opinion off my experiences in the real world and the research I have done on the topic. There are valid points out there against the death penalty (such as executing an innocent person) and I acknowledge and respect those points however I feel the overwhelming amount of points for the death penalty outweigh the cons.

 

Where did I say you had to accept my opinion? I am simply responding to what you said, no where in any of my posts did I say you had to change your opinion. If you don't want to accept my opinion then don't, it won't hurt my feelings and I won't think any less of you. Not sure why you don't have any respect for me (or didn't from the start) but that just goes to show that you probably didn't have as open of a mind as you say you did. In my opinion (DISCLAIMER: You do not have to accept my opinion) you are just upset that I am bringing up points that you can't find a response to. The whole point of a debate is that one person says what they want to say then the next person has what is called a rebuttal (aka tries to counter what that person says). I am not shooting down your opinion, I am shooting down the points that you are using to back up your opinion with points of my own, that is how a debate works.

 

The reason I think you are trolling is because your past few responses have just been to state what you think and then italicize the word that is opposite of what I said. I would say that how often a crime occurs does not indicate if that is a serious crime or not and I would back it up with facts then you would just respond with the same sentence but just say the opposite of what I said and italicize "does" then not provide any background as to why it does. Which by the way you contradicted yourself, you used an example where bank robberies happen often in South Africa and how they don't see it as serious of a crime as we do in the U.S. and now you are saying that if a police officer was killed every hour in the U.S. that it would be a serious issue. So first you are saying that crimes that happen a lot are not seen as serious because they happen frequently but now you are saying that if another crime was committed every hour it would be serious.

 

If anyone here has misinterpreted something then I think it is you because my original opinion was that people who commit serious crimes (and then I gave examples of serious crimes) should be sentenced to death. Then you come in and start talking about how any crime could be serious depending on the circumstances when I clearly already listed crimes that I said were serious. It isn't like I said "I think the death sentence should be for serious crimes" and then left it open ended, I listed specific crimes.

 

But I see you have resorted to name calling so I can already tell this is no longer a real debate.

 

I'll put in one last disclaimer so that there is no confusion: No one is forced to accept these opinions, they are just that, opinions.

I'm too lazy to read all of that. I'll come back and read it, then edit my post. Also I apologize for the "name calling". Didn't realize that this was Kindergarten. 

Edited October 7, 201411 yr by CriminalKillaz

I'm not really against the death penalty, but if somebody murdered or raped someone, I think they deserve to live and suffer for their crimes.

 

I'm too lazy to read all of that. I'll come back and read it, then edit my post. Also I apologize for the "name calling". Didn't realize that this was Kindergarten. 

Yeah I didn't realize it was kindergarten either, but I guess that is what happens when you start getting frustrated, you resort to taking jabs at people for no reason. Not sure what the point of the post is though, if you want to respond to it later than just post a reply later. Whatever does it for you though.

Yeah I didn't realize it was kindergarten either, but I guess that is what happens when you start getting frustrated, you resort to taking jabs at people for no reason. Not sure what the point of the post is though, if you want to respond to it later than just post a reply later. Whatever does it for you though.

I could say the same for you. What was the purpose in you responding to a dead comment? Whatever works I guess. I'll respond to it in a little bit. Still eating oatmeal.

I could say the same for you. What was the purpose in you responding to a dead comment? Whatever works I guess. I'll respond to it in a little bit. Still eating oatmeal.

I was responding because you still seem to want to take little jabs at me which is pretty childish by the way. But its ok, I understand you are just posting stuff to try and get reactions. Don't feel obligated to reply, if you want to go back to having a polite conversation about the topic then let me know. Until then, have a good night.