By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Death Penalty: Does your country have it?

Tagged games:

 

Death penalty?

Yes! 39 21.08%
 
No. 146 78.92%
 
Total:185

Canada, and no. I don't agree with it, with the exception for the worst of crimes (like shooting up a school full of children, or something along those lines).



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

Around the Network
McDonaldsGuy said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Seriously? Euthanesia is death by choice, it's not murder.

Committing a murder is also a choice, you do realize that right? When a murderer murders, s/he accepts the death penalty.

No, you are throwing together two entirely different things. Euthanasia is not murder. And even if a person kills someone, it's not the task of the penal system to take that person's life.



WolfpackN64 said:
McDonaldsGuy said:

Committing a murder is also a choice, you do realize that right? When a murderer murders, s/he accepts the death penalty.

No, you are throwing together two entirely different things. Euthanasia is not murder. And even if a person kills someone, it's not the task of the penal system to take that person's life.

It's not the task of the healthcare system to take a person's life either. Hippocratic oath anyone?

The penal system can decide any punishment it wants btw. When someone commits murder, they accept they could get the death penalty. When you touch a hot stove, you accept you will get burnt.



barneystinson69 said:

Canada, and no. I don't agree with it, with the exception for the worst of crimes (like shooting up a school full of children, or something along those lines).

Death penalty on the table if there was extensive and henious torture involved in the murder, or if 2+ people were murdered. Yeah?



scrapking said:
Dunban67 said:
i am for the death penalty but as it exist in the US it does not work to prevent crime but it does work well as a negotiating tool for prosecuters

The main reason the death penalty does not work as a deterent today is it takes so many years between being sentenced and actual administering and relative to the number of crimes comitted that are eligible for the death penalty, it is quite rare and infrequent that it is actually used

Honestly public hanging would work far better as a deterent-

Psychologists tell us...  and it makes a tonne of sense...  that the death penalty is not any kind of deterrent to the kinds of crimes that prosecutors seek the death penalty for.

Most crimes where the proesecution asks for the suspect to be put to death are for crimes of desperation, or crimes of passion.  You kill your partner in a fit of rage, you do a violent crime (and someone gets hurt) because you're desperately poor, etc.  For those kinds of crimes, generally *no* punishment could be any kind of deterrent, because the person is not acting in a cold and calculated fashion, they're acting out of passionate impulsiveness.  And if they *are* doing that kind of crime in a cold and calculating way, then they're likely a sociopath and that's another kind of criminal where no punishment is going to act as any kind of real deterrent.

Public hangings, if anything, might embolden some potential criminals because they're lonely and/or wrong in the head and may appreciate the notoriety of their anticipated punishment.

I question your data-   i do not think it is close to acuarate (re the types of crimes that are sentanced to death

Re public hanging - it would very much be a deterent-  someone who wants notatriety shoots up a public place or something that takes innocent lives or some other high profile, top of the news act- -  hanging in the wind, dead is something that would show a high majority of violent criminals that they should think twice before pulling the trigger-  most or at least a high % of the  murders in the US are seneless and avoidable even in the context of crime, passion etc-   In other wordss, even in the act of a crime, the mrder that transpired served no actual pupose-   or they are gang/drug related  or for "dissing" someone -  It is amazing how little some people will kill another for-  



Around the Network

Yes, we do have it and I am all for it. It makes a criminal think a thousand time before committing a crime. It is a mean to reduce crime and its not about being civilized or not especially if you lost a loved one in a crime with basically no intentions but to steal a few bucks.



McDonaldsGuy said:
WolfpackN64 said:

No, you are throwing together two entirely different things. Euthanasia is not murder. And even if a person kills someone, it's not the task of the penal system to take that person's life.

It's not the task of the healthcare system to take a person's life either. Hippocratic oath anyone?

The penal system can decide any punishment it wants btw. When someone commits murder, they accept they could get the death penalty. When you touch a hot stove, you accept you will get burnt.

Euthanasia is a personal choice. If someone wants medical assisted suicide instead of jumping in front a train and causing other people harm, who are you to critisize that?

And you have a very strange definition of acceptance. When I touch a hot stove, I don't accept I get burned, I just get burned. If you commit a murder for whatever reasons of many, you do not "accept" the possability of death penalty.

The death penalty is stupid and barbaric and seeing how the US death penalty system quite frequently administers the death penalty to innocent people, you could say your penal system really kills people.



WolfpackN64 said:
McDonaldsGuy said:

It's not the task of the healthcare system to take a person's life either. Hippocratic oath anyone?

The penal system can decide any punishment it wants btw. When someone commits murder, they accept they could get the death penalty. When you touch a hot stove, you accept you will get burnt.

Euthanasia is a personal choice. If someone wants medical assisted suicide instead of jumping in front a train and causing other people harm, who are you to critisize that?

And you have a very strange definition of acceptance. When I touch a hot stove, I don't accept I get burned, I just get burned. If you commit a murder for whatever reasons of many, you do not "accept" the possability of death penalty.

The death penalty is stupid and barbaric and seeing how the US death penalty system quite frequently administers the death penalty to innocent people, you could say your penal system really kills people.

Murdering is a personal choice. If someone wants to murder someone instead of not murdering then who are you to criticize that?

When you commit a murder, you accept the consequences you will face. If I rob a bank, I accept I may be caught and put into prison.

And no, the death penalty is not "frequently administrated to innocent people." No innocent person has ever been killed by the death penalty - and with DNA and forensic evidence, it's highly unlikely to happen.

On the other hand, 25% of euthanasia cases in the Netherlands and Belgium do not have proper consent forms. In Brazil, a doctor euthanized 300 people to make "way for more beds." 300 innocent people dead due to euthanasia just to make way for more beds. THAT is barbaric, my friend. Not mercifully killing a guy who raped and murdered a 14 year old girl.



Dunban67 said:

I question your data-   i do not think it is close to acuarate (re the types of crimes that are sentanced to death

Re public hanging - it would very much be a deterent-  someone who wants notatriety shoots up a public place or something that takes innocent lives or some other high profile, top of the news act- -  hanging in the wind, dead is something that would show a high majority of violent criminals that they should think twice before pulling the trigger-  most or at least a high % of the  murders in the US are seneless and avoidable even in the context of crime, passion etc-   In other wordss, even in the act of a crime, the mrder that transpired served no actual pupose-   or they are gang/drug related  or for "dissing" someone -  It is amazing how little some people will kill another for-  

If not crimes of desperation or passion, what kinds of things do you think tend to encourage the prosecutors to seek the death penalty?  Jaywalking?  Overfishing?  *confused*

Psychologists and criminologists don't agree with you about deterrence:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf

"A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide.  Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.  

Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”

The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology.  Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research."



McDonaldsGuy said:

[...]And no, the death penalty is not "frequently administrated to innocent people." No innocent person has ever been killed by the death penalty - and with DNA and forensic evidence, it's highly unlikely to happen.

On the other hand, 25% of euthanasia cases in the Netherlands and Belgium do not have proper consent forms. In Brazil, a doctor euthanized 300 people to make "way for more beds." 300 innocent people dead due to euthanasia just to make way for more beds. THAT is barbaric, my friend. Not mercifully killing a guy who raped and murdered a 14 year old girl.

Ummm...  the number of posthumous pardons of innocent people grows and grows and grows.  If you actually believe otherwise, then is it due to making an uninformed assumption?  Here is a long and non-comprehensive list of innocent people who were put to death:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/PosthumousPardons.pdf