Quantcast
Do you support the death penalty?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Do you support the death penalty?

What about you?

Yes 119 36.73%
 
No 128 39.51%
 
I have to explain (please make a post) 11 3.40%
 
No, and I also oppose corporal punishment 38 11.73%
 
See results 28 8.64%
 
Total:324
Ka-pi96 said:

I realise that, but if you're monetising the execution itself then that could well pay back the extra judicial costs (and then some!).

You're not wrong, but it wouldn't be easy to make money that way. Maybe something like Death Race would work.

 

Arminillo said:

 So you are saying we establish legal slavery as a punishment what a neat idea.

Not at all. This is something China does all the time while it adopted the UDHR which forbids slavery.



Around the Network

Hard to say yes considering there are so many false imprisonments.



Yes, if you live by the sword you die by it. If you have the audacity to take someone's life, you should know the consequences of it. What right does anybody have to take someone's life if they aren't in danger themselves? If it was merely a slap on the wrist for killing someone what kind of world would we live in? An eye for an eye, that's how I feel about it.

I even know it sounds petty, but it's also justice. This is why we have certain rules. Don't break them and you'll be golden, fuck.



I dont think for regular cases.

But for people like Osama Bin Landen and such, off with their heads



Gourmet said:
Ka-pi96 said:

I realise that, but if you're monetising the execution itself then that could well pay back the extra judicial costs (and then some!).

You're not wrong, but it wouldn't be easy to make money that way. Maybe something like Death Race would work.

I dunno. You can make millions from showing a boxing match or a ufc fight. I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to watch a no rules, bare knuckle, last man standing fight as well.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Around the Network
Gourmet said:
Ka-pi96 said:

I realise that, but if you're monetising the execution itself then that could well pay back the extra judicial costs (and then some!).

You're not wrong, but it wouldn't be easy to make money that way. Maybe something like Death Race would work.

 

Arminillo said:

 So you are saying we establish legal slavery as a punishment what a neat idea.

Not at all. This is something China does all the time while it adopted the UDHR which forbids slavery.

How is it not, just cause China does something doesnt make it good? They also only let people have one child (usually male) and give factory workers pennies.

"We could have the convict work forcibly and make money" - that is literally slavery



Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda!!!!


It would benefit society MUCH more to come up with preventative measures as opposed to the reactive measures we are used to today in the justice system. Somebody commits a crime and we just react... In a world of make-believe we can just react to the crime and place people in jail and act as though no more crime will be committed. In reality if we just keep reacting then the problem will not fade as clearly evidenced across every spec of history.

There isn't much in the way of incorporating preventative measures into general society, unfortunately, mainly due to how unobserved that avenue has been along with how stuck we are in our current concept of justice.

The death sentence doesn't get rid of crime; it instead kills of the very brain that needs to be researched on to further understand, as absolute as possible, the 'why' of such occurrence that led to the penalty in the first place. To focus effort where effort is most needed, not just most practical, is to progress towards the beneficial.



In theory: Yes. In practice: No. There are lots of people out there too far gone and simply a drain on society, but with the fallibility and even higher expenses of death row I can't endorse it in the real world.



Arminillo said:
sundin13 said:

I see little to no benefit in the death penalty, and I think the risk of killing an innocent person far outweighs any of those potential gains.

In general, I think it is the completely wrong direction for our prison systems. Prisons should move towards a rehabilitation based system and away from the punishment based system.

What do you mean by rehabilitation system? Like if someone raped and murdered a child then 25 years got out cause he reformed, or practical slave labor in the prison to create things for the outside world (which many prisions already do)?

Basically, a prison system has five goals: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, restoration, and rehabilitation. The US system focuses almost exclusively on the first three. That means that if someone commits a crime, we want that person locked up for long enough for us to feel like they got what they deserved. However, it also means that when they get out, what they are leaving with is ten, twenty plus years of being locked up with other criminals away from society and often mistreated. That plays a part in why we see such high recidivism rates. Some studies even suggest that prison actually increases the likelihood of committing another crime, not decreases it in the USA.

Other systems, notably the Norwegian system, feel that while punishment is important as a deterrent, the overall goal is to reduce crime and working to help prisoners gain professional and social skills does that more successfully than working to punish them. And it works. Norway has some of the lowest recidivism rates in the world as well as low crime rates and they accomplish this with prisons which are some of the nicest in the world.

As this is a change in whole philosophy, the death sentence largely contradicts these ideals. As such, when you have an individual in Norway like Anders Breivik who killed 77 people, you see sentencing which reflects this change. He received the maximum sentence in Norwegian prisons: 21 years. Not death. Now, that isn't to say he will only do 21 years in prison. In all likelihood, he will never leave. However, this system largely eschews things like "mandatory minimums" in favor of evaluation of whether it is safe for an individual to reenter society.

By shifting to a rehabilitation-based system, I believe we will be able to reduce recidivism rates, reduce crime, reduce the prison population and make sure that those who are likely to commit another crime stay in the system instead of letting them go when we feel that they have been punished enough. That does mean that we as a society need to move away from our ideals of vengeance because while it may feel good for us to say "yeah, let that guy rot", it doesn't actually do us much good. You can see this change in the reaction to the sentencing that Breivik received by the people of Norway and by the families of his victims. There were few complaints from Norway, but a lot from the United States.

I don't think it is possible to move to such a system and influence social mores with the death penalty in place.



What a weird poll. First, everybody voted no. Then, people started voting 'yes', and the votes were perfectly split. After that, the two 'no' options took the lead again. Then suddenly, the vast majority was 'yes'. And now, everyone decided to start voting 'no' again, but no one votes for the second 'no' anymore.

Really weird poll.