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

Forums - Politics Discussion - Death sentence. Yes or no?

Tagged games:

SvennoJ on 25 June 2015
McDonaldsGuy said:

With DNA evidence there has never been a person wrongfully convicted. 15 years ago I would agree but not today.

And they are not out of society dude. Are Richard Matt and David Sweat out of society? Charles Manson was able to nearly get married - is that your idea of getting out of society? Prison is a vacation these days.

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jul/25/man-wrongly-convicted-after-dna-mix--awarded-15-mi/

The rate at which DNA testing is now overturning convictions should give an idea how 'fool proof' the system is. The majority of people are still convicted without DNA evidence.

http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/seeking-second-chances-without-dna-48082
DNA cases may perhaps account for only 5 to 10 percent of innocence claims

http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes-wrongful-conviction/unvalidated-or-improper-forensic-science
DNA does not solve the problem. In fact, experts estimate that only 5-10% of all criminal cases involve biological evidence that could be subjected to DNA testing. In the other 90-95% of crimes, DNA testing is not an option



Around the Network
SvennoJ on 25 June 2015
McDonaldsGuy said:
SvennoJ said:

I'm all for self sustaining prisons. Prison farm programs seem to work well.
They could even make their own biofuel to generate electricity and warm water for the prison. Chip in, or sit in the dark. Sit in a room and wait for your food to be served is not how prisons should work. That only turns people into caged animals.


Meh I say why not? For non-violent offenders or low class violent offenders, I can see not doing that but for violent offenders like rapists they should be turned into caged animals.

And what's the point of that? Satisfaction of revenge?
It costs more and it will not turn those people into valuable members of society. Rapists don't get life, so you're for eventually releasing a caged animal back into society? A prison system where your earn comforts and the right to work and learn are preferable.

Psychotic serial killers and other sadistic criminals, I don't what if they can be rehabilitated. Still makes more sense to put them to work instead of feeding them for free.



Aeolus451 on 25 June 2015
A_C_E said:
Aeolus451 said:

Again, as I said to another user, don't insult me. I'm fine with you and others disagreeing with me all day but don't resort to personal attacks. When someone has to resort to personal attacks to try to win an arguement or a debate, it more or less means that they ran out of ways to attack other person's points. 

I'm comparing the prison system of america to other harsher prison systems in the world but you knew that. In that sense, america's prison system is a holiday inn. They are too soft on muggers, home invaders, gang bangers and other violent criminals. Their experience in prison should be hell on earth. They need to fear it to the point that they rather behave or die then go back there. Molesters, raptists, serial killers, mass murderers and excessively violent people should be put to death in a timely fashion and laid to rest in unmarked graves. 

I didn't mean it as a personal insult so much as the description I find most fitting for you. If you want to take it personally then go ahead, boo-hoo, stick to the arguement, don't tell me I've ran out of ways to argue when I've thrown so many comments in various ways towards this thread.

Oh yes, lets go backwards and begin to change our practices so we are more comparable to third world countries...yeah, good luck with kind of thinking. And as far as harshness is concerned, its all relative to the country. Prisons are just as bad as the land they are built on and the rules they are set by. Third world countries, countries without equal rights and countries with religious scripts that go against our basic moral principles are the ones with the worst prisons. Yes, lets go backwards and act like uncivil juts of ill-progression.This is why I'm glad I live in Canada, we have a much more progressive and moral approach towards most things.

Umm.... yes you did. What do you call saying or writing a negative discription of someone to them? A personal attack or insult. It doesn't matter how I take it. 

 



method114 on 25 June 2015

If the justice system was prefect I would be for the death penalty. Unfortunately we are far from perfect and I'm not comfortable killing innocent people to get a few bad ones.



fory77 on 26 June 2015

>Kill 10 people on purpose somehow.
>Death sentence: Life ends quickly, but you get a last meal before that.
>Life sentence: Live meh life in shit prison, rape/be raped, small chance of escape, there's bound to be some sort of entertainment in cell, so it's not that bad i guess. You might as well be living in a gangster neighbourhood (only with a lot of police/guards)

In conclusion: Instead of instantly killing them or letting them live their lives in prison (which sometimes ends up being better than life before) just let them be tortured everyday for the rest of their lives in a cell and let them rot - just so that there's a message being sent to the more "sane" potential murderers.

Fuck, i think i just cut myself on my edges.



Around the Network
A_C_E on 26 June 2015
Aeolus451 said:

Umm.... yes you did. What do you call saying or writing a negative discription of someone to them? A personal attack or insult. It doesn't matter how I take it. 

I pointed out the delusion in your words, what else is it called when you claim something but there's huge amounts of evidence against it? That's literally the description of delusion, I was factually pointing it out that your WORDS were delusional, not specific to you as a person. I never said you were delusional, read it again. I also pointed out your narrow-mindedness and that's also different than calling you narrow-minded. If I had called you a narrow-minded individual then yeah, I would have insulted you, instead I pointed out your narrow-mindedness on the subject.

Context, learn it. But why am I even explaining this to such a seemingly assuming person like yourself? I'm not out to insult you and I have yet to do it but if you want to see things that aren't there just to be dramatic then...whatever butters your toast.

Oh, and nice diversion from the discussion, or was that the plan all along?



Aeolus451 on 26 June 2015
A_C_E said:
Aeolus451 said:

Umm.... yes you did. What do you call saying or writing a negative discription of someone to them? A personal attack or insult. It doesn't matter how I take it. 

I pointed out the delusion in your words, what else is it called when you claim something but there's huge amounts of evidence against it? That's literally the description of delusion, I was factually pointing it out that your WORDS were delusional, not specific to you as a person. I never said you were delusional, read it again. I also pointed out your narrow-mindedness and that's also different than calling you narrow-minded. If I had called you a narrow-minded individual then yeah, I would have insulted you, instead I pointed out your narrow-mindedness on the subject.

Context, learn it. But why am I even explaining this to such a seemingly assuming person like yourself? I'm not out to insult you and I have yet to do it but if you want to see things that aren't there just to be dramatic then...whatever butters your toast.

Oh, and nice diversion from the discussion, or was that the plan all along?


I can sit here all day saying or writing that someone else's words are moronic, immature, insane, bitchy, ect but it doesn't change the fact that I would be insulting them. Here's another example, If I said that someone else's words were idiotic than what am I implying about the person who said the words.

By saying that my words were delusional, it doesn't dismiss my point or my opinion. You didn't actually go after my points.  

My intention was simply to let ya know that I didn't care for your personal attacks or implications. I'm completely fine with discussing with others the topic but not with you.

This is my last reply to you.



drangleic_knight on 26 June 2015

Strongly for it..why should someone that kills innocent people be allowed to live..and taxpayers pay for his food and medical care for the rest of his life..Anyone that says the Boston bomber doesn't deserve it needs to look at the pictures of the carnage that day..read about the little boy that died.. Thats what's wrong with this country criminals are looked as victims..I say streamline the process,shouldn't take years and years to kill the sick fucks that murder and rape women and children



A_C_E on 26 June 2015
Aeolus451 said:

I can sit here all day saying or writing that someone else's words are moronic, immature, insane, bitchy, ect but it doesn't change the fact that I would be insulting them. Here's another example, If I said that someone else's words were idiotic than what am I implying about the person who said the words.

By saying that my words were delusional, it doesn't dismiss my point or my opinion. You didn't actually go after my points.  

My intention was simply to let ya know that I didn't care for your personal attacks or implications. I'm completely fine with discussing with others the topic but not with you.

This is my last reply to you.

I don't care about your examples, you've already convinced yourself that I was insulting you as a person so what defense do I really have other than for you to look at my post. I literally state in that post that there is delusion in the WORDS, seriously, read it. I didn't edit it in there, that's how I originally stated my intended approach which was not to insult you. I said there is delusion in your words not that all the words you speak are delusional. I went after your points actually, yes...

This is your last reply to me? Good because for the last couple of posts you've steered clear of the actual arguement due to me "attacking" you.



VGPolyglot on 26 June 2015

I'm strongly against it. If living is just a privilege, then what's the point of having rights?