[Debate] Is the Death Penalty necessary?
- Thread starter Αizen
- Start date
Most victims’ families want to have justice for victims, so they support the death sentence. However, the death penalty doesn’t bring victims back to life or diminish the loss to their families. For instance, the parents and three children of Kim Groves, who was murdered by Paul Hardy and Len Davis in Louisiana, sent a letter to prosecutors to forget seeking the death penalty for the two defendants. The letter stated, “Executing these two men will not bring Kim Groves back to life. It will not ease the deep sorrow and loss that her family has and will continue to experience as a result of her death.”
Oh and please don't give me that "I would understand if someone I knew was murdered" I have and I don't feel that putting him to death will ease my pain, and it won't bring my friend back to life.
The death penalty is a barbaric law, I for one do not think that the organization which we entrust (for better or for worse) to lead our society and be our legislators, should have the power to take lives, no matter who the person in question is, while the authority of the official institutions needs to be both respected and followed it also needs to be both efficient and limited. I believe the government has the right to legislate many important aspects in a society as the representatives of the people, because a society needs rules to exist as we know it, but there should be limits. One of those limits is that the government should under no condition have the right to take lives from the people they represent, no matter the crime. The power of a government is both given and limited by the people and for the govt to be able to kll those people is illogical, the death penalty is a remnant of the past and has no place it the future. The penalty in itself solves exactly 0 problems of a society.
One of the great ironies of history is that people almost unanimously agree that the power of the government needs to be limited but at the same time many of them support the death penalty
One of the great ironies of history is that people almost unanimously agree that the power of the government needs to be limited but at the same time many of them support the death penalty
Tax money spent on criminal trials is not wasted, it is a necessary price we have to pay to live in a society with the rule of law, to say paying for the judicial system is a waste of money makes no sense for anyone who wants to live in a lawful society. It's about the same as saying that money spent on a hospital is money wasted.
Last edited:
I don't have a source at the moment but I recall reading that a death penalty ends up costing more than a standard life without parole. If you're scheduled to be executed you have no reason not to appeal and use as much court time as possible.
I'm not in favour of the death penalty. It feels too final. Should an innocent person be charged, then it is legally ending their life. Not a case that happens often (at least I'd hope) but you can never eliminate the possibility.
In my opinion, it depends on the severity of the crime. I've seen people get the death penalty for killing 1 man in self defence, and others purposely murder dozens and get life in prison.
Obviously murdering someone in self defence is not worth the death penalty.
Murderers, rapists, child molesters & paedophiles all deserve the death penalty in my opinion.
It's scum like this that destroy other peoples lives, and I am a true believer of "an eye for an eye".
It's ok people making the "just send them to life in prison. death is cruel" argument. But people like that are the worst of the worst. They should think about what they are doing before they destroy other peoples lives. Sending them to prison where they can have 3 meals a day, free time and a warm place to sleep, is no where near as much punishment as some people deserve.
Rather than sending them to prison for 40+ years (all paid for by the tax-payers), just give them the death penalty and that's one less ******* off our streets, and one less ******* that the tax-payers need to keep paying for inside prisons.
I'm all for the death penalty. Don't do the crime if you can't handle the outcome.
Obviously murdering someone in self defence is not worth the death penalty.
Murderers, rapists, child molesters & paedophiles all deserve the death penalty in my opinion.
It's scum like this that destroy other peoples lives, and I am a true believer of "an eye for an eye".
It's ok people making the "just send them to life in prison. death is cruel" argument. But people like that are the worst of the worst. They should think about what they are doing before they destroy other peoples lives. Sending them to prison where they can have 3 meals a day, free time and a warm place to sleep, is no where near as much punishment as some people deserve.
Rather than sending them to prison for 40+ years (all paid for by the tax-payers), just give them the death penalty and that's one less ******* off our streets, and one less ******* that the tax-payers need to keep paying for inside prisons.
I'm all for the death penalty. Don't do the crime if you can't handle the outcome.
SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO
Active member
Awards
Based on the natural moral law, the State has the right and the duty to protect its citizens from internal and external enemies, the common good of the whole society is greater and better than the good of any particular person, if the continued existence of a criminal whose crimes are so aggravated that it serves as a detriment to the spirit of moral values and the common good of the concord of society, then that person must be removed from the society of men through death.
I would worry about the consistency of judge rulings should the death penalty be more widely adopted. When sentencing someone to jail, you have the ability to give them varying lengths of time and restrictions. When sentencing someone to death, you are quite restricted to life/death.
I'd also like for there to be no favouritism or bias when handling something as important as another life. That's not something that can be realistically achieved as evidenced by how split people are on this topic already.
Finally the bolded part of the quote. Eye for an eye. I can understand taking the life of a murderer under this justification, but unless a *** crime escalates into death then it's not really an eye for an eye to kill the perpetrator .
Trollasaur
Active member
The problem is that we don't have a justice system in our society. We have a circus Colosseum where people pick sides and cry for blood.
It's pretty simple. If someone is such a hazard and threat to the function of society that you have to lock them away indefinitely out of fear of what they will do while free... how is that any more humane than killing them?
You keep them on display for your own delusional self-righteousness while depriving them of life, liberty, property, and dignity. At the expense of other people. Learn what it means to make a decision and let them depart this life.
The only people who should be in jail are those who are suspected of being a danger and should be awaiting their trial.
"But Aim! Death penalty bad! People have been wrongly put in jail for decades!"
Innocent until proven guilty. We've lost concept of that idea because we say: "Oh, it's not like we're killing them." If the evidence doesn't convince a jury that the individual needs to be killed - then it isn't good enough to put them in jail for so much as ten days.
In instances where the offense is not worthy of an eviction from society - a fine or some exchange of service should be imparted.
Fine/service or death. Should be the only two penalties available to a jury. If the offense isn't worth killing over - it isn't worth keeping them penned like an animal. If a jury can't come to a unanimous decision to kill someone - then there wasn't sufficient evidence, nor is there sufficient evidence that they should be locked away for any length of time.
The only thing barbaric is how few people pay attention to what is and isn't a crime, these days - or who consider it acceptable to accept a lower standard of 'guilt' for 'less harsh' punishments.
This:
Is what our court system has become. This is the future of all systems where we forget that laws are a life and death issue. Ultimately - if you don't abide by the decisions of a court - someone with a firearm shows up to make sure you follow instructions. Failure to do so ultimately ends up in being beaten/subdued or killed - depending upon how much you resist.
All laws are a life and death issue. There should be absolutely no attempt to obscure this fact. The only laws that should exist are those that are worth, ultimately, killing over. A fine may be the settlement - but a failure to uphold the settlement results in a life-or-death struggle.
It's pretty simple. If someone is such a hazard and threat to the function of society that you have to lock them away indefinitely out of fear of what they will do while free... how is that any more humane than killing them?
You keep them on display for your own delusional self-righteousness while depriving them of life, liberty, property, and dignity. At the expense of other people. Learn what it means to make a decision and let them depart this life.
The only people who should be in jail are those who are suspected of being a danger and should be awaiting their trial.
"But Aim! Death penalty bad! People have been wrongly put in jail for decades!"
Innocent until proven guilty. We've lost concept of that idea because we say: "Oh, it's not like we're killing them." If the evidence doesn't convince a jury that the individual needs to be killed - then it isn't good enough to put them in jail for so much as ten days.
In instances where the offense is not worthy of an eviction from society - a fine or some exchange of service should be imparted.
Fine/service or death. Should be the only two penalties available to a jury. If the offense isn't worth killing over - it isn't worth keeping them penned like an animal. If a jury can't come to a unanimous decision to kill someone - then there wasn't sufficient evidence, nor is there sufficient evidence that they should be locked away for any length of time.
The only thing barbaric is how few people pay attention to what is and isn't a crime, these days - or who consider it acceptable to accept a lower standard of 'guilt' for 'less harsh' punishments.
This:
You must be registered for see links
Is what our court system has become. This is the future of all systems where we forget that laws are a life and death issue. Ultimately - if you don't abide by the decisions of a court - someone with a firearm shows up to make sure you follow instructions. Failure to do so ultimately ends up in being beaten/subdued or killed - depending upon how much you resist.
All laws are a life and death issue. There should be absolutely no attempt to obscure this fact. The only laws that should exist are those that are worth, ultimately, killing over. A fine may be the settlement - but a failure to uphold the settlement results in a life-or-death struggle.
Hikari Uchiha Senju
Active member
Have you ever been to jail?
Neither have I.
I've been on deployment, though (I'd consider it worse). Even boot-camp was sort of a jail sentence. You return to an alien world. You forget what it's like to step out your own door, hop into a vehicle - and go somewhere of your choosing.
And I didn't even have property seized from me by the government because I was, conveniently, guilty of something.
It's worrying that one considers varying degrees of confinement to be acceptable because a system expresses favoritism or bias.
If I had a family and I'm told that some group of jack-offs have found me guilty and I must go away from them for a year - I will politely decline their offer. If it's that important - they will send someone empowered to kill me for resisting. I don't have time to play games with self-righteous pricks. I will either die or they will grow tired of sending officers to their death.
If people are vying to kill each other in the court rooms - then you have far bigger problems than the death penalty. That is a symptom, not a cause.
It's really pretty simple.
"If this person is allowed to run loose in society, will he/she be wreaking havoc and destruction upon other individuals?"
Yes - permanently remove that individual.
No - don't mess with that person any further.
"Did this person do something that requires a restitution payment?"
Yes - impose a mandate that the person return to an individual or the state monetary or service value (fine).
No - don't mess with the person.
If a jury cannot unanimously agree that a person is deserving of the "yes" outcome - then the person is, obviously, not that big of a problem.
If the jury selection process is corrupt - then a few government officials and lawyers need to be ritualistically sacrificed to purify the legal system and drive out its demons.
Third Sage
Active member
This is probably the most ridicoulus post I've seen in a while now. Yo kiddo, stop acting like you're smarter than you really are.
Senju Bean
Active member
Actually there are studies that show people get satisfaction from revenge.
Senju Bean
Active member
It has been proven rigorously by Immanuel Kant that the death penalty is not only ok, it's a must as it is a state's moral responsibility to use it on murderers.
"Even if a civil society resolved to dissolve itself with the consent of all its members--as might be supposed in the case of a people inhabiting an island resolving to separate and scatter themselves throughout the whole world--the last murderer lying in prison ought to be executed before the resolution was carried out. This ought to be done in order that every one may realize the desert of his deeds, and that blood-guiltiness may not remain upon the people; for otherwise they might all be regarded as participators in the murder as a public violation of justice." -Kant.
You must be registered for see links
"Even if a civil society resolved to dissolve itself with the consent of all its members--as might be supposed in the case of a people inhabiting an island resolving to separate and scatter themselves throughout the whole world--the last murderer lying in prison ought to be executed before the resolution was carried out. This ought to be done in order that every one may realize the desert of his deeds, and that blood-guiltiness may not remain upon the people; for otherwise they might all be regarded as participators in the murder as a public violation of justice." -Kant.
Last edited: