Ask Your Question today
Thoughts on the Death Sentance
The Death Sentance is a sentence to be put to death for a capital crime
| I like it and want it to stay | 19 | |
| I'm neutral but prefer it to stay | 3 | |
| I'm neutral and don't care what happens to it | 2 | |
| I'm neutral but prefer it gone | 2 | |
| I don't like it and want it gone | 11 | |
| I like it but want it gone | 0 | |
| I don't like it but want it to stay | 4 |
A sheepdog wouldn’t let wolves walk among it’s flock.
A community that does not remove evil from within does not deserve to survive at all, and there is no more guaranteed removal than death
I do believe some people deserve to die. But the problem with the death penalty is innocent people get put to death. This is even after DNA evidence has existed. In fact I was just reading about another one being released from death row the other day. It happens more than you would think. One is too many.
They always say "if we know for absolute certain theyre guilty its ok" but the justice system already requires "being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and they're still executing innocent people.
"Better 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent man suffer" -Benjamin Franklin
I understand that sentiment. Though I think we can just reserve the death penalty to criminals that have been proven both evidence wise and witness wise.
Just saying the option should be left open. Not that we should all be like texas or Ohio. Exicution should be safe, legal and rare.
Out of curiosity, you say reserve it to criminals that have been proven both evidence wise and witness wise; what about those who take guilty pleas to avoid death penalty, should that be allowed?
Yes, its within the states right to give bargains.
If the crime is egregious enough and the evidence is solid most of the time the state wont offer the plea deal... unless they need to find the bodies. At that point that's what solitary confinement for the rest of their sorry lives are for. Not dead but certainly can be like such.
There's two problems with the death sentence.
The first is that innocent people get put to death. There's an arguement to be made that whoever killed the innocent person should also be put to death but that's besides the point.
The second issue with the death penalty is that it takes far, FAR too long to implement it in the modern era. If it's done too quickly however, you start to see far too many innocents get put to death.
We need to focus more on prison reform for less violent offenders while murderers and sexual predators should get life sentences. (With opportunities to appeal their case.) The American prison system in general needs reworked.
I agree it needs a rework but we cannot say we are "too modern" for the death penalty.
What about in cases where its known the person is 100% guilty of an egregious crime? Or war criminals? Are your really so quick to ditch a time honored high punishment that in all honesty is the modern version of exicution? Let's remember that the last guillotine use was when star wars was released. We are not that modern of a society yet.
As for the innocents that get caught up in the process I 100% agree if there is even a shred of doubt we should not execute said person.
In the case where its 100% known that the person in question did it, I would like the option to remain on the table. If nothing more than the satisfaction of the families of the victims.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I think some people should be given it. Particularly those along the lines of serial killers or serial rapists. I voted for it to stay, I'd just like more thorough rulings.
My statement pertaining to the modern era was more so me saying that they often die before receiving capital punishment in our current era.
I like death penalty in both practice and law. Doesnt mean we should kill every person that necessarily qualifies for it.
I'm a libertarian that supports the death penalty. A not too common occurance because capital punishment is the legal act of homicide by the state and thus Libertarians tend to dislike the notion entirely.
In my opinion the goverment just needs to be smaller not non existant. The death penalty falls under the states duty to protect its citizens. Cops can already exercise the ability to kill without consequence (Most being completely justified). To kill a dangerous person is just extending the public protection by way of showing that we deal with criminals from community service all the way up to death.
Not a fan of the Norwegian approach of 20 year sentences then a parole to judge yet again if they still deserve prison. When dealing with obvious egregious crimes such as mass murder, serial killings and child abuse then the death penalty is a convenient tool for removing such criminals and the public can have the perception of being safe/ the goverment actually doing their jobs.
In cases of just singular murder life without parole is good enough. Cheaper to just throw away the key.
So yes to death penalty, but we dont need to kill every murderer. Its reserved for the worst society has to offer.
I only want it because I want serial killers and rapists to serve a death sentence.
I think everyone should get the death penalty at least once in their life's.
I think the death penalty is a good idea, but I don't entirely trust the government to do it right.
Maybe we should do state-wide death elections where we vote people out like Among Us.
Capital punishment cases are massively more expensive to the tax payer.
People just like situations where they can kill a "bad guy".
I've never lived somewhere that uses capital punishment.
I don't see much point in it. People say it's saving money because you don't have to keep a prisoner, but it's actually really expensive to put someone to death when you factor in costs of the entire process, plus the fact that a lot of these people serve very long prison sentences before they get executed anyway.
Like morality wise?
Yeah it's bad to kill but killing a murder is not the same as killing an innocent.
That's why I'm pro life and pro capital punishment.
Lives have value. To make both worth the same devalues the average human life.
I disagree. Moral principles have to be absolute or they are not really moral principles. Ideally, there would be no capital punishment, war or abortion and society must abolition or find the solution to the problems causing those things.
Moral principles have to be subject to relativealism otherwise threats and nuances will cause the entire system to be invalid by someone who doesnt share said system. Morality has to be based on relativism.
If you were on an deserted island with me and another guy and there was no food eventually one of us will die. I have no qualms with cannibalizing the first to die.
How does canabilism fit into an absolute morality situation? All three of us will starve. Or two can be well fed and not starve for a while. Canabilism is bad but I'll take never having a restful sleep again over starving to death.
Idealizing the best outcome doesnt solve anything. The solutions come first but before that full proof solution comes about you will have to deal with a less than ideal solution.