Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Should the federal government allow the death penalty?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 34.38%
  • No

    20 62.50%
  • Other (please explain in a post below)

    1 3.13%
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 108
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    St. Simon's Island
    Posts
    6,660
    vCash
    1500

    Should the federal government allow the death penalty?

    Simple question, do you think the death penalty should be allowed by the federal government?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba
    Posts
    11,589
    vCash
    1500
    No

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,432
    vCash
    1500
    I'm against the death penalty, but this is a state issue. So I guess I vote yes.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    I find myself increasingly dissatisfied with the number of things we leave up to the states. The taking of human life shouldn't be one of them. A life in Mississippi is no more valid than one in Minnesota.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    7,691
    vCash
    1500
    No. I have no qualms with it morally, it just costs too much. I would abolish it completely.

    Also, I feel like death is an easy way out. If I was a criminal I would much rather be put to death than receive life imprisonment.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,087
    vCash
    1500
    The federal government shouldn't be in a position to feel entitled to "allow" it or not.

    In a nation becoming more and more polarized, I would think we would come to appreciate the value of states having more of a role in determining these things for themselves, so as to allow peple to live in a place that reflects how they want to live. If people do not appreciate that critical need, I am of the sincere belief this nation won't last as it is now for another 50 years.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    39,832
    vCash
    0
    It should be up to the states. If 90% of the people in Texas want the death penalty then they should be allowed to have it.... But that opens up a can of worms in where do you draw the line as to what the states can allow aside from the federal government.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    The federal government shouldn't be in a position to feel entitled to "allow" it or not.

    In a nation becoming more and more polarized, I would think we would come to appreciate the value of states having more of a role in determining these things for themselves, so as to allow peple to live in a place that reflects how they want to live. If people do not appreciate that critical need, I am of the sincere belief this nation won't last as it is now for another 50 years.
    So.. why states?

    I mean, outside of Constitutional reasons, we act like states are these collections of like-minded people, and they're just not.

    I've lived in two places in Illinois: Rural southern IL near St. Louis, and Cook Co, near Chicago. Those two places are the most polar opposite two places I've lived, politically, until I moved to Georgia. So why are we acting like people can move to IL and live in a state that's just the way they want it to be? Unless they're going north, it's not going to happen. And so, you either have people abandoning basically everything south of Springfield, or you have a bunch of people living in a state that is being run contrary to how they think it should be, because it is almost entirely controlled by the northern 1/3rd or so of the state.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,087
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    So.. why states?

    I mean, outside of Constitutional reasons, we act like states are these collections of like-minded people, and they're just not.

    I've lived in two places in Illinois: Rural southern IL near St. Louis, and Cook Co, near Chicago. Those two places are the most polar opposite two places I've lived, politically, until I moved to Georgia. So why are we acting like people can move to IL and live in a state that's just the way they want it to be? Unless they're going north, it's not going to happen. And so, you either have people abandoning basically everything south of Springfield, or you have a bunch of people living in a state that is being run contrary to how they think it should be, because it is almost entirely controlled by the northern 1/3rd or so of the state.
    Becasue states can more directly represent the needs and wishes of their constituents. People can vote via referendum (or however their particular state constitution establiishes the process) on issues that matter to them. States, by offering different and more direct access to have their governments reflect how they want to live, offere us a choice in how we want to live.

    Federal law is complete in its nature. It seems people are far too free to let their own morality determine who others live in this country, be it from the left or right. To those people, I say go **** yourself. It is not your place. By states being free to determine these things for themseves, I am therefore free to decide what state I want to live in, and how. Sweeping federal regulations remove that flexibility that this country desperately needs as we grow further and further apart politically.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,259
    vCash
    1500
    I can't get behind supporting it unless I feel a desire for some form or vengeance. That is all the death penalty is used for in our system. It doesn't provide healing or closure to the victim, just vengeance.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    39,832
    vCash
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    So.. why states?

    I mean, outside of Constitutional reasons, we act like states are these collections of like-minded people, and they're just not.

    I've lived in two places in Illinois: Rural southern IL near St. Louis, and Cook Co, near Chicago. Those two places are the most polar opposite two places I've lived, politically, until I moved to Georgia. So why are we acting like people can move to IL and live in a state that's just the way they want it to be? Unless they're going north, it's not going to happen. And so, you either have people abandoning basically everything south of Springfield, or you have a bunch of people living in a state that is being run contrary to how they think it should be, because it is almost entirely controlled by the northern 1/3rd or so of the state.
    You can say the same about any collection of people. You are seemingly never gonna be able to pass a rule with 100% agreement of all parties. But at least within a state you are much much more likely to get more agreement than places thousands of miles apart.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I can't get behind supporting it unless I feel a desire for some form or vengeance. That is all the death penalty is used for in our system. It doesn't provide healing or closure to the victim, just vengeance.
    Under the current means then I agree.

    But I think they are too politically correct in some situations. The death penalty in my opinion would be efficient if used to dispose of serial rapists, mass murderers etc. that are without a shadow of the doubt guilty of their crimes. Because there is no point of them living out their lives in a jail cell costing everybody else money. Because some of these guys get life sentences and run up court costs pleading over and over again for parole or various other things even after admitting to their crimes.

    For the same reason there is no need to go about an expensive means of execution when you can simply put a bullet spike in the base of the brain the same as they do to animals at the slaughterhouses and quickly dispose of them with little costs. I'm sorry but if you are a known, convicted and especially admitted violent criminal such as the situations I stated above then I feel no need to show you any special treatment.
    Last edited by steelcityroller; 12-09-2012 at 10:51 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,259
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by steelcityroller View Post
    Under the current means then I agree.

    But I think they are too politically correct in some situations. The death penalty in my opinion would be efficient if used to dispose of serial rapists, mass murderers etc. that are without a shadow of the doubt guilty of their crimes. Because there is no point of them living out their lives in a jail cell costing everybody else money. Because some of these guys get life sentences and run up court costs pleading over and over again for parole or various other things even after admitting to their crimes.

    For the same reason there is no need to go about an expensive means of execution when you can simply put a bullet spike in the base of the brain the same as they do to animals at the slaughterhouses and quickly dispose of them with little costs. I'm sorry but if you are a known, convicted and especially admitted violent criminal such as the situations I stated above then I feel no need to show you any special treatment.
    Under any system, the death penalty is nothing more than an attempt to use the law to exact vengeance. Its not about punishment and its not about deterrence; because those who commit the death penalty crimes have already been sentenced and will never see freedom again, punishment; they also don't fear the death penalty because as it turns out they tend to be crazier than the average person, deterrence. It just satisfies a basic instinct in us, the observers, that justice is being done.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    I've done a total 180 on my beliefs on the death penalty, mainly b/c I've weighed the positives vs the negatives.

    As I see it, the negatives are it is more expensive(versus life in prison), is not a deterrent to others, and brings up many many questions of morality and government overreach.

    The positives are that it may provide closures for the families, and satisfies peoples' thirst for vengeance against.

    I don't support it, and hope one day the "pro life" and religious groups would get on board and oppose it with the liberal groups that already do...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,165
    vCash
    1500
    I'm with all the states rights posters. Let the states decide. One size doesn't fit all. We live in a large country. People in Texas are differen't from people in Florida, which are differen't from people in California, which are differen't from people in New Hampsire and so on. It's the most fair way too let the individual live.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,699
    vCash
    1500
    Honestly not sure.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •