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 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 108
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    4,509
    vCash
    1500
    I side with the idea that it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted; needless to say, I voted "no".

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,948
    vCash
    1500
    No.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justinnum1
    Wade will be a lot better next season now that he got knee surgery. Hate on. - 7/31/2012

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NOR CAL
    Posts
    8,889
    vCash
    1500
    I feel like there have been to many people that have been executed in error for it to continue on like it has.
    Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt


    There's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.
    -Barack "drone" Obama, 11/18/2012

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy West View Post
    I feel like there have been to many people that have been executed in error for it to continue on like it has.
    That alone shows the ineffectiveness of the system itself. If the government executes even one person when they're innocent(and they have, plus many more), then we need to take a deep look as to whether or not this is a viable practice.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,610
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by C-ross12 View Post
    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.
    I think this is the most ironic part of your post. We are talking about whether a state has the right to sanction the death of another, this isn't how to make the schools effective. This isn't a multiple choice question, this is a true/false.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,773
    vCash
    1500
    I'm pro death penalty. It should be used more and shouldn't take 20 years to finish appeals. That being said, I understand that their have been mistakes made in the past. I'd add an addtional threashold to use it. Example: civil court uses proponderance of the evidence, criminal courts are beyond a reasonable doubt. For death penalty their should be an additional DNA or video threashold. Make the appeals easier/quicker and be sure you are punishing the right person. But if they have you on video committing the murder, let them fry.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,244
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I think this is the most ironic part of your post. We are talking about whether a state has the right to sanction the death of another, this isn't how to make the schools effective. This isn't a multiple choice question, this is a true/false.
    I thought the title was "Should the Federal government allow the death penalty". The Federal government should not be mingled into this type of issue. Differen't states will decide differently on all issues. This way people can be best represented.

    On the issue of the death penalty as a general concept.. I go back and forth on this. Obviously, taking a life should never be taken lightly. Ever. You need to have a very good justice system. But the cost of inprisonment is substantial. If someone is found guilty of Murder at 25 years old, its going to cost a ton of money by the time the inmate is 80 and dies by natural causes. Obviously you dont want to zap innocent people, but you dont want to let bad people live on your dime for 50 years either. Tough call really.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    32,376
    vCash
    1490
    No.

    Not sure I have the motivation to have this debate anymore, but I'll throw out my reasons while having no intent on arguing this with anyone:

    1. Imperfect system. Absolutely should not have an irreversible penalty when we have an imperfect judicial system. Innocent people have been put to death via capital punishment which is sadly ironic for a penalty that punishes killers. It's a disgrace. Until you have a perfect judicial system free of corruption......(pause for laughter).....you can't put people to death. Give life sentences with no parole and if they turn out to be innocent there's at least a chance to set them free and compensate them.

    2. It's ****ing barbaric and disgusting. And don't give me that "what if you're wife was murdered...." crap. If that happened (1) I don't trust our system to catch the right guy and (2) I'd rather he suffer in prison than get the easy way out (death).....that's why in hostage/murder situations they often take themselves out. It's the coward's way. Let them rot in a cell and fight prison gang members to survive. (3) I'd rather not stoop to the uncivilized level of the killer.

    3. It's more expensive. From appeals to the actual act of killing, it has been proved to be more expensive than keeping a guy in prison for life (who can at least be given a prison job and contribute to an area of need).

    4. Contrary to some belief it does NOT work as a deterrent. At all. Nobody in the frame of mind to kill is contemplating the repercussions. It's a behavioral dysfunction or drastic emotional action or other state of mind that doesn't weigh consequences. The only hope of it EVER being a deterrent even to some small degree is to follow the George Carlin method of public executions.

    5. Look at the company we keep. Want to see the mentality it takes to have a death penalty? Take a look at the other countries who allow it and use it. China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia (and most religious run countries who feel there's some kind of hell on the other side for them to enter), most of the middle-east and northeastern Africa. Japan is the only other modern country that utilizes it and they are a culture filled with honor killings/suicide and they even rarely use it.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,244
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    No.

    Not sure I have the motivation to have this debate anymore, but I'll throw out my reasons while having no intent on arguing this with anyone:

    1. Imperfect system. Absolutely should not have an irreversible penalty when we have an imperfect judicial system. Innocent people have been put to death via capital punishment which is sadly ironic for a penalty that punishes killers. It's a disgrace. Until you have a perfect judicial system free of corruption......(pause for laughter).....you can't put people to death. Give life sentences with no parole and if they turn out to be innocent there's at least a chance to set them free and compensate them.

    2. It's ****ing barbaric and disgusting. And don't give me that "what if you're wife was murdered...." crap. If that happened (1) I don't trust our system to catch the right guy and (2) I'd rather he suffer in prison than get the easy way out (death).....that's why in hostage/murder situations they often take themselves out. It's the coward's way. Let them rot in a cell and fight prison gang members to survive. (3) I'd rather not stoop to the uncivilized level of the killer.

    3. It's more expensive. From appeals to the actual act of killing, it has been proved to be more expensive than keeping a guy in prison for life (who can at least be given a prison job and contribute to an area of need).

    4. Contrary to some belief it does NOT work as a deterrent. At all. Nobody in the frame of mind to kill is contemplating the repercussions. It's a behavioral dysfunction or drastic emotional action or other state of mind that doesn't weigh consequences. The only hope of it EVER being a deterrent even to some small degree is to follow the George Carlin method of public executions.

    5. Look at the company we keep. Want to see the mentality it takes to have a death penalty? Take a look at the other countries who allow it and use it. China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia (and most religious run countries who feel there's some kind of hell on the other side for them to enter), most of the middle-east and northeastern Africa. Japan is the only other modern country that utilizes it and they are a culture filled with honor killings/suicide and they even rarely use it.
    Really nice post. You may have swayed me some.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    14,849
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    I'm against the death penalty, but this is a state issue. So I guess I vote yes.
    ^^^
    Son, you just don't get it, i'm talking bout TWTW!

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    7,428
    vCash
    1500
    I feel that it violates the 8th Amendment.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,365
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy West View Post
    I feel like there have been to many people that have been executed in error for it to continue on like it has.
    this.

    Although I agree with the death penalty in principle, someone had made a good point to me on this forum before, that given the inherit fundamental flaw of our system (prison for profit, lawyer for profit), its probably best to do away with the death penalty for as long as our system continues to operate in this manner. It does a great disservice to victims, but I guess we all gotta give a little for the greater good
    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    7,735
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by b1e9a8r5s View Post
    I'm pro death penalty. It should be used more and shouldn't take 20 years to finish appeals. That being said, I understand that their have been mistakes made in the past. I'd add an addtional threashold to use it. Example: civil court uses proponderance of the evidence, criminal courts are beyond a reasonable doubt. For death penalty their should be an additional DNA or video threashold. Make the appeals easier/quicker and be sure you are punishing the right person. But if they have you on video committing the murder, let them fry.
    1. You might want to say "pro capital punishment" instead. It makes you sound a little less like you're from biblical times

    2. Could you please state the reasons why you're in support of it?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    this.

    Although I agree with the death penalty in principle, someone had made a good point to me on this forum before, that given the inherit fundamental flaw of our system (prison for profit, lawyer for profit), its probably best to do away with the death penalty for as long as our system continues to operate in this manner. It does a great disservice to victims, but I guess we all gotta give a little for the greater good
    What do lawyers working for profit (this is only defense attorneys not prosecutors) and prisons being for profit have to do with the death penalty? How would this effect any justice regarding the death penalty.

    This was a shot at capitalism/corporatism for no apparent reason (and I'm saying this as someone opposed to the death penalty)

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    7,735
    vCash
    1500
    I understand many of you "pro state-rs" are inherently against giving any type of additional power to the federal government or further limiting the power of states, but having state by state variance on an issue like this does not make sense. As a country, we're united completely in the realm of common law. All court procedures that are similar to past cases must take the precedent in the past case and apply it to the present one. In effect, all the states are bound to uniformity under common law. State variance on the death penalty would, in effect, disrupt the uniformity of common law proceedings.

    For example, imagine that California outlawed the death penalty and Texas didn't. If the Texas court was trying to decide a punishment in a murder trial very similar to a previous murder trial in California, the Texas court would not be able to use the precedent set in the California case due to variance in capital punishment between the states. Uniformity among states, in terms of remedies for crimes, is needed to ensure that common law is upheld. Therefore, it should be within the federal government's power to determine whether or not the death penalty should be nationally outlawed or remain intact. This is not a state issue.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •