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 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 108
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    While i respectfully disagree with your perspective on whether states should be able to make thisd determination, I'll agree with you in ho we would each approach the issue.


    The system I would like to support would not have a death penalty. It would put people in prison without possibility for parole (that means there is a 100% chance they will never take in another free breath of air again) for heinous crimes (rape, murder, child molestation, torture, etc.

    I would have a different system for less aggregous violent crimes, where the sentance would be broken into two segments where inmates would earn their way to the subsequent phase. The first being punishment, which would be more like a boot camp than anything. The next phase would involve transitioning into rehabilitation, to inlcude skills development, being a productive citizen, and finding a job. I beleive this transition needs to take place so that inmates are positioned to re-enter society and be productive.

    Lastly, I would take non violent crimes and make their punishment based on community service.

    That's just me though.
    I disagree that non violent crimes should not result in jail time.

    You should go to jail for fraud and certain financial crimes. People like Bernie Madoff deserve to go to jail because the harm they cause is similar to the harm of an assault.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,901
    vCash
    5471

    ewing

    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    While i respectfully disagree with your perspective on whether states should be able to make thisd determination, I'll agree with you in ho we would each approach the issue.


    The system I would like to support would not have a death penalty. It would put people in prison without possibility for parole (that means there is a 100% chance they will never take in another free breath of air again) for heinous crimes (rape, murder, child molestation, torture, etc.

    I would have a different system for less aggregous violent crimes, where the sentance would be broken into two segments where inmates would earn their way to the subsequent phase. The first being punishment, which would be more like a boot camp than anything. The next phase would involve transitioning into rehabilitation, to inlcude skills development, being a productive citizen, and finding a job. I beleive this transition needs to take place so that inmates are positioned to re-enter society and be productive.

    Lastly, I would take non violent crimes and make their punishment based on community service.

    That's just me though.

    It certainly ins't. Ex-cons are the most discriminated against group in America and no one cares. The system is a giant cluster **** that is beyond reform its needs re-invention
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by jrice9 View Post
    I disagree that non violent crimes should not result in jail time.

    You should go to jail for fraud and certain financial crimes. People like Bernie Madoff deserve to go to jail because the harm they cause is similar to the harm of an assault.
    Makes sense. I just don't think we shuold put white collar criminals in the same space as violent criminals- all that does is turn non violent criminals into violent ones. They should be punished, and some form of jail time (and for people like Madoff, I'd put them away for life) would be appropriate. There are lots of ways to approach it.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,603
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    Makes sense. I just don't think we shuold put white collar criminals in the same space as violent criminals- all that does is turn non violent criminals into violent ones. They should be punished, and some form of jail time (and for people like Madoff, I'd put them away for life) would be appropriate. There are lots of ways to approach it.
    The system should roughly be structured to take away from the criminal what they take away from their victim. If they take money or something physical, then they should lose something equivalent and maybe serve jailtime. Whereas if someone steals something more personal, such as an attack, then the punishment should suit that crime.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,771
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    The system should roughly be structured to take away from the criminal what they take away from their victim. If they take money or something physical, then they should lose something equivalent and maybe serve jailtime. Whereas if someone steals something more personal, such as an attack, then the punishment should suit that crime.
    That sounds like you'd be in favor of the death penalty.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    Many of the people who commit the most heinous crimes want to die.

    Why not instead jail them for life, which is cheaper, and arguably a worse punishment than immediately ending their lives? I'd argue that being forced to live the rest of your life in a prison environment, where you are guaranteed to die there, is a more viable option. It's also the lesser of the two evils for the moral qualms associated witht he death penalty.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,615
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    I actually don't buy this argument. Either it is OK to kill someone for committing murder or it's not. If it's OK, if it's just to kill for killing then who cares if it's unequal in practice. This argument shouldn't lead to the abolition of the death penalty, just the increase of it's use.
    The people who are being unequally killed because of their skin color care if it's unequal in practice. Those who think that killing people because of their skin color is wrong also care. I am among them. Aren't you?

    Your argument is flawed. It assumes that those whites who are not being executed should be, and that is the source of the racial disparity in sentencing. What if those blacks who are being executed shouldn't be, and that is the source of the disparity?

    Expanding on a slightly different argument: our system cannot make an infallible judgment. We know it can't, which is why we have so many levels of appeals. Death is the one judgment that cannot be appealed after it's applied. Therefore, we shouldn't apply it.
    Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts 21 times greater i, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.

    But racism is dead. Right?

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,938
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat View Post
    The people who are being unequally killed because of their skin color care if it's unequal in practice. Those who think that killing people because of their skin color is wrong also care. I am among them. Aren't you?

    Your argument is flawed. It assumes that those whites who are not being executed should be, and that is the source of the racial disparity in sentencing. What if those blacks who are being executed shouldn't be, and that is the source of the disparity?

    Expanding on a slightly different argument: our system cannot make an infallible judgment. We know it can't, which is why we have so many levels of appeals. Death is the one judgment that cannot be appealed after it's applied. Therefore, we shouldn't apply it.
    When you say the death penalty should be outlawed because it's unfairly practiced... It implies you believe the death penalty is just. I don't.
    The death penalty is wrong cause it's wrong. Not because it's racist. Even if we had an infallible system. It's not these things that make it wrong. this is an opinion I know, I just think this all comes down to government sanction by the people of death for people who no longer pose any threat to us is just stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Posts
    7,957
    vCash
    1500
    I'd also be curious to know when the last time someone was convicted and sentenced to death was later found to be innocent. I know it happened a bunch regarding old crimes from the 50s/60s/70s, but since the emergence of advanced forensic procedures I'd be curious to know the numbers nowadays that are being wrongly executed.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    32,366
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I'd also be curious to know when the last time someone was convicted and sentenced to death was later found to be innocent. I know it happened a bunch regarding old crimes from the 50s/60s/70s, but since the emergence of advanced forensic procedures I'd be curious to know the numbers nowadays that are being wrongly executed.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1507003.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Felker

    Maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Garrett

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    257
    vCash
    1500
    yes to people who deserve it by committing murder, Treason, and other forms of disgrace to humanity and to our country.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Posts
    7,957
    vCash
    1500
    I was asking after something more recent, but thanks for the info. I'll just do my own research instead of being lazy
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,615
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    When you say the death penalty should be outlawed because it's unfairly practiced... It implies you believe the death penalty is just. I don't.
    The death penalty is wrong cause it's wrong. Not because it's racist. Even if we had an infallible system. It's not these things that make it wrong. this is an opinion I know, I just think this all comes down to government sanction by the people of death for people who no longer pose any threat to us is just stupid.
    I also think it's morally wrong, however I've found that pure morality arguments don't persuade many people. Demonstrating the unfairness of the penalty is, in my opinion, more likely to result in its repeal than arguing on purely moral grounds. I think both these statements are true, but one is more persuasive:

    1. The death penalty is morally wrong, and our country should not engage in morally wrong behavior. I cannot count the number of times I have made this argument in regards to various things our country does.

    2. The death penalty as applied by our country is demonstrably biased along racial lines. Unless and until it can be fairly applied, we should not apply it at all.

    It seems to me that the first argument can only persuade those who already agree with it. The second points to some facts that a person can hang onto and defend if they change their minds.
    Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts 21 times greater i, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.

    But racism is dead. Right?

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn New York
    Posts
    12,790
    vCash
    1500
    Yes---But not lethal injection.

    Bring back a much cheaper form of execution. America has a prison problem as is. Execute everybody in for murder, attempted murder, rape, and anything close to gruesome.

    Kill all of those bastards and America would save approximately 50 billion. Why keep vicious murderers alive? They've tried to kill-Some succeeded, and they've tried to rape. Why keep those scum alive? Bring back the electric chair and fry them opposed to having tax dollars going to keep them alive and healthy.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Colorado
    Posts
    23,108
    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.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 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
  •