[Screwston]

Are you for it or against?

[TheCaptainPower]

That thing is back in the day you would hang someone in the middle of the street, while everyone would watch and get scared shitless....Now it's not the same anymore, so I am on the fence...

[Timoteo]

I have an issue with how it's applied. How prosecutors pursue it against SOME defendants, but not others. How defendants have had lawyers fall asleep in court, or simply serve up clients without trying to properly defend them. The burden of evidence also has to be incredibly high if you're pursuing the death penalty. That isn't always the case. For instance, Scott Peterson shouldn't be on death row. Yes, he's the person most likely to have killed his wife ( his wife Lacey was cute and 8 months pregnant), however, they found NO physical/forensic evidence linking him to the crime. All they had was some circumstantial evidence, and taped phone calls with his mistress, referring to his wife in the past tense, even though he was supposed to be distraught and they were still searching for her. You have to have at least a witness and some real evidence. The standard can't be "most likely to have committed the murder." You can't execute on reasonable doubt - he should have gotten life.

I'm not uncomfortable with capital punishment in principle. There are some individuals that simply cannot live without being the threat to the lives of others, and should be eliminated (I'm fine with lethal injection), but again, the standard has to be high. The legal process has to be adhered to without shortcuts - all T's crossed and i's dotted.

[Huck Finn]

I support it, why should someone like a serial killer, serial pedophile or mass murderer have the right to live? Show them the same mercy they showed their victims.

[_GQ_]

Firmly against. Pretty sure that on average is costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. That's not even mentioning how barbaric it is and that there are probably loads of guys who have been wrongly convicted.

[Katatonic]

Used to be for it, now I want it abolished. I don't believe the state has the right to kill its own citizens. There is always the chance that an innocent person could be executed(has happened many times in the past). What good is exoneration if the wrongly convicted is dead?

[Screwston]

Would the people still be against it if your mom or sister was raped and killed?

[Katatonic]

(01-31-2013 09:33 PM)houston Wrote:  

Would the people still be against it if your mom or sister was raped and killed?

It's easy to be a hypocrite in that situation, and to be honest I don't know what I would want. But, how would you feel if the person convicted of killing your family member was executed, and later found to be innocent?

I think life without the possibility of parole may be a worse punishment, especially if prisons were reformed to what they should be, which is absolutely as minimal a burden to the public as necessary.

[_GQ_]

(01-31-2013 09:33 PM)houston Wrote:  

Would the people still be against it if your mom or sister was raped and killed?

Yes. What good does it do me if the guy is dead versus in prison being raped for the rest of his years? He's fucked either way and my loved one isn't returning.

[j r]

(01-31-2013 09:33 PM)houston Wrote:  

Would the people still be against it if your mom or sister was raped and killed?

I'm against the death penalty, but not because I think it's inhumane or because I feel bad for convicted murderers. I just don't think there is a way to implement the death penalty in a manner that executes enough people to be an effective deterrent without also killing lots of people who don't deserve it. As others in the thread have pointed out, the death penalty tends to get selectively applied to the poor and the stupid. I don't see much justice in that.

There should be the option to prosecute some people for capital murder, but it should be reserved for the mass murderer/serial killer types.

[speakeasy]

I don't think we use it enough.

[clever alias]

against it
1) expensive as hell
2) risks of killing the wrong person are way too high. At least if DNA evidence clears a guy 20 years later, he can be released with an apology. If the guy is dead, too late

[Samseau]

(01-31-2013 10:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I don't think we use it enough.

+1

Death Penalty should be reserved for extreme pyscho's, like the guys who do the mass shootings.

It's not for deterrence, it's to get rid of some very dangerous and insane people.

Some people are just broken and must be removed from society.

[sylo]

In theory I am 100% for it.

But not how we do it now. It should be swift, as in minimum jail time. And cheap, as in a bullet to the head.

But for some reason, lately, I have my reservations. All those people in jail who have been exonerated. I would rather let a guilty person live than kill an innocent man. (Has a woman ever been put to death? Recent America??)



Your question and you didnt even answer, Houston.

[Cincinnatus]

Personally I think lethal injection etc. is an easy out for the psychopaths. Fuck that. Put 'em in a 10x10 ft. room for 10 minutes with 10 male members of the victim's family. I promise that is all it will take.

That or if we know a motherfucker is 100% guilty, no questions asked, kill the bastard in the same exact way he murdered his victim(s). People may call this cruel, fuck that! You think psychopaths think about whether THEIR method of killing somebody is cruel or not?

Also, no special request last meals.

[Screwston]

(01-31-2013 10:31 PM)sylo Wrote:  

Your question and you didnt even answer, Houston.

I'm for it. I would let the victim's family torture him then let him pick a room with a tiger, lion, bear or anacondas

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(02-01-2013 01:10 AM)houston Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 10:31 PM)sylo Wrote:  

Your question and you didnt even answer, Houston.

I'm for it. I would let the victim's family torture him then let him pick a room with a tiger, lion, bear or anacondas

I'm for it. As Timoteo mentioned, there should be a special burden of providing evidence for the crime in these cases (which might have the unfortunate side effect of having other judgements seem "not as well-founded, but oh well). But there is no reason to allow serial killers or those who committed especially heinous crimes (torture, cannibalism, etc) to live.

Maybe I'm biased because Croatian courts are not just corrupted, but also incredibly soft: a serial killer here is sentenced to no more than 20 years, during which he gets prison breaks (yes you read that correctly - a fucking yearly leave from prison!) and kills more people. You can probably see why I'd prefer having such people simply hanged instead of treated better than average citizens who kill themselves for almost no pay and don't get more than two weeks of yearly vacation.

[TheSlayer]

(02-01-2013 01:10 AM)houston Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 10:31 PM)sylo Wrote:  

Your question and you didnt even answer, Houston.

I'm for it. I would let the victim's family torture him then let him pick a room with a tiger, lion, bear or anacondas

Houston, I am for it too but as others pointed out there have been so many cases in the past few years where the prisoners (usually men) have been released after finding evidence to the contrary. That makes me think that I rather have guilty people rot in jail than innocents die.

Unless, like others pointed out we are 150% sure that the guy is guilty or if it's one of these mass shooters, then yeah go for it.

[porscheguy]

I'm against it. It does nothing to curb the murder rate. The cost to implement it is too high. Death is forever. If/When evidence that can exonerate someone turns up, and they happen to be dead, it doesn't do them much good.

[Cincinnatus]

(02-01-2013 03:29 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

I'm against it. It does nothing to curb the murder rate. The cost to implement it is too high. Death is forever. If/When evidence that can exonerate someone turns up, and they happen to be dead, it doesn't do them much good.

What about mass shooters and confessed serial killers?

The death penalty is only so expensive because of how it's implemented. I have a Russian milsurp rifle made in 1935. It fires a 148-grain steel-core bullet @ 2,800 ft. per second. Surplus rounds can be had for less than $0.25

[WanderingSoul]

For it in theory, but I don't trust our legal system to not sentence in innocent men to death.

[TheSlayer]

(02-01-2013 03:37 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

For it in theory, but I don't trust our legal system to not sentence in innocent men to death.

Summed it perfectly.

[R Smoov]

(01-31-2013 09:33 PM)houston Wrote:  

Would the people still be against it if your mom or sister was raped and killed?

Then this needs to go down.

Or the Rosca Psychopathic Pokemon Battle Execution.

Where I get to send a prisoner to fight the guy who killed/raped my family member. And if the dude beats the prisoner, then I send another one out to kick his ass. Each time a prisoner kicks his ass, they get a free piece of that ass for about 30 seconds. After that, the dude has to keep on having Pokemon Battles with the prisoners. And this keeps going until he's dead.

[Ovid]

When authorities take action against erring subjects it is for three reasons: punitive, medicinal, and defensive. A criminal is punished as a future deterrent to himself and others, and because justice demands he suffer in some manner as he caused others suffering. The action is also intended to set the criminal on a better path. Finally, the action is often used to protect society from the danger the criminal represents.

Incarceration is often used these days because in theory it addresses all three ends. A convict is fearsomely punished with confinement and the loss of his freedom, is kept secure so that he cannot harm, and has a chance of rehabilitation.

Unfortunately, prison is also terribly inefficient, and doesn't make a good one-size-fits-all solution for dealing with criminals.

I am in favor of increasing the use of the death penalty for serious crimes. I'm also in favor of expediting the process and limiting appeals, so that a death sentence means what it says, instead of amounting to decades of prison. IMO, locking a man up for 30 years is far more inhumane than a hanging...

[Mercenary]

It's interesting to note that when feminism, homosexuality, multiculturalism, leftism, and the majority of men acting very feeble and beta, all started becoming "normal"...(in essence everything that makes a country weak) is the same time many countries also started to get rid of the death penalty.

The Japanese, as herbivore and omega as we often call them, still have the death penalty.
The death penalty still has widespread support in Japan.




Here is where selected persons (victim's families ???) watch the convicted criminal behind glass be hanged by a rope.

(Note the rings on the right side of the picture where the end of the rope is tied to, to hold it in place)










Trapdoor beneath the hanged person's feet





The person pushing the button to release the trap door is behind a wall and curtain.