View Full Version : The Death Penalty
The state of Texas will reach a milestone this week if it executes its 300th death row inmate since Texas resumed capital punishment in 1982
In your opinion, is the death penalty imposed:
Since I live in Texas, I know that it's enforced way too often. I believe that it's a necessary cause in most cases, but due to our flawed court system, I worry that many innocent people fall victim to the death penalty. Most of the people who recieve this sentence are quite deserving of it, but it seems as if the state is offing people left and right. It wouldn't hurt to improve upon the court proceedings in order to give more people a chance and lessen the amount of people executed, but I still say that rapists and murderers deserve the death penalty once proven guilty, no questions asked.
Villager
03-17-03, 08:46AM
The State does not have the right to execute. Two wrongs do not make a right. Execution is in many respects the softer option; rotting in a square padded room for the rest of your life would be far better punishment.
kittyroze
03-17-03, 09:24AM
I don't believe in it. No person has a right to decide some other person's right to live.
I believe in eye for an eye. If someone is willing to kill another human being in cold blood, that person should be put to death within 24 hours of being found guilty. How many people have been found guilty of a crime, served time, gotten out on "good behavior," and have gone on to commit the same crime again?
Originally posted by Boozer
I believe in eye for an eye. If someone is willing to kill another human being in cold blood, that person should be put to death within 24 hours of being found guilty. How many people have been found guilty of a crime, served time, gotten out on "good behavior," and have gone on to commit the same crime again?
Way too many. If imprisonment without parole(as suggested earlier) was a viable option, our prison systems would be even more crowded than they are already. This all seems to relate back to a flawed legislative and a flawed judicial system, in my opinion. I think that if we had less stringent and less constricting laws that didn't end up pulling more people than necessary into the justice system, the courts wouldn't be as packed with a bunch of assholes trying to get a break. With less people going on trial, the court cases would be investigated more thoroughly, narrowing down the number of those who fall victims to mistrials.
kittyroze
03-17-03, 08:27PM
If one innocent person has died on death row than that is one person too many. I'd actually rather have a guilty man get off than an innocent one be killed.
Jennafer
03-18-03, 06:52PM
It's just too easy. Good drugs on the way out? Shit, man. Torture would be alot harder than "good night." Revenge isn't that cool, but hey, if somebody stole from me or did some shit. I'd be mad, but, cause then effect. ? Nothing changes...Then end result would still be more pain. I punish, but there's no point. If somebody hurt my family, I'd be mad as hell, but nobody will and I will make sure of it. ;-)
Redallnite
03-18-03, 09:30PM
Originally posted by Boozer
I believe in eye for an eye. If someone is willing to kill another human being in cold blood, that person should be put to death within 24 hours of being found guilty. How many people have been found guilty of a crime, served time, gotten out on "good behavior," and have gone on to commit the same crime again?
An eye for an eye, is in some history book..... In Dubia on Fridays that saying is enforced.
http://www.nochicktrix.com/fun/oth/vb/red/eyea.gif
Originally posted by kittyroze
If one innocent person has died on death row than that is one person too many. I'd actually rather have a guilty man get off than an innocent one be killed.
Exactly! This is one of the core fundamentals of our own justice system. Why? Because the damage is irreversible in case of dealth penalty.
kittyroze
03-19-03, 10:21AM
Originally posted by SysLord
Exactly! This is one of the core fundamentals of our own justice system. Why? Because the damage is irreversible in case of dealth penalty.
That's it! I'm moving to where you're at, Sys.
Originally posted by kittyroze
That's it! I'm moving to where you're at, Sys.
You are very welcome Kitty :)
Defchina
03-22-03, 01:15PM
I'm completely against capital punishment. Who are we to say who shoud live or die regardless of the crime. We're not gods. Not only that, there have been many people who die and in the meantime they've been innocent the whole time. Innocent Casualties??? is that what we should call it.
kittyroze
03-23-03, 01:10AM
You tell it, sistah! Rraow ;)
Defchina
03-24-03, 12:45AM
Originally posted by kittyroze
You tell it, sistah! Rraow ;)
Thanx, i'm glad to know i'm not the only one who feels that way. :D
Augustus
04-06-03, 03:59PM
Originally posted by SysLord
Exactly! This is one of the core fundamentals of our own justice system. Why? Because the damage is irreversible in case of dealth penalty.
Damage is also irreversible in the case of murder...
kittyroze
04-06-03, 10:07PM
There are enough cases where we aren't absoulutely certain the person we convict did it. It's hard to prove it...but I'd much rather let a criminal go free than kill an innocent.
Augustus
04-06-03, 10:20PM
But what if that criminal in turn kills more innocents?
kittyroze
04-06-03, 11:30PM
It wasn't our government killing em. I can't justify state santioned killings, because of the instances where the state was wrong. It sounds wrong to value one life over another...but if you aren't sure somebody did it, then you CAN'T consider convicting em...but people still do. Anyway, if the person was guilty for sure why not put them in jail for life...they can't hurt anyone, and if the ruling was WRONG you still can make it right again by releasing them later. Killing the possible murderer means there is no turning back. I realize that when others choose to kill there was a point of no return. But again, one innocent dying at the hands of my government makes me pissed as hell. Same as my thoughts on the war.
i read a bumper sticker that read "why do we kill to show that killing is wrong?" I personally don't believe in capitol punishment, but i know others believe differently, have well thought out reasons behind their choices, but, whatever your choice, the question is still being asked.
Originally posted by Augustus
Damage is also irreversible in the case of murder...
Yes, but a second evil doesn't undo the first one.
Originally posted by Augustus
But what if that criminal in turn kills more innocents?
That's the chance a society has to take. It's called 'giving someone a second chance'. Some take it, others don't deserve it and squander it. Unless you can read and control somebody's mind, this will always be one of the unknown factors.
Augustus
04-07-03, 10:46AM
Originally posted by SysLord
That's the chance a society has to take. It's called 'giving someone a second chance'. Some take it, others don't deserve it and squander it. Unless you can read and control somebody's mind, this will always be one of the unknown factors.
Why are we giving murderers all these second chances? They have already killed! Am I the only one who isn't realizing this? These people have already broken the ultimate law of society. Do you know how many people have been killed by murderers on parole? Why does society "have" to take that chance? I don't think we do.
Originally posted by Kittyroze
It wasn't our government killing em. I can't justify state santioned killings, because of the instances where the state was wrong. It sounds wrong to value one life over another...but if you aren't sure somebody did it, then you CAN'T consider convicting em...but people still do. Anyway, if the person was guilty for sure why not put them in jail for life...they can't hurt anyone, and if the ruling was WRONG you still can make it right again by releasing them later. Killing the possible murderer means there is no turning back. I realize that when others choose to kill there was a point of no return. But again, one innocent dying at the hands of my government makes me pissed as hell.
1) They still can hurt someone when in jail. They can kill a guard, or another inmate, or they can escape.
2) Give me examples of when the state was wrong.
3) I can furnish examples of when the state was right if you think it's unfair for me to ask you to provide information without doing so myself. I can also provide names of guards killed by inmates, and innocents killed by murderers out on parole.
Originally posted by Augustus
Why are we giving murderers all these second chances? They have already killed! Am I the only one who isn't realizing this? These people have already broken the ultimate law of society. Do you know how many people have been killed by murderers on parole? Why does society "have" to take that chance? I don't think we do.
It's not just about murderers. It's about everybody offending against an individual or society as a whole. I think fundamentally we differ in our approach to that. That's why we are 180 degrees opposite on the dealth penalty issue. I am quite happy to have someone incarcerated for the rest of their life if they have committed very serious crimes and if they have been found 'dangerous' to society. I fail to see the added value in taking their life.
Augustus
04-07-03, 02:01PM
We are talking about murderers, we don't give the death penalty to thieves. Failing to see the added value in taking their life? I'd rather not be babysitting these people for the rest of their lives, hoping they don't kill a prison guard, or another inmate, or escape to kill again. I don't want to be paying the bills when they get sick and need treatment.
Originally posted by Augustus
We are talking about murderers, we don't give the death penalty to thieves. Failing to see the added value in taking their life? I'd rather not be babysitting these people for the rest of their lives, hoping they don't kill a prison guard, or another inmate, or escape to kill again. I don't want to be paying the bills when they get sick and need treatment.
You don't but plenty of others do, including myself. Everybody to his/her opinion I guess.
Augustus
04-07-03, 02:26PM
Why would you rather pay to take care of a murderer for the rest of his/her life, than just put them to death?
Originally posted by Augustus
Why would you rather pay to take care of a murderer for the rest of his/her life, than just put them to death?
You just fail to see my points Augustus so why keep hammering on it? First of all, I do not agree sentencing someone to death because of the danger of convicting an innocent one. A chance of 1 in a million is still too great. And secondly, there is no added value in yet another death. Lock the ones up that deserve to be locked up but also have the courage to grant those who deserve it a second chance. And finally, the deterrent aspect does not work.
Augustus
04-07-03, 03:10PM
Originally posted by SysLord
And finally, the deterrent aspect does not work.
Have I been arguing for deterrence? Or did you just decide to throw that in there?
No, but is one of the arguements used in favour of the dealth penalty and it featured in this thread. I was just summing up the main points why I am against the dealth penalty,
Augustus
04-08-03, 06:46AM
Well let's talk about it then. Why doesnt it work as deterrence?
If it worked as a deterrence then why is capital crime in US states where the dealth penalty is enforced not significantly lower than other places?
Augustus
04-10-03, 04:51AM
Read my other thread on this issue, I just put in some new data on Texas.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.