Print Page | Close Window

Death Penalty

Printed From: MetalMusicArchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.MetalMusicArchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9950
Printed Date: 21 Feb 2024 at 5:08pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Death Penalty
Posted By: bartosso
Subject: Death Penalty
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 11:30am
As usual, elaborate, please.

-------------
http://shrineofllyria.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - http://shrineofllyria.blogspot.com/



Replies:
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 11:47am
It depends.  I am generally against the death penalty; however, in situations when there is no doubt to who a murderer is I am far less against the use of the death penalty.


-------------


Posted By: Unitron
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 11:51am
It's hard for me to pick an option here, because I do think sometimes some people are better off dead. The problem is though, people can get blackmailed and blamed for a crime they didn't do.

I think there are places for it, but it should only be used if someone is absolutely certain that the person is guilty. Some people do get off way too easily though in our current society. 

EDIT: I don't believe in lethal injection, nobody should suffer like that. What I do believe in is the death penalty if it's a gun to the head. Then it's quick, and gone with no prolonged pain. 


-------------
If I say fuck two more times that's forty-six fucks in this fucked up rhyme


Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 11:55am
On moral, political, religious or logical grounds it runs counter to everything I believe in. On a non-judgemental basis, it serves no purpose than to allow us to beat our chests manfully. No deterrent, more expensive and little protection for anyone else. But at least we've made the bastards suffer for what (we hope) they've done. Especially if we use the wrong type of injection or if we stick them in a chair.
Sorry but I'm an opinionated git. :-)


Posted By: bartosso
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 12:06pm
Originally posted by Bosh66 Bosh66 wrote:

On moral, political, religious or logical grounds it runs counter to everything I believe in. On a non-judgemental basis, it serves no purpose than to allow us to beat our chests manfully. No deterrent, more expensive and little protection for anyone else. But at least we've made the bastards suffer for what (we hope) they've done. Especially if we use the wrong type of injection or if we stick them in a chair.
Sorry but I'm an opinionated git. :-)
I agree 100%. I'm against with no exceptions. 

EDIT: Although religious grounds are out in my case.


-------------
http://shrineofllyria.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - http://shrineofllyria.blogspot.com/


Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 1:07pm
I guess it is a sign of our advancing civilisation that we reject "eye for an eye" punishment.

I have watched TV programs that have broadcast cases where the death penalty was carried out on an innocent person, it is difficult not to feel uneasy about it. I have also watched and read about crimes where they are so heinous you wonder why they are allowed to live.

I do sit on the fence, therefore.

Having said all that, if a similar act was committed on any of my children I would serve the death penalty, personally.

For once that is not easier said than done.




-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112





Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 1:21pm
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

It depends.  I am generally against the death penalty; however, in situations when there is no doubt to who a murderer is I am far less against the use of the death penalty.

This. 

Someone who becomes a repeat offender(meaning that they have killed multiple times) should be given less of a chance to live. I know it sounds harsh but if the person is hellbent on being a murderer we have to do something about it


-------------
"Before you see the light you must die!!!!!!!!!!" - Slayer

"Today is born the seventh one, born of woman, the seventh son" - Steve Harris


Posted By: bartosso
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 1:48pm
One question: Should it be all about punishing people, or socializing them so they never do this again? And if there's no way to rehabilitate them, then just keep them from harming anyone else. No need to kill anyone.

-------------
http://shrineofllyria.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - http://shrineofllyria.blogspot.com/


Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 1:58pm
Originally posted by bartosso bartosso wrote:

One question: Should it be all about punishing people, or socializing them so they never do this again? And if there's no way to rehabilitate them, then just keep them from harming anyone else. No need to kill anyone.

That's up for debate


-------------
"Before you see the light you must die!!!!!!!!!!" - Slayer

"Today is born the seventh one, born of woman, the seventh son" - Steve Harris


Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 2:16pm
Originally posted by Colt Colt wrote:


Having said all that, if a similar act was committed on any of my children I would serve the death penalty, personally.

For once that is not easier said than done.


If someone "hurt" one of mine, I know damn well I'd hunt them down, and take the punishment coming. Which is why we place justice out of the hands of the man in the street and serve it dispassionately.



Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 3:10pm
Originally posted by bartosso bartosso wrote:

One question: Should it be all about punishing people, or socializing them so they never do this again? And if there's no way to rehabilitate them, then just keep them from harming anyone else. No need to kill anyone.

By the way, I voted against the death penalty


-------------
"Before you see the light you must die!!!!!!!!!!" - Slayer

"Today is born the seventh one, born of woman, the seventh son" - Steve Harris


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 3:32pm
There are definitely different levels:

To me, a monster who walks into a school or shopping mall, etc. and starts opening fire indiscriminately who is caught in the act and lives to tell about it deserves the death penalty. 

Situations like this where there is no doubt who the perpetrator is I don't really have a problem with the death penalty.  The exception to this situation might be the case where there is no doubt the person did it but they did it because someone had kidnapped their child and would kill them unless they committed this atrocity.  I would probably still give them a life sentence though because despite the unenviable situation it still isn't an excuse to kill other innocent people.


On the other hand, situations where a body is found and there are no eyewitnesses and the suspect is someone who is convicted based on circumstantial evidence, if the suspect vehemently denies committing the crime but is convicted anyways, I am more likely to error on the side of caution and that person away for life.        -  The majority of murders probably fall into this category. 


-------------


Posted By: Unitron
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 3:38pm
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

There are definitely different levels:

To me, a monster who walks into a school or shopping mall, etc. and starts opening fire indiscriminately who is caught in the act and lives to tell about it deserves the death penalty. 

Situations like this where there is no doubt who the perpetrator is I don't really have a problem with the death penalty.  The exception to this situation might be the case where there is no doubt the person did it but they did it because someone had kidnapped their child and would kill them unless they committed this atrocity.  I would probably still give them a life sentence though because despite the unenviable situation it still isn't an excuse to kill other innocent people.


On the other hand, situations where a body is found and there are no eyewitnesses and the suspect is someone who is convicted based on circumstantial evidence, if the suspect vehemently denies committing the crime but is convicted anyways, I am more likely to error on the side of caution and that person away for life.        -  The majority of murders probably fall into this category. 

Agreed Clap

This is basically how I feel.


-------------
If I say fuck two more times that's forty-six fucks in this fucked up rhyme


Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 7:05pm
I can't think of any reason why I would support the death penalty personally.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/I_am_A_Person" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2014 at 9:24pm
Costs more money than imprisonment for life and has a chance of killing innocent people.  Even if I were a bloodthirsty neocon piece of shit I couldn't support it.


Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2014 at 12:53am
Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

Costs more money than imprisonment for life and has a chance of killing innocent people.  Even if I were a bloodthirsty neocon piece of shit I couldn't support it.

Clap


-------------
"Before you see the light you must die!!!!!!!!!!" - Slayer

"Today is born the seventh one, born of woman, the seventh son" - Steve Harris


Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2014 at 9:28am
Too many cases of innocents being convicted, law enforcement misconduct and the like. How can a society say killing is wrong and then kill? Prison sounds like a worse punishment any ways

-------------


Posted By: bartosso
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2014 at 9:53am
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Too many cases of innocents being convicted, law enforcement misconduct and the like. How can a society say killing is wrong and then kill? Prison sounds like a worse punishment any ways

It definitely does, taking freedom is in a way harsher than taking life. I remember however how people were shocked by how short the sentence for Breivik was. It seems in Norway it's not about punishment but rather about rehabilitating the convict, which is a good thing in my opinion. I can't see how they want to fix this fucker, though. 


-------------
http://shrineofllyria.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - http://shrineofllyria.blogspot.com/


Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2014 at 1:08am
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Too many cases of innocents being convicted, law enforcement misconduct and the like. How can a society say killing is wrong and then kill? Prison sounds like a worse punishment any ways

Good point Clap


-------------
"Before you see the light you must die!!!!!!!!!!" - Slayer

"Today is born the seventh one, born of woman, the seventh son" - Steve Harris


Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2014 at 7:31am
Originally posted by bartosso bartosso wrote:

One question: Should it be all about punishing people, or socializing them so they never do this again? And if there's no way to rehabilitate them, then just keep them from harming anyone else. No need to kill anyone.


Answer: Happy with that but not paying for their upkeep. Do I let the appropriate governments know you're happy to pay for them all?




-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112





Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2014 at 7:43am
Originally posted by Bosh66 Bosh66 wrote:

Originally posted by Colt Colt wrote:


Having said all that, if a similar act was committed on any of my children I would serve the death penalty, personally.

For once that is not easier said than done.


If someone "hurt" one of mine, I know damn well I'd hunt them down, and take the punishment coming. Which is why we place justice out of the hands of the man in the street and serve it dispassionately.



I agree.

However, it would be nice to see those that prey on the weak and defenceless have the tables turned on them for once.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112





Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2014 at 7:48am
Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

Costs more money than imprisonment for life and has a chance of killing innocent people.  Even if I were a bloodthirsty neocon piece of shit I couldn't support it.


That's down to the way the penalty is managed.

With Scott's example, where there is no doubt whatsoever, that would not apply.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112





Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2014 at 7:54am
Can I just reiterate, I sit on the fence with this but the debate is very one-sided and I'm being a bit of a devils advocate here.  I'd like to know how many people, who are totally against the penalty of death, have experienced first hand an abhorrent crime against someone very close to them?



"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence




-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112





Posted By: bartosso
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2014 at 9:42am
Originally posted by Colt Colt wrote:

Can I just reiterate, I sit on the fence with this but the debate is very one-sided and I'm being a bit of a devils advocate here.  I'd like to know how many people, who are totally against the penalty of death, have experienced first hand an abhorrent crime against someone very close to them?



"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence



If any of us have experienced something like that or not shouldn't matter. We're not punishing these people for revenge, are we ? Wink If you want revenge, kill the murderer yourself and face the consequences. And no, none of my friends or family members were murdered so I can't say for sure how I would react. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want the penal system to do the dirty work for me. Besides, if someone kills another person, than there's something wrong with him. These people should be isolated from society and rehabilitated/treated. Hating them makes least sense of all options available.

But again, I have no means to know how I would react. I can just hope that I'd stand by my ideals.


-------------
http://shrineofllyria.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - http://shrineofllyria.blogspot.com/


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2014 at 10:12pm
Originally posted by Colt Colt wrote:

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

Costs more money than imprisonment for life and has a chance of killing innocent people.  Even if I were a bloodthirsty neocon piece of shit I couldn't support it.


That's down to the way the penalty is managed.

With Scott's example, where there is no doubt whatsoever, that would not apply.


This is true.  If there were to be death penalty I wouldn't support any option more expensive than a bullet.  I still think the entire practice is barbaric and wrong.


Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2014 at 3:57am
Interestingly, the death penalty for treason in England was only abolished in 1998.

700 years ago the penalty here in England was to be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Convicts were fastened to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurdle" rel="nofollow - hurdle , or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged" rel="nofollow - hanged (almost to the point of death), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emasculation" rel="nofollow - emasculated , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disembowelment" rel="nofollow - disembowelled , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decapitation" rel="nofollow - beheaded and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismemberment" rel="nofollow - quartered (chopped into four pieces). Their remains were often displayed in prominent places across the country, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge" rel="nofollow - London Bridge . For reasons of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modesty" rel="nofollow - public decency , women convicted of high treason were instead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_women_in_England" rel="nofollow - burned at the stake .

Source: Wikipedia


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112





Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2014 at 4:02am
Women of high standing though were usually beheaded, so as to preserve their modesty Confused


Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2014 at 5:43am
Originally posted by Bosh66 Bosh66 wrote:

Women of high standing though were usually beheaded, so as to preserve their modesty Confused


Least of her worries I would have said! LOL




-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112





Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2014 at 7:54pm
Originally posted by Colt Colt wrote:

Can I just reiterate, I sit on the fence with this but the debate is very one-sided and I'm being a bit of a devils advocate here.  I'd like to know how many people, who are totally against the penalty of death, have experienced first hand an abhorrent crime against someone very close to them?



"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence





Usually i'm the one playing devil's advocate but not this time Wink

Here in the US - WAAAY too many people have been wrongly executed only to be proven innocent by DNA testing after the fact. There are many  families of victims who have actively tried to stop the death penalty from occurring because of their religious beliefs to no avail because the state has made a business out of death.

Personally i have fortunately never experienced anything horrendous of the sort but i am of the mind set that revenge never makes anything better. I saw a really good documentary a few years ago about the different prison systems of the world and in the countries that actually engage in rehabilitative practices and teach the miscreants how to interact with society actually have the lowest crime rates in the world. Scandinavian countries were some of the best but Japan was an interesting case too because they started out very lenient and gave the person a chance but if they blew it they did the worst.

Also according to statistics states or countries with the death penalty show that it does nothing for prevention of terrible crimes.


-------------



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2013 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk