** The Capital Punishment/Death Penalty Discussion Thread ** [merged]

Do you support the death penalty? Yes or no?

Nope. Not in general. If the crime was extraordinarily heinous, then maybe. But even in that case, I would be for letting him/her rot away or perhaps torture.

No. I would rather they rot in prison for the rest of their natural life.

It depends on each individual case, but in general, yeah. And I certainly support a firing squad because if it were me, THAT'S how I'd want to go out, not strapped down for lethal injection, or hanging, and I certainly have no desire to be set on fire in the electric chair. But I think that last firing squad case was a little nuts. If you're going to have five gunmen, give them all real bullets, none of this one bullet, four blanks and nobody knows who did it crap.

I honestly don't know if it's ever justified.

I live in Canada, where we don't have the death penalty. This is a hard one, because I think there are some creeps who really shouldn't be allowed to live - serial killers, serial rapists, people who will not change their way no matter what. I think those people should be released into the general prison population so they can get a taste of what their victims feel. that's not really capitol punishment, but natural consequences to the actions they've chosen. There's been a case going on for the last... I don't know how many years, and the guy charged... well - just google "Pickton" and you'll see what a sick person he is. People like that don't deserve protective custody. I also don't think for people like that that prison should be comfortable - no fancy gaming systems, limited Internet connection, limited TV, and so forth. Criminals like Pickton shouldn't be living in luxury while others are struggling to have their basic needs met.

I think there is only the rarest occasions when I might consider capitol punishment. I can think of three cases off the top of my head - Homolka & Benardo (they were tried separately) and Pickton.

Is it ever justifiable to execute criminals? Yes, heck yes. Terrorists, serial killers, people who are just flat out dangerous! Some are under the impression that death penalty for some means death penalty for all. Ridiculous notion. I think it should be rare, but it should remain an option reserved for the most heinous of criminals.

And those who use the idea of innocent people being executed as an excuse to NEVER do it seem to be more anti-punishment, since innocent people are imprisoned for their entire lives to, and probably killed by fellow inmates in prison. Yes the death penalty should be rarer but clearly saying that it should never be used is a bit rash. "Innocent people are executed" is an excuse that might argue against executing every convicted murderer, but it can't be used in the cases when the death penalty actually had merit in being administered.

How many innocent people have been executed? In Texas, didn't they execute a man with an IQ of 52? Beside all that, it is just flat out wrong. We are the only modern country left that does this barbaric act I believe, and it should be stopped.

Innocent people die in war too, doesn't mean we stop having them, even if it does sound like a good idea.


I say hell yes. There are some people not fit to live, especially not at the expense of OUR tax dollars, three meals a day, a place to sleep, TV, video games, where in all this does the message 'killing someone is wrong' come into play? Prisoners get more benefits and better treatment than the Veterans who serve their country. And some people will never change, so why bother keeping them around? And today we have advanced forensics and DNA testing that can clear or damn a man quicker than anything, that people in past times could only dream of. So today they're more likely to get the right guy and a lot of them have been getting out because it's been proven they didn't do it.

Supernova wrote:Innocent people die in war too, doesn't mean we stop having them, even if it does sound like a good idea.


I say hell yes. There are some people not fit to live, especially not at the expense of OUR tax dollars, three meals a day, a place to sleep, TV, video games, where in all this does the message 'killing someone is wrong' come into play? Prisoners get more benefits and better treatment than the Veterans who serve their country. And some people will never change, so why bother keeping them around? And today we have advanced forensics and DNA testing that can clear or damn a man quicker than anything, that people in past times could only dream of. So today they're more likely to get the right guy and a lot of them have been getting out because it's been proven they didn't do it.

Except for the ones already dead, of course. Would you flip the switch, start the poison flowing into someone's veins, etc? I don't think prison is the luxury spa you make it out to be either. If we kill someone for killing someone, how are we any better?

pisces33 wrote:If we kill someone for killing someone, how are we any better?

Circumstances are everything. If somebody breaks into your house and is threatening your family, plugging them is very different than breaking into somebody's house and plugging them for their jewelery.

Likewise, executing a hardened and cold blooded killer is very different than them killing their victims. It's an easy distinction.

Funny how right to lifers are all for the death penalty.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Circumstances are everything. If somebody breaks into your house and is threatening your family, plugging them is very different than breaking into somebody's house and plugging them for their jewelery.

Likewise, executing a hardened and cold blooded killer is very different than them killing their victims. It's an easy distinction.

You really can't see a difference between defending one's family then and there, and strapping someone down who cannot resist and killing them in cold blood? Would you be the executioner?

Wadsworth wrote:Funny how right to lifers are all for the death penalty.

It's not funny to rational thinkers who can distinguish between serial killers and babies. To those people, it's 100% rational.
BTW, "all for the death penalty?" I love how those against it blur distinctions and make it sound like just because you'd be for executing a terrorist or cold blooded serial killer, you're for executing everybody convicted of a crime. No, we're not "all for the death penalty." Wrong again.

Uh huh Forgiveness, yeah I know...

Yup - that's exactly right, pisces - I wouldn't want to be the one flipping the switch, which is why I'm very hesitant and would only consider it in the worst possible scenarios, though even then, I really don't know - it would just be a consideration. It's also why I'm glad that Canada doesn't have capitol punishment. Letting them deal with the general prison population, though? That I'd be more willing to consider.

pisces33 wrote:You really can't see a difference between defending one's family then and there, and strapping someone down who cannot resist and killing them in cold blood? Would you be the executioner?

Wadsworth can't see the difference between a baby and a killer.

But to me, I do see the difference, but I also see the similarities. The people I support executing are the extreme minority of criminals, the most severe. To me, executing them IS defending my family, and society at large. This isn't your every day convenient store robber. I'm talking about the worst of the worst. Executing them isn't killing them in cold blood. Again, I only support it in extreme cases. I say it should be very rare. People need to stop making it sound like it's proposed as the end of every crook that comes through the doors.

Would I be the executioner? You don't want me poking and prodding anybody with needles.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:
Wadsworth can't see the difference between a baby and a killer.

But to me, I do see the difference, but I also see the similarities. The people I support executing are the extreme minority of criminals, the most severe. To me, executing them IS defending my family, and society at large. This isn't your every day convenient store robber. I'm talking about the worst of the worst. Executing them isn't killing them in cold blood. Again, I only support it in extreme cases. I say it should be very rare. People need to stop making it sound like it's proposed as the end of every crook that comes through the doors.

Would I be the executioner? You don't want me poking and prodding anybody with needles.

But yet you want someone else to kill so you can feel safer? Would you want to be best buddies with someone who executes people for a living? What if the person being killed was innocent, which has happened a lot. Too bad for them, at least it wasn't me? I think the worst of the worst should be studied, to try to figure out why they are the way they are.

You can sit around wondering your whole life why serial killers are they way they are but they're always going to be that way. There's never going to be a cure for them, they're not going to be rehabilitated. AND, killers DO escape from prison, just recently there was that story of two convicted for life murderers who broke out and left more bodies to be found...so clearly, prison isn't punishment enough and the public's not safe enough if they can do that. Any executed killer is never going to murder somebody again, and that's reason enough for me to have them do it. Then there's that little forgotten fact that the average guy on death row has almost THIRTY years to work on appeals, if they can't figure out by the end of that, especially today with the advanced forensics and DNA, if the guy's guilty or not, odds are they're never going to.

Supernova wrote:You can sit around wondering your whole life why serial killers are they way they are but they're always going to be that way. There's never going to be a cure for them, they're not going to be rehabilitated. AND, killers DO escape from prison, just recently there was that story of two convicted for life murderers who broke out and left more bodies to be found...so clearly, prison isn't punishment enough and the public's not safe enough if they can do that. Any executed killer is never going to murder somebody again, and that's reason enough for me to have them do it. Then there's that little forgotten fact that the average guy on death row has almost THIRTY years to work on appeals, if they can't figure out by the end of that, especially today with the advanced forensics and DNA, if the guy's guilty or not, odds are they're never going to.

I guess this is something we will never agree on which is fine. I will never understand why if it is wrong to kill, why our government does it.

It's ridiculous for the most part so no, I don't think it's justified....but I'm for it in extremely heinous situations.

pisces33 wrote:But yet you want someone else to kill so you can feel safer? Would you want to be best buddies with someone who executes people for a living? What if the person being killed was innocent, which has happened a lot. Too bad for them, at least it wasn't me? I think the worst of the worst should be studied, to try to figure out why they are the way they are.

I won't judge them solely by the career.

Innocent people are killed in prison too. Should we not imprison people? If there is a chance the person is innocent, they likely shouldn't be executed. The cases I speak of supporting it in don't really have any doubt as to the guilt of the victim.

Inmates can be on death row for years. We'll still have plenty of chance to study them. We can bring in the BAU to study and write books.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Inmates can be on death row for years. We'll still have plenty of chance to study them. We can bring in the BAU to study and write books.

Yes, they'll be there for years, 27 years on average, it's not like they give the guy the needle 10 minutes after the judge declares he gets the death penalty.

Supernova wrote:Yes, they'll be there for years, 27 years on average, it's not like they give the guy the needle 10 minutes after the judge declares he gets the death penalty.

They could be whacked in their cell before we give 'em the needle. Not everyone gets the speedy execution the crooks on TV get.(After all, they'd have no drama if they had to wait 27 years to execute somebody)

The different methods of capital punishment. I don't have a problem with the death penalty in itself, but am I the only one who DOES have a problem with the majority of the cases being carried out by lethal injection? You sure as hell can't convince me that's painless or humane, why do they think the condemned guy is strapped down? They strap them into the electric chair too but you wouldn't call that painless, would you?

I think more states need to bring back the possibility of a firing squad because if I were on death row, that's how I'd want to go out. Not tied to a gurney writhing around for half an hour feeling my body shut down piece by piece. And I think hanging needs to be an option in more states too because if it's done properly it's bound to be over with relatively soon and how expensive is the rope going to be in comparison to the lethal injection drugs?

What's everybody else think?