It's so easy to die ...
Some bastards who raped, kill, ... just deserves to be tortured until their death

Obviously you are joking, but should you be allowed to punish others to death on your own accord...?


Discussions on capital punishment always veer of many ways, the first side question is, which crimes deserve the death penalty...? Vorian is advocating death penalty on arsonists, is that for any type of arson...? Zeus advocated the same for pedophiles, but not long ago he likened the pedos to people performing circumcision. So, do we kill medical professionals doing their jobs now...?

I read something similar to that a while ago, but some reason just can't believe it to be the case. Maybe it was so for a small amount of cases where the evidence was circumstantial, but that reflects on the judicial system rather than the punishments set.

The criminals in our prison system cost mega bucks per day, if you multiply it for 3650 for a 10 year period, it blows out to a huge sum. If he is a young criminal serving multiple life sentences, like our Martin Bryant, the same argument loses its validity.

Death penalty also brings a closure to victims' families. For some reason, these killers will be brought to spotlight in the media for some trivial reason every so many years. Not long ago they were discussing his mental capacity and he was moved to an institution from his solitary confinement. Why does our state care so much about this cunt...?

SK said:

I get the gist of your argument but don't agree with you 100% Yes, I worry about the innocent people who have been or could be executed and I don't agree with wholesale executions. But, I have no problem with admitted, proven murderers or terrorists being sent to the gallows.

What do you recommend we do with Osama if he is ever aprehended? Put him in solitary confinement for the rest of his life? You know that he would not last an hour among the general population of a prison.

Well said

In my view the state should never condone the death of a human being UNLESS the state itself is at risk. It's fundamentally wrong, in my opinion, for any organisation of men to decide whether another has the right to live or not, UNLESS if said organisation (large body of human beings, a society built upon fair and just laws) is betrayed and left in a state of severe vulnerability. Why? The state always looks upon matters of crime objectively, it itself is never personally attacked - its values and morals might be, but the state itself is nothing more than insulted; thus punishment below the level of killing should be enforced. However, a single person can be severely hurt by a crime of passion. In his own mind, revenge for said deed might overwhelm him. He might not give a fuck if he damns himself for eternety but just wants to shed some bastard blood before he dies. He might hate with such intensity that even the objective state might show leniency. Officially, the state must punish this man aswell, for going beyond the strict guidelines of decency and disregarding the order of things, but still understands his emotion.

So in my mind, the state can issue orders of assassinations if they are completely SURE that someone is betraying the integrity of the nation. If possible, arrest and judged before a court and then punished with death.

So the capital punishment ONLY for traitors!

proven murderers???? how do you know the "proof" is correct?

see the OJSimpson case. One court finds him not-guilty, another court forces him to pay millions to the victim 's family. As you can see there are problems with the judicial system. Why then should ppl be punished in an IRREVERSIBLE manner by this judicial system?

as for terrorists, executing them is the most stupid thing: they are promoted to heroes and martyrs.

The time of capital penalty is over. In the US,capital punishment additionally serves as revenge (they allow the victims family to watch the execution ), which again is not compatible with any judicial system.

I said no, would used to have said yes.

No, but i see no problem with reserving it for crimes like child rape and murder and horrific mass murders - wasting state money on their survival in a life-long prison term is not worth the effort I think, so for those individuals they should get get the lethal injection - send them off quickly, with no fuss or hassle or over-the-top methods like electrocution or hanging.

Most other crimes I think are perfectly well punished by prison terms, so long as the prisons are not decked out with playstations, sattelite tv's and such...

i said undecided. Some people deserve a few fucking bullets in their heads. Like I recall a few weeks ago here in I think Baltimore, some dudes rounded up 3 teens and shot them execution style once at a time facing a wall at night time, at an elementary school. The three teens were just hanging out at the park.. those fuckers need bullets through their skulls. But I'm against killing another human unless its self-defense.

When the killer admits to killing is proof enough for me or any judge and jury. The judicial system is certainly flawed in America granted, but as technology advances in areas such as DNA evidence, wrongful executions will certainly decline.

The O.J. Simpson case is a whole other story. The L.A.P.D and the L.A. District Attorney simply fucked the case due to their gross incompetence and a killer was set free. I'm 100% certain of his guilt. The verdict also came at a time in L.A. when the P.D. was accused of racism, violence and profiling. Simpson's defense team took advantage of the situation and turned the case into a racially motivated accusation of Simpson.

I also support the death penalty for those who deserves it 100%. Just one example would be the savages who practices so called honor killing as a part of their tradition and culture. When Turkey had a death penalty, it didn't stop these svages for practicing it...now Turkey doesn't have this punishment, and these savages are more active than before.

Of course the terrorists should not be left out also.

In a Western, democratic country, to impose the death penalty, you would need to have incredibly sophisticated checks and balances in order to 'exhaust' all line of appeal.

As a general rule, all Western democracies have banned the death penalty (apart from the US). So we need to use that as our example.

Basically, the State will provide a condemned man with legal representation from the moment of arrest through to the end. As a death row inmate usually spends in excess of 10 years awaiting death, there is an incredible amount of legal challenges, ranging from retrials, appeals to State level, Federal level etc...

Genuinely, this costs many millions, as you have to factor in the costs of the defence, the State, the Courts and so on.

Now, if we were to apply the same principle in the UK or Australia it would be even more costly, as in the US the defence are usually from the public defenders office. In our legal systems however, it is likely that the defence team of such a high profile case will be headed by a Queens Counsel, therefore the Prosecution will need a QC and the costs until all legal challenges are exhausted will be astronomical.

There is no way to lessen the checks and balances, as nothing less will be expected in a free and democratic society.

So the costs argument is not a red herring, but a very real one, I can provide Stats from California (where Death row inmates cost far, far more than lifers).

However, the costs argument is very low on my list of priorities and is only a rebuttal argument, a cost benefit analysis of taking a human life has no role in the criminal justice system.

Ultimately, I do not believe that a State should put its people to death, apart from the risk of oppression (no matter how slight), it also removes any higher moral authority that the justice system has. It is not an example to show that killing is wrong by killing someone else. I would let Osama Bin Laden rot in hell, as I would a child killer.

Of course, I would personally want to kill someone who harmed someone I loved, but that is why the State is responsible for justice, to remove those with anger and passion from the fray, so that it is handled in a civilised and objective manner.

Otherwise, I may physically assault someone guilty of scratching my car, we have evolved past the point of mob rule and lynchings.

As for closure for the victims, I am from he UK, we have not executed anyone since the 1960's and some murderers walk out of prison after serving 12-15 years inside. We should be a hotbed of distraught and angered victims families, yet we are not.

To demand an execution to try and bring closure to a family shows a fundamental flaw in the victim support of that jurisdiction. You'll find that many families in the UK move on from the vindictive retribution sought in the US- maybe its the culture?

In general most victim families get involved in projects aimed to reduce killing/child abduction and charity work, their pain is all too real but they use it in a different manner from a blood feud.

Personally I am against it.....don't know how would I feel if my child was killed by a sicko but morally death penalty is wrong.

However if they caught an arsonist red-handed, I might be in the crowd throwing stones...my village in Corinthos had a narrow escape since the wind changed direction, and in there was my sick grandfather, my 5-year old cousins and my uncle's family.

Glad to hear that your family made it okay Vorian. My prayers are with them.

I am against the death penalty under any circumstances. I was always against it.

It is not equitable..

Thanks kayakiran