1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

The Death Penalty

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Bananarama, Apr 15, 2017.

  1. lemoncatpower

    lemoncatpower Cynical optimist

    With more intelligence and respect, people become attracted to those kind of liberal ideas ;)

    yes it is a very good thing. The guillotine was not that effective if I recall correctly with it only partly severing some heads, etc. But id have to look it up, and by just a decade ago im sure they've perfected the blade not to do that, so i'm probably thinking of 7th grade history. Anyways very inhumane way to kill someone indeed.
     
  2. lemoncatpower

    lemoncatpower Cynical optimist

    With more intelligence and respect, people become attracted to those kind of liberal ideas ;)

    yes it is a very good thing. The guillotine was not that effective if I recall correctly with it only partly severing some heads, etc. But id have to look it up, and by just a decade ago im sure they've perfected the blade not to do that, so i'm probably thinking of 7th grade history. Anyways very inhumane way to kill someone indeed.
     
  3. U.N. Owen

    U.N. Owen In Brightest Day, In Blackest Night ...

    The death penalty runs of the fallacy of two wrongs making a right. You cannot bring a dead person back to life by killing the murderer.
     
  4. Steampunk

    Steampunk One Truth Prevails

    Ah, hello debate forum, my old friend.

    That is indeed true. I think it more falls along the lines of "It would take taxpayer dollars to keep the person alive in prison, and we can't just release them to the public, so let's just off-em."

    While I can understand the reasons for the Death Penalty being instituted, I am personally against it. Like was mentioned, taking a life doesn't bring another back, plus there is always the fact that it is possible that the person is innocent. While it may not be incredibly common, it does happen where an inmate is accused of something and later evidence resurfaces proving their innocence. If the inmate is currently serving their sentence, then it is simple to release them, if they are already executed however...

    Like I said, I don't think this would be a common scenario by far, but the fact remains that it is a possibility.
     
  5. Genaller

    Genaller May 16th 2016 - October 12th 2019

    Well for the first question various forms of the death penalty have been prevalent throughout human history, so it isn’t unusual, though it certainly is harsh since by definition you are ending a human’s life. I think it goes without saying that the only instance where such a penalty should even be considered is when the crime involves the taking of human life. Let’s assume that there is a legal system which passes out judgement is able to do so with perfect accuracy (everyone who’s guilty is convicted and everyone who’s innocent is exonerated). Under such a system if the convicted doesn’t have an extenuating circumstance (which would need to be considered on a case by case basis though there should be a general guide for what common extenuating circumstances are), then I would wholeheartedly support their execution. People who take life don’t deserve any reasources including food, space or the time of other people; their life should be ended with the fewest use of resources as possible. The issue; however, is that every currently practiced legal is far from the ideal of “perfect accuracy” and in particular all such systems will inevitably convict an innocent. As far as I’m concerned, the conviction of someone innocent is infinitely worse than the exoneration of someone guilty and even if resources are wasted on those truly guilty, it would be worth it if even a single innocent person wasn’t wrongly executed and was given hope to perhaps someday be cleared. In conclusion, I reject the death penalty under current legal systems but would support it under a legal system that could pass judgment with perfect accuracy (a vacuous statement since such a system in all likelihood is impossible to achieve).
     
  6. PrinceOfFacade

    PrinceOfFacade Ghost-Type Master

    I'll tell you this. I am not opposed to Dylann Roof getting the death penalty.

    To be honest, the opinions of the death penalty vary mostly by one's own constitution of justice, and some are far more 'Old Testament' with their distinction than others. For me, I view the death penalty as a way of removing the possibility of the person ever getting the chance to commit their crime another time. This would apply to those who, in my mind, committed the most heinous of crimes:

    - mass murder
    - serial rape
    - serial pedophilic predation
    - 1st/2nd degree child murder
    - 1st/2nd degree infanticide
    - Embezzlement (varies by extent of impact)

    Again, the opinions of death penalty varies by one's own constitution of justice, so feel free to disagree completely with anything I have here. Nevertheless, I do find the above list legally and morally plausible to evoke a death sentence.
     
  7. FlorgesPower2

    FlorgesPower2 Anime fanatic

    I find it funny that people push for the death penalty for serial killers and terrorist, but Larry Nassar sexually assaults 160+ women the majority of which were underage at the time but he basically only got 2 life sentences.

    That man doesn't care about what he did, he wrote a letter to the judge basically saying that.
     
  8. Genaller

    Genaller May 16th 2016 - October 12th 2019

    It depends on how much value you want to assign to human life. Rape may be heinous and to have done so to so many people must have caused astronomical harm; however, it still can’t compare with actually taking human life. I’m sure rape must be a traumatic experience for the victim but there are ways to help them recover from such an experience (even if some don’t there’s at least hope that they can) whereas unfortunately we human beings have no inkling on how to cure literal death and once you’re dead hope is lost for you. Perhaps this individual does deserve more than what he’s getting but it needn’t be literal execution. For starters castration seems fairly apt along with perhaps other punishments (e.g. torture equivalent to the amount of estimated harm he caused all of those girls/women).
     
  9. SBaby

    SBaby Dungeon Master

    I could tell you what I would like to see happen to him, but I would likely be banned from this website for posting it.

    Ok. Apparently I COULD have said it. Yeah, pretty much what you said here for anyone who does something so heinous. Don't know if I would suggest torture, but the other thing would definitely ensure that they didn't repeat-offend.
     
  10. WizardTrubbish

    WizardTrubbish much more beastly

    "Only." Because life in prison is such a sweet gig.

    And there's a pragmatic argument for making the sentence for rape less severe than the penalty for murder, as to prevent incentivizing rapists from killing their victims. If, for instance, rape and murder were both punishable by death, a rapist who kills their victim could reduce their chances of getting caught, without increasing what sentence they're risking.
     
  11. Kung Fu Ferret

    Kung Fu Ferret The Great Dreamer

    Here in Massachusetts, the death penalty is illegal. The only exception is for blatant terrorism (like the Boston Marathon bombing, but that was the feds who decided for that to happen)
     
  12. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    There really shouldn't be exceptions. That defeats the whole purpose.
     
    Kung Fu Ferret likes this.
  13. ~Ace

    ~Ace i can show you how

    * b u m p *

    In a true liberal democracy, it could be argued that everyone has a right to fair trial. That includes terrorists captured and the wider spectrum of those who seek to infringe upon others' liberties - to capture and then sentence them to death is a cop-out. Rather, it would make sense for their punishment to be stewing on what they have done, knowing they very well may spend the rest of their lives incarcerated.

    But then again, it brings up the debate of whether prison should primarily function as a form of punishment or rehabilitation for the incarcerated - if the death penalty is something of the past that the masses have come to a consensus on, of course.
     
  14. Deadeye

    Deadeye H(a)unting...

    I agree with your statement. In my country there are still few people who have been held in prison for like 2-10 years for killing a person and everytime they are released due to "co-operativeness during their sentence", they just end up repeating their crimes. But since they aren't psychotic or otherwise mentally unstable and they say they didn't plan their actions but might've been stalking their victims before due to other reasons/excuses (sexual obsession for example), they aren't even held in prison for the rest of their lives! But imho they should, so that they wouldn't be danger to anyone else again. Death penalty isn't an option in our country and whether it was or wasn't an option doesn't really matter; a lifetime spent in prison is pretty much equal to death because you cannot build your future the way of your choosing anymore. It can be really boring unless your daily game was to plan your escape.
    Even while they have been given chances to build their lives without crime, they just keep living and abusing the system (law enforcement and general) while it's those law-abiding citizens and their families, who lose and suffer. Why do we have law and rules in our society, if breaking them benefits someone more than obeying them? And is it moral to uphold laws, if following them doesn't ensure general safety aside from what everyone has to do according to common sense? If it were about milder cases, it would be more understandable and it's true these rules shouldn't be all black-and-white, but it's certainly stupid to even have rules if breaking them doesn't have serious consequences on those who commit serious crimes.

    Let's turn the question around: why should our society pamper (or constantly show mercy on) those who commit serious or repetitive crimes/are known to be danger to general public? By them I mean those who could (have been in the history at least) in some cases be sentenced to death? Doesn't mean we still can't be merciful on those milder cases and people who prefer ruining their own lives with crime rather than impacting someone elses with it!
     
  15. PrinceOfFacade

    PrinceOfFacade Ghost-Type Master

    As a rape victim myself, I can't think of too many other victims who would deem death as the worse of the two, especially male victims, who are twice as likely to commit suicide.
     
  16. Genaller

    Genaller May 16th 2016 - October 12th 2019

    I guess there’s subjectivity on how much value 1 puts on human life which is likely substantially influenced by factors like the quality of their own life as well as what they believe will happen to them after they die. For the record someone very close to me (I’d rather not say whom on a public forum) was raped as a very young child and that person has experienced bursts of trauma regarding the incident even as a fully grown adult. At the same time though given all the other positive events that had occurred in this individual’s life since then, they would never consider death to be a preferable outcome though to be fair they’re opposed to suicide as well as the death penalty on principle.

    Interestingly enough since I wrote my initial stance on the death penalty I’ve actually been made to realize that capital punishment on average is even more costly than life imprisonment which makes me lean towards the death penalty not being worth it even in an idealized legal system.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2018
  17. PrinceOfFacade

    PrinceOfFacade Ghost-Type Master

    In most cases, it's not. However, I do feel one can objectively conclude that in cases where imprisonment does not resolve the issue.

    Of course I am really reffering to (as I only can) the United States justice system, which has many loopholes that can enable a prisoner to be freed. Due to these, the death penalty may objectively be the greater option for a serial offender. But even then, it varies by one's own constitution of justice.
     
  18. Genaller

    Genaller May 16th 2016 - October 12th 2019

    If you believe it’s objective then what criteria would you use for determining such a conclusion (just curious)?

    I can understand the rationale on the death penalty being more of an option for people who have repeatedly committed heinous crimes since the probability of false conviction diminishes dramatically with repeated offenses.

    From your previous posts I think a major issue of disagreement between us would be that I’m placing more value on an innocent being convicted whereas you’re placing more value on a guilty being exonerated (and hence potentially committing more heinous acts).
     
  19. PrinceOfFacade

    PrinceOfFacade Ghost-Type Master

    The same instances I gave above in my initial post in the thread.

    However, for the one about embezzlement, I do feel you - as well as anyone else - should take it with many grains of salt, as that one is based entirely on my personal constitution of a heinous crime. I would elaborate, but I wouldn't know where to begin. I just personally find embezzlement, especially from charities, an incredibly evil act.
     
  20. Morton Belgram

    Morton Belgram Well-Known Member

    Death penalty works great, as long as it WILL occur and as long as the population is rich enough to feel no need to take the great risks of comitting crime.

    Look at Singapore, Japan, Brunei, etc. Many may hate to face it, but the truth is that a good economy and hard punishments results in almost crimefree societies.
     

Share This Page