Talk Elections

General Politics => Political Debate => Topic started by: Frodo on April 30, 2012, 06:03:14 PM



Title: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Frodo on April 30, 2012, 06:03:14 PM
We haven't had a poll on this subject in quite a while, though I am well aware we already have a thread on the topic...   


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: k-onmmunist on April 30, 2012, 06:07:01 PM
Democrat/Death Penalty


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 30, 2012, 06:14:11 PM
Republican/Life in prison wo parole.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 30, 2012, 06:33:47 PM
Democrat/Life without parole


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 30, 2012, 07:09:03 PM
independent - voted death penalty, which I would like to see as the sole punishment for murder, but like the constitutional standard for treason, only if two or more witnesses can be provided. (Forensic evidence would be counted as only one witness, no matter how many people present it.) A lesser conviction, either for manslaughter, or with only one witness should have the punishment be life without parole, and the jury should be given the option to find that only one witness was credible, thereby making the defendant ineligible for the death penalty.  Neither rape nor pedophilia, as horrible as they are, warrant a death penalty on their own, or as special circumstance that makes a homicide a capital offense.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Napoleon on May 01, 2012, 12:08:45 AM
Democrat/never support the death penalty


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Redalgo on May 01, 2012, 12:48:34 AM
Independent - Life in Prison without Parole

I also do not think murder, rape, or pedophilia should carry the maximum sentencing as a default. I reckon these sorts of things really ought to be decided on a case-by-base basis.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on May 01, 2012, 05:06:35 PM
Death penalty.

I don't like the use of "but what about life without parole?" to sway people in this matter. There are crimes for which allowing the offender to continue living, even in prison without the chance of parole, would be too generous.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Insula Dei on May 01, 2012, 05:49:32 PM
What murder, rape and pedophilia at the same time? Or would one out of the three suffice?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Frodo on May 01, 2012, 05:55:41 PM
What murder, rape and pedophilia at the same time? Or would one out of the three suffice?

A murderer who also happens to have been a rapist and a pedophile.

I am testing people's parameters here, especially those who oppose the death penalty. 


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Insula Dei on May 01, 2012, 06:00:33 PM
Well, I've got no complaints about the treatment we've given Marc Dutroux (well, not since 1998), so that probably means 'Life Without Parole'.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: perdedor on May 01, 2012, 11:28:43 PM
I believe in replacing the death penalty and life in prison with life in a labor camp. Why kill off potentially valuable resources?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Franzl on May 02, 2012, 01:00:38 AM
Life in prison.

There should be a chance of parole in most cases, with the exception of crazy mass murderers, like Breivik.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: dead0man on May 02, 2012, 01:25:07 AM
Indy, DP

We're talking about somebody that rapes and kills a little kid here.  Assuming there is a ton of evidence against the guy (like video tape of the act, DNA, witness(es)), I see no reason a person like that should live.  I don't care if the studies say it doesn't prevent crime, it might make the victim's family feel just a little bit better and that by itself is enough for me.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 02, 2012, 08:51:06 AM
I believe in replacing the death penalty and life in prison with life in a labor camp. Why kill off potentially valuable resources?

What

()


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Tender Branson on May 02, 2012, 08:55:35 AM
Life in prison with chance of parole after 20 or 25 years for moderate murder cases with a good psychological outlook for no repeat offenses (has to be determined by 2 or more psychologists) and the criminal must not commit any offences while in prison and behave well.

Life in prison without chance of parole for really bad or serial murderers.

As for the poll: option 4


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: perdedor on May 02, 2012, 11:16:19 AM
I believe in replacing the death penalty and life in prison with life in a labor camp. Why kill off potentially valuable resources?

What

The death penalty is horribly flawed and bad policy all around, and this point has been beaten to death. I won't bother going into this.

That said, what's unreasonable about my proposal? What's the point of sticking a bunch of criminals in an enormous complex and babysitting them for the rest of their life? Why is it better to put convicted murderers and rapists in government storage when they could be contributing back to society via a labor program?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 02, 2012, 04:48:19 PM
I believe in replacing the death penalty and life in prison with life in a labor camp. Why kill off potentially valuable resources?

What

The death penalty is horribly flawed and bad policy all around, and this point has been beaten to death. I won't bother going into this.

That said, what's unreasonable about my proposal? What's the point of sticking a bunch of criminals in an enormous complex and babysitting them for the rest of their life? Why is it better to put convicted murderers and rapists in government storage when they could be contributing back to society via a labor program?

Um because that's basically the same idea as taking away someone's human rights for practicing a certain religion and subsequently forcing them to work themselves to death in a labour camp?

Where've I heard that one before...


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: perdedor on May 02, 2012, 04:55:40 PM
I believe in replacing the death penalty and life in prison with life in a labor camp. Why kill off potentially valuable resources?

What

The death penalty is horribly flawed and bad policy all around, and this point has been beaten to death. I won't bother going into this.

That said, what's unreasonable about my proposal? What's the point of sticking a bunch of criminals in an enormous complex and babysitting them for the rest of their life? Why is it better to put convicted murderers and rapists in government storage when they could be contributing back to society via a labor program?

Um because that's basically the same idea as taking away someone's human rights for practicing a certain religion and subsequently forcing them to work themselves to death in a labour camp?

Where've I heard that one before...

Being incarcerated is the suspension of human rights, of course - therefore I don't see how forced labor is anymore vile than storing rapists and murderers in a prison against their will. Furthermore, how is forced labor for murderers and rapists the same as "taking away someone's human rights for practicing a certain religion". That doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on May 04, 2012, 11:55:11 PM
I agree that people in prison should be doing some kind of work. But it shouldn't be harsh in the way that "labor camp" would imply, and there should be some element of choice about the type of work.  Some type of restitution from the offender is important.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: morgieb on May 05, 2012, 03:04:16 AM
Democrat, DP.

Apart from genocide/terrorism this is probably the only thing that would make me support the death penalty.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Frodo on May 05, 2012, 12:12:15 PM

Would you still oppose the death penalty even for terrorists and those Americans who committed treason in a time of war?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: perdedor on May 05, 2012, 12:14:15 PM
I agree that people in prison should be doing some kind of work. But it shouldn't be harsh in the way that "labor camp" would imply, and there should be some element of choice about the type of work.  Some type of restitution from the offender is important.

I certainly agree with the bolded part, but I'm not sure how protecting rapists and murderers from "harsh" labor accomplishes this. Let me emphasize the point that I am not suggesting we convert the entire prison/jail system into a system of "labor camps"; this would be a punishment for offenders of the highest degrees (rape, murder, terrorism, etc). There could be a less rigid community service program for lower level offenders.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 05, 2012, 12:26:01 PM

Would you still oppose the death penalty even for terrorists and those Americans who committed treason in a time of war?

Yes.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Redalgo on May 05, 2012, 01:08:41 PM
Ya, I completely agree with 20RP12 on that one.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on May 05, 2012, 01:09:36 PM
I believe in replacing the death penalty and life in prison with life in a labor camp. Why kill off potentially valuable resources?

What

The death penalty is horribly flawed and bad policy all around, and this point has been beaten to death. I won't bother going into this.

That said, what's unreasonable about my proposal? What's the point of sticking a bunch of criminals in an enormous complex and babysitting them for the rest of their life? Why is it better to put convicted murderers and rapists in government storage when they could be contributing back to society via a labor program?

Um because that's basically the same idea as taking away someone's human rights for practicing a certain religion and subsequently forcing them to work themselves to death in a labour camp?

Where've I heard that one before...
Practicing a certain religion =/= murdering and/or raping people.
Seriously.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 05, 2012, 01:44:44 PM

Would you still oppose the death penalty even for terrorists and those Americans who committed treason in a time of war?

Yes.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on May 05, 2012, 03:00:59 PM
I oppose the death penalty: period.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 05, 2012, 03:39:14 PM


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on May 07, 2012, 01:00:58 AM
I agree that people in prison should be doing some kind of work. But it shouldn't be harsh in the way that "labor camp" would imply, and there should be some element of choice about the type of work.  Some type of restitution from the offender is important.

I certainly agree with the bolded part, but I'm not sure how protecting rapists and murderers from "harsh" labor accomplishes this. Let me emphasize the point that I am not suggesting we convert the entire prison/jail system into a system of "labor camps"; this would be a punishment for offenders of the highest degrees (rape, murder, terrorism, etc). There could be a less rigid community service program for lower level offenders.
People who commit the worst crimes still ought to be treated with some basic level of respect as human beings. Otherwise you end up with Abu Ghraib.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Pingvin on May 07, 2012, 11:49:46 AM
I/O: DP - I also support death penalty for drug traffickers.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: perdedor on May 07, 2012, 02:15:53 PM
I agree that people in prison should be doing some kind of work. But it shouldn't be harsh in the way that "labor camp" would imply, and there should be some element of choice about the type of work.  Some type of restitution from the offender is important.

I certainly agree with the bolded part, but I'm not sure how protecting rapists and murderers from "harsh" labor accomplishes this. Let me emphasize the point that I am not suggesting we convert the entire prison/jail system into a system of "labor camps"; this would be a punishment for offenders of the highest degrees (rape, murder, terrorism, etc). There could be a less rigid community service program for lower level offenders.
People who commit the worst crimes still ought to be treated with some basic level of respect as human beings. Otherwise you end up with Abu Ghraib.

What is inhumane or undignified about forced labor that isn't the same with forced storage? Either way, you are forcing a human being out of free society. In one instance forcing them to contribute back to society, on the other forcing them to live in a box.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 07, 2012, 02:53:12 PM
I/O: DP - I also support death penalty for drug traffickers.

()


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Mechaman on May 07, 2012, 03:32:12 PM
All of those crimes together?  Meh, I guess life without the possibility of parole.  Though in real life I'd like to do a Scandinavian option, where we send the criminals to a nice little retreat on some majestic island where loving and caring counselors give them hugs, tell them they are misunderstood, and that they do have a purpose in life.

[/Mr. Soft on Crime]


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on May 07, 2012, 07:54:54 PM
I/O: DP - I also support death penalty for drug traffickers.

wat


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 08, 2012, 04:43:01 AM

Don't be shocked. It's Pingvin.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Supersonic on May 08, 2012, 05:19:30 AM

This.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on May 08, 2012, 09:51:24 AM
DEATH.  Indy


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Purch on May 08, 2012, 11:16:45 AM
Independent. Life w/o parole

I'm strongly against the death penalty for the exact same reasons I'm against abortion. I feel we need a certain respect for life within the country and we shouldn't just select what doesn't get to have that right to life.

And I'm an atheist if that's relevant



Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on May 08, 2012, 12:28:34 PM
And I'm an atheist if that's relevant


Neh, most here are.  I'm a Christian who favors the death penalty.....but I don't get this required connection between the death penalty and abortion stuff.

Oh and welcome.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Franzl on May 08, 2012, 12:54:05 PM
The thinking behind it Gramps: Life itself has its value, near unlimited value actually. Putting a condition on that, e.g. not being a murderer, changes the whole concept.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: LiberalJunkie on May 08, 2012, 01:29:53 PM
 Life in Prison w/out Parole


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on May 08, 2012, 01:46:19 PM
The thinking behind it Gramps: Life itself has its value, near unlimited value actually. Putting a condition on that, e.g. not being a murderer, changes the whole concept.

I see them as distinct issues, but ok.  :)


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: opebo on May 08, 2012, 04:51:08 PM
Regardless of what the punishment de jour may be, it shall never be applied to the right people.  Such was true of the boiling in oil, the electric chair, the injection, the psychiatric internment, and no doubt it will be true of the genetic brainwashing cure.

I'd be glad to turn every common murderer in the country free if we could trade them for the top 0.1% under the guillotine.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on May 10, 2012, 07:48:15 PM
Death penalty.

I don't like the use of "but what about life without parole?" to sway people in this matter. There are crimes for which allowing the offender to continue living, even in prison without the chance of parole, would be too generous.

You think why there are so many death row inmates who are voluintairly drooping all efforts to fight their sentences in order to be executed? Because living in prison without any chance of getting away is worse than death.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Frodo on May 10, 2012, 07:52:41 PM
I think for death penalty proponents, it's worth thinking about what exactly life imprisonment entails.

And if you read all the accounts of prison rape, forced 'marriages', and auctions of said 'brides', it's easy to understand why such a sentence would be a fate worse than death.  Particularly for those who are not physically gifted by nature.  


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: tmthforu94 on May 11, 2012, 10:05:31 PM
Republican - I do not support the death penalty, but have difficulties in determining whether parole should be permitted in cases like this. One of my political views that is still "developing".


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Insula Dei on May 13, 2012, 05:02:37 PM
I think for death penalty proponents, it's worth thinking about what exactly life imprisonment entails.

And if you read all the accounts of prison rape, forced 'marriages', and auctions of said 'brides', it's easy to understand why such a sentence would be a fate worse than death.  Particularly for those who are not physically gifted by nature.   

Well of course most 'civilized' countries don't include rape and severe emotional and physical abuse in the standard punishment they dole out to even the most banal of criminals. Might want to fix that one too.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Frodo on May 13, 2012, 07:01:44 PM
I think for death penalty proponents, it's worth thinking about what exactly life imprisonment entails.

And if you read all the accounts of prison rape, forced 'marriages', and auctions of said 'brides', it's easy to understand why such a sentence would be a fate worse than death.  Particularly for those who are not physically gifted by nature.  

Well of course most 'civilized' countries don't include rape and severe emotional and physical abuse in the standard punishment they dole out to even the most banal of criminals. Might want to fix that one too.

Well, it isn't exactly endorsed by the government if that's what you're implying.  It just comes with the territory.  We can't really control what prisoners do to one another when the guard's back is turned.  

At least our prisons no longer resemble Shawshank (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hB3S9bIaco) in which beatings of prisoners by guards were a regular part of life.  


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: morgieb on May 15, 2012, 08:01:37 AM
I/O: DP - I also support death penalty for drug traffickers.

Fascist.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Pingvin on May 18, 2012, 07:45:26 AM
Please, explain, what fascistic about executing people who sell death to our children?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 18, 2012, 08:10:13 AM
Please, explain, what fascistic about executing people who sell death to our children?

"Who sell death to our children"

The drug most sold and used in America is marijuana, which has caused...let's see...1, 2, 3, a total of 0 (yes, ZERO) deaths. One would need to smoke a few hundred grams of marijuana per second in order to overdose.

It should not be a crime to put into one's own body what we choose. Hamburgers and steak and ice cream can be just as unhealthy and life threatening as drugs, yet only drugs are illegal. It's only illegal cuz the government can make a hefty profit taxing citizens for a war that needn't even be fought. Politicians talk so much about how our prisons are overcrowded and there's no space to put violent criminals, well then why not make more room by freeing the non-violent criminals who were arrested for having an eighth of a gram of marijuana on their person. It's ludicrous to suggest that just because someone does drugs that they are automatically a violent and deplorable person. Drugs do not make people bad, bad attitudes towards drugs does. The more something is prohibited, the more likely people are to do it. It's why alcohol became a lot more popular in the 20s during prohibition. Tell me, if heroin became legal tomorrow, would you do heroin? Would your family do heroin? Would any logical person on this forum or in the world do heroin? No. Only those who had been doing heroin while it was illegal would still do heroin. It's not like if drugs became legal, we'd automatically forget that they can be dangerous and ruin our lives. In fact, the number of people doing drugs would likely decrease cuz there's no longer that feeling of "wow I'm such a badass for smoking pot even though it's illegal."


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on May 18, 2012, 12:10:41 PM
Is the death penaly really a major partisan issue?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on May 19, 2012, 01:17:43 AM
If we're heading off topic to drugs, here's my batsh**t crazy stance: I don't care about the facts of drug use. I think there's value in having the psychological moral line of illegal drugs. You succomb, break the law, and show your true character... or you don't. I wouldn't care if a study came out saying drugs were healthy. I think it's a good judge of character because it's a line people encounter regularly, unlike murder.

But that's totally off-topic.

In terms of the death penalty... I used to be all for it. But I got thinking about how pro-life I am regarding abortion, and it just didn't make sense for me to support the death penalty. While I firmly believe that the generic criminal in question would deserve to die, I don't believe it can ever be the state's role to condone institutionalized death.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: muon2 on May 20, 2012, 12:33:06 AM
I read the question as a single murder by a person with a previous record of sexual assault, or with that sexual assault as part of the murder. I would not generally favor the death penalty in that case. If however it was for a subsequent murder I think it should be eligible for the death penalty. This leaves DP as a punishment for serial killers. It also provides for a harsher punishment for murderers who kill again while in prison for life.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Torie on May 20, 2012, 07:29:54 PM
I am close to Muon2. In general, death should be left for those who have nothing to lose because they are already lifers, but I also go for Old Sparky for certain murders where the circumstances are aggravated, and kidnapping from a supermarket, and then torturing and raping, some little girl, seem to me to qualify. Fry but fry sparingly, just like we should use the F word, so that when we use it, it just carries more freight, and sends a clearer societal message.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on May 21, 2012, 05:47:29 AM
     I oppose the death penalty, unconditionally. Don't really agree with conceding the power of life & death to the state, personally. :)


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: k-onmmunist on May 21, 2012, 05:53:38 AM
Please, explain, what fascistic about executing people who sell death to our children?

"Who sell death to our children"

The drug most sold and used in America is marijuana, which has caused...let's see...1, 2, 3, a total of 0 (yes, ZERO) deaths. One would need to smoke a few hundred grams of marijuana per second in order to overdose.

It should not be a crime to put into one's own body what we choose. Hamburgers and steak and ice cream can be just as unhealthy and life threatening as drugs, yet only drugs are illegal. It's only illegal cuz the government can make a hefty profit taxing citizens for a war that needn't even be fought. Politicians talk so much about how our prisons are overcrowded and there's no space to put violent criminals, well then why not make more room by freeing the non-violent criminals who were arrested for having an eighth of a gram of marijuana on their person. It's ludicrous to suggest that just because someone does drugs that they are automatically a violent and deplorable person. Drugs do not make people bad, bad attitudes towards drugs does. The more something is prohibited, the more likely people are to do it. It's why alcohol became a lot more popular in the 20s during prohibition. Tell me, if heroin became legal tomorrow, would you do heroin? Would your family do heroin? Would any logical person on this forum or in the world do heroin? No. Only those who had been doing heroin while it was illegal would still do heroin. It's not like if drugs became legal, we'd automatically forget that they can be dangerous and ruin our lives. In fact, the number of people doing drugs would likely decrease cuz there's no longer that feeling of "wow I'm such a badass for smoking pot even though it's illegal."

Are you trying to use logic with a social conservative?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 21, 2012, 08:07:37 AM
Good point...


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Free Palestine on May 27, 2012, 09:16:08 PM
I oppose state-sanctioned murder, thank you very much.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: The Simpsons Cinematic Universe on May 27, 2012, 09:24:42 PM
Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on September 04, 2012, 08:37:45 AM
Republican; I'm neutral on the death penalty and can see both sides, so to be safe, I said life in prison without parole.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Middle-aged Europe on September 04, 2012, 09:00:15 AM
Neither.

There's no "life with parole" option.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Franzl on September 04, 2012, 09:05:36 AM
Neither.

There's no "life with parole" option.

Agree entirely.

99% of life sentences should at least have that option. Extreme cases like Breivik being an exception that I think should not necessarily grant that option.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: morgieb on September 04, 2012, 04:29:05 PM
No longer support the death penalty, ftr.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: © tweed on September 06, 2012, 12:55:25 PM
false dichotomy in the poll, no?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: opebo on September 06, 2012, 01:06:05 PM
Where the heck is the reasonable option? 


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Emperor Dubya on September 07, 2012, 11:24:23 AM
Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Donerail on September 07, 2012, 04:03:01 PM
Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

This is a fun new poster.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Supersonic on September 07, 2012, 04:04:40 PM
Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

This is a fun new poster.

MustCrushCapitalism vs. Emperor Dubya.

Oh what a treat!


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Dr. Cynic on September 07, 2012, 06:46:43 PM
Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

Lol.... Moron.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: morgieb on September 08, 2012, 06:35:05 AM
Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

This is a fun new poster.
Yeah, 'new'....


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Emperor Dubya on September 08, 2012, 11:13:21 AM
Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

Lol.... Moron.

Forgive me for having no sympathy for serial killers, rapists and child molesters....but of course, its 'societies' fault.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: opebo on September 08, 2012, 02:23:25 PM
But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

This is precisely how I feel about the rich, E.D.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: opebo on September 09, 2012, 07:27:07 AM
Why on earth do you think these crimes warrant 'life imprisonment without possibility of parole'?  I certainly don't.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Pingvin on September 10, 2012, 06:37:31 AM
Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

Lol.... Moron.

Forgive me for having no sympathy for serial killers, rapists and child molesters....but of course, its 'societies' fault.
You forgot drug traffickers.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: TJ in Oregon on September 11, 2012, 12:01:01 PM
As noted by the poster above, once you start trying to decide who deserves to live or not (apart from the situation where the other person is trying to kill you or someone else, ie. self defense or possibly war), you find out quickly that many people don't. From there you can fall into support of genicide and eugenics and a whole bunch of other terrible things to become the evil you were once trying to stand against or start, perhaps to recognize the validity of the following quote from JR Tolkien that Galdalf says to Frodo in the Fellowship of the Ring:

Quote
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Spanish Moss on September 21, 2012, 04:11:57 PM
The death penalty is, as Captain Jean-Luc Picard put it, "barbaric".  We're a civilized and intelligent people, we're better than that.

And as a Christian, I cannot morally back the death penalty.  People who do even the most evil of things have the possibility of repenting and becoming good people (and in that case, usually speaking for others to change as well), and though it is rare it does happen.  To take that possibility away from someone before their last natural breath, to me, is morally criminal.

And then comes the fact that - this hypothetical individual is "convicted beyond a reasonable doubt" of these crimes, you virtually never know 100% for sure whether they did it.  I believe it's something like 1 in 7 victims of the death penalty turn out to be innocent.  Our legal system needs to show that it is truly just, and given the possibility of even one innocent person being put to death unnaturally (whereas otherwise there could be more time to come up with the evidence that they truly are innocent) is against everything the judicial system is supposed to stand for.

I know the Supreme Court upheld murder convicts getting the death penalty of not being "cruel and unusual" - I fail to see how killing someone, ending their existence on this Earth without their consent, is not cruel.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: TJ in Oregon on September 21, 2012, 07:05:45 PM
And as a Christian, I cannot morally back the death penalty.  People who do even the most evil of things have the possibility of repenting and becoming good people (and in that case, usually speaking for others to change as well), and though it is rare it does happen.  To take that possibility away from someone before their last natural breath, to me, is morally criminal.

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Exactly (I agree as a Christian).

And if you want to go by "traditional marriage" in the bible, then women who are raped should have to be having their father pay the rapist who will then go forth to marry her.

There is no logical reason to oppose the legalization of same sex marriages.  If your church or institution doesn't want to perform the ceremony, fine, but I have yet to see a logical argument for outlawing it all together.

So why do you advocate considering religious beliefs on one issue but not the other?(For the record I agree with you on one of these two issues but not the other).


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Spanish Moss on September 21, 2012, 08:26:45 PM
And as a Christian, I cannot morally back the death penalty.  People who do even the most evil of things have the possibility of repenting and becoming good people (and in that case, usually speaking for others to change as well), and though it is rare it does happen.  To take that possibility away from someone before their last natural breath, to me, is morally criminal.

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Exactly (I agree as a Christian).

And if you want to go by "traditional marriage" in the bible, then women who are raped should have to be having their father pay the rapist who will then go forth to marry her.

There is no logical reason to oppose the legalization of same sex marriages.  If your church or institution doesn't want to perform the ceremony, fine, but I have yet to see a logical argument for outlawing it all together.

So why do you advocate considering religious beliefs on one issue but not the other?(For the record I agree with you on one of these two issues but not the other).

What issue is "the other"?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: TJ in Oregon on September 22, 2012, 02:53:11 PM
And as a Christian, I cannot morally back the death penalty.  People who do even the most evil of things have the possibility of repenting and becoming good people (and in that case, usually speaking for others to change as well), and though it is rare it does happen.  To take that possibility away from someone before their last natural breath, to me, is morally criminal.

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Exactly (I agree as a Christian).

And if you want to go by "traditional marriage" in the bible, then women who are raped should have to be having their father pay the rapist who will then go forth to marry her.

There is no logical reason to oppose the legalization of same sex marriages.  If your church or institution doesn't want to perform the ceremony, fine, but I have yet to see a logical argument for outlawing it all together.

So why do you advocate considering religious beliefs on one issue but not the other?(For the record I agree with you on one of these two issues but not the other).

What issue is "the other"?

I agree with you on capital punishment but not same sex marriage.

The reason I wanted to point this out is that I think there is some contradiction between saying basically that same sex marriage should be legal since we shouldn't legislate morality but then saying the death penalty is immoral so it should be illegal. It's somewhat of a devil's advocate argument on my part because I do not support the death penalty, but anyway that was the point I'm trying to make.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: angus on September 23, 2012, 05:46:59 PM
We haven't had a poll on this subject in quite a while, though I am well aware we already have a thread on the topic...  

I hadn't noticed this topic yet.  I voted with the Republicans, for although I am currently an unaffiliated voter, I was a registered Republican when the poll was made.  

How did I vote?  Well, to be honest, I grudgingly voted for life without parole, but grudgingly is the keyword.  You only offered two options:  death or life.  I don't support capital punishment under any circumstances, so I didn't vote for that one.  Of course, my opposition for capital punishment doesn't mean, "hey, let's spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to put someone in a situation in which they'll not only be brutalized daily but also get chances to murder and brutalize others on a daily basis, and, as an added benefit, they'll all be treated in such a way that if any of them do ever get to see the outside again, they'll come out so emotionally and physically scarred yet intellectually wise, that they'll be even more efficient and ruthless criminals than they were when we incarcerated them."  

Nevertheless, your poll was at least honest, in the sense that those are pretty much the only two choices juries have, most of the time.  Given those choices, I'll go for life in prison.  So count me for R-Life in prison w/o parole.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: FritzMacKenzie on September 23, 2012, 06:15:02 PM
I reluctantly support the death penalty,but I've heard that solitary confinement can almost be worse than death when you're locked up in a cell for 23 hours a day by yourself for years on end.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: hawkeye59 on September 25, 2012, 03:57:00 PM
And as a Christian, I cannot morally back the death penalty.  People who do even the most evil of things have the possibility of repenting and becoming good people (and in that case, usually speaking for others to change as well), and though it is rare it does happen.  To take that possibility away from someone before their last natural breath, to me, is morally criminal.

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Exactly (I agree as a Christian).

And if you want to go by "traditional marriage" in the bible, then women who are raped should have to be having their father pay the rapist who will then go forth to marry her.

There is no logical reason to oppose the legalization of same sex marriages.  If your church or institution doesn't want to perform the ceremony, fine, but I have yet to see a logical argument for outlawing it all together.

So why do you advocate considering religious beliefs on one issue but not the other?(For the record I agree with you on one of these two issues but not the other).

What issue is "the other"?

I agree with you on capital punishment but not same sex marriage.

The reason I wanted to point this out is that I think there is some contradiction between saying basically that same sex marriage should be legal since we shouldn't legislate morality but then saying the death penalty is immoral so it should be illegal. It's somewhat of a devil's advocate argument on my part because I do not support the death penalty, but anyway that was the point I'm trying to make.
I seem to recall there being a commandment against murder, but not against gays. I don't think it's hypocritical to be Christian and support gay marriage. You allow adulterers to marry. And for those who say "The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination!":
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord (dishonesty is an abomination) (Proverbs 12:22)

Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not  And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? (Stealing, Adultery, breaking covenants, and worshipping other gods are abomination) Jeremiah 7:9-10

Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination (oppressing the poor and needy is an abomination) Ezekiel 18:12

All of these people are allowed to marry. Why can't gays?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on September 25, 2012, 04:54:40 PM
And as a Christian, I cannot morally back the death penalty.  People who do even the most evil of things have the possibility of repenting and becoming good people (and in that case, usually speaking for others to change as well), and though it is rare it does happen.  To take that possibility away from someone before their last natural breath, to me, is morally criminal.

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Exactly (I agree as a Christian).

And if you want to go by "traditional marriage" in the bible, then women who are raped should have to be having their father pay the rapist who will then go forth to marry her.

There is no logical reason to oppose the legalization of same sex marriages.  If your church or institution doesn't want to perform the ceremony, fine, but I have yet to see a logical argument for outlawing it all together.

So why do you advocate considering religious beliefs on one issue but not the other?(For the record I agree with you on one of these two issues but not the other).

What issue is "the other"?

I agree with you on capital punishment but not same sex marriage.

The reason I wanted to point this out is that I think there is some contradiction between saying basically that same sex marriage should be legal since we shouldn't legislate morality but then saying the death penalty is immoral so it should be illegal. It's somewhat of a devil's advocate argument on my part because I do not support the death penalty, but anyway that was the point I'm trying to make.
I seem to recall there being a commandment against murder, but not against gays. I don't think it's hypocritical to be Christian and support gay marriage. You allow adulterers to marry. And for those who say "The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination!":
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord (dishonesty is an abomination) (Proverbs 12:22)

Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not  And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? (Stealing, Adultery, breaking covenants, and worshipping other gods are abomination) Jeremiah 7:9-10

Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination (oppressing the poor and needy is an abomination) Ezekiel 18:12

All of these people are allowed to marry. Why can't gays?

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, repeatedly says that homosexuality is a sin.  Read Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27.  That's not saying that all homosexuals are bad; after all, you can hate homosexuality without hating homosexuals.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: hawkeye59 on September 26, 2012, 09:19:20 AM
And as a Christian, I cannot morally back the death penalty.  People who do even the most evil of things have the possibility of repenting and becoming good people (and in that case, usually speaking for others to change as well), and though it is rare it does happen.  To take that possibility away from someone before their last natural breath, to me, is morally criminal.

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Exactly (I agree as a Christian).

And if you want to go by "traditional marriage" in the bible, then women who are raped should have to be having their father pay the rapist who will then go forth to marry her.

There is no logical reason to oppose the legalization of same sex marriages.  If your church or institution doesn't want to perform the ceremony, fine, but I have yet to see a logical argument for outlawing it all together.

So why do you advocate considering religious beliefs on one issue but not the other?(For the record I agree with you on one of these two issues but not the other).

What issue is "the other"?

I agree with you on capital punishment but not same sex marriage.

The reason I wanted to point this out is that I think there is some contradiction between saying basically that same sex marriage should be legal since we shouldn't legislate morality but then saying the death penalty is immoral so it should be illegal. It's somewhat of a devil's advocate argument on my part because I do not support the death penalty, but anyway that was the point I'm trying to make.
I seem to recall there being a commandment against murder, but not against gays. I don't think it's hypocritical to be Christian and support gay marriage. You allow adulterers to marry. And for those who say "The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination!":
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord (dishonesty is an abomination) (Proverbs 12:22)

Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not  And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? (Stealing, Adultery, breaking covenants, and worshipping other gods are abomination) Jeremiah 7:9-10

Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination (oppressing the poor and needy is an abomination) Ezekiel 18:12

All of these people are allowed to marry. Why can't gays?

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, repeatedly says that homosexuality is a sin.  Read Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27.  That's not saying that all homosexuals are bad; after all, you can hate homosexuality without hating homosexuals.
You could also oppose religious gay marriage but not oppose civil gay marriage. The state should be allowed to marry gays, even if the religions don't have to. We have separation of church and state, after all.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: TJ in Oregon on September 26, 2012, 11:12:07 PM
And as a Christian, I cannot morally back the death penalty.  People who do even the most evil of things have the possibility of repenting and becoming good people (and in that case, usually speaking for others to change as well), and though it is rare it does happen.  To take that possibility away from someone before their last natural breath, to me, is morally criminal.

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Exactly (I agree as a Christian).

And if you want to go by "traditional marriage" in the bible, then women who are raped should have to be having their father pay the rapist who will then go forth to marry her.

There is no logical reason to oppose the legalization of same sex marriages.  If your church or institution doesn't want to perform the ceremony, fine, but I have yet to see a logical argument for outlawing it all together.

So why do you advocate considering religious beliefs on one issue but not the other?(For the record I agree with you on one of these two issues but not the other).

What issue is "the other"?

I agree with you on capital punishment but not same sex marriage.

The reason I wanted to point this out is that I think there is some contradiction between saying basically that same sex marriage should be legal since we shouldn't legislate morality but then saying the death penalty is immoral so it should be illegal. It's somewhat of a devil's advocate argument on my part because I do not support the death penalty, but anyway that was the point I'm trying to make.
I seem to recall there being a commandment against murder, but not against gays. I don't think it's hypocritical to be Christian and support gay marriage. You allow adulterers to marry. And for those who say "The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination!":
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord (dishonesty is an abomination) (Proverbs 12:22)

Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not  And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? (Stealing, Adultery, breaking covenants, and worshipping other gods are abomination) Jeremiah 7:9-10

Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination (oppressing the poor and needy is an abomination) Ezekiel 18:12

All of these people are allowed to marry. Why can't gays?

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, repeatedly says that homosexuality is a sin.  Read Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27.  That's not saying that all homosexuals are bad; after all, you can hate homosexuality without hating homosexuals.
You could also oppose religious gay marriage but not oppose civil gay marriage. The state should be allowed to marry gays, even if the religions don't have to. We have separation of church and state, after all.

Yes, we do. But if that's your logic it doesn't make sense to turn around and oppose capital punishment because it's immoral. It would have to be opposed for secular reasons (which they are no shortage of). But the morality argument is null once you decide that you can't legislate morality.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: hawkeye59 on September 27, 2012, 04:03:15 PM
And as a Christian, I cannot morally back the death penalty.  People who do even the most evil of things have the possibility of repenting and becoming good people (and in that case, usually speaking for others to change as well), and though it is rare it does happen.  To take that possibility away from someone before their last natural breath, to me, is morally criminal.

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Exactly (I agree as a Christian).

And if you want to go by "traditional marriage" in the bible, then women who are raped should have to be having their father pay the rapist who will then go forth to marry her.

There is no logical reason to oppose the legalization of same sex marriages.  If your church or institution doesn't want to perform the ceremony, fine, but I have yet to see a logical argument for outlawing it all together.

So why do you advocate considering religious beliefs on one issue but not the other?(For the record I agree with you on one of these two issues but not the other).

What issue is "the other"?

I agree with you on capital punishment but not same sex marriage.

The reason I wanted to point this out is that I think there is some contradiction between saying basically that same sex marriage should be legal since we shouldn't legislate morality but then saying the death penalty is immoral so it should be illegal. It's somewhat of a devil's advocate argument on my part because I do not support the death penalty, but anyway that was the point I'm trying to make.
I seem to recall there being a commandment against murder, but not against gays. I don't think it's hypocritical to be Christian and support gay marriage. You allow adulterers to marry. And for those who say "The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination!":
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord (dishonesty is an abomination) (Proverbs 12:22)

Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not  And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? (Stealing, Adultery, breaking covenants, and worshipping other gods are abomination) Jeremiah 7:9-10

Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination (oppressing the poor and needy is an abomination) Ezekiel 18:12

All of these people are allowed to marry. Why can't gays?

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, repeatedly says that homosexuality is a sin.  Read Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27.  That's not saying that all homosexuals are bad; after all, you can hate homosexuality without hating homosexuals.
You could also oppose religious gay marriage but not oppose civil gay marriage. The state should be allowed to marry gays, even if the religions don't have to. We have separation of church and state, after all.

Yes, we do. But if that's your logic it doesn't make sense to turn around and oppose capital punishment because it's immoral. It would have to be opposed for secular reasons (which they are no shortage of). But the morality argument is null once you decide that you can't legislate morality.
True. I probably am not the best person to argue this, as my religion (Reform Judaism) supports gay marriage. You have a point, but yes, there are enough secular reasons to oppose it that I do.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Incipimus iterum on September 30, 2012, 12:44:42 PM
Democrat/Death Penalty


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Miles on October 01, 2012, 02:47:38 AM
Democrat/Life in Prison


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: General White on October 08, 2012, 02:15:03 AM
Im Pro-Life/Anti-Death Penalty.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: DC Al Fine on October 08, 2012, 08:46:42 AM
Republican, and I support it ONLY in cases of 1st degree murder.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 10, 2012, 09:51:18 AM
Death penalty.

I don't like the use of "but what about life without parole?" to sway people in this matter. There are crimes for which allowing the offender to continue living, even in prison without the chance of parole, would be too generous.

Your compassion is overwhelming. 

Republican/Life with the possibility of parole.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Banjo Broski on October 31, 2012, 06:08:09 PM
I believe the death penalty is to weak & i support a large expansion of the death penalty. i am a huge supporter of capital punishment.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: politicus on November 01, 2012, 01:18:04 AM
The only civilized position. 


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Banjo Broski on November 02, 2012, 01:47:19 AM

more like the worst position ever.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 02, 2012, 01:49:14 AM

more like the worst position ever.
[/quote

What's your angle, newbie?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Banjo Broski on November 02, 2012, 01:51:22 AM

more like the worst position ever.
[/quote

What's your angle, newbie?

opposing the death penalty is dume how you can oppose killing our enemies if you oppose your nothing but a hippy daisy picker we need to expand death penalty you kill once you get the death penalty.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Simfan34 on November 02, 2012, 02:01:13 AM
Agreed.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 02, 2012, 02:03:35 AM

opposing the death penalty is dume how you can oppose killing our enemies if you oppose your nothing but a hippy daisy picker we need to expand death penalty you kill once you get the death penalty.

I oppose killing my or anybody else's enemies among other reasons because I'm a Christian. If you support you're nothing but a bloodthirsty atheist*.


*Mods, I'm aware that this sentence doesn't make any sense. I'm engaging in a dialectic, here...


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Banjo Broski on November 02, 2012, 02:06:05 AM

opposing the death penalty is dume how you can oppose killing our enemies if you oppose your nothing but a hippy daisy picker we need to expand death penalty you kill once you get the death penalty.

I oppose killing my or anybody else's enemies among other reasons because I'm a Christian. If you support you're nothing but a bloodthirsty atheist*.


*Mods, I'm aware that this sentence doesn't make any sense. I'm engaging in a dialectic, here...

Wow you people make me sick you want to keep murders alive that evil your a pagan for that & that wrong we should kill all criminals and murders if you commit a crime you should get the penalty we need to expand it for example if you do arm robbery i say death penalty is needed.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 02, 2012, 02:08:23 AM

opposing the death penalty is dume how you can oppose killing our enemies if you oppose your nothing but a hippy daisy picker we need to expand death penalty you kill once you get the death penalty.

I oppose killing my or anybody else's enemies among other reasons because I'm a Christian. If you support you're nothing but a bloodthirsty atheist*.


*Mods, I'm aware that this sentence doesn't make any sense. I'm engaging in a dialectic, here...

Wow you people make me sick you want to keep murders alive that evil your a pagan for that & that wrong we should kill all criminals and murders if you commit a crime you should get the penalty we need to expand it for example if you do arm robbery i say death penalty is needed.

What crimes, if any, would you concede that the death penalty might be excessive, unnecessary, or just plain ineffectual as a deterrent for?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Banjo Broski on November 02, 2012, 02:09:54 AM

opposing the death penalty is dume how you can oppose killing our enemies if you oppose your nothing but a hippy daisy picker we need to expand death penalty you kill once you get the death penalty.

I oppose killing my or anybody else's enemies among other reasons because I'm a Christian. If you support you're nothing but a bloodthirsty atheist*.


*Mods, I'm aware that this sentence doesn't make any sense. I'm engaging in a dialectic, here...

Wow you people make me sick you want to keep murders alive that evil your a pagan for that & that wrong we should kill all criminals and murders if you commit a crime you should get the penalty we need to expand it for example if you do arm robbery i say death penalty is needed.

What crimes, if any, would you concede that the death penalty might be excessive, unnecessary, or just plain ineffectual as a deterrent for?

If you murder somebody you should get the death penalty it that simple. If you commit armed robery or steal from a bank you should to. It a good idea.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 02, 2012, 02:11:51 AM

opposing the death penalty is dume how you can oppose killing our enemies if you oppose your nothing but a hippy daisy picker we need to expand death penalty you kill once you get the death penalty.

I oppose killing my or anybody else's enemies among other reasons because I'm a Christian. If you support you're nothing but a bloodthirsty atheist*.


*Mods, I'm aware that this sentence doesn't make any sense. I'm engaging in a dialectic, here...

Wow you people make me sick you want to keep murders alive that evil your a pagan for that & that wrong we should kill all criminals and murders if you commit a crime you should get the penalty we need to expand it for example if you do arm robbery i say death penalty is needed.

What crimes, if any, would you concede that the death penalty might be excessive, unnecessary, or just plain ineffectual as a deterrent for?

If you murder somebody you should get the death penalty it that simple. If you commit armed robery or steal from a bank you should to. It a good idea.

I get that you feel that way. Are there any crimes you don't feel that way about? What about mail fraud, for example?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 02, 2012, 07:11:25 AM
Is Banjo a sock puppet?


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on November 02, 2012, 01:05:53 PM

opposing the death penalty is dume how you can oppose killing our enemies if you oppose your nothing but a hippy daisy picker we need to expand death penalty you kill once you get the death penalty.

I oppose killing my or anybody else's enemies among other reasons because I'm a Christian. If you support you're nothing but a bloodthirsty atheist*.


*Mods, I'm aware that this sentence doesn't make any sense. I'm engaging in a dialectic, here...

Wow you people make me sick you want to keep murders alive that evil your a pagan for that & that wrong we should kill all criminals and murders if you commit a crime you should get the penalty we need to expand it for example if you do arm robbery i say death penalty is needed.

Your grammar and punctuation have clearly been put to death by lethal injection.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Maxwell on November 03, 2012, 04:18:32 AM
That's an issue I find myself thinking about and have been swaying on, but recently I've been more against the death penalty, mostly for cost reasons.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Banjo Broski on November 03, 2012, 04:31:40 AM

opposing the death penalty is dume how you can oppose killing our enemies if you oppose your nothing but a hippy daisy picker we need to expand death penalty you kill once you get the death penalty.

I oppose killing my or anybody else's enemies among other reasons because I'm a Christian. If you support you're nothing but a bloodthirsty atheist*.


*Mods, I'm aware that this sentence doesn't make any sense. I'm engaging in a dialectic, here...

Wow you people make me sick you want to keep murders alive that evil your a pagan for that & that wrong we should kill all criminals and murders if you commit a crime you should get the penalty we need to expand it for example if you do arm robbery i say death penalty is needed.

Your grammar and punctuation have clearly been put to death by lethal injection.

Hey SHUT UP


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Supermariobros on November 26, 2012, 05:08:45 AM
Republican-Yes.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Frodo on November 26, 2012, 06:07:32 PM

To what? 


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 26, 2012, 06:09:14 PM
as someone who supports the death penalty, i have to say a lot of the posts in this thread aren't doing the position much service.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Supermariobros on November 28, 2012, 05:13:08 AM

I strongly support capital punishment.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: dead0man on November 28, 2012, 05:30:10 AM
as someone who supports the death penalty, i have to say a lot of the posts in this thread aren't doing the position much service.
That is the exact reason the socks are doing it.  Sure it's dirty pool, but do you expect anything less from the left*?




*of course "the left" isn't the only group that does it.  That would be a stupid thing to think.  Like thinking Americans are the only ones to fight over a good deal...or blaming capitalism for people acting like asshats.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: DemPGH on November 28, 2012, 10:36:08 PM
Democrat - Life without parole.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: bedstuy on November 29, 2012, 01:08:42 AM
Democrat - Pro-Death penalty. 

There are just some people who commit crimes that go so far beyond human decency that I don't want to share the planet with them.  Someone like Adolf Eichmann to me is a clear case where the proper punishment was death.

But, I would limit it to intentional murder and I would apply a higher standard of proof, something like proven beyond any doubt or overwhelming evidence.  This way it would be used extremely rarely and we wouldn't run into as many problems of wrongly sentencing people to death. 


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Supermariobros on December 01, 2012, 05:12:37 PM
Opposing the death penalty is wack.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: MK on December 01, 2012, 10:04:20 PM
Rape and murder crimes have different circumstances.  You can't just blanket all of them into death penalties.  Sex crimes are have too many factors.

 



Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: GMantis on December 08, 2012, 03:56:51 PM
Independent: Yes, if proven beyond doubt. There are certain crimes which should be unforgivable and where it must be made certain that those who committed them have no chance to commit them again.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Goldwater on December 08, 2012, 04:05:43 PM
Republican: Death Penalty.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Person Man on December 08, 2012, 04:15:11 PM
independent - voted death penalty, which I would like to see as the sole punishment for murder, but like the constitutional standard for treason, only if two or more witnesses can be provided. (Forensic evidence would be counted as only one witness, no matter how many people present it.) A lesser conviction, either for manslaughter, or with only one witness should have the punishment be life without parole, and the jury should be given the option to find that only one witness was credible, thereby making the defendant ineligible for the death penalty.  Neither rape nor pedophilia, as horrible as they are, warrant a death penalty on their own, or as special circumstance that makes a homicide a capital offense.

I would go with something like this. Basically, for a defendant to be eligible for the Death Penalty, guilt must be proven beyond any competent(more than reasonable, no one without a moral or mental defect, even if they are strongly biased against  a finding guilt, would doubt the guilt) doubt.

The crimes that should warrant it should be treason, terrorism or some sort of heinious premeditated murder for any other reason which, in a single criminal episode or over several criminal episodes, causes the death of 10 or more people.

All this being said, there should a limit of one appeal for the death penalty and upon sentence, it must be carried out in 5-10 or the sentence is commuted to life without parole.

However, there should be alternatives for murder and other crimes that traditionally warrant the death penalty besides just recieving life with or without the opportunity for release. Perhaps for heinous sex offenses that don't involve permenant death or disability of the victim, the defendent may be released after a reasonable period of years if they comply with an order of a definite period civil commitment and agree to undergo radical surgical castration (removal or all sex organs and sexual characteristics).

The point I am trying to make is that its not a legitmate interest of Government to settle personal blood feuds. It is a legitimate interest of Government to protect macro-level Security.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Person Man on December 08, 2012, 04:24:42 PM
Hell no, not when progressive penal systems like that of Norway have proven effective at rehabilitating criminals back into being productive members of society.

Anyway, though, if someone can be rehabilitated, then executing them would be a purposeless waste of life, and if they cannot be rehabilitated, they aren't at fault.

But the death penalty saves all the time and effort of 'reforming' the worthless gutter-trash of society, most of whom are so evil that the death penalty in its present form is too good for them anyway.

Lol.... Moron.

Forgive me for having no sympathy for serial killers, rapists and child molesters....but of course, its 'societies' fault.

I understand that you watched the Onion's report on the Supreme Court's Constitutional review of the Death Penalty? Perhaps we could change death penalty statutes and regulation to allow for no one standard procedure of implementing the Death Penalty. Maybe the state can contract out the death penalty to private parties who would be solely responsible for causing the defendant's death.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Frodo on December 09, 2012, 03:24:43 PM
With over 100 votes, it's too late to change this poll now, but what I intended to ask was whether you all would still oppose the death penalty if someone were convicted of all three crimes (murder, rape, and pedophilia/child molestation) involving the same victim(s).


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Franzl on December 09, 2012, 03:29:03 PM
With over 100 votes, it's too late to change this poll now, but what I intended to ask was whether you all would still oppose the death penalty if someone were convicted of all three crimes (murder, rape, and pedophilia/child molestation) involving the same victim(s).

Yes.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Donerail on December 09, 2012, 03:47:50 PM
With over 100 votes, it's too late to change this poll now, but what I intended to ask was whether you all would still oppose the death penalty if someone were convicted of all three crimes (murder, rape, and pedophilia/child molestation) involving the same victim(s).

Yes.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 09, 2012, 04:26:48 PM
Death Penalty (D)


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 09, 2012, 10:07:27 PM
With over 100 votes, it's too late to change this poll now, but what I intended to ask was whether you all would still oppose the death penalty if someone were convicted of all three crimes (murder, rape, and pedophilia/child molestation) involving the same victim(s).

Yes.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: TJ in Oregon on December 09, 2012, 10:14:38 PM
The point of being against the death penalty is to accept that we aren't going to use it on people who have committed the very worst crimes imaginable. It doesn't make sense to say we need to ban capital punishment and then renege once someone does something we find really horrible.

So yes.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Icehand Gino on December 10, 2012, 07:25:56 AM
With over 100 votes, it's too late to change this poll now, but what I intended to ask was whether you all would still oppose the death penalty if someone were convicted of all three crimes (murder, rape, and pedophilia/child molestation) involving the same victim(s).

Yes.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Blackacre on December 16, 2012, 12:22:25 AM
Democratic, life without parole.

You can reverse a life sentence if later evidence reveals a person's innocence. You cannot do the same with death.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: dead0man on December 18, 2012, 07:13:07 AM
With over 100 votes, it's too late to change this poll now, but what I intended to ask was whether you all would still oppose the death penalty if someone were convicted of all three crimes (murder, rape, and pedophilia/child molestation) involving the same victim(s).
Some people here lack reading comprehension skills (or more likely just read it the way they want it to read).  I knew what you were going after when I voted.
Indy, DP

We're talking about somebody that rapes and kills a little kid here.  Assuming there is a ton of evidence against the guy (like video tape of the act, DNA, witness(es)), I see no reason a person like that should live.  I don't care if the studies say it doesn't prevent crime, it might make the victim's family feel just a little bit better and that by itself is enough for me.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Dave from Michigan on December 18, 2012, 08:33:52 AM
The Connecticut school shooting can make you question the death penalty but even after it I still have to say no to the death penalty. Of course lucky for us most of the time they kill themselves. Of course I generally keep this opinion to myself since most people I know and in general would be outraged if I said we should not kill the Connecticut school shooter had he lived. I wonder if he had lived if Connecticut would have brought back the death penalty for heinous crimes. I like that Michigan hasn't had the death penalty since 1846, we were way ahead of everyone.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Franzl on December 18, 2012, 08:35:56 AM
The Connecticut school shooting can make you question the death penalty but even after it I still have to say no to the death penalty. Of course lucky for us most of the time they kill themselves. Of course I generally keep this opinion to myself since most people I know and in general would be outraged if I said we should not kill the Connecticut school shooter had he lived. I wonder if he had lived if Connecticut would have brought back the death penalty for heinous crimes. I like that Michigan hasn't had the death penalty since 1846, we were way ahead of everyone.

The thing is: People who call themselves opposed to the death penalty and then make exceptions for "extreme" cases aren't in reality opposed to the death penalty.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on December 18, 2012, 10:16:18 AM
The Connecticut school shooting can make you question the death penalty but even after it I still have to say no to the death penalty. Of course lucky for us most of the time they kill themselves. Of course I generally keep this opinion to myself since most people I know and in general would be outraged if I said we should not kill the Connecticut school shooter had he lived. I wonder if he had lived if Connecticut would have brought back the death penalty for heinous crimes. I like that Michigan hasn't had the death penalty since 1846, we were way ahead of everyone.

The thing is: People who call themselves opposed to the death penalty and then make exceptions for "extreme" cases aren't in reality opposed to the death penalty.

And I personally welcome them to the "correct" side of the question.  :P


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Franzl on December 18, 2012, 10:37:50 AM
The Connecticut school shooting can make you question the death penalty but even after it I still have to say no to the death penalty. Of course lucky for us most of the time they kill themselves. Of course I generally keep this opinion to myself since most people I know and in general would be outraged if I said we should not kill the Connecticut school shooter had he lived. I wonder if he had lived if Connecticut would have brought back the death penalty for heinous crimes. I like that Michigan hasn't had the death penalty since 1846, we were way ahead of everyone.

The thing is: People who call themselves opposed to the death penalty and then make exceptions for "extreme" cases aren't in reality opposed to the death penalty.

And I personally welcome them to the "correct" side of the question.  :P

The barbaric, blood thirsty, reactionary side of the question? :)


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on December 18, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
The Connecticut school shooting can make you question the death penalty but even after it I still have to say no to the death penalty. Of course lucky for us most of the time they kill themselves. Of course I generally keep this opinion to myself since most people I know and in general would be outraged if I said we should not kill the Connecticut school shooter had he lived. I wonder if he had lived if Connecticut would have brought back the death penalty for heinous crimes. I like that Michigan hasn't had the death penalty since 1846, we were way ahead of everyone.

The thing is: People who call themselves opposed to the death penalty and then make exceptions for "extreme" cases aren't in reality opposed to the death penalty.

And I personally welcome them to the "correct" side of the question.  :P

The barbaric, blood thirsty, reactionary side of the question? :)

The death penalty ain't supposed to be soft and warm and fuzzy treatment, Franzl.  


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Franzl on December 18, 2012, 11:02:04 AM
The Connecticut school shooting can make you question the death penalty but even after it I still have to say no to the death penalty. Of course lucky for us most of the time they kill themselves. Of course I generally keep this opinion to myself since most people I know and in general would be outraged if I said we should not kill the Connecticut school shooter had he lived. I wonder if he had lived if Connecticut would have brought back the death penalty for heinous crimes. I like that Michigan hasn't had the death penalty since 1846, we were way ahead of everyone.

The thing is: People who call themselves opposed to the death penalty and then make exceptions for "extreme" cases aren't in reality opposed to the death penalty.

And I personally welcome them to the "correct" side of the question.  :P

The barbaric, blood thirsty, reactionary side of the question? :)

The death penalty ain't supposed to be soft and warm and fuzzy treatment, Franzl.  

Maybe you really are grumpy... ;)


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on December 18, 2012, 11:04:03 AM

Well I think we've agreed to disagree on this issue long ago....  :)


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Blackacre on December 18, 2012, 08:33:07 PM
ONLY time I'll EVER invoke slippery slope. If we make an exception for mass murderers, what's stopping us from hanging people who committed other crimes and should have gotten life without parole.

The only exception to my strong opposition to the death penalty is that I'm glad Bin Laden was killed.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Person Man on December 19, 2012, 09:32:32 PM
ONLY time I'll EVER invoke slippery slope. If we make an exception for mass murderers, what's stopping us from hanging people who committed other crimes and should have gotten life without parole.

The only exception to my strong opposition to the death penalty is that I'm glad Bin Laden was killed.

Exactly. The death penalty is only reserved for protecting the security of the state when a threat large enough to challenge or has credibly challenged the state emerges.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: muon2 on December 22, 2012, 10:34:21 AM
ONLY time I'll EVER invoke slippery slope. If we make an exception for mass murderers, what's stopping us from hanging people who committed other crimes and should have gotten life without parole.

The only exception to my strong opposition to the death penalty is that I'm glad Bin Laden was killed.

I don't think there's a slippery slope for use of the DP if convicted of multiple murders committed on separate days.

I read the question as a single murder by a person with a previous record of sexual assault, or with that sexual assault as part of the murder. I would not generally favor the death penalty in that case. If however it was for a subsequent murder I think it should be eligible for the death penalty. This leaves DP as a punishment for serial killers. It also provides for a harsher punishment for murderers who kill again while in prison for life.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Wyoming Conservative on January 01, 2013, 11:51:00 PM
Republican/death penalty.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Frodo on January 05, 2013, 03:35:19 PM
The point of being against the death penalty is to accept that we aren't going to use it on people who have committed the very worst crimes imaginable. It doesn't make sense to say we need to ban capital punishment and then renege once someone does something we find really horrible.

So yes.

Even the horrific gang-rape-turned-murder in India doesn't faze you? 


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Franzl on January 05, 2013, 03:37:49 PM
The point of being against the death penalty is to accept that we aren't going to use it on people who have committed the very worst crimes imaginable. It doesn't make sense to say we need to ban capital punishment and then renege once someone does something we find really horrible.

So yes.

Even the horrific gang-rape-turned-murder in India doesn't faze you? 

There are no "even ...?" scenarios. Either it's right or it's wrong.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on January 05, 2013, 05:43:44 PM
The point of being against the death penalty is to accept that we aren't going to use it on people who have committed the very worst crimes imaginable. It doesn't make sense to say we need to ban capital punishment and then renege once someone does something we find really horrible.

So yes.

Even the horrific gang-rape-turned-murder in India doesn't faze you? 

That case is not a good argument for the death penalty.  (Unless one is going to argue that gang rape in general should be subject to the death penalty.)  There was no intent to kill, just a depraved indifference to the possible effects of their actions.


Title: Re: Death Penalty Question
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 05, 2013, 07:08:40 PM
The point of being against the death penalty is to accept that we aren't going to use it on people who have committed the very worst crimes imaginable. It doesn't make sense to say we need to ban capital punishment and then renege once someone does something we find really horrible.

So yes.

Even the horrific gang-rape-turned-murder in India doesn't faze you? 

There are no "even ...?" scenarios. Either it's right or it's wrong.

     That's probably the biggest thing that annoys me about the death penalty: people who react to opposition to the death penalty with "you wouldn't even want to execute ______?" It's such a blatantly invalid argument that I wonder what possesses them to even make it.