Death Penalty Question

[Franzl]

Life in prison.

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

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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. 

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

[Franzl]

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.  

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...

[Franzl]

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.