Death Penalty Poll

[Symmetry]

So- what's the consensus? Full disclosure- I'm not a big fan.

Inhumane
Kills innocent people
Frequently a cruel sentence for people later taken off death row
Doesn't deter crime
More expensive than life in prison

Any arguments?

[saxitoxin]

only in severe cases of flaming or baiting on the forums - not just a tickler on another player, or grab ass

[GabonX]

Inhumane
Doesn't deter crime
More expensive than life in prison

Your first one is an opinion, your second is unsubstantiated and the third is a load of crap.

I can kill a person for under a nickel. I don't for a second believer that they're spending more money to kill a person than to feed and cloth them for life and if they are it's because of liberal bureaucratic crap.

.22 LR to the forehead is the way to go. Doesn't get much quicker, cheaper or less painful than that.

[targetman377]

Inhumane
Doesn't deter crime
More expensive than life in prison

Your first one is an opinion, your second is unsubstantiated and the third is a load of crap.

I can kill a person for under a nickel. I don't for a second believer that they're spending more money to kill a person than to feed and cloth them for life and if they are it's because of liberal bureaucratic crap.

.22 LR to the forehead is the way to go. Doesn't get much quicker, cheaper or less painful than that.

i agree with the death penalty however your statement it is cheeper to kill some. is wrong because of all the appleas people on the death row get it is more expansive.

[colton24]

only in severe cases of flaming or baiting on the forums - not just a tickler on another player, or grab ass

He means real life Dumbo. I think that only in captial or first degree murder are deservable for it.Especially captial. I'm voting yes because those kinds of murders are brutal and hurt families of the people a lot. (well so does all murder ) And it isnt expensive to stick a needle in an arm,or get rope and a tree to make gallows ,or shooting the guy.

[Symmetry]

only in severe cases of flaming or baiting on the forums - not just a tickler on another player, or grab ass

I don't think that you're helping your case in the Cheating and Abuse Forum with that one.

Still, one of my big reasons for starting this poll was the lack of response to the Willingham case in Texas. Surprised me that so many people just wanted to ignore the execution of an innocent man. It's odd to think that attachment to the death penalty overcomes belief in life.

That, and GabonX arguing that diabetics deserve death more than healthy people, caused me to make this poll.

(edited as posts came in during typing)

[saxitoxin]

is wrong because of all the appleas people on the death row get it is more expansive.

What if we gave them oranges instead?

[colton24]

is wrong because of all the appleas people on the death row get it is more expansive.

What if we gave them oranges instead?

die dummo

[GabonX]

i agree with the death penalty however your statement it is cheeper to kill some. is wrong because of all the appleas people on the death row get it is more expansive.

You may be right, but it the fact is it shouldn't cost that much. People are given a trial which is where the decisions should be made.

There's no reason why the appeal process should cost more than supporting a person for life and there's no reason that the appeal process should ever take more than 2 months. Once again, the trial verdict should be the most important consideration and only if there is cause to believe that there was faulty evidence presented or that the defendant was unfairly discriminated against, should the verdict be overridden.

In most cases, it should take much less than 2 months to come to a conclusion.

[captainwalrus]

only in severe cases of flaming or baiting on the forums - not just a tickler on another player, or grab ass

He means real life Dumbo.

Well done colton!

[Symmetry]

Inhumane
Doesn't deter crime
More expensive than life in prison

Your first one is an opinion, your second is unsubstantiated and the third is a load of crap.

I can kill a person for under a nickel. I don't for a second believer that they're spending more money to kill a person than to feed and cloth them for life and if they are it's because of liberal bureaucratic crap.

.22 LR to the forehead is the way to go. Doesn't get much quicker, cheaper or less painful than that.

Erm, I had five points. I'm guessing that you took the other two as unarguable. That it kills innocent people, and is frequently a cruel sentence for people who are later released.

It's inhumane for all kinds of reasons. The pain caused by incompetent lethal injection suspended the death penalty in many states. Electric chair isn't perfect either. I'm not a big fan of "death by pain".

That it's not a deterrent, I think you have me. I don't have statistics on hand. Freakonomics makes a persuasive argument about it based on the arguments of police chiefs around the US, and most psychologists would say that a psychopath would be little deterred by such rules. Basically, having or not having the death penalty doesn't reduce crime.

Death penalty cases almost always cost more. Ask to change the law, and blame those crazy liberals for not just letting all those people who escaped death row simply die if you like. They still cost more.

So why do you think it should exist?

[saxitoxin]

In the former German Democratic Republic (aka "East Germany"), where I'm from, the first post-war death penalty law was established by the Volkshammer in 1950 prescribing capital punishment for the following crimes:

(1) interference with campaigns for peace
(2) provoking hate between races or nationalities
(3) glorifying the use of atomic weapons
(4) murder
(5) treason

You can read about that in a rather biased account in a McCarthyist American newspaper here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19501215&id=54IPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RIgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6687,3698045 .

In 1987, however, the death penalty was abolished by the Volkshammer except during war. This was a decision I, generally, supported, however, I believe that it should have been continued in cases of people who provoked interracial hatred or interfered with peace.

However, GabonX, colton24, et. al., making interesting and thought-provoking arguments for continuity of capital punishment.

[targetman377]

i agree with the death penalty however your statement it is cheeper to kill some. is wrong because of all the appleas people on the death row get it is more expansive.

You may be right, but it the fact is it shouldn't cost that much. People are given a trial which is where the decisions should be made.

There's no reason why the appeal process should cost more than supporting a person for life and there's no reason that the appeal process should ever take more than 2 months. Once again, the trial verdict should be the most important consideration and only if there is cause to believe that there was faulty evidence presented or that the defendant was unfairly discriminated against, should the verdict be overridden.

In most cases, it should take much less than 2 months to come to a conclusion.

yes you are right however. in our country you automatically get an appeals right after you are sentenced to the death penalty. the reason they are in place is because we do not want to kill incant people. however our court systems are created by humans and anything humans have created will not always work.

[targetman377]

In the former German Democratic Republic (aka "East Germany"), where I'm from, the first post-war death penalty law was established by the Volkshammer in 1950 prescribing capital punishment for the following crimes:

(1) interference with campaigns for peace
(2) provoking hate between races or nationalities
(3) glorifying the use of atomic weapons
(4) murder
(5) treason

You can read about that in a rather biased account in a McCarthyist American newspaper here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19501215&id=54IPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RIgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6687,3698045 .

In 1987, however, the death penalty was abolished by the Volkshammer except during war. This was a decision I, generally, supported, however, I believe that it should have been continued in cases of people who provoked interracial hatred or interfered with peace.

However, GabonX, colton24, et. al., making interesting and thought-provoking arguments for continuity of capital punishment.

well dam i would be killed GLORIFYING THE USE OF ATOMIC WEAPONS???? so if i go and shout on the streets use the atom bomb to stop world war 2 then start dancing around i will get the death penalty.

[saxitoxin]

In the former German Democratic Republic (aka "East Germany"), where I'm from, the first post-war death penalty law was established by the Volkshammer in 1950 prescribing capital punishment for the following crimes:

(1) interference with campaigns for peace
(2) provoking hate between races or nationalities
(3) glorifying the use of atomic weapons
(4) murder
(5) treason

You can read about that in a rather biased account in a McCarthyist American newspaper here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19501215&id=54IPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RIgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6687,3698045 .

In 1987, however, the death penalty was abolished by the Volkshammer except during war. This was a decision I, generally, supported, however, I believe that it should have been continued in cases of people who provoked interracial hatred or interfered with peace.

However, GabonX, colton24, et. al., making interesting and thought-provoking arguments for continuity of capital punishment.

well dam i would be killed GLORIFYING THE USE OF ATOMIC WEAPONS???? so if i go and shout on the streets use the atom bomb to stop world war 2 then start dancing around i will get the death penalty.

I don't believe anyone was ever sentenced for glorifying atomic weapons, but it was on the books. Certainly, of course, there were those who were executed for racism or interfering with international solidarity in the global campaign for world peace. As an officer in the Felix Dzerinzhsky Watch Regiment, a humanitarian relief organization in the former DDR, I - on several occasions - assisted the Volkspolizei (People's Police) in the arrest of warmongers and racists.

[targetman377]

I don't believe anyone was ever sentenced for glorifying atomic weapons, but it was on the books. Certainly, of course, there were those who were executed for racism or interfering with international solidarity in the global campaign for world peace. As an officer in the Felix Dzerinzhsky Watch Regiment, a humanitarian relief organization in the former DDR, I - on several occasions - assisted the Volkspolizei (People's Police) in the arrest of warmongers and racists.

so no freedom of speech in your country. OR YOU GET KILLED fun way to run your government. you Germans go form one extreme to the other. fist off you kill people if they don't hate the Jews then you kill people if they do MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!

[saxitoxin]

I don't believe anyone was ever sentenced for glorifying atomic weapons, but it was on the books. Certainly, of course, there were those who were executed for racism or interfering with international solidarity in the global campaign for world peace. As an officer in the Felix Dzerinzhsky Watch Regiment, a humanitarian relief organization in the former DDR, I - on several occasions - assisted the Volkspolizei (People's Police) in the arrest of warmongers and racists.

so no freedom of speech in your country. OR YOU GET KILLED fun way to run your government. you Germans go form one extreme to the other. fist off you kill people if they don't hate the Jews then you kill people if they do MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!

Well, first of all, it was the capitalists and imperialists - aided by international banker's cartels - that had enabled Hitler and the fascists to take control of the government despite the heroic resistance of the German people.

During the enlightened post-war period of the German Democratic Republic from 1949 to 1989, freedom of speech was absolutely embraced, encouraged and cultivated. The National People's Army, the People's Police and the State Security services existed to protect people's right to freedom of speech against racists and warmongers who would seek to undermine it by advocating for capitalism or advocating against the Socialist Unity Party, which is similar to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

[Symmetry]

i agree with the death penalty however your statement it is cheeper to kill some. is wrong because of all the appleas people on the death row get it is more expansive.

You may be right, but it the fact is it shouldn't cost that much. People are given a trial which is where the decisions should be made.

There's no reason why the appeal process should cost more than supporting a person for life and there's no reason that the appeal process should ever take more than 2 months. Once again, the trial verdict should be the most important consideration and only if there is cause to believe that there was faulty evidence presented or that the defendant was unfairly discriminated against, should the verdict be overridden.

In most cases, it should take much less than 2 months to come to a conclusion.

yes you are right however. in our country you automatically get an appeals right after you are sentenced to the death penalty. the reason they are in place is because we do not want to kill incant people. however our court systems are created by humans and anything humans have created will not always work.

One of the big problems with the death sentence is that it often follows a period of public outrage over a crime. There's a huge amount of pressure to get someone caught and to get them convicted. Appeals are kind of important when investigations and convictions are rushed, no? I don't think the solution is to rush the appeals too.

[jay_a2j]

"He that has no sin cast the first stone."

[Frigidus]

"He that has no sin cast the first stone."

I thought you were for the death penalty.

[jonesthecurl]

"He that has no sin cast the first stone."

[throws large brick at jay. realizes he has now sinned.]

[jay_a2j]

"He that has no sin cast the first stone."

I thought you were for the death penalty.

Why would you think that?

[Symmetry]

I'll argue with anyone for liberal politics. I posted this poll because it does cross certain lines. A lot of liberals would say that certain criminals deserved the death penalty. A lot of conservatives would argue that the government, or any individual, does not have the right to take another's life.

It's never a good idea to assume that someone is for or against something like this based on how they feel about other topics. What honestly scared me, and I noted this above, was that some people were more willing to protect the death penalty than an innocent person's life. I was against the death penalty from the start, but I kind of assumed that seeing it take someone's life would bother people more than it has. Anton Scalia made a big argument in favour of the death penalty saying that there has not been, in the modern judicial system:

“a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent’s name would be shouted from the rooftops.”

And now there has been one. And nobody is shouting. Scalia was wrong. Cameron Todd Willingham. All the evidence was there to exonerate him before execution. It was ignored and he died.

[Frigidus]

"He that has no sin cast the first stone."

I thought you were for the death penalty.

Why would you think that?

Dunno, guess time passing between the last CC death penalty discussions has distorted my memory.

[Jolly Roger]

Once again, the trial verdict should be the most important consideration and only if there is cause to believe that there was faulty evidence presented or that the defendant was unfairly discriminated against, should the verdict be overridden.

I notice your list does not include "overriding a verdict" due to new evidence which exonerates the defendant.

Oversight?