Death Penalty - Your thoughts

AerchAngel said:
Even if it were YOUR child. Like some guy came in a brutally raped and then kill him.

What punishment would you like? Life in prison that you pay for?

Could you stand next to that man knowing he could possibly get parole? What if he smirks or laugh at what he took from you, your own blood, could you honestly take that?

You can't touch him as you would go to prison as well.
Click to expand...

I can't tell you how I would react. I'd probably want to kill the person myself.

But I don't support the death penalty for several reasons.
 
weso1 said:
In reality this is the big government position. The only way to achieve this would be for the federal government to take away this power from all states. So essentially sturg is in favor of bigger federal government in this case.

Even libertarians believe in basic governmental functions of course, including the court system and the need to prosecute crimes that include victims. So julio's attempted shot at libertarian hypocrisy failed that test. And then of course the true decider in whether or not the defendant deserves the death penalty are the jurors, which are citizens, not the government. Sure the government presents the case, but that's a very lame argument. The appeals process is a better argument, but that's only after the public has voted on guilt.
Click to expand...

I believe it should be up to the states. And I'm against it.
 
sturg33 said:
I can't tell you how I would react. I'd probably want to kill the person myself.

But I don't support the death penalty for several reasons.
Click to expand...

Okay, I agree with you on the first, because I would kill the person to be honest in front of everyone.

Second, there is an alternative, some of the DEATH ROW inmates are protected in prison for some odd reason. Wouldn't you like them to be in the general population as a lifer, depending on the case, murder has diffrent levels of responses, but killing a child, raping a women to death are what get people killed in prison? In lieu of the Death Penalty, a lifer who does those crimes should not be protected, let nature take its course and let the inmates do it and the government does not need to be involved.
 
weso1 said:
In reality this is the big government position. The only way to achieve this would be for the federal government to take away this power from all states. So essentially sturg is in favor of bigger federal government in this case.
Click to expand...

It takes some interesting mental gymnastics to say that taking away a state power is actually making government bigger. Do you consider the second amendment an example of bigger federal government, since it is a federal rule that takes away state power?
 
AerchAngel said:
Okay, I agree with you on the first, because I would kill the person to be honest in front of everyone.

Second, there is an alternative, some of the DEATH ROW inmates are protected in prison for some odd reason. Wouldn't you like them to be in the general population as a lifer, depending on the case, murder has diffrent levels of responses, but killing a child, raping a women to death are what get people killed in prison? In lieu of the Death Penalty, a lifer who does those crimes should not be protected, let nature take its course and let the inmates do it and the government does not need to be involved.
Click to expand...

AA, people are against the death penalty not because they believe the acts aren't heinous, but because the government has shown itself incapable of killing only the guilty. If I could be certain that we'd never put an innocent man to death, I'd be fine with the death penalty. But of course, we can never be certain of that.
 
Metaphysicist said:
AA, people are against the death penalty not because they believe the acts aren't heinous, but because the government has shown itself incapable of killing only the guilty. If I could be certain that we'd never put an innocent man to death, I'd be fine with the death penalty. But of course, we can never be certain of that.
Click to expand...

Yeah Yeezus said the same thing I kind of agreed to that. Sometimes an innocent gets executed.

But what I really want is people who did crimes like these to not be protected in prison and for the most part they are because they know an inmate will end their life. So what? If a parent want to torture and murder their own kid, let them try and do that to people who are like them, murderers and see if he can defend himself.
 
Metaphysicist said:
It takes some interesting mental gymnastics to say that taking away a state power is actually making government bigger. Do you consider the second amendment an example of bigger federal government, since it is a federal rule that takes away state power?
Click to expand...

I knew you would reply to one of my posts when I saw your name. I just knew it.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Really hard to compare an amendment in the Bill of Rights to a modern day amendment. Plus you aren't really taking away governmental power in regards to death penalty vs life sentence on the surface anyway. One requires government to oversee the death penalty, the other requires government to oversee a life sentence. So you're adding a federal regulation without taking away local government in any significant way at least.

I think the true mental gymnastics is to try and call a small government supporter a hypocrite because they support the death penalty. I feel like julio's original post was a troll so it's interesting you didn't challenge his post. You scurred? Julio is pretty good at making an argument, much better than I.
 
Metaphysicist said:
A jury is composed of private citizens serving a government function. For the duration of their service, they are just as much "the government" as, say, a US Marshal.
Click to expand...

I get the technicality of this, but I think it's pretty clear what we're arguing here. Kind of cheap to go after this like you are.
 
What's the reasoning for some to be so vehemently against the death penalty? Speaking to the non religious here. I don't really understand this. At best you're talking about 20-30 years in prison vs. death for an eventually proven innocent person. And that's for maybe at worst one or two folks per every 50 years or so. Seems incredibly insignificant to me. I get why you'd be against it for that reason, but why do some folks seem to make it a top issue?
 
Your stat is wrong. At the very least 10 people have a reasonable doubt to their crime since 1976. That doesn't include the 144 who were charged for a capital crime and later exonerated. Some lucky that they were in certain states rather than others as they were on death row for 15+ years
 
weso1 said:
I doubt this stat, but even if you're right it's still pretty damn insignificant, so my question still stands.
Click to expand...

your willingness to let 10 people die for a crime they didn't do is very disturbing to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top