Topic: Do you support or oppose the death penalty? (Read 5841 times)

if you as the victim's family, whether you are willing killer left alive. if I am obviously not, because the killer can not revive the dead

They shouldn't be killed because it would be too easy. They should live and suffer for the rest of their days - and repent. Not escape so easy.

Yes but, do you really want to be doing this? Or haven't you found out yet...  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13670987.

I leave all matters to the government. because it applies the rules to be obeyed. Government that the right to provide what kind of punishment for the killers fit criteria

Funny how none of all of you death penalty supporter says that you agree to kill 5% of innocents.

So you're all ok with that? Doesn't matter?

You don't trust your own government but now you want to give them the right to kill people?

Exactly. Everyone will die after all, just kill the criminals. they will eventually die either in the hand of another criminal or the police.

If a person is guilty of depriving another person of his life unjustly, he should receive the death penalty. Why? If you punish him with great pain, you become like him. If you allow him to live, there is no true justice, and there is no example. Also, he might do it again. If you imprison him, you have to pay for his upkeep.

In America, the whole prison thing is just another way that government people suck a good income for themselves, out of the taxes that the people pay.

Well, a death penalty is an easy punishment but it should be used only on the most extreme criminals.
From history we see that people who deserved a death penalty for their crimes did not receive it and people who did not deserve it received it.
Extreme meaning crimes against humanity.

Isn't the death penalty a swift and easy punishment for such a person that actually did something so bad that they think such a person should get the capital punishment? It seems contradictory.

but even though they know the consequence an urgency and force them to do these deeds

For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it doesn’t reduce crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.

The worst thing about it. Errors:
The system can make tragic mistakes. As of now, 141 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. We’ll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty
Who gets it:
The death penalty magnifies social and economic inequalities. It isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender.

Victims:
Like no other punishment, it puts families of murder victims through a process which makes healing even harder. Even families who have supported it in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

It comes down to whether we should keep the death penalty for retribution or revenge.

No guards around the outside. Freedom and liberty within.

If someone left when he was not supposed to, he could do it. But if the "avenger of blood" found him outside, he was dead meat. And even if he returned to the city without being caught, if it was found out that he had left, execution.

It was a form of freedom for people who were guilty because of circumstances rather than murder. The thing that made something like this necessary was that it was definitely a killing, but it wasn't necessarily murder. It was a benefit of the doubt thing for the killer.

Over the period of time in the city, the people of the city would find out the truth. A person who is free but has killed accidentally, will wind up showing his innocence over time. A murder is likely to slip up and prove that he is a murder.

Something like this would be a good thing to have in America and any free country.

So... A wall around the city and guardians killing the ones who dare to escape...

Dude, doesn't it really sound like a hardcore prison to you? xD

Execution if they left the city before the term set for them was over. Probably there were a few who went outside and were never executed alive. Probably there were some who remained in, and were found to be murderers later, and were executed.

when people fear of consequences, they think deeply before committing something wrong
So, yeah, I am with applying the death penalty

South Africa abolished the death penalty in 1993, when the apartheid government was replaced with ANC rule. Suddenly, the crime rate increased by manifolds (by 2,000% in 1993-1998 period). The crime rate peaked in 1999-2000. After that there was a small decline and now it has stabilized. But even now the rates are much higher than those in 1993.

Great idea. You never cease to amaze me. Let's do this  

And why in Earth would they stay in this city?

maybe the government should execute death in a brutal way so people will consider it punishment, right?
shooting them by a firing squad seem a bit a swift death. electrocution is easy so as the lethal injection.
 Hanging by the neck until they die isn't brutal, in fact one will even do it to themselves.

Maybe cutting limb by limb will do. or feed them by the hungry dogs as far as i know Chinese do this.

Don't immediately turn off your mind because I mention "Bible," but the solution in the Old Testament was to have several cities that were designated for people to be sent to if they had committed accidental death of someone. They were not allowed to leave the city for an average of 25 years.

The cities were not prisons. They were entirely free within the city walls. But certainly the regular people within those cities were prepared to test out any newcomers to find out if those newcomers were really murderers, or if they were simply victims of circumstance.