DAMN...!!!
Mr. Sumanto the human cannibals from Indonesia
now eat the bodies of victims of the train wreck the way cooked
Topic: Do you support or oppose the death penalty? - page 4. (Read 5841 times)
I do, but it should be given to deep violation of laws. Because it really serves as a threat to criminals and as long the justice is capable enough to handle big time criminals.
Some who oppose would say "why kill people to show that killing people is bad" or " people change". Well i think that's why criminals are confident of what they do because they think they are forsaken by many.
In my own opinion only
Some who oppose would say "why kill people to show that killing people is bad" or " people change". Well i think that's why criminals are confident of what they do because they think they are forsaken by many.
In my own opinion only
Then why do the American states with the death penalty have higher murder rates?
Those states had higher crime rates, even when the death penalty was applicable all over the United States. And that is the reason why they are still having the death penalty. It is mostly the all-white liberal states such as Vermont and New Hampshire which have abolished the death penalty. These states had lower crime rates even during the 19th century.
Hah, but you said that the death penalty is a reliable deterrent for crimes. But then, according to your own logic, the murder rate should have dropped in the states that kept the death penalty (or increased in the states that abolished it), and it blatantly hasn't. You've basically just proven yourself wrong, turns out it's not such a reliable deterrent after all...
I agree with you (protokol). Someone dared to do should dare to risk that they will be receiving. As we see in countries that apply the death penalty, crime figures less than countries that do not want the executions.
I definitely support the death penalty. But if a prosecutor misleads, or if the cops lie, or if there is knowingly false evidence presented, then the death penalty should be required with torture on those who caused an innocent person to be executed.
Indeed, the possibility is there, but I strongly support the law if the criminals in accordance with what is in the doing, if he is killed then the punishment is death execution.
I'm so on the fence about this, but I have to say I'm against it. Our state just recently nixed the death penalty and I'm totally OK with it. I think our society is moving away from it, with the USA perhaps being the slowest.
No. It's too expensive. Believe it or not, it's cheaper to give someone life in prison than the death penalty.
No way it's cheaper - it can't be.
One show on discovery said that it took something like 70$ to keep a person in prison per day.
Besides - if someone did something that horrible that the government consider that person should die, wouldn't a lifetime of deprivations of all joys we take for granted in life be a better punishment?
Then why do the American states with the death penalty have higher murder rates?
Those states had higher crime rates, even when the death penalty was applicable all over the United States. And that is the reason why they are still having the death penalty. It is mostly the all-white liberal states such as Vermont and New Hampshire which have abolished the death penalty. These states had lower crime rates even during the 19th century.
Hah, but you said that the death penalty is a reliable deterrent for crimes. But then, according to your own logic, the murder rate should have dropped in the states that kept the death penalty (or increased in the states that abolished it), and it blatantly hasn't. You've basically just proven yourself wrong, turns out it's not such a reliable deterrent after all...
I also oppose death penalty. State should not act like a GOD. They have no right to take anyone's life instead they should focus on fulfilling their responsibility by giving clean governance.
a country must have rules, and the rules for the run 
I also oppose death penalty. State should not act like a GOD. They have no right to take anyone's life instead they should focus on fulfilling their responsibility by giving clean governance.
its quite ironic, its often the case that the ones who say that are the exact ones that want a more 'christian nation' or 'godly government' or something like that. basically they want more religious influence in the government at all levels. that aside, im all for the death penalty. in the US at least, prisons are more often than not for - profit, and the execution of prisoners that are either too far out of touch with society for any possible hope of integration or those that have committed a crime beyond what should be considered punishable with mere jail time saves the state and taxpayers money. finances aside, its a fact that people who do not have a sliver of hope of remaining in normal society and never will exist; some are just too dangerous to exist, both for their own safety and the safety of those around them.
I also oppose death penalty. State should not act like a GOD. They have no right to take anyone's life instead they should focus on fulfilling their responsibility by giving clean governance.
You mention God. Yet it was God speaking through Noah, and recorded by Moses in Genesis 9:6, where he says:
Quote
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.
Righteous execution of murderers is one of the reasons why we have government, so that hot headed revenge doesn't happen by people carrying out vengeance. If government doesn't do its job in this way, or if it does it dishonestly by convicting the innocent and letting the guilty go free, it has become a weakened or corrupt government.
I also oppose death penalty. State should not act like a GOD. They have no right to take anyone's life instead they should focus on fulfilling their responsibility by giving clean governance.
I support the death penalty only in terrorism acts , which is also spiky matter
for example the last act by SA when they killed 47 people accusing them that they were terrorists while the only thing they did was demanding for their rights , they haven't shot a single bullet and they were accused to be terrorists
for example the last act by SA when they killed 47 people accusing them that they were terrorists while the only thing they did was demanding for their rights , they haven't shot a single bullet and they were accused to be terrorists
That would be one way to get rid of the American government.
I support the death penalty only in terrorism acts , which is also spiky matter
for example the last act by SA when they killed 47 people accusing them that they were terrorists while the only thing they did was demanding for their rights , they haven't shot a single bullet and they were accused to be terrorists
for example the last act by SA when they killed 47 people accusing them that they were terrorists while the only thing they did was demanding for their rights , they haven't shot a single bullet and they were accused to be terrorists
I definitly do not support the death penalty. No one should be allowed to take another human being life.
Instead of acting like a real penalty for a crime it ends up being a final release. I believe that he who commits a horrible crime should pay with his life but in the sense that his absolute control over his own life was taken from him, and not simply muder him.
A criminal should pay by suffering everyday for the bad deeds he commited instead of simply being put away.
Instead of acting like a real penalty for a crime it ends up being a final release. I believe that he who commits a horrible crime should pay with his life but in the sense that his absolute control over his own life was taken from him, and not simply muder him.
A criminal should pay by suffering everyday for the bad deeds he commited instead of simply being put away.
some crimes deserves death penalty.. a person who kills innocent women , childern etc. must be punished fairly so they must be executed not live longer ...
Then why do the American states with the death penalty have higher murder rates?
Those states had higher crime rates, even when the death penalty was applicable all over the United States. And that is the reason why they are still having the death penalty. It is mostly the all-white liberal states such as Vermont and New Hampshire which have abolished the death penalty. These states had lower crime rates even during the 19th century.
Yepp, and don´t forget that when there´s death penalty for murder then murderers have an added incentive to get rid of witnesses.
True, even if I'm not sure it changes a lot of thing cause lifetime prison is already a hard enough sentence to convince you doing so... Oh wait, no people for death penalty actually believe people will get afraid of death penalty while they're not afraid of lifetime jail
I support the death penalty, not just for murders, but also for other crimes such as high treason, rape and home invasion. Death penalty is the only reliable deterrent to prevent the crimes. Look at the countries where death penalty has been abolished quite recently (South Africa, El Salvador, Colombia, Cambodia.etc). In all these countries, the crime rate is going up.
Then why do the American states with the death penalty have higher murder rates?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
I'll tell you why I think it is. As I said earlier, murderers and rapists aren't planning on getting caught. If you're not planning to get caught, then what does it matter whether you get life in jail or death? This is especially true for murders that are not premeditated, crimes of passion for example. Another example would be drug dealing in countries which use the death penalty for it, like many countries in the Middle East and South East Asia. I think you'll find that places like Thailand/Indonesia/Afghanistan have pretty bad drug problems.
Also death penalty for home invasion is a stupid idea, what if someone gets drunk and accidentally walks into the wrong house. They would have a chance of being executed for a silly mistake, bit harsh no?
Plus you've got no evidence for causality in your point about countries that have abolished the death penalty - the crime rate could be going up for any reason whatsoever, eg. population change/economic change/immigration of different cultures/government policy/change in weather. The list is pretty much endless. Try harder.
Yepp, and don´t forget that when there´s death penalty for murder then murderers have an added incentive to get rid of witnesses.
I oppose, I think dealth is punishment
I support the death penalty, not just for murders, but also for other crimes such as high treason, rape and home invasion. Death penalty is the only reliable deterrent to prevent the crimes. Look at the countries where death penalty has been abolished quite recently (South Africa, El Salvador, Colombia, Cambodia.etc). In all these countries, the crime rate is going up.
Then why do the American states with the death penalty have higher murder rates?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
I'll tell you why I think it is. As I said earlier, murderers and rapists aren't planning on getting caught. If you're not planning to get caught, then what does it matter whether you get life in jail or death? This is especially true for murders that are not premeditated, crimes of passion for example. Another example would be drug dealing in countries which use the death penalty for it, like many countries in the Middle East and South East Asia. I think you'll find that places like Thailand/Indonesia/Afghanistan have pretty bad drug problems.
Also death penalty for home invasion is a stupid idea, what if someone gets drunk and accidentally walks into the wrong house. They would have a chance of being executed for a silly mistake, bit harsh no?
Plus you've got no evidence for causality in your point about countries that have abolished the death penalty - the crime rate could be going up for any reason whatsoever, eg. population change/economic change/immigration of different cultures/government policy/change in weather. The list is pretty much endless. Try harder.
Jump to: