In China the death penalty is given to mostly government officials who have stolen and embezzled state funds. This is the best way to deal with corruption in my opinion and it's good so far. I think murderers as well as those who shed blood and those who through some means makes one to lose their lives deserve the same fate. An eye for an eye.
I believe that the death penalty for financial crimes is too much. I think that the death penalty should only apply to those who committed acts of violence against the person. 
Topic: How do you feel about the death penalty? - page 36. (Read 26089 times)
In China the death penalty is given to mostly government officials who have stolen and embezzled state funds. This is the best way to deal with corruption in my opinion and it's good so far. I think murderers as well as those who shed blood and those who through some means makes one to lose their lives deserve the same fate. An eye for an eye.
My argument is very simple. In almost all the nations where the death penalty was recently abolished, we have witnessed a sharp upswing in the crime rate. Therefore, IMO, the death penalty must be there to deter these sort of crimes.
My opinion is very similiar to yours, I also have spotted that in the countries where the death penalty has got out of use, the crime rate has grown.It is because of one, very simple reason: criminals are not scared to do bad thing to other people.
If there would be a death penalty for killing someone ( excluding car accidents ) no matter what, Im one hundred percent sure that the murder rate would decrease.
Criminals need a vision of really brutal punishment for their crimes, because if the goverment will be kind with them, and the penalty will not be harmful, then the bad people will think that they might do what they want with impunity.
If they are juveniles they might even get less depending on the district. Some Judges have it set in their mind that blacks are victims of society and refuse to ruin a childs life over what they view as "one mistake".
And despite that we have so many drug addicts in prison and so many teenagers got their lives ruined by being caught smoking "marihuana cigarettes". 
I always laugh when I hear cops calling everything by their official names. I think serious offenders like serial killers or serial child rapists deserve death penalty. Some people are worse than animals and don't deserve to be kept in a warm cell, fed, and allowed to read books till the rest of their lives, while others have to work to put food on their table.
My argument is very simple. In almost all the nations where the death penalty was recently abolished, we have witnessed a sharp upswing in the crime rate. Therefore, IMO, the death penalty must be there to deter these sort of crimes.
You are not right. In Europe there is no death penalty, but this does not lead to a large increase in crime (with the exception of Muslim terrorism and the crimes of immigrants). I think what is important is not so much punishment, how many its inevitability.Ever since the 1990s, the European Union is witnessing a slow uptick in the crime rate. The third world immigrants have been responsible for most of this increase, but I have feeling that if the death penalty was still there, then it could have had some impact.
Seriously we went from hanging Horse Thieves to giving people who commit armed robbery 5-10 years in prison.
If they are juveniles they might even get less depending on the district. Some Judges have it set in their mind that blacks are victims of society and refuse to ruin a childs life over what they view as "one mistake".
It is insane to to me that the intent hardly matters. If you fire a weapon with the intent to kill but don't end up killing you get a more lenient sentencing (often). Attempted Murder vs Murder.
I don't really see the difference as far as social order is concerned.
If they are juveniles they might even get less depending on the district. Some Judges have it set in their mind that blacks are victims of society and refuse to ruin a childs life over what they view as "one mistake".
It is insane to to me that the intent hardly matters. If you fire a weapon with the intent to kill but don't end up killing you get a more lenient sentencing (often). Attempted Murder vs Murder.
I don't really see the difference as far as social order is concerned.
You're in EU? Do all countries there really have unarmed police? I really found that surprising and baffling at the same time. I live in a third world country and none of our police here would be caught dead without a gun. (Whether the gun actually work properly is a different issue.)
Yes, many countries have special cops that sometimes do the job of a traffic warden and a kind of peacekeeper. These cops have tonfas, pepper sprays, handcuffs and in case of a real emergency call for backup. They're usually dealing with bums sleeping on benches, people urinating or drinking in public places and such stuff. Different countries have many different types of policemen. For instance when I was in Germany there were a lot of patrols with dogs and automatic weapons.
I agree with the death penalty. I think that by giving extremely heinous criminals life sentences we simply embolden people who think about doing similar things. I think it's partially to blame for the American attitude that causes all of these violent crimes - even the ones that are non-lethal.
Over time the prison system has been seen to be a "push-over". Many people who commit these crimes (who are already deranged) simply embrace the anti-hero, fuck the law, prison lifestyle. While it's still a punishment it's simply not enough, we are too weak on serious offenses.
I think that if somebody is undeniably guilty of a shooting, or what have you, they should be given an expedited trial and killed within 24 hours of their capture. I think it is absurd that we have a concept of "humane executions". 9/10 of the people who get the death penalty brutally murdered somebody who experienced unimaginable pain. We shouldn't waste hundreds of millions of dollars on drugs when there are thousands of solutions which are more economical.
The middle east might be too liberal with what they deem worthy of the death sentence but they have the right mentality about swift retribution to discourage similar incidents.
While Europe may not have the death penalty and experience lower levels of crime than the U.S. that is simply because of accessibility to guns.
No matter how you slice it, Guns are here to stay in the United States. It worked well enough back in the 1800's when there was greater social cohesion but now every dumb 15 year old nigger in the inner city can get their hands on a pistol. Guns are manufactured at many 1000x% faster and are far cheaper relative to income. Ideally we could concentrate all of the guns in the hands of mentally stable professionals but things aren't so easy.
Frankly, I support the death sentence for lower level crimes as well. If somebody is stupid enough to rob a gas station in this year with the near 100% capture rate of perpetrators I view them as irredeemable to society. I think they are better off to the general public dead.
Over time the prison system has been seen to be a "push-over". Many people who commit these crimes (who are already deranged) simply embrace the anti-hero, fuck the law, prison lifestyle. While it's still a punishment it's simply not enough, we are too weak on serious offenses.
I think that if somebody is undeniably guilty of a shooting, or what have you, they should be given an expedited trial and killed within 24 hours of their capture. I think it is absurd that we have a concept of "humane executions". 9/10 of the people who get the death penalty brutally murdered somebody who experienced unimaginable pain. We shouldn't waste hundreds of millions of dollars on drugs when there are thousands of solutions which are more economical.
The middle east might be too liberal with what they deem worthy of the death sentence but they have the right mentality about swift retribution to discourage similar incidents.
While Europe may not have the death penalty and experience lower levels of crime than the U.S. that is simply because of accessibility to guns.
No matter how you slice it, Guns are here to stay in the United States. It worked well enough back in the 1800's when there was greater social cohesion but now every dumb 15 year old nigger in the inner city can get their hands on a pistol. Guns are manufactured at many 1000x% faster and are far cheaper relative to income. Ideally we could concentrate all of the guns in the hands of mentally stable professionals but things aren't so easy.
Frankly, I support the death sentence for lower level crimes as well. If somebody is stupid enough to rob a gas station in this year with the near 100% capture rate of perpetrators I view them as irredeemable to society. I think they are better off to the general public dead.
My argument is very simple. In almost all the nations where the death penalty was recently abolished, we have witnessed a sharp upswing in the crime rate. Therefore, IMO, the death penalty must be there to deter these sort of crimes.
You are not right. In Europe there is no death penalty, but this does not lead to a large increase in crime (with the exception of Muslim terrorism and the crimes of immigrants). I think what is important is not so much punishment, how many its inevitability.
I agree with the death penalty. This will significantly reduce the number of even the smallest crimes and the world will become cleaner from any garbage.
I must say I agree with the death penalty to some extend. That kind of punishment would be reserved to mass murderers, serial killers or some special cases like some kinds of life sentances and drug dealers.
It's kind of stupid to keep someone for life in prison and making him live of other peoples taxes, I'd rather have him gone than laying there taking space.
It's kind of stupid to keep someone for life in prison and making him live of other peoples taxes, I'd rather have him gone than laying there taking space.
It should be given to those who have committed the most heinous of crimes.
I agree with the death penalty, but not all violations must end with the death penalty. I could agree with the rules of the death penalty for the killers. When someone dared to end the life of another person, he must also be prepared to accept the same. The death penalty for thieves also, but the death penalty is not the primary selection. The death penalty for thieves should be based on how much amount he stole. If you really make the victim became very miserable, then I agree. And the main thing is the criminals, who steal state money and make people destitute, should be put to death.
Yes,for very cruel acts, death penalty would be the correct punishment.Arresting a murderer and keeping him in jail for his life time will not at all be a punishment.But in some countries,a murderer is given 14 years of imprisonment and then he is released.These soft punishments will not bring the crime ratio down.
My argument is very simple. In almost all the nations where the death penalty was recently abolished, we have witnessed a sharp upswing in the crime rate. Therefore, IMO, the death penalty must be there to deter these sort of crimes.
I don't think it's right to hastily execute these people just because the drug being used is close to expiring. Though they may be criminals, it's still a bit inhumane to hurriedly execute them for this reason. I'm not really for death penalty except for severe crimes such as murder and rape but it has to be implemented humanely
I agree with the death penalty, but not all violations must end with the death penalty. I could agree with the rules of the death penalty for the killers. When someone dared to end the life of another person, he must also be prepared to accept the same. The death penalty for thieves also, but the death penalty is not the primary selection. The death penalty for thieves should be based on how much amount he stole. If you really make the victim became very miserable, then I agree. And the main thing is the criminals, who steal state money and make people destitute, should be put to death.
I'm fine with an occasional execution but the reason why they're rushing these don't seem to be right.
You're in EU? Do all countries there really have unarmed police? I really found that surprising and baffling at the same time. I live in a third world country and none of our police here would be caught dead without a gun. (Whether the gun actually work properly is a different issue.)
I share your views on rehabilitation but there are some people who really wouldn't change, hard that maybe to accept. Or maybe we just haven't found the proper tools. Neurology seem to offer solutions in the future.
For now though, we are stuck with criminals where some may repeat the offense or commit worse crimes later. Provided they were really proven guilty, I'm fine having capital punishment as a final resort, as a last option for really violent offenders. That or keep them locked up and on medications forever.
I support the death penalty. Any liberal laws lead to more crimes. Migrant crisis in Europe also proves it. Only the presence of weapons among the population is holding back a huge amount of crime in the United States. Here you have all the liberalism.
You're in EU? Do all countries there really have unarmed police? I really found that surprising and baffling at the same time. I live in a third world country and none of our police here would be caught dead without a gun. (Whether the gun actually work properly is a different issue.)
Death penalty is very difficult issue, from political side, medical, social, philosophical, religious etc.
In case of war, to defend the nation and people, soldiers can shoot and kill the enemy.
However, what if we are not at war?
Does society have a moral right to apply the principle of an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, as in the Old Testament?
In the most countries in the world today, answer is simple no.
They do not want to destroy human life, but to rehabilitate the person and allow repentance and new life.
I think that such way is much more humanistic than death penalty practice today in America.
If someone is too dangerous for society, it is clear that we will not let him out.
In case of war, to defend the nation and people, soldiers can shoot and kill the enemy.
However, what if we are not at war?
Does society have a moral right to apply the principle of an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, as in the Old Testament?
In the most countries in the world today, answer is simple no.
They do not want to destroy human life, but to rehabilitate the person and allow repentance and new life.
I think that such way is much more humanistic than death penalty practice today in America.
If someone is too dangerous for society, it is clear that we will not let him out.
I share your views on rehabilitation but there are some people who really wouldn't change, hard that maybe to accept. Or maybe we just haven't found the proper tools. Neurology seem to offer solutions in the future.
For now though, we are stuck with criminals where some may repeat the offense or commit worse crimes later. Provided they were really proven guilty, I'm fine having capital punishment as a final resort, as a last option for really violent offenders. That or keep them locked up and on medications forever.
Death penalty is very difficult issue, from political side, medical, social, philosophical, religious etc.
In case of war, to defend the nation and people, soldiers can shoot and kill the enemy.
However, what if we are not at war?
Does society have a moral right to apply the principle of an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, as in the Old Testament?
In the most countries in the world today, answer is simple no.
They do not want to destroy human life, but to rehabilitate the person and allow repentance and new life.
I think that such way is much more humanistic than death penalty practice today in America.
If someone is too dangerous for society, it is clear that we will not let him out.
In case of war, to defend the nation and people, soldiers can shoot and kill the enemy.
However, what if we are not at war?
Does society have a moral right to apply the principle of an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, as in the Old Testament?
In the most countries in the world today, answer is simple no.
They do not want to destroy human life, but to rehabilitate the person and allow repentance and new life.
I think that such way is much more humanistic than death penalty practice today in America.
If someone is too dangerous for society, it is clear that we will not let him out.
I support the death penalty. Any liberal laws lead to more crimes. Migrant crisis in Europe also proves it. Only the presence of weapons among the population is holding back a huge amount of crime in the United States. Here you have all the liberalism.
So by withholding the drug midazolam, european manufacturers are advocating for a more painful death for these 7 criminals. Good to see Europe is no longer misplacing its empathy. Finally somebody to stand up for the real victims here; those who were raped and murdered.
Jump to: