Topic: What is your stance on capital punishment? - page 2. (Read 1238 times)

"It doesn't matter if they re offend or not" - Really? You don't care how many innocent people get killed? In addition, sending murderers to prison leaves a breeding ground for more murderers and murders (as I've explained above). Furthermore, I don't know why you bring this into the equation: "If you kill someone premeditated then you should spend the rest of your life in prison. If you killed someone by self defense then many factors would have to be taken into consideration. Just because you killed someone that entered your house without your permission and was waving a weapon around doesn't mean you have to kill them. If it's a baseball bat for instance then he not likely to kill you with it and you wouldn't have to use lethal force either. It almost all self defense cases there was a better option", I am not the one having trouble to differentiate between murder and a justified killing.

In addition, capital punishment does serve as a deterrent to at least some level despite the skewed manner in which statistics are abused in this regard. Marxists always need a general crime wave in order to wage war against their enemies. They are too cowardly to declare it openly and fight like men.

Again, "show me a list of murderers who have truly benefited from prison sentences and added something of value to society?"

What if they are 6'6" and weigh 300 pounds and are swinging at me with a baseball bat? What if they are attacking a 5'0" female who weighs 100 pounds? Are you saying the victim is allowed to try to tackle them, but isn't allowed to stab or shoot them? So if the attacker is bigger than you, you just accept that you are getting beaten up or killed?



If someone breaks in to my house armed with a deadly weapon, I don't care what they want and I suspect they wouldn't be interested in having a conversation about it. They are putting the lives of my family at risk and I would retaliate as necessary to attempt to stop them. Thankfully, in the country I live in, the law would be on my side.

A baseball bat can kill if it connects. Although within a small space it's very hard to swing and guess what a baseball bat takes time to leverage back and swing. It's slow in other words and within the time they are swinging you can tackle them and disarm them. Police are taught this technique and a baseball bat is considered low danger because of this. A gun on the other hand doesn't take much movement to actually do the damage. A knife takes a little bit more movement than a gun but is much less than a baseball bat. Knives are a different situation although if you are trained you can disarm a knife wielding lunatic as the police do every day.

Killing someone even in self defense should be the last resort. Close combat which the majority of houses are a baseball bat is completely useless. Yes it can hurt if they jab you with it but its not going to kill you want way. they would need to swing back and then generate the force which also takes a split second.

A sword/katana or something like that would be a little different as you can't really tackle them and it's harder to disarm. But the majority of people invading someones house is looking to steal something and sometimes it's not worth the risk. If they want a tv give them a tv. It's better than killing someone and living with it for the rest of your life.

Completely agree with you to here.



Completely disagree with you here.

You can kill someone with a single punch. You sure as hell can kill someone with one swing of a baseball bat. If a baseball wielding lunatic breaks in to my house, the safety of my family comes first and I should be allowed to use whatever means necessary to protect them. If that requires lethal force, then so be it.

It doesn't matter if they re offend or not. It  doesn't change the fact that they've murdered at least one person which is justifiable to spend the rest of their life in prison. I'm against the idea of capital punishment and can't believe that some countries still use it when it's been proven to not work. It doesn't act as a deterrent because people are still murdering others and it doesn't always bring justice because innocents have been killed.

If you kill someone premeditated then you should spend the rest of your life in prison. If you killed someone by self defense then many factors would have to be taken into consideration. Just because you killed someone that entered your house without your permission and was waving a weapon around doesn't mean you have to kill them. If it's a baseball bat for instance then he not likely to kill you with it and you wouldn't have to use lethal force either. It almost all self defense cases there was a better option.

I would absolutely love it and start a campaign to say that murderers should not receive capital punishment, only the innocent.

Could you tell what will be your reaction if your close friend or relative will be falsely convicted of murder and executed?

Thank you for the merit received. Much appreciated.

In terms of my previous post, I've tried to give a tongue-in-cheek response while bringing over the point of view that others out there might have - people that are not as kind as some of us. You might think that I don't know what I am talking about, but I've spoken to hardened criminals in the past. They find a soft approach hilarious and stupid to say the least - and love playing the system to their benefit and at an expense to others.

Many hardened criminals have received life sentences - a ticket to free meals, free accommodation and the opportunity to murder again. In addition, there is no easy life in prison for someone who is not willing to join a prison gang. You either join them, get constantly raped or murdered. Regardless of why you are in prison, they will expect of you to murder - and if you refuse - they will murder you. E.g. this guy was convicted of murder at age 14 and received a 9 year prison sentence. He was exposed to murderers in prison and look at the result: https://youtu.be/vLkRA2pdBdE

Given reality - and not what is sold as an ideal system and/or pie in the sky - people who end up in prison for lesser offences have little chance of rehabilitation while murderers are around. They learn to become hardened criminals and many turn out murderers themselves. E.g. https://youtu.be/YsUs3tL_I0k

This is why I've stated previously in this thread: "The question we should rather ask ourselves is: "How many convicted murderers reoffend?"" And I could add: "How many convicted murderers help to turn others into murderers?"

In addition, show me a list of murderers who have truly benefited from prison sentences and added something of value to society?

I merited one of your previous posts, not because I agreed with what you said, but because you put forward a level-headed and well reasoned argument. And now you have completely ruined it by saying something as ridiculous as not having the death penalty is equivalent to giving citizens the right to murder. Sigh.

Moral of the Story: If you want free meals and accommodation in Babylon, just murder someone - even if it is a close friend or relative. They won't kill you for such hideous crime, because they are too scared that you might be innocent. Alternatively, don't murder someone and slave away for meals and accommodation for most of your life. In fact, don't murder someone and you will foot the bill in terms of meals and accommodation (and some more) for those who have the balls to murder. What is not to love of a system that upholds the right to murder.

This discussion reminds me the story if Russian serial killer Andrey Chikatilo who murdered more then fifty people. Before ho got caught there were two different men who were consiquently convicted and executed for his crimes. Are they not victims of social Killing Machine? In terms of victims' and murderers' rights who will be executed for murdering them?

I have a question for those who stand for capital punishment. If it  was your relative or close friend woh was falsely accused of some severe crime, convicted and executed? Will you still hold on to your opinion in that case? Many of those who are against capital punishment do so because of unfairly destroyed lives of innocent victims of failed (for any reason) justice. IMO, it is better to save life of hundred murderers than to execute one innocent person.

It may not be paradise but it's a surely better than some of the third world country prisons you come across there's some very nasty stories about how the prisoners get mistreated or even run the prison themselves. In the latter case that means the strong feed off the weak and the more serious criminals are likely running the place.

I would argue that some inmates don't want to leave prison. Sometimes it's because it's what they are used to and what they've grown up in. People often call it "being institutionalized". Some of course were sent to prison when the roads were much quieter and there was only a few cars around and the world being as it is right now with qualifications are needed for pretty much everything you can understand that they may not want to come into a society which they aren't used too and will get shunned because they have a criminal record. It's quite well documented that prisoners that have been released prison commit a crime just to get back in because they can't fit in. This was shown on Shawshank redemption. It may only be a movie but it takes it's influence from real life stories and if I recall it was based on a true story.

The innocent dead wont live again if the criminal is put to death. But the people convicted who were innocent will live if death punishment is not an alternative.


It is not paradise. They are still locked in and have strict rules to follow. I dont think there are many who would actualy want to spend time there even if the inmates are treated with respect and dignity.
But as the norwegian jail is focused on rehabilitation and not just punishment prisoners have a higher chance of returning to the society without commiting new crime.

Norwegian prisons are super nice. If there is any place in the world to commit a crime this is the place. Norway definitely has a different atmosphere than in the US.

Sounds kind of nice, but on another level it seems pretty messed up. Imagine some crazy dude comes into your house and murders your entire family. You happen to be out at the time so you don't get killed. The murder is then sent to a paradise campus for 25 years. That would really feel like... lack of "closure".

Punishing someone with the death penalty won't undo their crimes, and as I mentioned before, there is no evidence that it is a deterrent to future crimes.

And what about all the innocent people who are getting murdered? Should that alone not be enough to have the death penalty?

We know innocent people are convicted. That alone should be enough to not have the death penalty!

Also i do not think the ones comitting murder consider that they can be sentenced to death, just look at the fantastic land of the free.. What matters for crime is the society. And when put in jail how the conditions are. Being in a Norwegian jail is a paradise compared to the US, yet the amount of criminals is lower and the reformation is more succesfull. If interested see Michael Moore visiting Norwegian jail.

https://youtu.be/jDjISR5OHa4

Another approach: We get to record our choice on a blockchain in terms of whether we support capital punishment or not - A or B:

A. I support capital punishment - If I or one of my dependents get murdered, the one(s) found guilty in a court of law must receive capital punishment.

B. I don't support capital punishment - If I or one of my dependents get murdered, the one(s) found guilty in a court of law must not receive capital punishment.

This way all parties involved will get what they want on a case-to-case basis. The authorities will know how to handle each individual case. It could form part of Last Will and Testaments.

My opinion about the death penalty is, I agree because the person who has committed a crime despite saying will soon repent I am sure one day will repeat the same mistake for example stealing a gold shop and killing the shop owner, I think the death penalty is appropriate to be given to the suspect, but if the death penalty was given to someone who stole my neighbor's banana I think the death penalty is not appropriate. I think the death penalty is only appropriate for people who are criminals such as killing and threatening the lives of others.