Death penality - Yes or No?

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Crni Vuk, Feb 18, 2017.

Death Penality!

  1. Yes

    9 vote(s)
    34.6%
  2. No

    12 vote(s)
    46.2%
  3. Undecided

    5 vote(s)
    19.2%
  1. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    So, what's your opinion on the matter?

    1. R.Graves It not that they're less of a person they're just not worth keeping around especially considering that they've done something worthy of the death penalty.
      Yesterday at 10:28 PM Report
      Like


    2. Crni Vuk
      Even if they are innocent? What if it turns out, that an innocent person has been killed. I can see that emotions might justify it, sure some people do very horrific things. But the danger of even killing one person that might have been innocent? That's not worth it.
      Yesterday at 10:39 PM Edit Delete Report
      JO'Geran and TorontRayne like this.

    3. R.Graves
      We can't worry about what-ifs. Even if the person is innocent its a rare case where its fixed. Not much of a difference tbh.
      Yesterday at 10:42 PM Report
      Like


    4. Crni Vuk
      Sure, as long it's not your ass that's on the line ;). Also, it's not as rare as you might think it is. Sadly there is no 'accurate' data on the cases. Your trust in the system is admirable. But I am the better save than sorry kind of guy.
      Yesterday at 10:48 PM Edit Delete Report


    5. R.Graves
      I'm just looking at this from a practical standpoint.
      Yesterday at 10:51 PM Report
      Like


    6. Crni Vuk
      Well, than you should talk about the whole prison/crime system in the US which is totally bonkers, and more about 'revenge' rather than solving issues - see the huge criminalisation of weed. It has really become an industry and a very very ugly one.
      Yesterday at 10:59 PM Edit Delete Report


    7. R.Graves
      Yeah well, can't we just tackle on facet of the problem at a time?
      Yesterday at 11:02 PM Report
      Like


    8. Crni Vuk
      By killing criminals? I might be wrong, but I remember that I have read that death penalities actually don't prevent crimes. Infact, they lead to more viollent crimes, since the criminla will think, if I have to die, I will kill all the wittness. However, the idea that you spend your whole life in prison is a much stronger deterrent
     
  2. Mr Fish

    Mr Fish Snug Rubber

    Sep 11, 2010
    I only want really corrupt politicians that have the power to fuck up hundreds/thousands/millions of lives just for their own benefit and police who straight up murder people to get the death sentence. :shrug:

    Oh and it should be public hanging.

    None of this pussy lethal injection shit.

    Hang the fuckers.
     
  3. Jogre

    Jogre So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 25, 2015
    I think in an ideal society, we shouldn't have a death penalty.

    People in prison are just as much people as anyone else, and putting them to death doesn't help them, nor anyone else. Sure keeping prisoners may cost a lot, but IMO, they are still people, and still deserve to live good lives.
     
  4. a721402

    a721402 Played FPS for decades still suck at it.

    742
    Mar 29, 2016
    Death penalty have its place in human history, that's all i can say.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  5. zegh8578

    zegh8578 Keeper of the trout Orderite

    Mar 11, 2012
    I went for "undecided", because "yes" sounds too hee-haw, and I am going more for "in the most extreme cases"

    I think Norways executions following WW2 were justified, and they were also very subdued, considering the king - head of state - at the time wanted all members of NS executed (afaik anyway, maybe I should double-check), this would mean thousands of executions, which was rejected, but ended up boiling down to I'm not sure, but a couple of hundred *convictions*, death penalties for the usual WW2 stuff, such as murder, torture, high treason - and finally culminated in about 30 actual executions. Several of these, if not most, were not even Norwegians, but Germans.
    Of the most notable Norwegians executed were torturer Henry Rinnan, who apprehended and tortured Norwegians almost by his own initiative, as well as Vidkun Quisling, who eagerly served as head of state during German occupation. Both were executed by firing squad.

    I don't believe in executions willy-nilly. Murder is sad and bad and all, but for murder we have life imprisonment. We have to be reasonable.
    Manslaughter - you get years in prison.
    Outright murder - you get a decade or two in prison.
    Heinous murder - you can get extended prison terms (this is what we currently have. I don't like the myth perpetrated that Norway releases every psychopath fuck after 20 years, such as Breivik. His term will be indefinitely extended. He is locked up *for life*)

    Admitted mass murder of close to 100 people - imho, constitutes of a pretty good oportunity to put a bullet in someones brain, and just get done with it.
     
  6. Throatpunch

    Throatpunch Banned

    Apr 14, 2016
    Nah, it can be fucked up easily and you can end up killing the wrong guy.

    Then again if you definitely know someone did something atrocious, I dont see why not.
     
  7. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    The obvious solution is Gulag!
     
  8. SarcasticGoodGuy

    SarcasticGoodGuy *R O T T E N*

    Aug 31, 2016
    Only in the most extreme cases (terrorism on a large scale, serial killers that are too far gone to be rehabilitated or cared for). Plus you need concrete evidence and a confession.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  9. Millim

    Millim Half-way Through My Half-life
    Orderite

    Oct 13, 2010
    I find it fucked up that the answer to killing someone can be 'we'll kill you'.

    I dunno, like mass murderers are people too. But I do get why they do it sometimes.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  10. zegh8578

    zegh8578 Keeper of the trout Orderite

    Mar 11, 2012
    It is often as simple as state sanctioned revenge.
    In a Norwegian made documentary about death penalty in the US, this was explained to the interviewer - by American proponents of death penalty, in a very pragmatic and sober way. I liked the honesty of the explanation - that, sure, it doesn't "make sense" to execute someone, it doesn't fix anything. It does, however, offer revenge.

    Again, it can be discussed how much sense does revenge make! But that is at least an honest explanation.
     
  11. Throatpunch

    Throatpunch Banned

    Apr 14, 2016
    Everyone talking about revenge like its a bad thing.

    I dont see the problem with revenge. Whats up with getting revenge?
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  12. Millim

    Millim Half-way Through My Half-life
    Orderite

    Oct 13, 2010
    It's an irrational thought process. Yes, we all have a want for revenge, but we should never go ahead with it. It just creates a very problematic society.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  13. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    But we're not living 'history'. A lot of stuff had its place in history, like torture, slavery, tyrany etc of which some is still present in this world.
    However, I often see people arguing in favour of the Death Penality for rather strange reasons. I mean let us stay with the facts.

    Is the Death Penality effective:
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/stu...not-believe-death-penalty-effective-deterrent
    A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. The study, Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Crimonology, concluded, “There is overwhelming consensus among America’s top criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question fails to support the threat or use of the death penalty.” A previous study in 1996 had come to similar conclusions.​
    So, it is a rather ineffective system in avoiding or preventing crimes and it is also a rather useless as punishment - someone who's dead, can't be punished anymore, right? It's not even really 'cost' effective' in that sense, as it simply leads to more viollent crimes - they will now execute me! No reason to hold back anymore.
    The reasoning against 'torture' as punishment for example is, that it would be inhuman. So you just put them to 'sleep' with an lethal injection rather than torturing someone to death, as how it was done in medieval times, even hanging is seen as inhuman by todays standards. So they practise today a so called humanly way of killing.
    But keeping someone in prison however, would be a far greater punishment at this point - particularly when you consider the conditions prisoneres experience in the current US prison system.

    The death penality is one huge oxymoron. Either you have penalities to punish people, or to prevent crimes - deterrent for example. The Death penality however seemingly doesn't do anything of it very well.

    So why is it still around one might ask? And the answer is as simple as revealing.

    Revenge. It is really as simple like that. It gives people the feeling that "this person got what he deserved!", and it makes you look tough on criminals. Certain punisments are not done to serve justice or to punish the criminals, they are actually done to satisfy the people. Each time when you see someone saying stuff like, "They should cut the dick of from that child-killer/rapist/serial-killer!", it goes in that direction.
    But at some point, the punishment is not in relation to the crime anymore, but serving a totally different purpose - see the criminalisation of weed and the people that smoke it, pretty much any statistics and research by now, shows that the laws against it are ineffective and that the drug is even less lethal compared to alcohol and tobacco and that it isn't even a gateway drug.

    And this actually says a lot about the US prison/crime system as a whole, where it is much more about criminalizing people even for already 'small' crimes and appearing tough on 'hard' crime rather than looking for solutions, preventions and keeping people out of prison and curt rooms, which is a lot more effective, cost effective and saver for the population than an expensive punishment and prison system.

    But the current system allows for two things. It allows politicans like governors and officials to remain 'tough', while it also alows a whole industry to stay in charge and earning money, the prison system in the US has undergon a huge privatisation, and a lot of it with very bad side effects not just for the prisoners, but for the judiciary as a whole.



    To think that this has anything to do with solving crimes and or/preventing them, is ludicrous.
    Because you can't lead a society based on it.
     
  14. Cimmerian Nights

    Cimmerian Nights So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2004
    How about guys like gary gilmore that want to die? Why sentence them to death and then not have the balls to pull the trigger when its OK with them? Thats a great case, i highly recommend Mailer's Executioner's Song, great book won the pullitzer.
     
  15. Jogre

    Jogre So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 25, 2015
    Because it doesn't cause any good for anyone.

    You don't really gain anything from getting your own back on someone, you just add to the suffering in the world
     
  16. Millim

    Millim Half-way Through My Half-life
    Orderite

    Oct 13, 2010
    If they want to die, fine. Let them.

    But wanting to die and revenge are too completely different things.
     
  17. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    Since we've had a couple of failed amnesty orders here in Slovakia, when a mass murderer and notorious recidivist such as Jozef Slovak regained his freedom only to kill some more, I'm all for the polled "Death Penality!" (sic) for repeatedly sentenced criminals commiting serious crimes. Kill them, turn them into soylent green, and feed them to Somalians. >_>
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  18. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I think a better solution would be to actually look why he was released in the first place. I mean you can kill him, but that doesn't change the fact that it might repeat it self, thus the next serial killer getting released.
     
  19. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    That's okay. The amnesty was ordered in 1990 by the late Vaclav Havel, former political prisoner and president of Czechoslovakia, after overthrowing communist regime. Hopefully this won't repeat again.
    (Also adding quick reminder that you're not discussing shit with me. Think of your integrity, stop it naow!)
     
  20. a721402

    a721402 Played FPS for decades still suck at it.

    742
    Mar 29, 2016
    To be honest, this is a quite complicated topic to discuss about, and since there is no easy answer for it and most of us are not either qualify lawyer or judge, why don't we just stop it right now?