The Death Penalty Debate

The Demon of Carthage wrote:

sportsczy wrote:I'm for the death penalty simply because it's an easy way to address overpopulation...  start by killing off the scumbags.  It's not like prison "rehabilitates" anyone (at least in the US it doesn't).  And what's the point of life in prison.

Just shoot them in the head and cremate them.  Most efficient way to go.

It shouldn't be that simple because that way, corrupt governments would use that option to forever silence their opposition by framing them.

The death penalty should be an option only when the accused has been proven guilty beyond any shred of doubt, has no mental illnesses whatsoever, and did something beyond unspeakable and evil.

You only execute the death penalty after all the appellate recourses have been exhausted. That's plenty of checks and balances in the US at least...

The Demon of Carthage wrote:

Unique wrote:

The Demon of Carthage wrote:

It shouldn't be that simple because that way, corrupt governments would use that option to forever silence their opposition by framing them.

The death penalty should be an option only when the accused has been proven guilty beyond any shred of doubt, has no mental illnesses whatsoever, and did something beyond unspeakable and evil.

thats the argument for serial killers. ted bundy was found sane and sentenced to death but if you look at some of the stuff he did you could argue that no sane person could have done them things.

Precisely my point. Once you prove beyond any doubt that the accused has no mental illnesses whatsoever, what's left to say except that they are evil?

An evil person is a sane person as well. The only difference is that they are perfectly aware of what they are doing, and most importantly, know perfectly that what they're doing is wrong and yet do it anyway.

If I have a little bit of time, I'm going to post here a real-life story that happened in Tunisia not too long ago and turned the whole country upside down. And I'll let you be the judge as to whether or not the accusers deserve the death penalty or not.

sportsczy wrote:

The Demon of Carthage wrote:

sportsczy wrote:I'm for the death penalty simply because it's an easy way to address overpopulation...  start by killing off the scumbags.  It's not like prison "rehabilitates" anyone (at least in the US it doesn't).  And what's the point of life in prison.

Just shoot them in the head and cremate them.  Most efficient way to go.

It shouldn't be that simple because that way, corrupt governments would use that option to forever silence their opposition by framing them.

The death penalty should be an option only when the accused has been proven guilty beyond any shred of doubt, has no mental illnesses whatsoever, and did something beyond unspeakable and evil.

You only execute the death penalty after all the appellate recourses have been exhausted. That's plenty of checks and balances in the US at least...

This is blatantly false

"Researchers estimate that more than 340 U.S. inmates that could have been exonerated were sentenced to death since 1973"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-prisoners-on-death-row-are-wrongfully-convicted/

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

sportsczy wrote:

The Demon of Carthage wrote:

It shouldn't be that simple because that way, corrupt governments would use that option to forever silence their opposition by framing them.

The death penalty should be an option only when the accused has been proven guilty beyond any shred of doubt, has no mental illnesses whatsoever, and did something beyond unspeakable and evil.

You only execute the death penalty after all the appellate recourses have been exhausted. That's plenty of checks and balances in the US at least...

This is blatantly false

"Researchers estimate that more than 340 U.S. inmates that could have been exonerated were sentenced to death since 1973"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-prisoners-on-death-row-are-wrongfully-convicted/

if they could prove they were not guilty after they died why couldent they prove it before death. most convicts spend 10-15 years on death row anyway.

Because these guys are often dirt poor and don't have an army of lawyers working for them. The system is stacked against them.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Because these guys are often dirt poor and don't have an army of lawyers working for them. The system is stacked against them.

so why did the lawyers work for them after they were executed. it dont make sense. they were convicted then put on death row for 15 years then executed and then they were proved not guilty. if they had evidence that says they didnt do it then why wait until they are dead to show it.

Most guys who commit murders aren't guys who can afford good defense lawyers to begin with...  that's false logic.

the idea that a good lawyer can get a man off means the justice system is flawed anyway. this is why i think picking random people to be on the jury is a bad idea to start with. the justice system should have professional jury members

The justice system is indeed flawed, that's why you shouldn't murder someone just because the justice system says it's ok.

A Japanese man has been sentenced to death for a stabbing rampage in 2016 which resulted in the death of 19 disabled people at a care home.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51903289

For or against in this case?

For.

Just like others who commit atrocities of such scale to the recent news of a woman decapitating her daughter just for asking for breakfast cereal, such a life is not loss to planet earth.

Personally am indifferent to the death penalty whether it happens or not but some who are incarcerated, do not deserve all the taxpayers money used on them for "rehabilitation" similar to how there is no curing pedophilia.

Pedophilia, to which despite the increasing normalisation of it, never should be accepted under any condition.


I always did find the famous final meal for prisoners fascinating and what some ordered. I think it only exists in Texas state jails by now.

reading this thread and seeing the corona outbreak got me thinking instead of the death penalty they sould be used for medical experiments that way they get to live but give something back for the good of mankind.

Uematsu is garbage and deserves to be put down like the dog he is, but when he's killed there needs to be a view at the culture that allowed him to grow into what he was.

That BBC article says this:

BBC wrote: The attack has also raised the issue of how disabled people are treated in Japan.

The identities of most of those killed have not been revealed by their families, reportedly because some do not want to reveal they had a disabled relative.

This is a real thing. I used to hang out with this dude, damn near every summer as a kid. He lived across the way from my Grandpa's girlfriend house. I wanna say the summer his older brother moved to work at a school I went over to help them move. Dude had a sister all along. She had some kinda mental disability that made her walk unconventionally and yell or something, but I was just shocked at how I had seen this family all the time and didnt know they had another kid there roughly my age.

They were both so cavalier about how she cant be around people or some shit and I was just offended by it. I told the older brother straight up: "You could have let the bitch go outside" and not just let her sit there and watch pretty cure all day. Even if she didnt have the maturity to be around us as teens I hung around them enough as kids to know she could have been out there with us and if somebody messed with her in that neighborhood there wasnt a single one of us who wouldnt have swung on them. A culture of being ashamed of disability and hiding it is just something I dont get.