Is rape deserving of capital punishment?

[Scandavian States]

IMO, the point of a criminal justice system is to protect society from the elements that act outside of normal decency. Any act which endangers the nation (treason, espionage) or inflicts gross mental and/or physical harm (rape, murder, child molestation) should be punished by a quick and painless death.

[Viperco2]

1.3 million cases of violent crimes a year, 4 exonerations even if we assume theres a hundred times more innocents people imprisioned that is insignifficant but still unfortunate to the amount of people we protect.

Think of how much gets killed by repeat offenders or in jail riots and you will see that we more than break even

There wouldn't be very many repeat offenders or jail riots if we dealt with them my way. and repeat offenses are around 75% so its still one innocent for about 25,000 convictions. Say we execute about 2 million criminals only about 80 innocents would die and there would practicallly be no crime.

[Central Slavia]

1.3 million cases of violent crimes a year, 4 exonerations even if we assume theres a hundred times more innocents people imprisioned that is insignifficant but still unfortunate to the amount of people we protect.

Think of how much gets killed by repeat offenders or in jail riots and you will see that we more than break even

There wouldn't be very many repeat offenders or jail riots if we dealt with them my way. and repeat offenses are around 75% so its still one innocent for about 25,000 convictions. Say we execute about 2 million criminals only about 80 innocents would die and there would practicallly be no crime.

That is exactly my point

[Ervine]

What's next, an eye-for-an-eye judicracy?

"You murder? You shall be murdered!"
"You shoplift? We steal your house!"
"You speak out against the government? We speak out against your existence!"

Seriously, rapists should not be murdered nor paedophiles castrated. Instead, they should just imprisoned for life or, if you're feeling your axe is rusty, slowly torture them into insanity.

If I may pose the question, what if the victim of rape didn't want to take it to court for whatever reason or the child was quite happy with the paedophile?

[Central Slavia]

What's next, an eye-for-an-eye judicracy?

"You murder? You shall be murdered!"
"You shoplift? We steal your house!"
"You speak out against the government? We speak out against your existence!"

Seriously, rapists should not be murdered nor paedophiles castrated. Instead, they should just imprisoned for life or, if you're feeling your axe is rusty, slowly torture them into insanity.

If I may pose the question, what if the victim of rape didn't want to take it to court for whatever reason or the child was quite happy with the paedophile?

Eye for an eye is the simplest purest statement of justice.
It is only in the lower cases that we sometimes forgo justice for an increased chance of reforming the criminal

[Viperco2]

A little off topic but anyone else freaked by the amount of murderers who dont get at least life without parole

[Lelouche]

Also if you have no death penalty it is exactly the same, as he does not risk much worse by killing the victim

in countries without death penalities, it does not matter how many people you murder...the state will still provide you with three hots and a cot til the end of your days

and the only reason the death penalty is more expensive, is expensive appeals, after appeal, after appeal

court reform would fix that.

[Amistrys]

I believe rape to be one of the worst things you could do to another human being.
To me, rape deserves, at the very least, a lifetime sentence without parole. If the victim doesn't survive, it's the death sentence.

[Ifreann]

Death is quite a bit worse than a finite prison sentence.

That is why it states : if you have NO death penalty

Then I guess you should have a longer sentence for murder than for rape. Simple.

Therefore at worst, by excessive use of death penalty you still break even with none,
Also do you think that an asshole of a criminal will take care to put himself at disadvantage, whether it is life sentence or execution?

Break even with none of what?

---

1.3 million cases of violent crimes a year, 4 exonerations even if we assume theres a hundred times more innocents people imprisioned that is insignifficant but still unfortunate to the amount of people we protect.

Think of how much gets killed by repeat offenders or in jail riots and you will see that we more than break even

There wouldn't be very many repeat offenders or jail riots if we dealt with them my way. and repeat offenses are around 75% so its still one innocent for about 25,000 convictions. Say we execute about 2 million criminals only about 80 innocents would die and there would practicallly be no crime.

You may be perfectly happy with killing 80 people anonymous people. What if they're people you know and love? Would you be such a fan of slaughtering "criminals" en masse if your parents were among the innocents killed? Or your children? Or yourself?

---

IMO, the point of a criminal justice system is to protect society from the elements that act outside of normal decency. Any act which endangers the nation (treason, espionage) or inflicts gross mental and/or physical harm (rape, murder, child molestation) should be punished by a quick and painless death.

Society is not protected by wrongfully executing innocent people, nor by giving rapists and child molesters no reason not to murder their victims.

[Central Slavia]

Also if you have no death penalty it is exactly the same, as he does not risk much worse by killing the victim

in countries without death penalities, it does not matter how many people you murder...the state will still provide you with three hots and a cot til the end of your days

and the only reason the death penalty is more expensive, is expensive appeals, after appeal, after appeal

court reform would fix that.

You know, i am arguing FOR it

[Central Slavia]

Death is quite a bit worse than a finite prison sentence.

That is why it states : if you have NO death penalty

Then I guess you should have a longer sentence for murder than for rape. Simple.

Therefore at worst, by excessive use of death penalty you still break even with none,
Also do you think that an asshole of a criminal will take care to put himself at disadvantage, whether it is life sentence or execution?

Break even with none of what?

---

1.3 million cases of violent crimes a year, 4 exonerations even if we assume theres a hundred times more innocents people imprisioned that is insignifficant but still unfortunate to the amount of people we protect.

Think of how much gets killed by repeat offenders or in jail riots and you will see that we more than break even

There wouldn't be very many repeat offenders or jail riots if we dealt with them my way. and repeat offenses are around 75% so its still one innocent for about 25,000 convictions. Say we execute about 2 million criminals only about 80 innocents would die and there would practicallly be no crime.

You may be perfectly happy with killing 80 people anonymous people. What if they're people you know and love? Would you be such a fan of slaughtering "criminals" en masse if your parents were among the innocents killed? Or your children? Or yourself?

---

IMO, the point of a criminal justice system is to protect society from the elements that act outside of normal decency. Any act which endangers the nation (treason, espionage) or inflicts gross mental and/or physical harm (rape, murder, child molestation) should be punished by a quick and painless death.

Society is not protected by wrongfully executing innocent people, nor by giving rapists and child molesters no reason not to murder their victims.

Simple but stupid -there is no qualitative difference between the pinishments

There is a bigger chance they die to hands of a criminal.
Also the number of wrong punishments is a function of the number of cases, so if you stamp down on crime, it decreases

[Ifreann]

Also if you have no death penalty it is exactly the same, as he does not risk much worse by killing the victim

in countries without death penalities, it does not matter how many people you murder...the state will still provide you with three hots and a cot til the end of your days

and the only reason the death penalty is more expensive, is expensive appeals, after appeal, after appeal

court reform would fix that.

Appeals after appeals after appeals keep the number of wrongful executions to a minimum. Though I'm increasingly disturbed that people don't seem to give a rats ass about the possibility of the state killing a person who has committed no crime.

[Viperco2]

1.3 million cases of violent crimes a year, 4 exonerations even if we assume theres a hundred times more innocents people imprisioned that is insignifficant but still unfortunate to the amount of people we protect.

Think of how much gets killed by repeat offenders or in jail riots and you will see that we more than break even

There wouldn't be very many repeat offenders or jail riots if we dealt with them my way. and repeat offenses are around 75% so its still one innocent for about 25,000 convictions. Say we execute about 2 million criminals only about 80 innocents would die and there would practicallly be no crime.

You may be perfectly happy with killing 80 people anonymous people. What if they're people you know and love? Would you be such a fan of slaughtering "criminals" en masse if your parents were among the innocents killed? Or your children? Or yourself?

---

IMO, the point of a criminal justice system is to protect society from the elements that act outside of normal decency. Any act which endangers the nation (treason, espionage) or inflicts gross mental and/or physical harm (rape, murder, child molestation) should be punished by a quick and painless death.

Society is not protected by wrongfully executing innocent people, nor by giving rapists and child molesters no reason not to murder their victims.[/quote]

Its not that im fine with killing 80 people its that i cant tolerate the pain of the 1.3 million victums

[Central Slavia]

Also if you have no death penalty it is exactly the same, as he does not risk much worse by killing the victim

in countries without death penalities, it does not matter how many people you murder...the state will still provide you with three hots and a cot til the end of your days

and the only reason the death penalty is more expensive, is expensive appeals, after appeal, after appeal

court reform would fix that.

Appeals after appeals after appeals keep the number of wrongful executions to a minimum. Though I'm increasingly disturbed that people don't seem to give a rats ass about the possibility of the state killing a person who has committed no crime.

that is also why a psychiatrist should investigate the one being executed like it used to be in my country

[Lelouche]

So in other words, human lives are a numbers game?

it is okay to kill a few innocents, for the good of society?

I'd sooner let a thousand guilty men go free, then kill a single innocent

[Ervine]

What's next, an eye-for-an-eye judicracy?

"You murder? You shall be murdered!"
"You shoplift? We steal your house!"
"You speak out against the government? We speak out against your existence!"

Seriously, rapists should not be murdered nor paedophiles castrated. Instead, they should just imprisoned for life or, if you're feeling your axe is rusty, slowly torture them into insanity.

If I may pose the question, what if the victim of rape didn't want to take it to court for whatever reason or the child was quite happy with the paedophile?

Eye for an eye is the simplest purest statement of justice.
It is only in the lower cases that we sometimes forgo justice for an increased chance of reforming the criminal

What would you do if, in this eye-for-an-eye system, if an accused rapist innocent was found guilty, raped, then after new evidence was unveiled, found not guilty? For surely a case like that would happen, and I would be quite confident the masses would not take notice to the apoligy to the innocent being more or less 'feck off'.

[Central Slavia]

So in other words, human lives are a numbers game?

it is okay to kill a few innocents, for the good of society?

I'd sooner let a thousand guilty men go free, then kill a single innocent

Yes they are - as one said 1 death is a tragedy 1e6 deaths a statistics

[Viperco2]

So in other words, human lives are a numbers game?

it is okay to kill a few innocents, for the good of society?

I'd sooner let a thousand guilty men go free, then kill a single innocent

1 victim or a 750 repeat offenses some of wich would escalate to murder with law you need to be callous

[Ifreann]

Simple but stupid -there is no qualitative difference between the pinishments

There is. More dangerous criminals are placed in more secure prison and afforded less freedom than less dangerous criminals.

There is a bigger chance they die to hands of a criminal.

Considering violent crimes have been falling for quite a while I find that very unlikely.

Also the number of wrong punishments is a function of the number of cases, so if you stamp down on crime, it decreases

In order to stamp down on crime in the first place you must increase the number of cases. To implement your plan a number of innocent people must be sacrificed. How many people are you willing to sacrifice? What if they were all people you knew? Would you be willing to let your whole family be killed by the state in an effort to stamp out crime?