The death penalty, should it be used more?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

It shouldn't be used at all. I've never seen the ethics of the state offing its own citizens.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

No horrible crime, just a useless person who is certain to cause more harm to innocents if placed anywhere other than solitary. Five strikes and you're out.

This literally made me nauseous. The casual, callous disregard for a human being who was disadvantaged from the get-go. I'm stunned. And saddened.

[Dooom35796821595]

It shouldn't be used at all. I've never seen the ethics of the state offing its own citizens.

The only use I can reason is if it's the only way to remove them as a threat to society, normally in nations that lack internal security or something.

[Narland]

Yes, yes it should, but...

The question assumes several things that must first be answered.

Firstly, is capital punishment ever justified? Then, under what circumstnce? If so, by whose authority? And eventually; by what means and to what end?

I get stuck at part 3.

Only a just system has the moral authority to rightly condemn a perpetrator and convict of an act so heinous that ultimate sacrifice must needs be made. Our criminal justice system has too many problems at the moment to allow for more authority to incarcerate and mortify. Thanks to advances in coronary science it is known that far too many have been wrongly convicted. Various branches of government have made it increasingly easier to convict more people by less substantive means (especially since the procedural evidence " reforms" in the 1930s and 1950s).

I would like to see us return to full 4th Amendment due process such that every check and balance is reinstated to protect each and every indivdiual from false incrimination and misfeasance under the color of authority. A return to the belief that it is better for our courts to let 10 guilty people go free than to wrongly convict 1 innocent person should be shouted from the rooftops. Despising positive application of policy that has replaced negative application of law should be routinely manifest. That is the point that I would be certain in stating that the death penalty should be used more.

I'm afraid I can't agree. While yes it's a terrible tragedy to convict one wrong, it's even worse to let so many go. If we would just reform the system to be simpler, then we wouldn't have so many problems. Is capital punishment ever justified? Absolutely I say. Under cases of murder, rape, severe abuse. Also remember I'm usually these terms broadly so they especially apply to sub categories I'm not covering. Under whose authority? Mine, the state, the government, whoever the hell it needs to be. What means? A simple bullet will do. The end is self-explanatory. Everyone says how many innocents have been convicted. But look at how many more guilty have been convicted. I know no one is happy with my answer that nothing is perfect and that that's just how it is. But it is. No other answer will do. Let's just be happy we're in this wonderful age of technology that even if someone does find themselves in one of those cases that can be tried by death penalty, it's slowly but surely getting rarer that we're wrong

Thank you for your civilty. I agree with you in principle. I believe that the death penalty should be swiftly applied which necessitates absolute certainty. We do not have it currently in the US system. We can, but it would take returning to certain concepts of jurisprudence that are currently out of favor (to put it mildly).

If there can be no guaruntee you or someone you love be falsely accused and railroaded, then it has impeached its authority. A system that would gladly convict 10 innocent people just to convict one guilty cannot be just. In fact it would be just to reform or abolish such a system.

[Anima Gentem]

I'm afraid I can't agree. While yes it's a terrible tragedy to convict one wrong, it's even worse to let so many go. If we would just reform the system to be simpler, then we wouldn't have so many problems. Is capital punishment ever justified? Absolutely I say. Under cases of murder, rape, severe abuse. Also remember I'm using these terms broadly so they especially apply to sub categories I'm not covering. Under whose authority? Mine, the state, the government, whoever the hell it needs to be. What means? A simple bullet will do. The end is self-explanatory. Everyone says how many innocents have been convicted. But look at how many more guilty have been convicted. I know no one is happy with my answer that nothing is perfect and that that's just how it is. But it is. No other answer will do. Let's just be happy we're in this wonderful age of technology that even if someone does find themselves in one of those cases that can be tried by death penalty, it's slowly but surely getting rarer that we're wrong

Thank you for your civilty. I agree with you in principle. I believe that the death penalty should be swiftly applied which necessitates absolute certainty. We do not have it currently in the US system. We can, but it would take returning to certain concepts of jurisprudence that are currently out of favor (to put it mildly).

If there can be no guaruntee you or someone you love be falsely accused and railroaded, then it has impeached its authority. A system that would gladly convict 10 innocent people just to convict one guilty cannot be just. In fact it would be just to reform or abolish such a system.

While I understand your ideas, I find it hard to believe 10 innocent people could possibly be convicted. Although if that were the case, at least narrow it down first. Surely there should be evidence clearing some of the innocents. If there's still too many that we can't narrow it down to the guilty then I suppose they'll be let go. We'll get the crook another time. But what was the crime? I still find it hard to believe that 10 innocent people find themselves in a case that can be tried by the death penalty. If that's the case there's always exceptions to my ideas of bringing down the hammer without remorse. I don't think they should all just be immediately let go but we'll have the best brought in to review evidence. If they still can't narrow it down enough then they'll be imprisoned, those who can't be cleared, until more evidence shows up

[Obexer]

No horrible crime, just a useless person who is certain to cause more harm to innocents if placed anywhere other than solitary. Five strikes and you're out.

This literally made me nauseous. The casual, callous disregard for a human being who was disadvantaged from the get-go. I'm stunned. And saddened.

It's quite easy to see people you don't understand as nonhuman.

It shouldn't be used at all. I've never seen the ethics of the state offing its own citizens.

The only use I can reason is if it's the only way to remove them as a threat to society, normally in nations that lack internal security or something.

I agree. Even aside from ethics, the death penalty is still worse than life, because it is extremely fiscally irresponsible.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

[Socialist Czechia]

It's strange, though, that people are these days so much against whole principle of death penalty: that State and Society has no right to decide to end someone's right on legal basis for any reason.

But same people would be against your own suicide and would send you to some asylum for such attempt.

So, is your life yours alone? Do you have right to end it yourself, if you want?

Or no one, including you, have no such 'right'?

[Sun Lands]

We don't have the death penalty in Australia. So no.

[Councilmembers]

The death penalty should be abolished.

It costs more money, is inhumane/hypocritical, and leaves the strong risk that we execute an innocent citizen.

[Paddy O Fernature]

It absolutely should be used more, in cases where the punishment is befitting the crime.

[Ifreann]

It absolutely should be used more, in cases where the punishment is befitting the crime.

What if it doesn't fit any crime?

[Paddy O Fernature]

It absolutely should be used more, in cases where the punishment is befitting the crime.

What if it doesn't fit any crime?

Simple really, don't use it.

*Nods*

[Greater Soviet Ukraine]

Yes, it should be used when someone takes a life.

[Socialist Czechia]

what about to let simply people decide if that's right or wrong? just use direct democracy there.

[Ifreann]

what about to let simply people decide if that's right or wrong? just use direct democracy there.

Or alternatively we could not use it at all.

[Conscentia]

what about to let simply people decide if that's right or wrong? just use direct democracy there.

So turn society into an organised lynch mob?

[Conscentia]

Yes, it should be used when someone takes a life.

Why? To show them that killing is wrong by killing?

[Socialist Czechia]

what about to let simply people decide if that's right or wrong? just use direct democracy there.

So turn society into an organised lynch mob?

No, simply ask people in referendum, "Do you approve existence of death penalty?"

And simple majority, even 51%, would be enough to call it 'right thing'.

[Conscentia]

No, simply ask people in referendum, "Do you approve existence of death penalty?"
And simple majority, even 51%, would be enough to call it 'right thing'.

Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it a good idea.

[Socialist Czechia]

No, simply ask people in referendum, "Do you approve existence of death penalty?"
And simple majority, even 51%, would be enough to call it 'right thing'.

Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it a good idea.

Perhaps, but you must respect it as legitimate option supported by majority. Majority thinks it's a right thing, therefore you must honor it, like it or not.
Are you better than other people? Do you think they don't know, what's right? Why do you think your opinion is more right?

Democracy solves these questions. Let people decide what is right and what is wrong.

[Conscentia]

Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it a good idea.

Perhaps, but you must respect it as legitimate option supported by majority. Majority thinks it's a right thing, therefore you must honor it, like it or not.

Why?

Are you better than other people? Do you think they don't know, what's right? Why do you think your opinion is more right?
Democracy solves these questions. Let people decide what is right and what is wrong.

I'm a nihilist, I don't think my opinion is "more right". I have my opinion because nothing has convinced me to hold an alternative opinion.

I don't care if an opinion is popular. If I have an opinion it's because it's the most convincing opinion I'm aware of. If others have a different opinion it does not follow that I should ignore the most convincing opinion I'm aware of.

This reminds me of this thread:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=26779450

[The Legion Authority]

So obviously the death penalty is still allowed within the United States. I've done a bit of looking over and come to conclusion. I believed it should be utilized more. Now I'm not some nut that thinks we should use this penalty on every single offence. Murder is an obvious one. However, I believe the punishment can be situational. Many murders are tried by the death penalty but most are convicted to a life or prison. Any seemingly pointless murder can definitely be judged on the death penalty. I'll let you imagine any other situations that may or may not call for the death penalty. There's also child molesters, domestic violence offenders, assailants resulting in extreme injury. These all I say should be tried by the death penalty. Enough of this 15 to life crap. What is the point? Taxpayers fund prisons where prisoners live pretty decent lives. Always guaranteed their meals, cable TV, and of course they're cared for when other inmates decide to assault each other. Why allow the worst of the worst to these luxuries for their crimes. And what if they get out? I hate to say it but a murderer isn't going to find themselves very accepted in society, regardless of reason. It wouldn't be surprising if their frustration returned to a more violent path. Now let's tone down to the less serious crimes. Theft is a big one. Now I don't believe theft has to result in the death penalty but there has to be a limit. I say once someone has been imprisoned 3 times on counts of theft, now remember it has to be a big theft to have cause for imprisonment, it's time to implement the death penalty. These people don't seem to want to learn from their mistakes so why continued to pay for their luxurious living for the next 5 years when they'll just get out and start again. I know there's much more but this is just the basis for the argument. Tell me if you believe the death penalty should be used more.

Im all for the death penalty and i wish it would come faster sooner on the bad people but then again there have been innocent people convicted and put on death row and its wrong to wrong them even more so then to put them behind bars

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it a good idea.

Perhaps, but you must respect it as legitimate option supported by majority. Majority thinks it's a right thing, therefore you must honor it, like it or not.
Are you better than other people? Do you think they don't know, what's right? Why do you think your opinion is more right?

Democracy solves these questions. Let people decide what is right and what is wrong.

Turns out the majority thinks socialist Czechians should be executed. Should we respect this decision? Y/n?

[Herrebrugh]

Killing people is bad.

[Dooom35796821595]

Killing people is bad.

Mmkay mr Mackey.