Do you support the death penalty

[Benuty]

Considering his crimes were a combination of "Paedophilia, Rape, Cannibalism, Murder, and torturing people" it would be a bane to let him live.

Except paedophilia isn't a crime in any country in the world.

Don't let NAMBLA find this out.

[The Whispers]

No, because I'm better than that.

[St George]

Except paedophilia isn't a crime in any country in the world.

I wonder why....

Because you can't make an attraction illegal. You can make acting on an attraction illegal.

[Ifreann]

Except paedophilia isn't a crime in any country in the world.

Don't let NAMBLA find this out.

I'm sure they're well aware. Or do you think it would surprise them to learn that they haven't been arrested for openly being paedophiles?

[Neo Art]

Except paedophilia isn't a crime in any country in the world.

Don't let NAMBLA find this out.

They know. That's why they're not in jail despite being paedophiles.

edit: GOD DAMN IT IFFY

[Benuty]

Don't let NAMBLA find this out.

I'm sure they're well aware. Or do you think it would surprise them to learn that they haven't been arrested for openly being paedophiles?

Well that was more of a reference to a certain L&O:SVU episode. Since they love beating that dead horse on that show.

[The Whispers]

I'm sure they're well aware. Or do you think it would surprise them to learn that they haven't been arrested for openly being paedophiles?

Well that was more of a reference to a certain L&O:SVU episode.

Probably the best means to gauge the legality of a situation.

[Benuty]

Well that was more of a reference to a certain L&O:SVU episode.

Probably the best means to gauge the legality of a situation.

Still that show loves beating old tropes. stereotypes, and anything they can find. I miss the old law & order where they just used to beat out the racist womanizer trope.

[The Vekta-Helghast Empire]

Murderers, rapists, paedos and the treasonous have de-humanised themselves, and are therefore in my eyes, are no longer worthy of "human rights", for if you are no longer willing to take on the responsibility of respecting other's rights, why should you have yours? (Apologies if this is a bit of a mess, I've just woken up, nothing like a death penalty thread to start the day..)

[Ifreann]

I'm sure they're well aware. Or do you think it would surprise them to learn that they haven't been arrested for openly being paedophiles?

Well that was more of a reference to a certain L&O:SVU episode.

No better source on US law and jurisprudence.

[Ifreann]

Murderers, rapists, paedos and the treasonous have de-humanised themselves, and are therefore in my eyes, are no longer worthy of "human rights",

That's just it, isn't it. They haven't dehumanised themselves. You have decided them to no longer be human. One could just as easily decide that they are still deserving of human rights.

for if you are no longer willing to take on the responsibility of respecting other's rights, why should you have yours?

Because the rest of us aren't going to just start taking away rights willy-nilly if we can avoid it.

[Ostroeuropa]

I support the death penalty for election rigging (or tyranny without holding elections), war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Thats all.

[Benuty]

I support the death penalty for election rigging (or tyranny without holding elections), war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Thats all.

Then alot of 18th-20th Century US politicos would be dead ( that is if time machines existed)

[Ostroeuropa]

I support the death penalty for election rigging (or tyranny without holding elections), war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Thats all.

Then alot of 18th-20th Century US politicos would be dead ( that is if time machines existed)

Maybe. Probably. So what?
If you are in favor of imprisoning people for slavery, the statement "Then a lot of americans back when these things weren't illegal would be jailed!" isn't a statement of anything but the blindingly obvious.

[Benuty]

Then alot of 18th-20th Century US politicos would be dead ( that is if time machines existed)

Maybe. Probably. So what?
If you are in favor of imprisoning people for slavery, the statement "Then a lot of americans back when these things weren't illegal would be jailed!" isn't a statement of anything but the blindingly obvious.

Excuse me while I plant a bomb at the HQ for the Society of the Friends of the Constitution, and put a knife in the back of Maximilian Robespierre. Thus this doesn't have to be limited to the United states. Of-course I might be doing France a favor.

[Ostroeuropa]

Maybe. Probably. So what?
If you are in favor of imprisoning people for slavery, the statement "Then a lot of americans back when these things weren't illegal would be jailed!" isn't a statement of anything but the blindingly obvious.

Excuse me while I plant a bomb at the HQ for the Society of the Friends of the Constitution, and put a knife in the back of Maximilian Robespierre. Thus this doesn't have to be limited to the United states. Of-course I might be doing France a favor.

Fine by me. Those people could be replaced by people who aren't tyrannical shits.

[Obamacult]

The empirical evidence suggests this fact (note that previous studies suggesting that the death penalty was not a deterrent was based solely on statutory law and not its practice):

The deterrent variables’ coefficients are remarkably consistent in sign and significance across nearly all of the 96 different regression models. In addition, we verify that the negative relationship between the death penalty and murder is not a spurious finding.

Results from least squares and negative binomial estimations indicate that capital punishment does deter: each execution results in, on average, three fewer murders. In addition, capital punishment deters murders previously believed to be undeterrable: crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Moreover, murders of both African-American and white victims decrease after executions, which suggests that capital punishment benefits people of all races. However, longer waits on death row before execution lessen the deterrence. Specifically, one less murder is committed for every 2.75-year reduction in death row waits.

We find a significant relationship among the execution, removal, and commutation rates and the rate of homicide. Each additional execution decreases homicides by about five, and each additional commutation increases homicides by the same amount, while one additional removal from death row generates one additional homicide. These results are robust to model specifications and measurement of the variables.

And this follow-up rebut to criticisms of the 2003 study that finds, 'the original findings of Mocan and Gittings (2003) are robust, providing evidence that people indeed react to incentives induced by capital punishment.'

Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 4 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average)

This paper examines empirically the state-level impact of capital punishment on multiple murder rates for the period 1995–1999. In baseline tests—tests employing mixed panel data and using an estimation technique combining aspects of both fixed- and random-effects models—we show that executions reduce the single murder rate and that the use of electrocution reduces the murder rate beyond that resulting from lethal injection.

Any objection to capital punishment, we believe, must rely on something other than abstract injunctions against the taking of life. If the recent evidence of deterrence is shown to be correct, then opponents of capital punishment will face an uphill struggle on moral grounds. If each execution is saving many lives, the harms of capital punishment would have to be very great to justify its abolition

[Benuty]

Geez Obamacult any chance you could spoiler those sources?

[Fireye]

I do support the death penalty, I do not however support this thread.

[Tropical Scandinavia]

Yes I do. There are some crimes that are just so brutal, violent, and filled with so much malice. In addition to that there are some psychopaths and sociopaths who don't and probably never will regret their violent actions. Criminals such as these that commit these crimes deserve nothing less than to have their life taken away from them. Besides if they are dead then they can't kill any inmates, prison staff, or escape and commit more killings.

[Samuraikoku]

I share Cesare de Beccaria's thoughts on the matter.

[Jassysworth 1]

It's just... gotta be done I mean.

Some criminals should be executed... because what they did was that bad. Plus life imprisonment wastes the resources of the state on keeping him alive... We should also cut red tape to make the appeal process after getting the death sentence A LOT (LOT LOT LOT) faster and less costly.

[Ifreann]

Yes I do. There are some crimes that are just so brutal, violent, and filled with so much malice.

That doesn't really mean that you have to kill those responsible.

In addition to that there are some psychopaths and sociopaths who don't and probably never will regret their violent actions.

I imagine so. I'd still rather try any way, just in case they can be rehabilitated.

Criminals such as these that commit these crimes deserve nothing less than to have their life taken away from them.

I don't see why.

Besides if they are dead then they can't kill any inmates, prison staff, or escape and commit more killings.

Nor can they be released as productive, law-abiding members of society, or released if future evidence exonerates them.

[Starkiller101]

No because it immorally wrong except in extreme cases such as murder.

[Obamacult]

No because it immorally wrong except in extreme cases such as murder.

Empirical research confirms that the death penalty saves innocent lives.

To reject it is to subject innocent people to violent horrific death.

Is that moral ???