Do you support the death penalty?

[Draakonite]

Why quicker? Someone pulls the lever, you fall down, crack broken neck dead, wheres the injection slowly suffocates you.

Or you struggle to breath for ten minutes.Read Victor Hugo's testimonies on the subject, he witnessed it back in his time.

The calculations were made 500 years ago. You don't need to do them twice.

I think you need to.It must depend on the guy's neck, his height, his fat, etc...

Because the rope was to short.

Not really, only the weight matters.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Why quicker? Someone pulls the lever, you fall down, crack broken neck dead, wheres the injection slowly suffocates you.

Or you struggle to breath for ten minutes.Read Victor Hugo's testimonies on the subject, he witnessed it back in his time.

The calculations were made 500 years ago. You don't need to do them twice.

I think you need to.It must depend on the guy's neck, his height, his fat, etc...

It actually does! Part of the art of hanging people is deciding how thick the rope must be. There are plenty of instances of the rope breaking under the stress (like with Captain Kidd). The art is to break a neck without leaving someone catching his breath for a few minutes. This involves height measurement as well. No use making him land with both feet on the ground, is there?

[Arcanda]

Because the rope was to short.

Still, that's not an excuse.If you develop the right kind of injections, I'm sure it'll be quicker and decrease the risks.

Not really, only the weight matters.

So the calculations aren't always the same.Whereas, except if you find an extremely strong or weak person, injections are usually the same for everybody.

Hanging is pretty barbaric if you want my opinion.

I'm off to bed now, so expect a response tomorrow.

[Draakonite]

Because the rope was to short.

Still, that's not an excuse.If you develop the right kind of injections, I'm sure it'll be quicker and decrease the risks.

Not really, only the weight matters.

So the calculations aren't always the same.Whereas, except if you find an extremely strong or weak person, injections are usually the same for everybody.

Hanging is pretty barbaric if you want my opinion.

I'm off to bed now, so expect a response tomorrow.

Then develop humane injections, before claiming that the currently used are more "humane" than the "barbaric" hanging. And those "calculations" were already made, meaning you take a 130 years old list with the left column being weight and the right column being lenght, and use the appropriate lenght.

[Aelex]

This talk of humans as 'wastes of society', below the dirt on our shoes, really troubles me. I mean, these people should be punished to a degree, but there is a difference between a loving correction and getting rid of people.

Why so? And why a "loving correction"? Althought I think the simples murders motivated by a clear reason and not plannified shouldn't be punished by more than a prison sentency, what about the mass murderers, the paedophiles and the terrorists?
Should they have a chance to ever view the light of the sun again? Simply no.
Should they be allowed to corrupt other peoples? Should they be allowed to be happy again?
By doing what they did, they abandonned willingly their humanity.
But they're no need to make them suffer just for the pleasure of making them suffering, like what you're doing in the U.S.A.
But once they used all their recours and completly recognized as the monsters they are by the law, and that, after approximativly five years (maximum) a "Peloton D'Exécution" is their just retribution.

[The Five Galaxies]

Because we aren't always right when someone is sentenced.

Isn't it better to be safer than sorry?

Yes, it is better to be safe than sorry by not wrongfully executing innocent people. Come on, isn't this even a little bit obvious?

[Aelex]

Isn't it better to be safer than sorry?

Yes, it is better to be safe than sorry by not wrongfully executing innocent people. Come on, isn't this even a little bit obvious?

Actually? No.

[The Five Galaxies]

This talk of humans as 'wastes of society', below the dirt on our shoes, really troubles me. I mean, these people should be punished to a degree, but there is a difference between a loving correction and getting rid of people.

1. Why so? And why a "loving correction"? Althought I think the simples murders motivated by a clear reason and not plannified shouldn't be punished by more than a prison sentency, what about the mass murderers, the paedophiles and the terrorists?
2. Should they have a chance to ever view the light of the sun again? Simply no.
3. Should they be allowed to corrupt other peoples? Should they be allowed to be happy again?
4. By doing what they did, they abandonned willingly their humanity.
But they're no need to make them suffer just for the pleasure of making them suffering, like what you're doing in the U.S.A.
5. But once they used all their recours and completly recognized as the monsters they are by the law, and that, after approximativly five years (maximum) a "Peloton D'Exécution" is their just retribution.

1: Yes, them too.

2: Yes, they do.

3: No, they should be allowed to do so. Yes, they should be allowed to be happy (depending on course of what makes them so).

4: No, they didn't. They're still Human no matter what they do.

5: They're not monsters. They're still Humans.

Yes, it is better to be safe than sorry by not wrongfully executing innocent people. Come on, isn't this even a little bit obvious?

Actually? No.

How about exercising a bit of empathy? Just put yourself on the death row, knowing you are actually innocent and being told "Well, better safe than sorry buddy, we need to execute you; just to be sure."

[Zurkerx]

Depends on the crime and if there is irrefutable evidence against them. I am quite surprise that "yes" is winning.

[Aelex]

How about exercising a bit of empathy? Just put yourself on the death row, knowing you are actually innocent and being told "Well, better safe than sorry buddy, we need to execute you; just to be sure."

I have empathy for the people who deserve it, not for the people who willingly abandoned their humanity, and thus, my compassion with it.
And, don't joke with me, no matter how shitty is the Judiciary System, statisticly, there are way less than 1 innocent wrongfully imprisoned for 1000 guilty people imprisonned.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

This talk of humans as 'wastes of society', below the dirt on our shoes, really troubles me. I mean, these people should be punished to a degree, but there is a difference between a loving correction and getting rid of people.

Why so? And why a "loving correction"? Althought I think the simples murders motivated by a clear reason and not plannified shouldn't be punished by more than a prison sentency, what about the mass murderers, the paedophiles and the terrorists?
Should they have a chance to ever view the light of the sun again? Simply no.
Should they be allowed to corrupt other peoples? Should they be allowed to be happy again?
By doing what they did, they abandonned willingly their humanity.
But they're no need to make them suffer just for the pleasure of making them suffering, like what you're doing in the U.S.A.
But once they used all their recours and completly recognized as the monsters they are by the law, and that, after approximativly five years (maximum) a "Peloton D'Exécution" is their just retribution.

Even paedophiles, even terrorists, even the most heinous of genocidal maniacs, do not deserve execution. When our societies, my country in 1600 and again in 1848, chose for a society based on laws, we agreed that we would keep to certain rules. There would be things that we would never do, rights eternally upheld. Among those, the right to life. Now, the right to life is an all-or-nothing case. One either lives, or one doesn't. So, you can either uphold this right or strip it entirely. The right to freedom of movement, we can restrict to a certain extent, but not right can be entirely taken away. Those are the rules we bound ourselves by. Surely, we would like to overstep our boundaries because it feels better, or because it seems easier, but it wouldn't be the right thing. In order to protect ourselves with the law, the law must protect everyone. Even the most heinous of criminals. I feel that capital punishment is a violation of human rights, an irreversible act in a system that should be self-correcting. Capital punishment and self-correction are mutually exclusive, and therefore incompatible with a liberal democracy. To live in a liberal democracy means sometimes doing an emotionally or morally dubious thing to uphold the law.

If, for instance, the only way for me to punish a Nazi war criminal was to subvert the law, if I could choose between subverting the law and letting a Nazi go free, I would let the Nazi go free. Execution is such a dichotomy as well. Will we do what is easy, or what is right? Even if it's morally dubious, or easier to just get on with it? We must decide that the overall justice system is better off without capital punishment. Maybe, this will lead to more money lost. It feels bad, maybe. But it's the right thing to do. Killing a paedophile won't erase the memories of a child, nor will it bring back a woman from the grave, nor will it save society from injustice. It follows logically from our laws and legal systems that executions are not just. How easy and useful it might be, it is not just. And justice is our prime objective.

[Desp]

Absolutely. Arguing about whether or not the action is 'humane' is idiotic as humanity itself can't be considered humane. The death penalty should be used as a permanent method of eliminating individuals who can have become a liability to the health, safety, or lives of others for the indefinite future. If you murder dozens of people without and outwardly justifiable reason (which would be determined by the governing body or the people) you have lost your right to be a part of society, and in this same case of a mass murderer it would be insulting for the money someone pays in taxes to pay for meals of the individual who killed your child.

On that note, trying to make the act of eliminating said individual has no reason to be 'humane'. Rather, it should be efficient. As cheap and fast as possible (the act being fast, and therefore it would be relatively painless). You don't execute someone to punish them as an individual, you do it to remove them as a threat, just as one exterminates the termites eating away at the foundations of your house. You don't pay to have the termites moved to a metal box where you keep them off to the side and pay to take care of them every day. That's how I consider the mass murderers and rapists and child molesters (for the latter, consider Ariel Castro as to why I think they must be eliminated, in extreme cases)

So again, not so much as a punishment, as after certain actions you may not be considered human, but to permanently remove a threat to others. Don't make it painful, don;t have a big lead up, just make it fast and get it over with. Automate the process from death to cremation if need be, so the only thing people need to deal with after the fact is load ashes into a garbage truck.

[The Five Galaxies]

How about exercising a bit of empathy? Just put yourself on the death row, knowing you are actually innocent and being told "Well, better safe than sorry buddy, we need to execute you; just to be sure."

I have empathy for the people who deserve it, not for the people who willingly abandoned their humanity, and thus, my compassion with it.
And, don't joke with me, no matter how shitty is the Judiciary System, statisticly, there are way less than 1 innocent wrongfully imprisoned for 1000 guilty people imprisonned.

They have not thrown away their Humanity. They're still Human no matter what they do and you should accept that Humans can individually and collectively perform terrible and savage acts. Being Human does not make one a saint.

So, what, you're not going to imagine yourself wrongly convicted and about to be executed? Afraid you might change your mind once it is you with your life at risk?

[Aelex]

Even paedophiles, even terrorists, even the most heinous of genocidal maniacs, do not deserve execution. When our societies, my country in 1600 and again in 1848, chose for a society based on laws, we agreed that we would keep to certain rules. There would be things that we would never do, rights eternally upheld. Among those, the right to life. Now, the right to life is an all-or-nothing case. One either lives, or one doesn't. So, you can either uphold this right or strip it entirely. The right to freedom of movement, we can restrict to a certain extent, but not right can be entirely taken away. Those are the rules we bound ourselves by. Surely, we would like to overstep our boundaries because it feels better, or because it seems easier, but it wouldn't be the right thing. In order to protect ourselves with the law, the law must protect everyone. Even the most heinous of criminals. I feel that capital punishment is a violation of human rights, an irreversible act in a system that should be self-correcting. Capital punishment and self-correction are mutually exclusive, and therefore incompatible with a liberal democracy. To live in a liberal democracy means sometimes doing an emotionally or morally dubious thing to uphold the law.

If, for instance, the only way for me to punish a Nazi war criminal was to subvert the law, if I could choose between subverting the law and letting a Nazi go free, I would let the Nazi go free. Execution is such a dichotomy as well. Will we do what is easy, or what is right? Even if it's morally dubious, or easier to just get on with it? We must decide that the overall justice system is better off without capital punishment. Maybe, this will lead to more money lost. It feels bad, maybe. But it's the right thing to do. Killing a paedophile won't erase the memories of a child, nor will it bring back a woman from the grave, nor will it save society from injustice. It follows logically from our laws and legal systems that executions are not just. How easy and useful it might be, it is not just. And justice is our prime objective.

You're talking about 1848, are you a fellow Compatriote? If yes, well, the very République (which is the best of it's kind ) of Egality and Liberty we have the chance to live in was built with heads as brics and blood as cement. Nothing great have ever be done without spilling blood in the process.
This is the sad, yet true, reality.

And well, if you choose to spare the live of a man which genocided people, it's your choice. But personnaly, I won't hesitate. I won't judge him all by my own, because I'm not omniscient.
But I'll give him a, reasonably, fair trial and then a tribunal will choose either to kill him, to sentence him to prison, or to gracie him.
Still, you're right. Justice is subjective. And Justice is harsh. Yet, it's the only thing we have.

[Desp]

So, what, you're not going to imagine yourself wrongly convicted and about to be executed? Afraid you might change your mind once it is you with your life at risk?

For Frak's sake you don't kill run of the mill thieves, or arsonists, or even lone murderers in most cases. The people who need to be eliminated are the ones who walked into a movie theater and shot dozens of people. The people who kidnap and rape children until they die or just get bored of them, or the psychopaths who murder for the fun of it. If I'm being executed for shooting five people with a shotgun and they caught me, im not being wrongly convicted. For most other cases, you won't be considered for the death penalty.

[Vashtanaraada]

Getting bummed in jail by a big convict for the rest of your life, all your food stolen and no real human contact is worse than death.

[Aelex]

They have not thrown away their Humanity. They're still Human no matter what they do and you should accept that Humans can individually and collectively perform terrible and savage acts. Being Human does not make one a saint.

So, what, you're not going to imagine yourself wrongly convicted and about to be executed? Afraid you might change your mind once it is you with your life at risk?

No. If someday, I kill someone, I'll deserve to be punished accordingly to my crime. But well, I don't see why I should ever be judged for such thing.

[Robert Magoo]

I support the death penalty for murder and possibly rape. Nothing else.

[Aelex]

Absolutely. Arguing about whether or not the action is 'humane' is idiotic as humanity itself can't be considered humane. The death penalty should be used as a permanent method of eliminating individuals who can have become a liability to the health, safety, or lives of others for the indefinite future. If you murder dozens of people without and outwardly justifiable reason (which would be determined by the governing body or the people) you have lost your right to be a part of society, and in this same case of a mass murderer it would be insulting for the money someone pays in taxes to pay for meals of the individual who killed your child.

On that note, trying to make the act of eliminating said individual has no reason to be 'humane'. Rather, it should be efficient. As cheap and fast as possible (the act being fast, and therefore it would be relatively painless). You don't execute someone to punish them as an individual, you do it to remove them as a threat, just as one exterminates the termites eating away at the foundations of your house. You don't pay to have the termites moved to a metal box where you keep them off to the side and pay to take care of them every day. That's how I consider the mass murderers and rapists and child molesters (for the latter, consider Ariel Castro as to why I think they must be eliminated, in extreme cases)

So again, not so much as a punishment, as after certain actions you may not be considered human, but to permanently remove a threat to others. Don't make it painful, don;t have a big lead up, just make it fast and get it over with. Automate the process from death to cremation if need be, so the only thing people need to deal with after the fact is load ashes into a garbage truck.

Thanks... At last, someone sharing my positions

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Even paedophiles, even terrorists, even the most heinous of genocidal maniacs, do not deserve execution. When our societies, my country in 1600 and again in 1848, chose for a society based on laws, we agreed that we would keep to certain rules. There would be things that we would never do, rights eternally upheld. Among those, the right to life. Now, the right to life is an all-or-nothing case. One either lives, or one doesn't. So, you can either uphold this right or strip it entirely. The right to freedom of movement, we can restrict to a certain extent, but not right can be entirely taken away. Those are the rules we bound ourselves by. Surely, we would like to overstep our boundaries because it feels better, or because it seems easier, but it wouldn't be the right thing. In order to protect ourselves with the law, the law must protect everyone. Even the most heinous of criminals. I feel that capital punishment is a violation of human rights, an irreversible act in a system that should be self-correcting. Capital punishment and self-correction are mutually exclusive, and therefore incompatible with a liberal democracy. To live in a liberal democracy means sometimes doing an emotionally or morally dubious thing to uphold the law.

If, for instance, the only way for me to punish a Nazi war criminal was to subvert the law, if I could choose between subverting the law and letting a Nazi go free, I would let the Nazi go free. Execution is such a dichotomy as well. Will we do what is easy, or what is right? Even if it's morally dubious, or easier to just get on with it? We must decide that the overall justice system is better off without capital punishment. Maybe, this will lead to more money lost. It feels bad, maybe. But it's the right thing to do. Killing a paedophile won't erase the memories of a child, nor will it bring back a woman from the grave, nor will it save society from injustice. It follows logically from our laws and legal systems that executions are not just. How easy and useful it might be, it is not just. And justice is our prime objective.

You're talking about 1848, are you a fellow Compatriote? If yes, well, the very République (which is the best of it's kind ) of Egality and Liberty we have the chance to live in was built with heads as brics and blood as cement. Nothing great have ever be done without spilling blood in the process.
This is the sad, yet true, reality.

And well, if you choose to spare the live of a man which genocided people, it's your choice. But personnaly, I won't hesitate. I won't judge him all by my own, because I'm not omniscient.
But I'll give him a, reasonably, fair trial and then a tribunal will choose either to kill him, to sentence him to prison, or to gracie him.
Still, you're right. Justice is subjective. And Justice is harsh. Yet, it's the only thing we have.

Oh, no, 1848 was just a very rowdy year in Europe. France had revolutions, same as Germany, Austria and Italy. Only England was spared. But in 1848, the Netherlands adopted their constitution without a single revolt, without a single drop of blood spilled. It goes to show that it is really possible, as long as we have people at the wheel who know what they are doing, who are willing to change the world. As long as the system doesn't go against change, change can happen. In the US, the prison system works against change of the prisoners. Against rehabilitation.

And of course, I will not judge a man on my own. I will judge him based on the law, with the tools provided to me by the law. But I will only act inside the law, and inside the concept of justice. Justice might be hard, but most of all, justice is just. We mustn't make justice hard for the sake of making it hard. We must make it just, and as light as possible if necessary. 1 + 2 = 3. Sometimes, we want 1 + 1 = 3, or 1 + 2 = 4. But there is only justice. The outcome of justice might not be what we want to see, in the short term. But it is just.

Last year, a man drove over a child and her grandparents. The family died, the man survived. He claimed to have lost control. There was no evidence to the contrary. So, he got 120 of forced labour. From the point of the family, this is terribly unjust. But from a neutral perspective, the man couldn't help it. It might feel right to give the man more punishment, because we feel empathy for the lost family. But there is no empathy. There is only justice.

[The Five Galaxies]

They have not thrown away their Humanity. They're still Human no matter what they do and you should accept that Humans can individually and collectively perform terrible and savage acts. Being Human does not make one a saint.

So, what, you're not going to imagine yourself wrongly convicted and about to be executed? Afraid you might change your mind once it is you with your life at risk?

No. If someday, I kill someone, I'll deserve to be punished accordingly to my crime. But well, I don't see why I should ever be judged for such thing.

Even if you kill somebody, I still believe you have the right to live.

[Glamour]

Thou shalt not kill. Very simple.

[Nickel Empire]

I support the death penalty and I think Canada should re-introduce it.

[Kractero]

I support the death penalty and I think Canada should re-introduce it.

The Death Penalty is an easy way out of life in prison.

[Othelos]

I support the death penalty and I think Canada should re-introduce it.

The Death Penalty is an easy way out of life in prison.

And, ironically, more expensive than life in prison.