Do you support the death penalty?

[Draakonite]

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.

Assuming that the majority of life imprisoned try to suicide, and the majority of sentenced to death don't appeal for a lower sentence.

[Draakonite]

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

And, ironically, more expensive than life in prison.

In the US. Not everywhere. Not for the majority of people (where death penalty is avaiable)

[Othelos]

And, ironically, more expensive than life in prison.

In the US. Not everywhere. Not for the majority of people.

Well, assuming that people have enough opportunities to appeal, and enough time passes for new evidence to be discovered, it becomes too expensive. The possibility of killing an innocent person isn't a risk worth taking.

[Lucernae]

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

And, ironically, more expensive than life in prison.

This. :3 People who have committed such atrocities and can't be rehabilitated don't deserve the easy way out...

[Draakonite]

In the US. Not everywhere. Not for the majority of people.

Well, assuming that people have enough opportunities to appeal, and enough time passes for new evidence to be discovered, it becomes too expensive. The possibility of killing an innocent person isn't a risk worth taking.

But imprisoning an innocent is a risk worth taking? You can't give back 40 years of live back either.
Why should someone sentenced to death have more opportunities to appeal ( making him more costly than life sentenced) or live in the timeframe of "enough time" more confortable than a life sentenced (more costly than life sentenced)?

[Madiganistan]

Assuming that the majority of life imprisoned try to suicide

Interestingly, several life-without-parole folks actually express a sick sort of envy for death row inmates on the realization that they've just as well been sentenced to death-- especially those who are sentenced to "life in solitary," which seems to be the new alternative advocated among the pro-life community (for convicted violent criminals whom have been found guilty of a crime so heinous that a jury of their peers has determined that they ought to be put to death for it, not necessarily also extended to pre-born babies).

“Though I will never be strapped down onto a gurney with life-stopping drugs pumped into my veins... be assured I have already begun the slow drip of my execution [which] won’t come to full effect for 50, maybe 60 years I have often wondered if that 15 or 20 minutes of terror found to be cruel and unusual wouldn’t be a better option.”

But imprisoning an innocent is a risk worth taking? You can't give back 40 years of live back either.

This rationale has always come off as bizarre to me. If that's the case, why incarcerate anyone for anything ever?
There's a phrase used in criminal justice called "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[Nickel Empire]

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.

That's why we torture them mentally by pretending we are going to execute them and stuff along those lines so when the day does come they will not know what is happening. They will also have to wait 15 years at least before they bite the bullet.

[Antarcti]

FUCK YEAH! "Eye for an Eye and Tooth for a Tooth". If you kill someone on purpose by splashing acid on them, you know you're going to wind up on the bad end of a pool of hydrochloric acid.

[Wisconsin9]

FUCK YEAH! "Eye for an Eye and Tooth for a Tooth". If you kill someone on purpose by splashing acid on them, you know you're going to wind up on the bad end of a pool of hydrochloric acid.

Nothing says we're better than they are quite like doing exactly the same thing we're killing them for.

[Grande Republic of Arcadia]

That depends upon what crime the death penalty is used as punishment for.

The death penalty should not be used under any crimes. You cannot reverse the death penalty.

There is an old saying an eye for an eye so you kill you get killed

[Wisconsin9]

The death penalty should not be used under any crimes. You cannot reverse the death penalty.

There is an old saying an eye for an eye so you kill you get killed

There's also a somewhat more recent saying that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

[Kractero]

Well, assuming that people have enough opportunities to appeal, and enough time passes for new evidence to be discovered, it becomes too expensive. The possibility of killing an innocent person isn't a risk worth taking.

But imprisoning an innocent is a risk worth taking? You can't give back 40 years of live back either.
Why should someone sentenced to death have more opportunities to appeal ( making him more costly than life sentenced) or live in the timeframe of "enough time" more confortable than a life sentenced (more costly than life sentenced)?

But you can't give a life back to someone. 40 years < Life

[Othelos]

Well, assuming that people have enough opportunities to appeal, and enough time passes for new evidence to be discovered, it becomes too expensive. The possibility of killing an innocent person isn't a risk worth taking.

But imprisoning an innocent is a risk worth taking? You can't give back 40 years of live back either.

Yeah, but if they aren't killed, then there's a chance for them to be released.

Why should someone sentenced to death have more opportunities to appeal ( making him more costly than life sentenced) or live in the timeframe of "enough time" more confortable than a life sentenced (more costly than life sentenced)?

Because it's an ordeal for a government to kill someone while trying to respect human rights. That means plenty of opportunities to appeal, since there's a fine line between killing people with some sort of justification and none at all.

People who have life sentences can appeal as well (unless it's life without parole), and if new evidence is found, they can be exonerated. A dead innocent person can't be exonerated.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

No, I don't support murder.

[Exxosia]

I used to be in weak support of it for use with the most severe criminals – i.e.; serial rapists and murderers who simply can't be stopped and that indefinite incarceration is an expense that cannot be justified.

Now, I feel that we need a wholly reparation-based justice system where the state and prison corporations get nothing. If you murder someone, you have to make reparations to your victim(s) surviving family – i.e.; kill a parent, you end up supporting their spouse and kids by the projected income stream of the victim. If the survivors wanted your death, they could likely press for that penalty, but it would be highly discouraged.

Another option I prefer to both life imprisonment and the death penalty, when reparations cannot be made, is banishment. If you have dual citizenship, you'd lose the one and be shipped off to the other. Single citizenship and we can have treaties with other countries to ship you to.

[Wisconsin9]

I used to be in weak support of it for use with the most severe criminals – i.e.; serial rapists and murderers who simply can't be stopped and that indefinite incarceration is an expense that cannot be justified.

Now, I feel that we need a wholly reparation-based justice system where the state and prison corporations get nothing. If you murder someone, you have to make reparations to your victim(s) surviving family – i.e.; kill a parent, you end up supporting their spouse and kids by the projected income stream of the victim. If the survivors wanted your death, they could likely press for that penalty, but it would be highly discouraged.

Another option I prefer to both life imprisonment and the death penalty, when reparations cannot be made, is banishment. If you have dual citizenship, you'd lose the one and be shipped off to the other. Single citizenship and we can have treaties with other countries to ship you to.

That still leaves dangerous people out in the world, where it's not improbable that they'll hurt other people.

[A Colony Of Canadas]

Nah. Let them suffer in prison for the rest of their lives.

[Draakonite]

Assuming that the majority of life imprisoned try to suicide

Interestingly, several life-without-parole folks actually express a sick sort of envy for death row inmates on the realization that they've just as well been sentenced to death-- especially those who are sentenced to "life in solitary," which seems to be the new alternative advocated among the pro-life community (for convicted violent criminals whom have been found guilty of a crime so heinous that a jury of their peers has determined that they ought to be put to death for it, not necessarily also extended to pre-born babies).

“Though I will never be strapped down onto a gurney with life-stopping drugs pumped into my veins... be assured I have already begun the slow drip of my execution [which] won’t come to full effect for 50, maybe 60 years I have often wondered if that 15 or 20 minutes of terror found to be cruel and unusual wouldn’t be a better option.”

But imprisoning an innocent is a risk worth taking? You can't give back 40 years of live back either.

This rationale has always come off as bizarre to me. If that's the case, why incarcerate anyone for anything ever?
There's a phrase used in criminal justice called "beyond a reasonable doubt."

This were both attacks on the arguments used against the death penalty, no an argument for it.

The First one was basically "Life prison is worse than death", which in itself is a pretty weak argument. If we wanted, we could use those torture methods concieved by the CIA with low risk of death for the whole time in Prison, which is worse than both of those sentences above. Why don't we do it? Because giving out the worst sentence is stupid, economically and of course "humanely".

The second one is "What if the convicted is innocent?". We will in this century most likely not be able to eradicate wrongfull convictions completely (unless we just don't convict anyone), so instead we try to minimize wrongfull convictions, while maintaining a high number of solved cases. If there is no difference in the graph on the scale time in prison -> likehood of finding evidence that prooves the convict innocent, for both punishments, than we could just find the position where the percentage gets reasonably low and use the time for "minimum time spent on death row"... if you support the death sentence in the first place.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

I used to be in weak support of it for use with the most severe criminals – i.e.; serial rapists and murderers who simply can't be stopped and that indefinite incarceration is an expense that cannot be justified.

Now, I feel that we need a wholly reparation-based justice system where the state and prison corporations get nothing. If you murder someone, you have to make reparations to your victim(s) surviving family – i.e.; kill a parent, you end up supporting their spouse and kids by the projected income stream of the victim. If the survivors wanted your death, they could likely press for that penalty, but it would be highly discouraged.

Another option I prefer to both life imprisonment and the death penalty, when reparations cannot be made, is banishment. If you have dual citizenship, you'd lose the one and be shipped off to the other. Single citizenship and we can have treaties with other countries to ship you to.

That still leaves dangerous people out in the world, where it's not improbable that they'll hurt other people.

Is rehabilitation ever effective? I mean, I've heard a lot of it and it emotionally appeals to me. But does it really work? Have governments made effective programs using it?

[Qubec]

No I do not. We should be rehabilitating them to become good members of the community not killing them. The Death penalty is 100% against the law.

[Kractero]

That still leaves dangerous people out in the world, where it's not improbable that they'll hurt other people.

Is rehabilitation ever effective? I mean, I've heard a lot of it and it emotionally appeals to me. But does it really work? Have governments made effective programs using it?

Rehabilitation is largely decided on the target's mental want to change, the professionalism of the rehabilitation plays a smaller factor.

[Draakonite]

But imprisoning an innocent is a risk worth taking? You can't give back 40 years of live back either.

Yeah, but if they aren't killed, then there's a chance for them to be released.

Why should someone sentenced to death have more opportunities to appeal ( making him more costly than life sentenced) or live in the timeframe of "enough time" more confortable than a life sentenced (more costly than life sentenced)?

Because it's an ordeal for a government to kill someone while trying to respect human rights. That means plenty of opportunities to appeal, since there's a fine line between killing people with some sort of justification and none at all.

People who have life sentences can appeal as well (unless it's life without parole), and if new evidence is found, they can be exonerated. A dead innocent person can't be exonerated.

This just gives death sentenced more chances to prove they are innocent, which is unfair to life imprisoned. Why? Because when they appeal, they get those opportunities that new evidence is found. A life imprisoned gets more time to prove it, but noone will search for new evidence if he can't appeal.

[Novia Soviet Socialist Republic]

No, because sometimes innocents end up getting executed.

[Draakonite]

That still leaves dangerous people out in the world, where it's not improbable that they'll hurt other people.

Is rehabilitation ever effective? I mean, I've heard a lot of it and it emotionally appeals to me. But does it really work? Have governments made effective programs using it?

Well, at least imprisonment works in keeping people safe. Just shipping them to another country doesn't.

No I do not. We should be rehabilitating them to become good members of the community not killing them. The Death penalty is 100% against the law.

Depends on the country.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Is rehabilitation ever effective? I mean, I've heard a lot of it and it emotionally appeals to me. But does it really work? Have governments made effective programs using it?

Rehabilitation is largely decided on the target's mental want to change, the professionalism of the rehabilitation plays a smaller factor.

Okay. I suppose that if they demonstrate a deep opposition to change then we can at least jail them forever.