Because this is not Nazi Germany where the gestapo can decide they don't like you on the spot, then shoot you in the head. It's a lengthy legal process that takes decades.
Is the death penalty morally wrong?
- Thread starter LogGrad98
- Start date
Because this is not Nazi Germany where the gestapo can decide they don't like you on the spot, then shoot you in the head. It's a lengthy legal process that takes decades.
My very first argument was based on the fact that we cannot ascertain the guilt of a person with 100% certainty.
If we had a system that made sure that no innocent person was ever executed I'd drop 90% of my objection to it. Fact is, people on death row have been exonerated many times.
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]
Banned
Less death penalty more vigilante justice in police station. "He grabbed my gun"
Problem solved for ten cents.
Problem solved for ten cents.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Why though? They are guilty, they get sentenced, sentence gets executed right
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
After their 11,000 appeals. Time and money. Read the links. They are mostly short and use small words.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
After their 11,000 appeals. Time and money. Read the links. They are mostly short and use small words.
No i understand that. Why is that allowed though?
I mean if i get busted for grand theft auto and the judge gives me a sentence to go to jail its not like i can just stay out of jail and go to court every so often to appeal my sentence. I have to go to jail according to my sentence. So the murderer should have to get executed according to his sentence too.
Also, if a murderer can just keep appealing his sentence to avoid being executed, then how is it that anyone has ever even been executed? What is the cuttoff point for number of appeals one gets? Is there a cuttoff point? Is there a length of time limit that you can appeal for?
What about someone who confessed to a murder and gets sentenced to death? Do they get the option of appeal after appeal? and if they do, why? We know they are guilty. They admitted they were.
Yeah this.
If the intention of the criminal system is to get a certain person (i.e., a convicted murder) off the street for good, why not just lock them up for life with no appeal/parol? That fulfils the purpose perfectly.
On that basis the death penalty is redundant.
Beer
Well-Known Member
If someone is willing to carry it out I have no problem with it. As far as executing mentally ill people, they are obviously ill enough to be an extreme danger to society so why not get rid of them ? I don't get why people have a problem executing stupid people, as most "mentally ill" people on death row just have low iq's.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
I have the death sentence on twelve systems.
This is one issue I am pretty in the middle.
Both sides of the argument make a lot of sense to me.
Both sides of the argument make a lot of sense to me.
I think the bar needs to be raised for the death penalty. DNA, witnesses, evidence, confession... death penalties should be rare.
I think violent serial rapists and pedophiles should have it as a possible sentence.
If the death penalty is issued (should be the exception not the rule) then it should be carried out quickly and cheaply.
I am not a fan of life imprisonment cases with the current incarceration perks and rules. Imprisonment cases need to do more to benefit society beyond removing a criminal from the street.
I think violent serial rapists and pedophiles should have it as a possible sentence.
If the death penalty is issued (should be the exception not the rule) then it should be carried out quickly and cheaply.
I am not a fan of life imprisonment cases with the current incarceration perks and rules. Imprisonment cases need to do more to benefit society beyond removing a criminal from the street.
You think rapists an pedophiles should be executed? That's another reason I oppose the death penalty. Once you accept that taking someone's life is a legitimate punishment, the temptation to apply it to crimes you find specially icky is too strong.
In the the 80s, drug offenses were in vogue, and it became perfectly acceptable to give someone 25 years in jail for using drugs. Not long before that, homosexuality was seen as one of society's greatest ills, and homosexuals were sent to rot in jails. And why not? We accept jail as a legitimate punishment, and so we will apply jail sentences in accordance of how each crime is seen at the time. Except that in the case of the death sentence, each decision is utterly final.
What is the difference between rape and violent rape?
Is there some non-violent rape I'm unaware of?
Is there some non-violent rape I'm unaware of?
Could still be violent.
Are we measuring the power of the thrust for the level of violence?
So Bill Cosby rape = no death
All other rapes = death
You ignored the adjectives "serial" and "violent". I am not taking about the guy a girl calls rape on after a drunken night out. Or the 18 year old who slept with his GF and mom and dad are mad.
I am talking about the man that has raped several women after beating them at knife and/or gun point and leaving them for dead or actually dead. Again the exception not the rule.
I absolutely think that is on a level with the typical death penalty cases of murders. Please take the post as a whole.
As for jail being a legit punishment for all these crimes(like the drug crimes you mention). Well that is a whole new argument not isn't it?