The death penalty: Yes or no?

Do you support the death penalty?

  • Total voters
    77
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Politoed666

#winning
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
2,160
Reaction score
2
This is another in my series of controversial issue polls. Again, it's pretty straightforward. Do you support executing convicted criminals? Not petty criminals, but criminals along the lines of those you see executed in Texas, i.e. child rapists, murderers, etc.

What's your opinion? Support it.
 
I said sometimes, but I only support it in the most extreme cases. One good example would be this one guy who killed three teenagers in the 60s, and was sentenced to die, but had his sentence commuted to life with parole. He was released in the 1990s, and then killed five more people. I'm primarily referring to repeat offenders who have been through the system multiple times, yet it fails to change them. And if they do receive the death penalty, I believe there should be a lengthy appeal process just to make sure that the convicted individual did indeed commit the crime, as executing an innocent individual does not look good. Again, this is why I believe only extreme cases deserve the death penalty, which is why I'm not really a fan of what Texas does by executing people left and right.
 
The death penalty is do old fashioned.
Now don't get me wrong-I love some old fashioned stuff.
But, killing a human being legally?
No matter what they did people shouldn't be killed.
Locked up? Yes. Forced to do community service? Yes. But murdered? No.
Just my opinion. :)
Plus, what if they found out later they got the wrong guy?
 
Sometimes. Like PAK Man said, for EXTREME cases. Like maybe, if one guy keeps, say... killing people oh yayz killing spree, THEN that's when it should be enforced.
 
The only reason I find to enforce it is prisons are filling up.
I think repeat offenders such as the one PAK Man mentioned should be locked up for life without parole.
Unfortunately some prisons are too small to accomodate everyone with a life sentence.
 
I don't. Unless that person, for example, couldn't stop murdering people. I don't support the death penalty because you don't know if that person might change. God could come into their life and completely change their ways.
 
Zephy.Changes said:
The death penalty is do old fashioned.
Now don't get me wrong-I love some old fashioned stuff.
But, killing a human being legally?
No matter what they did people shouldn't be killed.
Locked up? Yes. Forced to do community service? Yes. But murdered? No.
Just my opinion. :)
Plus, what if they found out later they got the wrong guy?
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
No - the dead cannot suffer for the crimes they have commited.
 
I voted almost never, because I'm sure if I tried really hard I could come up with a reason to execute someone, but on the whole, in 99.999999999999(repeating)% of cases, it's "no".

Because there's always a faint chance that a person may have been wrongfully sentenced, and killing an innocent that was wrongfully condemned is no better than murdering an innocent in the street.
 
Well, serial killers and rapists (unless they are chemically castrated) can never be rehabilitated IMO so they should get the death penalty or at least life in jail. It is unsafe if lunatics with mental problems like them are ever released back into the public domain.

But there are some cases like in Indonesia where drug posession can get you a death penalty, I do not agree with this.
 
I said never. I don't think its our right (or anyone's right for that matter) to say who should live or die.
 
The Æsahættr said:
This.

Let a child-molesting scumbag have the tables turned on him by becoming the plaything of a big burly inmate named "Ball Stomper".
Click to expand...

o_O

there are good arguements for both sides on this case. there are some people in the world who deserve to die, and that's that. however, the accepted way of administering capital punishment is lethal injection. there are three liquids injected into you. the first one is a novocain-like anaesthetic. the second liquid is a toxin that causes complete paralysis. the third injection, however, is where it gets dicey. the third and final injection is an extremely potent poison. so potent, in fact, that it burns your veins from the inside out. by this time, the anaesthetic has all but completely worn off while the administers of the injections were waiting for paralysis to set in. the unfortunate inmate now has to wait in pain that quite literally feels like you're being burned up from the inside out. this horrendous feeling continues until the poison reaches your heart, causing a massive heart attack. this process, however, takes about twenty minutes, because of the location of the vein injections are usually administered to. now there's some food for thought...
 
The Æsahættr said:
This.

Let a child-molesting scumbag have the tables turned on him by becoming the plaything of a big burly inmate named "Ball Stomper".
Click to expand...

Well I disagree with prison rape, the guards aren't doing their jobs properly if they let prisoners rape each other unconsentually. Actually that pisses me off quite a bit, prison is already hard enough without worrying about how you're going to get violently raped... besided child molestorers usually get solitary confinement anyways.
 
...something tells me this is because the child molesters are classified as rapers, not rapees...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom