Death Penalty

How do you feel about the death penalty?
What is your stance on it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qeRyogtzUjI
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Choice 1 : keep a killer in jail for 60+ years, all paid by the state
Choice 2 : kill him, save money

if you kill everyone then crime would end

Always thought that prisons need to be turned into chinese sweatshops.

Innocent men have been executed for crimes they didn't commit. Is killing off criminals worth also killing a few innocent men?

Can you imagine being strapped into the chair knowing full well you're innocent?

should be only used on the super obvious cases

if the case is sketchy then just lock them up

If it's very clear what transpired then I say save money and off them

I'd prefer exile to the Mojave with one canteen full of water. If you make it out you get your freedom!


Or gladiator games to commute sentences, 10 fights you're out. Would make for good television

Also, awesome episode about trained killers, including an executioner from USA.

youtube.com/watch?v=qeRyogtzUjI

Liberals get butthurt when we do that. They think prison should be a mini vacation with free food, a place to sleep, entertainment and other free gibs for those "poor marginalized criminals"

In America at least, they are. Prisoners are paid something like $0.12 an hour.

I support a swift execution but only with absolutely irrefutable evidence, and I mean something like a video of the guy committing the crime

If there is definitive prod that you are a serial killer, terrorist, cop killer or committed horrible premeditated murder, you should get death.

We live in a world with DNA evidence, the fear of killing innocent people is defunct

Definitive proof*

Leftists always talk about prison not being punishment and being more about rehabilitation, stopping prison becoming a "school of crime" to help reduce the reoffending rate

Well guess what reduces the reoffending rate 100% of the time with no exceptions?

Only against the worst crimes backed up by several undeniable and perfect evidences.

We should just kill off those shit stains.
Why pay money to keep them fed and sheltered?

I'm torn. Paedophiles and people who hurt children should be killed.

But at the same time, if someone is killed by the state and I empowered the state to do so, I'm party to the murder of that person. I don't want to be a murderer Sup Forums.

I'm pretty indifferent on it.

Life in prison and death are both shitty. I'd say leave it up to the victim to decide if they're still alive I guess.

Necessary, but the methods americans use are retarded and often ineffective, on top of being costly, the death method should either be by guillotine or execution by firing squad.

Both methods are clean, cheap and work 100% of the time.

As for the sentence itself it should only be given to people who killed more than 2 people, leaders of criminal organizations and generally very serious crimes and the the death penalty should require further proofs to be 100% sure.

If you think death isn't an appropriate punishment for some crimes, you're a cuckold. It's really that simple.
>mfw there are people today that are sympathetic even toward murderers
Even repeat theft offenders should get death desu. See how many people steal then.

The problem is if you have a corrupt government that fakes evidence to get rid of political enemies etc.

Every state should have the death penalty. The death penalty should be administered as public execution by firing squad.

Here in the heart of Dixie we turn them into mexicans

Posted already, but...
>Killing a criminal means they can't hurt society anymore
So does life imprisonment, and it's cheaper
>Yeah but the death penalty is only expensive because of the lengthy judicial process, we just need to condense and expedite that so it can be cheaper
About 1 in 7 death row inmates are let go because they were eventually found innocent. Imagine how many innocent people we may have already executed under this system. Imagine how many innocent people we might execute if we give them even less time to be proven innocent.
>Well if we have to execute a few innocent people in order to execute more criminals, that's a fair trade-off.
It really isn't and you're an edgy teenager if you think this.
>It's not really about removing the criminal from society, it's about giving him the punishment he deserves for heinous crimes.
Then you would have to argue why ending someone's life is a more severe punishment than subjecting them to decades of misery in captivity. If you're an atheist, then you know that person feels and perceives nothing after death. If you believe in Hell, then how would you argue that it's worse to go to Hell first, than to endure decades of misery and THEN go to Hell? Sure, he could repent, but as a Christian you're obligated to want people to repent and accept Christ.
>It's not really about punishment or removing the criminal from society, it's about deterring others from committing terrible crimes
Take 2 minutes to google whether the death penalty deters crime. Spoiler: it doesn't.

>Or gladiator games to commute sentences, 10 fights you're out. Would make for good television
I pitched this idea to my friends, who responded with their fears of prisons having an incentive to retain prisoners. I reminded them that this is already the case without gladitorial games, but is there a better counter I might try?

>guillotine
>clean
Guillotine is just beheading but made unnecessarily complex and (at least historically) likely to fail.

Firing squad or beheading are the only two right answers.

>we turn them into Mexicans

sensiblechuckle.exe

They usually wait decades on death row, anyway.

I think it should be used more often. For instance in cases of heinous rape, abuse of children, minor traffic infractions ect.

It's near enough to useless. You could get a decent enough work force from it, doing jobs nobody else wants to do. If someone refuse to work they don't get fed. And if you really have to kill someone why not just hand them over to scientists and medicine students to practice on?

Should be reintroduced here, along with euthanasia.

1. In theory it is good and necessary.

2. In reality it kills innocent people.

Some people need removed from humanity's existence. Not "out of sight" in a cell, but actually made to no longer exist. I'd be more supportive of the death penalty for chronic, habitual criminals than for the types who commit one spectacular offense. Putting down unrepentant criminals would also eliminate mistakes because it would require multiple convictions. One case of prosecutorial misconduct or shitty forensic work won't kill someone. Only the truly "bad seeds" would be killed as a warning to others to live right and do no harm to others.

Too bad they can't keep up with how much Southerners litter. You know, as much as they love to talk about how great the South is, they sure don't take very good care of it.

Is lifetime imprisonment really cheaper than death penalty?

>Guillotine is just beheading but made unnecessarily complex and (at least historically) likely to fail.

Wrong, Guillotine rarely fails, it's a huge and heavy chunk of sharp metal coming down to your neck, what used to fail often were executors trying to decapitate people with axes, but the guillotine is a clean and quick kill.

It's also very cheap.

It should be made much more efficient

Hello shlomo.

The death penalty should only be used in order to maintain social order. In a chaotic society like the Wild West, stringing up violent criminals was justified, both as a deterrent and because there was no practical way to keep them imprisoned. Society is now peaceful enough and the modern prison system is advanced enough that there really is no need to execute anyone. Just throw them in a cell and let them rot.

You can't convict someone at all unless you're 100% sure they're guilty.

It is currently because of how fucking roundabout the death penalty is, and how long it takes

Kek

but that shit's expensive. Sometimes they say "fuck it" and not even bother

Death penalty is killing in colder blood than any possible crime.

For murder to be committed there has to be someone being somehow radicalised by either a short term or a long term scenario.

Death penalty though is killing as a rule.
At best, it will give a few people slight satisfaction, and will have been for something like slaughtering hundreds of babies. No baby revivals of course.
At worst, it won't even be the right person who is killed, and it was the assassination of a dictator.

death is a mercy

Against it because:
1. Even criminals can be saved for Jesus.
2. $$$, VERY expensive.
3. We have killed innocent people in the past.
4. Life in prison is worse.

I used to be really against it, because giving the state the power to kill its own citizens seems wrong and somewhat hypocritical (you killed someone - thats wrong....the punishment is us killing you).

On the other hand, the longer I live and see more of the scumbags that exist in the world, the more I want to see capital punishment expanded to a lot more crimes. The world would be a better place if every crime that warrants 5+ years in jail was just a death sentence imo. So many people just go in and out of jail and you know when they get released they will be back after doing something violent again.

>DNA evidence can't be faked

lol

I didn't know Abbos knew how to use 4chang

There's been mistakes made in the past and outright fraud with DNA testing. For capital punishment cases I think the DNA sample should be sent to at least 3 completely independent laboratories for testing and all 3 would have to come back confirming the same thing for it to be legit.

>New Zealand flag
>Abos
>American education

Why kill them when you can use them until they drop dead? there are mine fields to clean, there still a lot to do in that Japanese power plant that exploded, etc. In the end you could always make good reality show to make money of them, just like bum fights. Modern day gladiator fights, get two death penalty inmates, give them like fork and spoon and tell to kill each other... profit!

Why should a mass murderer still deserve life?

I support the death penalty 100% but not the way it's done in the states. It's too wasteful and inefficient. China makes really good use of it killing off corrupt officials and crime bosses. Those are the people that do by far the most damage to society and yet in the West they are virtually untouchable and don't fear the law at all.

im all for a Judge Dredd future saves taxpayers boatloads

Anyone committing a second murder should Be put down.
Drugdealers should Be put down.
Corrupt politicians should Be put down.

Sure it would require some really Strong evidence but there I would support since all of these destroy peoples lives and they should Be too afraid to do these things.

Also, public hanging.

I'm against it for four reasons

>waste of money
it literally costs more to go through the whole process of having appeal after appeal to execute someone than simply giving them life in prison

>not actually an effective deterant
the murder rate is actually higher in states and countries with the death penalty because criminals are dumb as dogshit and think it means they better kill witnesses too

>morally hypocritical
"its bad to kill people even if they deserve it... I mean unless the state does it obviously!"

>cant be undone
you can let a wrongfully convicted person out of jail but you can't bring them back to life

only good argument for the death penalty I can think of is there's some people so dangerous you can't risk them escaping (ted bundy escaped twice and killed again before they gave him the chair or example) but that could be solved by simply not having shit security (they left ted alone in a library and put him a cell with loose ceiling tiles kek)

It's barbaric and something niggers and muslims do.

There is a phrase: "Capital punishment means those without capital get the punishment"
Thoughts on this

About that...

I'm for it completely, it's an appropriate punishment and killing the buggers saves time and resources you would waste keeping them feed and safe in prison, and also prevents any repeat offending if cuck judges let them out

No to the death penalty. I don't think the state should have the power to take the lives of it's own citizens.

>firing squad
>at any random moment get shot then left to spend some seconds dying, all while tied up in exactly the same way that is often used by criminals to create fear

>guillotine
>it's basically the same case, except a bit cleaner at the cost of a less intact corpse

>hefty artillery shell to a fenced area
>instant, unavoidable death; and yet the person being killed doesn't have to sit completely immobilised not knowing at what moment they're going to die, instead being able to stand and stare death right in the face before their face vaporwaves 0.1 seconds later

I swear, whoever thinks artillery isn't the way to do executions probably gets an edgy power boner from knowing the pointless fear they can inflict.

>$0.05 has been deposited into your account by Correct the Record PAC

Having worked in a prison I can safely say that 90% of inmates serving mote than 7 years will become institutionalized, and are thus a massive burden on the state for the rest of their lives. Personally I think anyone serving more than 15 years should be killed outright, the problem is the prison system in america creates thousands of jobs. It's more profitable to have a full prison than a full graveyard unfortunately.

i call it the 'black belt'

not sure. what do the republicans support? i support whatever they do.

give us some prison stories

Burn them all

Really makes you think

>and somewhat hypocritical (you killed someone - thats wrong....the punishment is us killing you).
You can use the same logic against prisons.

>you imprisoned someone in your basement - that's wrong, so the punishment is us imprisoning you

The morality of an action depends on who does what against who. Killing criminals isn't wrong, it's righteousness. It's just making the world a better place by cleaning it.

There should be a 4th branch of our government in charge of executions, mainly for public servants and the most ungodly of people. These executions should be public.

...

>>waste of money
that's a bureocratic problem in the usa that can be solved, doesn't mean the rest of the world should follow their protocols

>>not actually an effective deterant
>the murder rate is actually higher in states and countries with the death penalty because criminals are dumb as dogshit and think it means they better kill witnesses too
have you compared murder rates in the same state before and after death penalty? would be interesting to see that data

>>morally hypocritical
there's nothing hypocritical about the state defending those who want to kill its citizens
>"its bad to kill people even if they deserve it
in your opinion

>>cant be undone
>you can let a wrongfully convicted person out of jail but you can't bring them back to life
this one is your only legit concern. Death penalty should only go ahead in cases of 100% certainity

Why not actually argue against his points?

It certainly does hold true.
I for one can't name anyone wealthy who has suffered capital punishment, thanks to great lawyers and not having to get their hands dirty. If they have someone killed, they'd be unlucky to be arrested.

Hanged from the neck until death is the only correct answer

It should be an option that's rarely used, but an option nonetheless.

America really needs to tighten their system up:
>June 8, 2001: Osaka school massacre in Japan
>Killed 8 children, wounded 15
>Diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder and paranoid personality disorder
>Executed on September 14, 2004
In the USA he could have died from old age before being executed.

...

Good

>Gallows are expensive
>Life in prison is worse than gallows
Wut

>hefty artillery shell to a fenced area
Who's gonna clean that up buddy. You?

Bring it back for traitors, deserters, murderers and terrorists.

>Inb4 being racist gets classed as terrorism

It doesn't deter crime, but it does prevent criminals from being repeat offenders, is less costly than feeding them for years, and prevents those criminals from breeding. So I'm overall for it.

It's a waste of millions of dollars - years and years of legal fees. It's much cheaper to just imprison these offenders for life.

In clear-cut cases like massacres, it should be available. For lesser crimes it shouldn't need to be used *as* often in fear that you could put innocent to death. But it should be option.

People who are for the death penalty should be sentenced to death because I am against the death penalty.

>traitors
Are you trying to depopulate your entire island?

Execute a few high-level traitors, suddenly people are less willing to commit treason.

>death penalty

Should not be used on Danes.

Perfectly fine punishment for foreigners as they have no rights.

Just throw them out of a plane over Liberia with just a parachute and $5.

>first week there
>black inmate starts fucking with me
>ignore it because if they get a rise out of you it never stops
>says my address out loud and threatens my parents
>was living with them at the time because I just got the job
>he has to get processed to go to a court hearing later that week
>find out he's a chomo from taking him to court (kiddie diddler)
>let the whole cell block know
>gets raped and beaten nearly to death >sent to adseg and later transferred out

>similar situation but 4 months down the line
>this guy is a hardened inmate though, not super backed up but a solid 200lbs and 5'11
>older CO and me take him to see lawyer
>guy spazzes when he finds out his ex wife left the state and he can't see his kids anymore
>shrink runs out of offic and the guy grabs a pen
>we run in and beat the shit out of him
>not gonna lie he alost knocked me out and gave me a nasty black eye in the scuffle
>handcuff him to a pipe and beat the shit out of him with knightsticks

Want more?

Only because of the ridiculous appeals process some states have. Texas gives you the standard appeals process + those others given under constitutional law, whereas California had a whole other set of procedures that make it so that they can rarely actually execute anyone. If you just give the traditional common law appeals + those guaranteed under the constitution the death penalty can be cheaper.

>parachute

I don't give a fuck about it. Kill people. Don't kill people. It doesn't matter. It's such an insignificant thing to get worked up over when there is so much other shit that should be in the media.

We need Judges and iso-cubes.

Not comfortable with government having that power, although I have no problem with murderers and rapists being killed.

Also- the "life in prison is cheaper" argument is bullshit. It's the special appeals we give death row that raise the costs. Death penalty itself is cheap. How much does 10 feet of rope cost? How about let's save taxpayers money and re-use the rope?

We'd sure save a hell of a lot of money if we just put to death criminals who are going to be in prison for the rest of their lives.

What the fuck is the point of a life sentence when you could execute them, it makes no sense. You're not putting them in prison to rehabilitate them, because they're never leaving prison. They will literally die in the prison one way or another. Why not just cut to the chase and save everyone the time and the money?

Rare

Please continue. How'd that first guy get your address?