Do you support the death penalty? Why or why not?

If you do, what crimes do you believe are deserving of the death penalty? Do you believe minors should be eligible for the death penalty? What about the mentally ill? And in what way should said convict be executed?

---------------

I believe in the death penalty, but only when there is 100% indisputable evidence (or a confession) that the convicted did in fact commit the crime in question. I support it both as a way of punishment, and as a way of cleansing our society of people who have lost their right to live.

I believe in 2 types of crimes: crimes from which the criminal can be redeemed, and crimes from which he cannot. This is why I don't believe in life sentences. If the criminal can be rehabilitated (robbery, assault, drugs, whatever), then they should receive an appropriate sentence and be allowed to have a second shot at life upon their release. If the criminal cannot be rehabilitated* (murder, rape), they should be executed.

*Some people are capable of being rehabilitated after commiting crimes like rape, treason, and murder. However, they don't deserve to chance to be.

So, it goes without saying, I believe crimes like forcible rape* (any kind, but especially pedophilia), treason, and murder deserve the death penalty. Call me extreme, but I firmly believe that. If you rape someone, you are the scum of the earth and deserve to die. Same as murderers. It doesn't matter if you have one victim or four hundred victims. You deserve to die.

*Note that I specified forcible rape. For example, if a man has sex with a drunk woman, that's considered rape, even if she consents. I don't think that's deserving of death.
Also, statutory rape. If a 30 year old has sex with a 15 year old, it's rape, even if she consents, because she's a minor. However, though illegal (as it should be) it's not as heinous as forcibly raping a woman against her will. So that, too, I don't believe deserves the death penalty.
That said, I believe pedophilia deserves the death penalty, so where's the line? Having sex with a 15 year old, though wrong, isn't as heinous as having sex with, say, a 6 year old. This is one thing that I'm unsure about; should statutory rape be punishable by death? And if not, where's the line between statutory rape and irredeemable pedophilic crimes?

As for minors being eligible for the death penalty, I believe they should be. I'm saying this as a fresh-out-of-highschool 18 year old who has had this same exact belief for years--even when I myself was still a minor. If I had murdered or raped someone 1, 3, or 5 years ago, I would have known full well what I was doing. Younger kids may not, but teenagers definitely do. Teenagers understand what's wrong and what's right, and if they violate that, they deserve to suffer the same consequences adults do. So to sum it up: I believe anyone thirteen and older should be eligible for the death penalty. Sometimes even younger, but that would vary case by case.

As for the mentally ill, I think it's pretty open and shut. I don't give a fuck if you're mentally incompetent; a crime is a crime. The mentally ill should be eligible for the same punishments as anyone else.
Sidenote: if your mental illness makes you a danger to others, you should already be locked up to begin with. I'm sorry if that sounds cruel, but I believe it to be right. If someone had locked up the Parkland shooter sooner (I'm not going to say his name), there would be 14 more children on the planet right now. Not to mention the 3 teachers.

As for execution technique; I believe in execution by firing squad in most circumstances, and execution by hanging for the most heinous crimes. Bullets and rope are cheaper than lethal injection and electric chairs, and hanging is a more brutal execution method that can be used when deserved. Call it inhumane if you want, but I call it justice.

TL;DR:
I support it.
I support it both as a form of punishment and as a way of cleansing society of irredeemable criminals.
Murder, rape, pedophilia, and treason all deserve the death penalty.
I believe anyone thirteen and older should be eligible for the death penalty.
I believe the mentally ill should be eligible for the death penalty.
I believe we should execute criminals by firing squad or by hanging.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. I'd love to hear yours.

Edited 6/1/2018 17:42:21

That said, I believe pedophilia deserves the death penalty, so where's the line? Having sex with a 15 year old, though wrong, isn't as heinous as having sex with, say, a 6 year old.

An adult having sex with a 15 years old is not pedophilia. Pedophilia is with a prepubescent person, and the vast majority of girls, and most of boys are already in puberty or even past it at the age of 15. Hence its not rape, if consensual.
Its not wrong to have sex with a minor that is already in puberty. Humans are meant to have sexual relations in this period of their lives.


As for the death penalty topic, I agree with most of the points. I mostly disagree with the execution technique. The person to be executed should be able to choose their death, if possible.

Edited 6/1/2018 18:13:57

In my opinion, the punishment should be what the accused did. For example if someone killed someone else, they should be killed using the same killing method. Also if you raped someone, you should also be raped.

The death of a fellow only affects others. Hardly any mother does not love their son, even if they are a disgusting criminal. So it should be reserved for serious crimes and only for pretty much orphans-sociopaths.

Murder, rape, pedophilia, and treason all deserve the death penalty.

None of these but murder are worthy. Treason - almost all governments are treason to their own folk. Pedophilia and rape - bad but they don't kill folk's lives - it's scarring - but so is an accidental knifecut.

I believe anyone thirteen and older should be eligible for the death penalty.

You're just asking to be made fun of as a savage U.S.-American at this point.

I personally find it extremely arbitrary to decide what is "bad enough" to validate death sentence; personally, I consider robbery worse than rape, for example. How do we solve this?

The main reason I support it, though, is because maintenance of prisoners that are oftentimes hopeless is just a waste of resources. It's as they say, if you try to rob a bank, you'll never have to pay for food ever again, whether you succeed or fail.

In 2010, the US spent 80 billion dollars worth of prisoner maintenance, a good chunk of which being to death row prisoners, people in life sentence, and repeating criminals which could've been saved. Assuming an optimistic 0.5% of that fits into these three categories, that's 400 million dollars on the trash bin.

With that money, you can build a small-to-medium size hydroelectic powerplant: http://www.renewablesfirst.co.uk/hydropower/hydropower-learning-centre/how-much-do-hydropower-systems-cost-to-build/

In principle, I support the death penalty for murderers, and only them. In practice, it seems like 4% of the people on death row are innocent*, and if that can't be fixed then I'd not support it for them as well. For the 100% cases, like Nikolas Cruz, I'd have no issues seeing him be put to death, but then there's the 90% cases, and the 75% cases, and whether a person was killing in self-defence or not (like the guy who killed Trayvon Martin), and then the line becomes really blurry. I suppose I'd support it for the 100% cases of murder, that's not in self-defence, but nothing else.

* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

Also, statutory rape. If a 30 year old has sex with a 15 year old, it's rape, even if she consents...
should statutory rape be punishable by death?...
So to sum it up: I believe anyone thirteen and older should be eligible for the death penalty.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you on anything here but I don't think it's consistent to believe that a 15 year old doesn't have good enough judgement to have sex, but a 13 should be eligible for the death penalty.

Edited 6/1/2018 23:01:33

Do you support the death penalty? Why or why not?

Nope. It's inhuman and against the law as well as human rights too.

In my opinion, the punishment should be what the accused did. For example if someone killed someone else, they should be killed using the same killing method. Also if you raped someone, you should also be raped.

Well, DanWL, then this is how war's and never ending family feuds and gang fights happen. A say, a very dangerous way of thinking that could make one small event spiral out of control.

I believe in the death penalty, but only when there is 100% indisputable evidence (or a confession) that the convicted did in fact commit the crime in question.

We never have 100% undispuitable evidence. That has been shown time and time again. And confessions can't be trusted in many cases. In an ideal world this is a way of thinking, but imh we are not in an ideal world.

As for execution technique; I believe in execution by firing squad in most circumstances, and execution by hanging for the most heinous crimes. Bullets and rope are cheaper than lethal injection and electric chairs, and hanging is a more brutal execution method that can be used when deserved. Call it inhumane if you want, but I call it justice.

Your methods (well bullets) are more human/quicker/less painful then lethal injection at least. After the boycott of one of the cocktail US ingredient lethal injection is more like torture until death. Hanging is quick to, if the neck snaps. Which if properly done, is sorta reliably done.

The main reason I support it, though, is because maintenance of prisoners that are oftentimes hopeless is just a waste of resources. It's as they say, if you try to rob a bank, you'll never have to pay for food ever again, whether you succeed or fail.

In US the legal costs for death penalty is huge. So the US would save money if they abolished the death penalty. For obvious reasons removing appeal options or making the legal process faster makes it more likely that innocent ppl are killed. In fact, in US that seems to still occur. As already mentioned by other comments, there will be cases that are not 100% clear cut.

While it is societies duty to protect itself from harm, the "duty" for revenge or punishment is not part of what a society should do. Locking ppl up (for a limited time!) and rehabilitate them is much better for the society as well.

Edited 6/1/2018 23:53:43

I support the death penalty but only for people afraid enough of a real debate to post their walls of text on a gaming forum where almost nobody is going to care enough to dig up their flaws.

This is to a real debate what a diplomatic game is to real Warlight.

I oppose the death penalty in its current form.

1. These monsters sit on death row for decades which is morib and disturbing in its own right. The government must pay lawyers to defend these people through decades of court battles and lawyers are so expensive in America that it costs more to kill these monsters than keep them alive.

2. Lethal injection is problematic and accidents do occur. In the most extreme accidents it can take up to 2 hours for somebody to die. This is unnecessarily cruel and inhumane.

3. Far too few criminals are actually killed with the death penalty to make it a credible threat for would be criminals. If we only execute people who we are 100% sure are guilty from 3 or more eye witnesses then enough murders, rapists, treasonists, will still be alive to destroy the credibly threat of the death penalty.

Mutually assured destruction is still pretty sound doctrine.

We need to make it cheaper, faster, and use it on more hardened criminals. Eastwood has raised some good ideas.

Whatever direction we decide to take it, we can all agree that the current model is horrible and inhumane.

Edited 6/2/2018 03:44:37

Or we could just stick to snuff porn instead of wanting to kill actual people to feel all tingly and righteous in our justice parts.

Also I dig how you use your alt account for this stuff, Rogue NK.

Edited 6/2/2018 03:53:13

It's inhuman and against the law as well as human rights too.

It's also pretty inhuman to detain someone against their will, against the law, and against human rights. But found the EU-an.

I believe in rehabilitative justice and second chances, but some folk are beyond that. It's pretty fucking embarassing that Breivik is still unapologetic but docile, in a cosy Norwegian prison having a lifestyle paid for by the state for 7 years now.

In US the legal costs for death penalty is huge. So the US would save money if they abolished the death penalty. For obvious reasons removing appeal options or making the legal process faster makes it more likely that innocent ppl are killed. In fact, in US that seems to still occur. As already mentioned by other comments, there will be cases that are not 100% clear cut.

The vast majority of these costs come from the legal process, which is a whole different pandora's box, not the prison/prisoner costs, nor the execution method costs.

I was deliberately trying to avoid stepping on the "when to apply it", while focusing on the "why", but I guess since this came up, I should specify that such acts should be given to very particular/specific cases in which there's basically no defense for the accused; Anders Breivik, mentioned above, is a good place to start. Other terrorists and mass shooters included, as well as some hostage-taker whose ordeal ended up in prison, for example. This isn't to be done with people whom "the evidence point to", but people who were, quite literally, caught in the act.

In such cases, there is little to no reason for the court(s) to even consider a defense. Criminal did something irredeemable, and it's widely-known and not arguable that he is the perpetrator.

While I'm at it, I don't think the guy will actually care what his execution method was once he's executed, so might as well just go with the cheapest possible option(s), or just give the executioner permission to do it as he pleases. Sounds like a good selling point for executioner career, might be able to slash their average paycheck due to the added perk. If they are tasked to off someone, I don't really care whether he does it by rope, axe, poison, reading poetry or hand suffocation, given he actually does it and on a timely fashion.

not only should we execute these degenerates, we should round up and shoot three generations of their family with state of the art anti-tank missile launchers.

Is this a serious debate? I cannot tell the trolls from the serious people.

Edited 6/2/2018 18:30:56

Not necessarily disagreeing with you on anything here but I don't think it's consistent to believe that a 15 year old doesn't have good enough judgement to have sex, but a 13 should be eligible for the death penalty.

That's a fair point. However, I will say there is a difference between murder and having sex. Most people have had more than one sexual partner, and a lot of people cheat. Compare that to how many people the average person has murdered.

I think it comes down to this: sex with a minor is and should be illegal, because when you're that young, you're easy to take advantage of. I'm just guessing here, but that's probably why that law was written into place in the first place.

However, minors, though easily taken advantage of, are still smart enough to realize "hey, if I kill someone, there will be consequences."

Basically, having sex is oftentimes a spur-of-the-moment thing, driven by instinct and peer pressure. A lot of adults don't even have good judgement on their sexual lives, let alone teenagers. However, if you're going to commit a crime, there is not a person (13 or older) in the country who is not fully aware of the repercussions of their crimes. Sure, maybe they think they'll get away with it, but they still know what the punishment is.

So yeah, that's a fair point, but I don't think the two are necessarily comparable. Good judgement when it comes to not committing crimes is something most people have, regardless of age. Good judgement when it comes to not sleeping around.....well, not so much.

"American" morality:

If the Death Penalty is part of the legal system, it will be a strong deterrent to confession. If the system requires confession, then there will be a strong incentive to plead innocent, as you will survive. If the system allows capital punishment without confession, then there will be innocent people executed. There will always be ways to frame people, and it could happen very regularly - this could be a method of killing people without beong punished, by simply having the government kill them.
On the other hand, the argument that innocent people will be executed is weak. Many people are falsely convicted of crimes, even if they are not executed. This will tear apart families, lose jobs, and as an extent, lose possessions such as housing, as well as possibly causing death/disability in places without universal healthcare. Furthermore, many people who spend much of their life innocently in jail, having lost it all, kill themselves anyway. Sure, the judicial government may try and fix it, but some things, once broken, can never be repaired. The only major difference between this and the death penalty is that the death penalty cannot be reversed - but with a crime that severe, the damage caused may be almost as severe.
Still, while it may be viewed as moral by some to kill those who have killed, it will cost more to execute them. I think that using logic is better than using morals, and so I would say that it isn't worth it to execute people. Moreover, it is solidly logical to be more cost effective and keep them alive, while morality can favour either side of the debate.

If it were to be implemented/retained, I would suggest using the cheapest form of execution. I suggest a firing squad, hanging, or beheading, with the criminal choosing whichever one is fancied. I think the crimes that would fairly result in death penalty would be :
Murder: If the criminal is at least 5844 days old (16 years in which four are leap years) when the act is committed, they should be executed if: They were in full mental control, and the cause of death was particularly and purposely brutal and or more than 3 people were intentionally killed.
Major Sexual Assault: If the criminal is at least 5844 days old (16 years in which four are leap years) when the act is committed, they should be executed if: The act has been committed more than once, severe injuries were inflicted, the target was disabled in a way that would prevent fighting back. NOTE: These (other than the first) only apply if it is forcible rape, or the victim is under the age of 3652 days old (10 years in which two are leap years).
Treason: If the criminal is at least 7305 days old (20 years in which four are leap years) when the act is committed, they should be executed if: The act was intentional and the act is during conflict, was intented to create conflict, or created conflict.

All on death row would have the right to extensive trials and a non-biased, educated jury. They would have a right to a last meal and some kind of religious meeting, if realistic and non-dangerous.

Edit: Changed "Rape" to "Major Sexual Assault"

Edited 6/2/2018 19:47:10

I support the death penalty but only for people afraid enough of a real debate to post their walls of text on a gaming forum where almost nobody is going to care enough to dig up their flaws.

This is to a real debate what a diplomatic game is to real Warlight.

t. lazy coward who won't take the intellectual responsibility of arguing with people BECAUSE ITS JUST A RISK FORUM

ClintEastwood I agree.

I don’t get how anyone could disagree with you.

But that’s just the way I think, so I think everyone has that view too, but most people don’t.

Anyone that does not support the death penalty for murderers etc must be out of their mind imo.

Edited 6/11/2018 13:51:26