1. Post #41
    Gold Member
    Eltro102's Avatar
    February 2008
    11,182 Posts
    what if don't want help, and wont let anyone help me.


    I will continue to eat little boys penises and burn them.
    Youll be kept in jail.
    Forever.

  2. Post #42
    The cannibal, for instance won't ever be a normal individual in society.

  3. Post #43
    Gratuitous Penis Exposure Moderator
    Gurant's Avatar
    September 2005
    4,229 Posts
    I believe that all people can change for the better with rehabilitation and therapy. I don't think anyone has the right to take another mans life, especially not the government.


    And I just want to add that I wish that some people were dead.

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    Eltro102's Avatar
    February 2008
    11,182 Posts
    The cannibal, for instance won't ever be a normal individual in society.
    Life sentence without chance of parole, with an option of euthanasia.

  5. Post #45
    Gold Member
    Hellduck's Avatar
    March 2007
    5,739 Posts
    The cannibal, for instance won't ever be a normal individual in society.
    That presupposes that he wasn't mentally incompetent at the time of the incident.

    Which (although this is a hypothetical, for it to be even remotely grounded in reality) he would have to be.

  6. Post #46
    Life sentence without chance of parole, with an option of euthanasia.
    umm,yes,but you give him option with harder or easier sentence.That's not right.

  7. Post #47
    Gold Member
    Spacewolf's Avatar
    January 2006
    7,985 Posts
    I think it is justified in extreme cases, when there is no doubt that they are guilty. Although "no doubt" has clearly steered us wrong before.

    On the topic of comparing it to murder, I kinda think it isn't really the same. I mean, is arresting someone the same as kidnapping them?

  8. Post #48
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    19,159 Posts
    umm,yes,but you give him option with harder or easier sentence.That's not right.
    How so? It's his life, let him end it if he wants to.

  9. Post #49
    How so? It's his life, let him end it if he wants to.
    If we tend to have option,we always will choose easier one.From this point,euthanasia.We shouldn't give an option to the criminal.He's not human anymore.And you think those who sit for their rest of their lives in jails are normal people?They're basically like pets.

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    Hellduck's Avatar
    March 2007
    5,739 Posts
    I've never heard the euthanasia option put forward before. What's the rationale behind it?

    Edited:

    He's not human anymore.
    Woah woah woah woah woah

    What are you on about?

  11. Post #51
    Hi
    Chekko's Avatar
    February 2010
    12,241 Posts
    Kill 10 people
    Prison, rehabilitated failed. Person sets free.
    Kill another 10 people.


    I'm slightly for Death-sentence. Or at least something that puts this horrible person away from doing any further harm.

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    19,159 Posts
    If we tend to have option,we always will choose easier one.From this point,euthanasia.We shouldn't give an option to the criminal.He's not human anymore.And you think those who sit for their rest of their lives in jails are normal people?They're basically like pets.
    If you de-humanize someone, you're no better than him. To the killer, human life is useless to him - if you can seriously say he's no longer human, and that he's totally worthless - how are you any better than he is to his victims?

  13. Post #53
    Kill 10 people
    Prison, rehabilitated failed. Person sets free.
    Kill another 10 people.
    Norway system:
    Kill 77 people.
    Prison, rehabilitation failed. Sentence repeated.
    Rehabilitation failed. Sentence repeated.
    E.t.c.

    Of course it's not possible to 100% accurately judge this. They use psychiatrists and such. But it works damn well better then sending murderers into the streets because the jury don't want to prosecute someone if they risk the death sentence, if it means getting blood on their hands.

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    GoDong-DK's Avatar
    November 2009
    14,886 Posts
    How do you define "at least make sure"?

    Every nation tries to make sure completely, that the accused is guilty of his/her crimes when employing the death penalty.

    No matter how "sure" they are, there are always cases of people being acquitted from their crimes, posthumously.
    I think this is somewhat gullible, just see the film "In the name of the father" (or go read about the actual story), it doesn't include death penalty, of course, but it goes to show that there of course is the "only human" factor in every court.

  15. Post #55
    If you de-humanize someone, you're no better than him. To the killer, human life is useless to him - if you can seriously say he's no longer human, and that he's totally worthless - how are you any better than he is to his victims?
    Not i will kill him,the poison will.
    If we are back to the subject,he is not equal individual to all of us.
    But,mhm,you made me think.

  16. Post #56
    Ohoho, here's an opinion that's split on Facepunch.

    Here's my opinion;
    Death penalty is the most middle-aged backwards thing that exists in Western countries today. The concept of taking a life in so called "justice" is the most ironic and blatantly irrational nonsense I have ever heard.
    Here's why;

    1) You are lowering yourself to the murderers level. You are taking a sacred human life. Something with a heart, a brain and conscious thought. You are effectively becoming what you despise, and if you don't realize that then you might as well be as cold as the murderer himself.

    2) Revenge in itself is a backwards thing in my opinion. You have to take the emotional aspect out of a sentence if you are to achieve true, proper safety and justice. A murderer, thief, rapist or any other person should be kept away from society to keep society safe, until he/she is no threat to society. What happens to him in prison should be of no relevance to any victims. The crime committing person is still a person, and should god damn well be treated like one.

    3) "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi said that, possibly one of the worlds wisest men. And trust me, this is true. To move a tad away from death sentences, American prisons are in general horrid. Personally, I think the perfect prisons in the world is the one in Scandinavia. Nice apartment for the convicts, maximum 21 year sentence and a good dose of rehabilitation. Not only are we teaching them to be better humans, it also works.
    In the US around 60% of criminals re-commit after being released from prison, in Norway that number is one of the lowest in the world - 20% - Future murders, rape e.t.c. prevented.
    Now, I know this isn't about the death penalty, but it goes under the same category - if anything the death penalty doesn't make criminals too afraid to commit a crime. Instead it teaches them to hate their government.

    4) Some times innocent people are convicted with the death penalty, and only later it is found out that they are innocent. There are always variables. Lying witnesses, falsified evidence or pure chance guarantees that there is no way of being sure that the person in question is guilty. And even if he is, he does NOT deserve it.

    5) Surprisingly (according to what I've read) it is much cheaper to incarcerate for a lifetime then it is to execute. It is two to five times more expensive to execute then to keep someone in prison for 80 years in fact. Because of the appeals, attorneys, lawyers, required procedures e.t.c.

    6) It wastes tons upon tons of resources. Takes up days in courts, making the entire justice system slow down.

    7) It sends the wrong message to the country. Why kill people to show that killing is wrong?

    8) Members of the jury may plead innocent as to protect people from the death penalty, hence sending murderers onto the streets.

    9) Can you imagine the effects this will have on the convicts family and friends?

    10) I fail to see how killing someone actually helps anyone.

    11) Mentally ill people who need treatment may be killed instead.

    There are 11 reasons for why the death penalty needs to be abolished from the world as we know it. There is no logic in the death penalty, only emotion. And emotion should not rule a people.


    ...and there's my opinion. You go.
    5) That doesn't matter. If you jail them up, they can still be innocent. If you assume revenge is justice (as the opposing party assumes) then you're stopping the justice of the vast majority for the injustice of the few.

    11) Same as 5

    I agree with the point, not those argument for it.

  17. Post #57
    Gold Member
    Ond kaja's Avatar
    December 2009
    2,957 Posts
    Kill 10 people
    Prison, rehabilitated failed. Person sets free.
    Kill another 10 people.
    Well, this example is exceptionally rare. Recidivism rates on murder is lower than other crimes, simply because the murderers regret having done their crime once the rehabilitation is completed. Nevertheless, I think rehabilitation that isn't successful should be extended. Releasing an unsuccessfully rehabilitated criminal is an obvious short-coming of any judicial system.

  18. Post #58
    Gold Member
    Eltro102's Avatar
    February 2008
    11,182 Posts
    I've never heard the euthanasia option put forward before. What's the rationale behind it?

    Edited:



    Woah woah woah woah woah

    What are you on about?
    Living in a jail (maybe with small chance of parole) or removing yourself from society and so not posing a danger to others

  19. Post #59
    Gold Member

    October 2009
    4,925 Posts
    "An eye for an eye makes the world blind."

  20. Post #60
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    19,159 Posts
    Not i will kill him,the poison will.
    If we are back to the subject,he is not equal individual to all of us.
    But,mhm,you made me think.
    You're still injecting the poison into him. He would still be alive if you hadn't - so the blame falls squarely on you.

    Exactly, he is not an equal - but he is still human, so he shall be treated as one and given a choice, as is in any human being's rights.

  21. Post #61
    You're still injecting the poison into him. He would still be alive if you hadn't - so the blame falls squarely on you.

    Exactly, he is not an equal - but he is still human, so he shall be treated as one and given a choice, as is in any human being's rights.
    That's not mine fault,if the judge told me to do so.
    Also,if he isn't equal to us,why he should have the liberties that we have?Having options is also liberty.

  22. Post #62
    Gold Member
    Hellduck's Avatar
    March 2007
    5,739 Posts
    Not i will kill him,the poison will.
    "What? Certainly not, officer, I didn't kill him! This gun I was firing did!"

    Edited:

    Also,if he isn't equal to us,why he should have the liberties that we have?
    Why shouldn't he?

  23. Post #63
    Gold Member
    Eltro102's Avatar
    February 2008
    11,182 Posts
    "An eye for an eye makes the world blind."
    Surely it makes the world blind apart from 1 one-eyed person.
    Or the two people taking each others eyes out blind

    Also, for many people rotting away in prison is much worse than exectuion

  24. Post #64
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    19,159 Posts
    That's not mine fault,if the judge told me to do so.
    Also,if he isn't equal to us,why he should have the liberties that we have?Having options is also liberty.
    Then if you can accept that the judge is at fault for sentencing the killer to death, why are you still in favor of it?

    He isn't equal, no. But, for reasons already stated, we musn't de-humanize him, or else we are no better than him. Instead, he is still human - and shall be treated as such. Not as an animal, but as an unequal sentient being.

  25. Post #65
    Panz3rfaust!'s Avatar
    September 2011
    61 Posts
    Can anyone actually prove that execution is more expensive than, like, 20 year prison sentence?

    You know, I'd rather be aware that my tax money gets paid to an old man as pension, rather than to upkeep a child rapists cell lifelong just because some people think he deserves care.

    Prove me that execution is more expensive, and I'd probably change my opinion.

  26. Post #66
    Gold Member
    Kayl's Avatar
    February 2005
    207 Posts
    In terms of logistics, the Death Penalty costs much more than a life-in-prison term (Varies, around 25 years.)

    The appeals process and the controversy over it has put up costs to the extreme.

    The death penalty should be reserved for violent offenders who show no remorse for their actions, and if there is reasonable belief that they would repeat the crime in the future. The goal shouldn't be to rehabilitate these specific individuals, but to remove a danger from the community. They should probably be shot. A bullet is much cheaper than the drugs used to stop the heart, and the appeals process ramps up costs.

    Serial murders are always good candidates for the death penalty. However, one time murderers should still go to prison instead of being killed.

    With the current appeal process and extreme costs, I am against the death penalty. If it were reasonably reformed, I might change my stance.

  27. Post #67
    We're made of star-stuff
    LarparNar's Avatar
    February 2009
    10,261 Posts
    5) That doesn't matter. If you jail them up, they can still be innocent.
    True, but if they're jailed up and not killed you can let them out again.

  28. Post #68
    Gold Member
    Beezleboss's Avatar
    May 2011
    5,628 Posts
    The death sentence is a medieval form of punishment, it's 2011, we don't need to murder people for murdering others, it's rather hypocritical in the first place.

    It doesn't work as a deterrent either, those that are going to commit crimes are in positions where they either can't think about it (passion) or they're already aware of the consequences(profit/premeditated). I'm sure there are others but these are the only 2 I could think of off the top of my head.

  29. Post #69
    Then if you can accept that the judge is at fault for sentencing the killer to death, why are you still in favor of it?

    He isn't equal, no. But, for reasons already stated, we musn't de-humanize him, or else we are no better than him. Instead, he is still human - and shall be treated as such. Not as an animal, but as an unequal sentient being.
    Yes,he is like you say
    unequal sentient being.
    ,and if he's sentient,but unequal sentient being,he's not a human.

  30. Post #70
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    19,159 Posts
    Yes,he is like you say ,and if he's sentient,but unequal sentient being,he's not a human.
    Just because he isn't the same as a normal person doesn't mean he isn't a person. He is different, yes, but he's a different person. Thus, he deserves to be treated as such.

  31. Post #71
    Gold Member
    Hellduck's Avatar
    March 2007
    5,739 Posts
    Yes,he is like you say ,and if he's sentient,but unequal sentient being,he's not a human.
    I fail to see the logic behind that statement.

  32. Post #72
    Just because he isn't the same as a normal person doesn't mean he isn't a person. He is different, yes, but he's a different person. Thus, he deserves to be treated as such.
    For example,dog for me is also person.

  33. Post #73
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    19,159 Posts
    For example,dog for me is also person.
    I think you misunderstand my usage of the term person. I intend to use it to say that this person is a human being.

    Besides, you would just kill your dog, would you?

  34. Post #74
    Gold Member
    Hellduck's Avatar
    March 2007
    5,739 Posts
    For example,dog for me is also person.
    Sorry, can you rephrase that, I must be misinterpreting you.

  35. Post #75
    I think you misunderstand my usage of the term person. I intend to use it to say that this person is a human being.

    Besides, you would just kill your dog, would you?
    No, i wouldn't,dog is better person for me than a killer.

  36. Post #76
    Gold Member
    Hellduck's Avatar
    March 2007
    5,739 Posts
    No, i wouldn't,dog is better person for me than a killer.
    Oh, I wasn't misinterpreting you. So you think a dog should have more rights than a person?

  37. Post #77
    Wux
    Wux's Avatar
    January 2011
    1,605 Posts
    Capital punishment should be banned, people are sent to prison to be rehabilitated, not to be punished.
    rehabilitated with bad conditions and suffer, not to live like a king in the prison, than I agree with u

  38. Post #78
    Gold Member
    Eltro102's Avatar
    February 2008
    11,182 Posts
    If he/she goes to prison forever (ie no parole chance) is it not almost the same or even worse as executing him?

  39. Post #79
    Gold Member
    Hellduck's Avatar
    March 2007
    5,739 Posts
    rehabilitated with bad conditions and suffer, not to live like a king in the prison, than I agree with u
    Many (and by many I mean me) would argue that bad conditions and suffering are detrimental to rehabilitation. (See above statistics on Norwegian prisons.)

  40. Post #80
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    19,159 Posts
    No, i wouldn't,dog is better person for me than a killer.
    Yes, but the killer is a human being. He deserves a choice because he has the mental capacity to make one. He is undeniably a human being, particularly from a phsyiological standpoint - so why should we not give him the choice he is allowed to make as a one? I am sure your dog would be given a choice if he knew any human languages, would he not?