Board 8 > Would you support the death penatly being legal in your area for particularly...

(+) Yeah! (+)

.....your locality for mostly heinous crimes?
---

Absolutely. By firing squad, too. It saves taxpayer money.
---

Nope.

Vlado posted...

Absolutely. By firing squad, too. It saves taxpayer money.

This would only save money on the actual means of killing, when IIRC the majority of taxpayer money is spent on the whole appeals process.
---

Nope. Cant justify the risk of executing an innocent person.
---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Nope. Cant justify the risk of executing an innocent person.

What if there was no reasonable doubt whatsoever that the person was guilty? Would you support it in that case?
---

SoiledSnake posted...

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Nope. Cant justify the risk of executing an innocent person.

What if there was no reasonable doubt whatsoever that the person was guilty? Would you support it in that case?

Well, the standard for a guilty verdict is already "beyond reasonable doubt", and we can see how well that works out...
---

I support it when the convicted criminal shows no willingness to reform.

Not as a deterrent, or for justice, just as a means to put down those that actually are irredeemably broken.
---

No. I think the death penalty does more harm than good.
---

I don't support government mandated revenge, even if there was a way to assure that only the guilty get the penalty.

Killing a killer doesn't bring the victims back. And it encourages the dehumanization of all criminals, not just murderers, which leads to human rights violations, which prevents rehabilitation, which encourages crime.
---

In theory? Absolutely.

In practice? It's completely unviable.
---

No, I don't support it, for several reasons, most of which have been covered.

1. Risk, however small, of executing an innocent person
2. Executing them doesn't bring back the dead or unrape a child.
3. Reformation is possible
4. Even if the judge, jury, and executioner all witnessed this person behead someone with their own eyes, what right do they have to decide who lives and dies?
---

i fully support the idea of the death penalty but the costs in its implementation are just too much over here. it would also have to become a true rarity, only used in cases where it's explicitly open shut.

Kenri posted...

This would only save money on the actual means of killing, when IIRC the majority of taxpayer money is spent on the whole appeals process.

it would also save a lot of money from having the prisoner sit on death row for 10+ years.
but yes, a death penalty trial is expensive. i imagine if we reduce things down to "just shoot the bastard," we'd be able to minimize the additional trial situation too.
---

I showered this morning, but seeing Vlado say something I agree with makes me want to shower again.



Anyway yes, if there was absolutely zero chance the person was innocent, the person shows no remorse, and the crime was utterly unforgivable. It can be argued that we have no right to take someone's life, but certain people show a complete and utter lack of regard for life in general.

The lives of school shooters, for example, have no value whatsoever. I don't think it's a bad thing to execute those types of criminals.
---

C) Thunderdome.
---

Vlado posted...

Absolutely. By firing squad, too. It saves taxpayer money.

This is one of the most ignorant and f***ing idiotic things I've ever seen you post, and this is YOU I'm talking about.

People on the firing squad are on the clock. All of them. How many f***ing people are needed to shoot one person? And what about cleaning up afterward? That's a job in and of itself.

It only takes 1 bullet to kill someone potentially. Why waste the rest?

And BEFORE we even get to that question, why waste a bullet at all?

Just have someone break the condemned person's neck or choke them to death. THAT is the method that would REALLY save taxpayer money... and have it carried out right the f*** in court literally immediately after sentencing. Guilty. Death. Done. No blood to clean up. Move on to the next case. No money wasted in appeals or prison housing or any other bulls***.

Of course a filthy globalist like you would want "firing squad" lmao. You probably believe condemned inmates should get a decent last meal too.
---

Nah.

I don't have great reasons I guess, but it feels like as a culture/society we should hold life in some kind of higher regard.

I do kinda believe in euthanasia though.
---

I definitely would support it, but only in the instance of murder or serial rape when confirmed by DNA evidence. In other words, kill the worst of the worst if it's proven beyond any level of doubt, not just a "reasonable" doubt.

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

It only takes 1 bullet to kill someone potentially. Why waste the rest?

Firing squads actually were done for the conscientiousness of those firing. Six guys would fire upon the damned man, but only five of those guns would have bullets in them; the other would have a blank. This way, each of the shooters could feel that he was not the one who killed the convict.

That being said, it's still a pretty brutal method, which is why it fell out of favor. I do think the way to save taxpayer money would be, as you said, for the bailiff to take the convict into a back room and hang him immediately after the foreman or judge reads the sentence. Of course, as I said, this would only be allowed in the instance that DNA evidence confirmed the culprit's identity, and it was in fact a heinous crime such as first-degree murder. Or there are four rapes, all with the same DNA.
---

Sure the death penalty is expensive but if we sell tickets to the killings we could make a lot of money back
---

yeah i'd need to go beyond just one murder personally. that is technically still something you can rehabilitate, depending on the circumstances. gets trickier as it goes from murder mixed with torture/rape or you start mass killing children. at those points it's more an issue of "there is nothing we can, or want, to do for you."
---

BlueCrystalTear posted...

I definitely would support it, but only in the instance of murder or serial rape when confirmed by DNA evidence. In other words, kill the worst of the worst if it's proven beyond any level of doubt, not just a "reasonable" doubt.

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

It only takes 1 bullet to kill someone potentially. Why waste the rest?

Firing squads actually were done for the conscientiousness of those firing. Six guys would fire upon the damned man, but only five of those guns would have bullets in them; the other would have a blank. This way, each of the shooters could feel that he was not the one who killed the convict.

That being said, it's still a pretty brutal method, which is why it fell out of favor. I do think the way to save taxpayer money would be, as you said, for the bailiff to take the convict into a back room and hang him immediately after the foreman or judge reads the sentence. Of course, as I said, this would only be allowed in the instance that DNA evidence confirmed the culprit's identity, and it was in fact a heinous crime such as first-degree murder. Or there are four rapes, all with the same DNA.

Well I wasn't actually serious, as vlados will be vlados. I feel like I've heard that about firing squads before, now that you mention it.
---

I've been told that a shooter can tell if they've fired a blank or not. As a result, the person who fired the real bullet would know but no one else would.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Sure the death penalty is expensive but if we sell tickets to the killings we could make a lot of money back

I know you're joking, but oh my gods this could easily be abused. ESPECIALLY if we privatize the death penalty for whatever reason.

Guilty verdicts being sold to kill innocent people and make money off of their executions.

It'd be like living in a giant medieval village, only without the redeeming qualities.
---

trdl23 posted...

In theory? Absolutely.

In practice? It's completely unviable.

---

the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword.
---

Really every study shows it provides less value to the system than other punishments but im still for it because some people deserve to be put to death
---

BowserCuffs posted...

I know you're joking, but oh my gods this could easily be abused. ESPECIALLY if we privatize the death penalty for whatever reason.

Guilty verdicts being sold to kill innocent people and make money off of their executions.

It'd be like living in a giant medieval village, only without the redeeming qualities.

Except no one wants to see executions anymore, let alone pay for them
---