Current Events > Biden Admin Asks to Reinstate Death Penalty Against Boston Bomber

(+) Yeah! (+)

People who inhumanely murder don't need a humane execution.

---

PoundGarden posted...

I'm not a prisoner nor have I, yknow, bombed innocent people at a sporting event. So your noodle armed attempt at a point is moot.

Seriously. Brobot. You are going to tear the shit out of something making these John Carter-esque leaps in logic.

Honk honk

What leap in logic? How do any prisoners positively impact society by sitting in cells for years?

And if we want to treat prisoners as less than human and not let them out, or pick and choose who the system applies too, then it would be much simpler to just execute anyone who commits an imprisonable offense

---

BilalPowell posted...

People who inhumanely murder don't need a humane execution.

The Constitution explicitly forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Yes, legally, they do.

---

BilalPowell posted...

People who inhumanely murder don't need a humane execution.

problem is not everyone on death row is guilty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

I wonder if death penalty supporters will acknowledge this case, in which an innocent man was coerced into a false confession and executed, enabling a serial killer to remain active and keep murdering women.

---

And on an earlier point of "just discipline those who wrongfully convict someone", what punishment would even be comparable besides killing them as well? How many people do we senselessly execute just to sometimes execute the really bad criminals?

---

NeonOctopus posted...

Personally I think if beyond a shadow of a doubt they're proven guilty in a court of law, they should be humanely executed. People who make want to use their life to destroy other lives don't deserve it.

"Deserve" does a lot of heavy lifting almost any time it's used. What someone "deserves" is never anything factual or scientific. It's entirely based on the observer's state of mind at the time. It's literally putting feelings before facts, which in this case, will kill someone. I don't abide by that.

BilalPowell posted...

People who inhumanely murder don't need a humane execution.

Take that, Constitution.

---

CyricZ posted...

Says who?

Who says otherwise?

like i'm struggling here

>The justice system is demonstrably imperfect and various miscarriages of justice have occurred, resulting in innocent people being executed.

>The system as it stands is more expensive if you put somebody on death row than not, meaning life in prison is the cheaper solution, and the above point demonstrates why we shouldn't speedily conduct executions.

>Studies show that the death penalty does not generally help a family's victims, and that mental health outcomes are worse in states with high usage of the death penalty.

What's the point? Why should we give the state or federal governments the ability to execute when the justice system is horrendously flawed as it stands? Why do it when it doesn't deter crime? Why do it when it doesn't help families on average? Why do it when it's too costly?

It seems like an entirely emotional stance to take.

---

CyricZ posted...

That we know of.

Do prisoners often post on GFAQs? Holy fuck dude, do you even think at all before excreting these terrible, terrible immediately destroyed non sequitur "arguments"? Like...wow. just wow.

CyricZ posted...

And I'm not letting you conveniently dodge justifying your question's validity.

I didn't dodge it. Sorry you don't have the ability to understand basic concepts.

CyricZ posted...

Why do you hang so heavily on "what use are they" as a justification for state-sponsored killing when there is no societal requirement for anyone to be useful?

Efficiency? Proper utilization of resources and space? You still have yet to present your justification and answer the fucking question: what point, beyond satisfying a sick desire to see someone tortured for decades, does keeping them comfortably alive for decades serve? Or is it so people like you can walk around with a smug sense of superiority because "harumph, at least i don't want people to be killed! I just want them tortured for decades."

Honk honk

---

Doesnt make sense to me that you're allowed to kill someone if they're trying to kill you, but if they kill you then run away and surrender to the police your family has to pay for them to get 30 years of free stuff before the death penalty is considered.

---

That's what surrender means.

---

I will never understand how people can scream about the incompetence of the government with mundane tasks, but have full faith in them as flawless arbiters of life and death.

---

BilalPowell posted...

Doesnt make sense to me that you're allowed to kill someone if they're trying to kill you, but if they kill you then run away and surrender to the police your family has to pay for them to get 30 years of free stuff before the death penalty is considered.

Shouldn't we kill all prisoners then? So no one's taxes accidentally fund a prison someone that harmed them is incarcerated in?

---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

like i'm struggling here

>The justice system is demonstrably imperfect and various miscarriages of justice have occurred, resulting in innocent people being executed.

>The system as it stands is more expensive if you put somebody on death row than not, meaning life in prison is the cheaper solution, and the above point demonstrates why we shouldn't speedily conduct executions.

>Studies show that the death penalty does not generally help a family's victims, and that mental health outcomes are worse in states with high usage of the death penalty.

What's the point? Why should we give the state or federal governments the ability to execute when the justice system is horrendously flawed as it stands? Why do it when it doesn't deter crime? Why do it when it doesn't help families on average? Why do it when it's too costly?

It seems like an entirely emotional stance to take.

Why give killers and rapists a "get out of life free" card? Normal people have to work and provide for themselves, so why do prisoners get to sit on their asses having everything handed to them? Doesn't seem fair, and I certainly don't see the point.

hockeybub89 posted...

What leap in logic? How do any prisoners positively impact society by sitting in cells for years?

And if we want to treat prisoners as less than human and not let them out, or pick and choose who the system applies too, then it would be much simpler to just execute anyone who commits an imprisonable offense

LMFAO, if you're just going to be ridiculous and obtuse, why even post? Just say "Honk honk" and leave a pie emoji

---

He deserves the death penalty but we still shouldn't go for it. It does not improve society. It's more expensive, it creates a needless risk of innocent deaths, and it shifts the view away from reform.

FortuneCookie posted...

Who says otherwise?

That's... not how this works. You can't "no u" a "what right do you or anyone else have to judge someone worthy of death". That's basically asking "what right do they have to life?"

To which the answer would be "we gave them that right", we being society. It's part of our long-running social contract with each other and a result of our aversion to murdering our fellow human.

BilalPowell posted...

Doesnt make sense to me that you're allowed to kill someone if they're trying to kill you, but if they kill you then run away and surrender to the police your family has to pay for them to get 30 years of free stuff before the death penalty is considered.

Oh would you prefer that your family be allowed to kill them for killing you?

Would you take the same opportunity if one of your family were killed?

---

PoundGarden posted...

Why give killers and rapists a "get out of life free" card? Normal people have to work and provide for themselves, so why do prisoners get to sit on their asses having everything handed to them? Doesn't seem fair, and I certainly don't see the point.

Probably because a lot of alleged "rapists and killers" aren't actually rapists or killers, and were wrongly convicted. Why should the state be able to execute innocent people?

---

RadiantJoyrock posted...

He deserves the death penalty but we still shouldn't go for it. It does not improve society. It's more expensive, it creates a needless risk of innocent deaths, and it shifts the view away from reform.

There's no point in reform if they're just gonna sit in a cell for the rest of their life with no parole >_>

---

Maybe we should not torture prisoners and not imprison millions of people for minor drug offenses if we really want to save time, money, and space. Then we'll have plenty of room to keep the bad people away from the good people.

---

PoundGarden posted...

Normal people have to work and provide for themselves

Not necessarily and this goes back to you repeatedly dodging my question, which is to justify your own question.

Who are you to say that everyone must serve a purpose or use?

---

NeonOctopus posted...

There's no point in reform if they're just gonna sit in a cell for the rest of their life with no parole >_>

While true, working on reform means we can reduce recidivism, and we can work on dealing with excessive sentences, while still keeping those behind bars that need it.

NeonOctopus posted...

There's no point in reform if they're just gonna sit in a cell for the rest of their life with no parole >_>

If only God existed, maybe there would be some being with the ability to sentence people to death. Flawed, stupid human beings are too incompetent to not fuck up the ultimate power.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Flawed, stupid human beings are too incompetent to not fuck up the ultimate power.

And fuck it up we have. On far too many occasions.

---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Probably because a lot of alleged "rapists and killers" aren't actually rapists or killers, and were wrongly convicted. Why should the state be able to execute innocent people?

You and your selective reading LMAO. May want to look into that sport, because if it's not on purpose, thats a cause for concern. That "point" has already been addressed and destroyed by a few people. Keep up.

NeonOctopus posted...

There's no point in reform if they're just gonna sit in a cell for the rest of their life with no parole >_>

Nah man, the point is to make people like Zero and hockey feel morally superior and better about themselves. Its bizzare and ill never understand it, probably a weird way to atone or compensate for horrible things they've done.

CyricZ posted...

Not necessarily and this goes back to you repeatedly dodging my question, which is to justify your own question.

Who are you to say that everyone must serve a purpose or use?

Which I've done a few times. Not my problem you can't fucking read. Probably want to look into that.

---

Its hypocritical in a nation that swears under a Christian God there exists a death penalty when life in prison is the proper punishment.

---

--Zero- posted...

Its hypocritical in a nation that swears under a Christian God there exists a death penalty when life in prison is the proper punishment.

yep

"though shalt not kill"

any nation that claims to be "under god" is a hypocrite if they have the death penalty

"Actually I have the moral superiority because I want to execute people quickly because it serves the greater good" is a weird take while accusing someone of acting morally superior while having dark secrets.

---

Zikten posted...

yep

"though shalt not kill"

any nation that claims to be "under god" is a hypocrite if they have the death penalty

Yeah. Last I checked, Hammurabi's code was not in the Bible.

---

PoundGarden posted...

You and your selective reading LMAO. May want to look into that sport, because if it's not on purpose, thats a cause for concern. That "point" has already been addressed and destroyed by a few people. Keep up.

What point are you talking about? At what point in this thread have you ever addressed this? Link the post otherwise you're just making things up at this point

---

--Zero- posted...

Its hypocritical in a nation that swears under a Christian God there exists a death penalty when life in prison is the proper punishment.

Its hypocritical that a nation based on the concept of freedom of religion basically forces Christian beliefs, values, and rituals on everyone who enters the justice system.

And if you wanna play the Christ card....didn't someone he knew say something to the effect of "an eye for an eye"? Seems to me if we want to run things based on a book, we should run it based on that book and not pick and choose the parts we find distasteful. Kinda chickenshit mentality tbh

---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

What point are you talking about? At what point in this thread have you ever addressed this? Link the post otherwise you're just making things up at this point

"Honk honk"

Read better. I'm not going to hold your sticky little hand and lead you to it. You're a big boy or girl, you can do this.

---

PoundGarden posted...

"Honk honk"

Your meltdowns are really weird, I guess you're not gambling on your account lasting very long.

---

By keeping murderers alive you give them a chance to kill again, including falsely accused murderers they hang out with in prison. By not supporting the death penalty for murderers you're supporting an inhumane death to non-murderers.

---

PoundGarden posted...

Nah man, the point is to make people like Zero and hockey feel morally superior and better about themselves.

Not everyone does things just for themselves.

Perhaps someone like you doesn't understand this.

---

Also I'm definitely not trying to feel "morally superior", I'm presenting a logic tree where I explain why I think the death penalty is stupid and how it produces worse outcomes for the general public. If you can't dispute that and feel like I'm just trying to be "morally superior", that's your problem.

---

Zikten posted...

yep

"though shalt not kill"

any nation that claims to be "under god" is a hypocrite if they have the death penalty

Except that "kill" meant murder. "Slay" was the term used for justified killings. Cain killed Abel. David slew Goliath.

Today, the terms are more or less reversed. But that's the evolution of language for ya.

BilalPowell posted...

By keeping murderers alive you give them a chance to kill again, including falsely accused murderers they hang out with in prison. By not supporting the death penalty for murderers you're supporting an inhumane death to non-murderers.

Yeah, let's expand the death penalty to all murder convictions. Surely, the amount of wrongfully executed Americans won't increase alongside that.

---

BilalPowell posted...

By keeping murderers alive you give them a chance to kill again, including falsely accused murderers they hang out with in prison. By not supporting the death penalty for murderers you're supporting an inhumane death to non-murderers.

While the risk to falsely accused is a fair point, its an incredibly tiny risk compared to the downsides of the death penalty because of how relatively few are sent to prison falsely for murder charges.

metallica846 posted...

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Honk honk.

https://www.myenglishpages.com/english/random-idiom.php?c=859

Some reading for you. Good luck.

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Your meltdowns are really weird, I guess you're not gambling on your account lasting very long.

Two words is a meltdown in your book? Are you really that delicate? Wow.

CyricZ posted...

Not everyone does things just for themselves.

Perhaps someone like you doesn't understand this.

Nah, im pretty sure its exactly what I said.

---

BilalPowell posted...

By keeping murderers alive you give them a chance to kill again, including falsely accused murderers they hang out with in prison. By not supporting the death penalty for murderers you're supporting an inhumane death to non-murderers.

This is silly, though. The point is that without the death penalty, particularly a quickly applied one, an opportunity for exoneration exists. This has occurred many, many, many times. You're saying it'd be better for innocent people to be wrongfully executed than for them to serve 20-30 years and ultimately be exonerated if they were wrongly convicted? Can you explain that?

---

If you lived here and were around there at that time youd probably want the guy dead too

that being said Im just glad Im not the one making those decisions lol

---

I can't believe I gave Pound the benefit of the doubt and went back sixty posts to find where he addressed why people should be "of use".

Of course he didn't answer the question.

Honk honk.

---

RedJackson posted...

If you lived here and were around there at that time youd probably want the guy dead too

that being said Im just glad Im not the one making those decisions lol

I was attending school in Boston from 2011-14. I went to the Red Sox game that day.

---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

This is silly, though. The point is that without the death penalty, particularly a quickly applied one, an opportunity for exoneration exists. This has occurred many, many, many times. You're saying it'd be better for innocent people to be wrongfully executed than for them to serve 20-30 years and ultimately be exonerated if they were wrongly convicted? Can you explain that?

He'll just argue that it's better to be wrongfully killed than waste half your life wrongfully imprisoned.

---

Put this animal in the chair and don't wet the sponge. They made the mistake with taking this guy in alive.

---

PoundGarden posted...

"Honk honk"

Read better. I'm not going to hold your sticky little hand and lead you to it. You're a big boy or girl, you can do this.

I've read every post itt, and he's right. You either haven't addressed the issue of wrongful convictions or if you did the post was moderated.