The death penalty should be mandatory for proven murderers nationwide

I never understood how you could say a person deserves to die, no matter what they have done.Yea, many of us are victims of ugly crimes. But it seems like, given the opportunity (per death penalty), you would kill them. What makes you any better if you're a murderer, too?
 
I would rather have 1000 guilty men go free than to have 1 innocent man die. Not very utilitarian but it is the right way.
 
FuriousStylez23 said:
An eye for an eye.

You kill somebody... We Catch you... We kill you...

There NO damn reason for a senseless murder. You only get 1 life to live and for someone to take that life from you, they deserve their living privileges to be revoked as well.
Click to expand...
 
AntonLaVey said:
Hell no, until our legal system is able to have a 100 accuracy on convictions I cannot support the death penalty. Do I believe certain people deserve death? Absolutely. But the possibility of innocent people getting put to death is too much of a possibility for me to cosign this.
Click to expand...
Yep.  

All it takes is a Google search for "Innocence Project" to see that our legal system is still failing to prosecute the right person 100% of the time.  DNA testing has helped out a lot, but there are still cases that slip through the cracks for various reasons.  
 
I may be mistaken, but I read somewhere saying it cost more to kill the guy. Trials and all that crap.

I do think that if there's evidence that proves the murderer is guilty, they should not live.
 
Criminal Justice system is too flawed. Look at the case of the West Memphis 3. Damien Echols was 1 of the 3 teens convicted of 1st degree murder in the deaths of three 3rd graders. He was on death row for 18 years. Then the Arkansas Supreme a Court allowed all three men to make "Alford Pleas," which are essentially "I'm guilty but I didn't do it" pleas and released them with time served, because they knew they F'd up and wrongfully accused them based on false testimony. If the West Memphis 3 hadn't gone through all the appeals and stalled the execution of Damien Echols, he'd be an innocent man successfully put to death. This is not rare either. Courts ALWAYS wrongfully accuse and convict individuals for murder. It's too risky to put innocent men to death.

If someone CONFESSES to the crimes, that's a different story (Jefferey Dahmer).
 
If the death penalty should be ruled out, who should be responsible/accountable for funding a prisoner's stay?

I don't understand why law-abiding citizens are financially responsible for the wrong actions of others.

I think there should be a system in which prisoners should be accountable for paying for their admission and stay in a penitentiary. Their income can be based off of a variety of solutions from labor to teaching specific educational subjects. If they don't work, they don't eat. They are responsible for their well-being.

Our current prison system doesn't make sense to me. We isolate prisoners from society for X amount of time for Y crime. I don't believe that solves the issue at all. The proposed solution is putting grown men in time out. Does time out really solve the root issue?

I think the prison system is a half-assed solution that doesn't solve the root issue, and it holds law-abiding citizens accountable for the consequences of individuals they don't even know.
 
Start waterboarding prisoners. Once a week for the length of their sentence. People will shape up right quick.
 
i bet the appeals process is much more expensive and time consuming than just housing these criminals in jail?
 
CelticsFan9783 said:
Criminal Justice system is too flawed. Look at the case of the West Memphis 3. Damien Echols was 1 of the 3 teens convicted of 1st degree murder in the deaths of three 3rd graders. He was on death row for 18 years. Then the Arkansas Supreme a Court allowed all three men to make "Alford Pleas," which are essentially "I'm guilty but I didn't do it" pleas and released them with time served, because they knew they F'd up and wrongfully accused them based on false testimony. If the West Memphis 3 hadn't gone through all the appeals and stalled the execution of Damien Echols, he'd be an innocent man successfully put to death. This is not rare either. Courts ALWAYS wrongfully accuse and convict individuals for murder. It's too risky to put innocent men to death.

If someone CONFESSES to the crimes, that's a different story (Jefferey Dahmer).
Click to expand...



Believe those documentaries if you want. I think the West Memphis 3 were guilty.
 
I agree with the death penalty for people who commit murder but look at how many people have been convicted of murder that have had their charge over turned from the court system messing up or holding out evidence that would of showed they were innocent.  I think murder 1 or capital murder should be automatic death penalty but murders of passion shouldn't be.   Here is an example of a murder by passion.  A guy comes home from work early and hears his wife of 10 years, who he has a 3 kids with moaning from getting f**ked by some random guy. The husband walks in on them and he loses it and hits both of them with a lamp which kills one of them.   That doesn't deserve the death penalty but maybe 15 to 20 years in prison.
 
I don't agree the court system is far too flawed and unreliable to trust even hlaf the time and if ONE innocent person is wrongfully killed then the entire thing is not worth it.
 
ninjahood said:
word to people being exonerated years later due to DNA evidence.
Click to expand...
QFT recently there were 3 people who were released after spending 11+years in prison for a murder they did not commit. Now imagine if they were to take OP's extremist views into consideration, you know how many innocent people would be killed ?:smh:
 
Last edited:
TomDiginson said:
ninjahood said:
word to people being exonerated years later due to DNA evidence.
Click to expand...
QFT recently there were 3 people who were released after spending 11+years in prison for a murder they did not commit. Now imagine if they were to take OP's extremist views into consideration, you know how many innocent people would be killed ?:smh:
Click to expand...

Not to mention, the dude that just got executed last year after his last stay of execution was denied when he was convicted of murdering somebody with little to no hard evidence against him
 
JChambers said:
Believe those documentaries if you want. I think the West Memphis 3 were guilty.
Click to expand...

Have you seen West of Memphis yet? Highly recommended. Peter Jackson helped produce it.

Anyway, if the prosecutors believed that these three dudes were guilty, there's NO way they would have allowed them to enter Alford pleas and let them walk. By doing so, the justice system admitted they F'd up. They didn't want the new evidence to be admitted because they didn't want the innocence of the West Memphis 3 to be PROVEN in court. They'd prefer to allow their freedom in exchange for a "I'm guilty but I'm not guilty plea."

What exactly makes you think they are guilty? Just out of curiosity.
 
CelticsFan9783 said:
JChambers said:
Believe those documentaries if you want. I think the West Memphis 3 were guilty.
Click to expand...

Have you seen West of Memphis yet? Highly recommended. Peter Jackson helped produce it.

Anyway, if the prosecutors believed that these three dudes were guilty, there's NO way they would have allowed them to enter Alford pleas and let them walk. By doing so, the justice system admitted they F'd up. They didn't want the new evidence to be admitted because they didn't want the innocence of the West Memphis 3 to be PROVEN in court. They'd prefer to allow their freedom in exchange for a "I'm guilty but I'm not guilty plea."

What exactly makes you think they are guilty? Just out of curiosity.
Click to expand...


I don't want to get into a big debate over it, I don't care about those hyped up documentaries either. I am not stating it as fact, just my opinion after looking at the facts.


http://wm3truth.com/
 
I think most criminologists agree that the death penalty doesn't act as a better deterrent than life in prison. 

So then what purpose does mandatory death penalty serve? Is it about bettering society by using the death penalty as a deterrent, or is just purely a punishment?

Killing someone to punish them? They don't learn anything, and criminologists say it's not a better deterrent than a life sentence, so then who & how would it be helping? Since it's not helping society or the murderer get better.

Is it just about giving people the satisfaction of knowing a murderer is dead, but what about the downsides to that like irreversibly making the mistake of killing an innocent man?
 
Last edited:
Master Zik said:
Sounds more like conditioning. Dudes with long sentences would get use to that or just give up and die.
Click to expand...

I don't think people "get used to" being waterboarded. I think waterboarding is a much better deterrent than lethal injection. Everyone wins. We're not killing anyone, and the victim's family is satisfied that the dude is getting waterboarded every week.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Black woman calls cops only to be killed by cops.
Replies
11
Views
2K
1995
1995

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom