Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Its fair when it comes to murder/rape. Depending on the person, eg. guy who finds his wife in bed with another guy so shoots him, he shouldn't get the death penalty.
So crimes of passion should be considered.
If you continually cause pain to others then the world will rightly reject you.
So crimes of passion should be considered.
If you continually cause pain to others then the world will rightly reject you.
PlumBerries · 31-35, F
EnigmaticGeek · 61-69, M
In jurisdictions such as the US, where the government supposedly only has limited powers granted to it by its citizens, the death penalty can never be constitutional, for the simple reason that at the time of execution, the inmate poses no threat to anyone. Citizens do not have the right to kill anyone who is not posing an imminent threat to their body, life, and/or property, therefore, they could never have delegated that right to any government, either. Any government who executes anyone after the crime, is exercising a power never granted to it by those it governs, therefore, such a government is already out of the control of its citizens. This is why I oppose the death penalty. I fully support everyone's right to self-defense, however, including the right to use lethal force to defend against anyone presenting an imminent threat to body, life, and/or property.
firefall · 61-69, M
@EnigmaticGeek: While I'm glad you are against the death penalty, in terms of constitutional law and rights, y'all are batshit crazy.
[quote]. Citizens do not have the right to kill anyone who is not posing an imminent threat to their body, life, and/or property[/quote] This statement has no basis in law at all, in fact it directly contravenes the 10th Amendment. There is no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness in the US constitution.
[quote]. Citizens do not have the right to kill anyone who is not posing an imminent threat to their body, life, and/or property[/quote] This statement has no basis in law at all, in fact it directly contravenes the 10th Amendment. There is no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness in the US constitution.
MarineBob · 56-60, M
@firefall: I some what CONCUR let sll appeals run out after 5 years and fry them
EnigmaticGeek · 61-69, M
@firefall: There doesn't have to be a right explicitly stated in the constitution for citizens to have it. In fact, the 10th amendment explicitly states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Which means that unless a power is explicitly delegated to the Federal Government, or restricted from the States, that power belongs to the states or to the people.
My statement stated a right that citizens do not have, and thus could have never delegated to the Federal Government. Are you trying to argue that citizens do have the right to kill anyone not posing a threat, merely because that right isn't mentioned in the constitution?
I never said that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were mentioned in the constitution. They don't have to be, for them to exist. Since those rights weren't mentioned at all, they certainly weren't delegated to the Federal Government. They belong to the people and/or the states. Each state in fact establishes its own criteria for determining what actions qualify as self-defense and under what circumstances. And under all of the state laws I'm familiar with, killing anyone strapped to a table, chair, or post, or at the end of a rope, is not included in the list of legal self-defense actions.
My point is that in every jurisdiction, there is a very narrow list of actions which are permitted in the context of self-defense. Executions are not conducted in compliance with any of them. The laws that purport to give the states and federal government the power to execute inmates are granting to the government(s) a power out of thin air, and not one delegated by the people.
My statement stated a right that citizens do not have, and thus could have never delegated to the Federal Government. Are you trying to argue that citizens do have the right to kill anyone not posing a threat, merely because that right isn't mentioned in the constitution?
I never said that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were mentioned in the constitution. They don't have to be, for them to exist. Since those rights weren't mentioned at all, they certainly weren't delegated to the Federal Government. They belong to the people and/or the states. Each state in fact establishes its own criteria for determining what actions qualify as self-defense and under what circumstances. And under all of the state laws I'm familiar with, killing anyone strapped to a table, chair, or post, or at the end of a rope, is not included in the list of legal self-defense actions.
My point is that in every jurisdiction, there is a very narrow list of actions which are permitted in the context of self-defense. Executions are not conducted in compliance with any of them. The laws that purport to give the states and federal government the power to execute inmates are granting to the government(s) a power out of thin air, and not one delegated by the people.
firefall · 61-69, M
In theory, I'm not totally against it, there are (rare) circumstances where it would be appropriate.
In practice, it's applied so grotesquely unfairly and unjustly, and far too often by prosecutors wanting to look tough, that it's an utter barbarity. Given the ridiculous bias of it against the poor, black, indigent or mentally unstable, it's pretty much the textbook example of the 'cruel and unusual' punishment barred by the Constitution.
In practice, it's applied so grotesquely unfairly and unjustly, and far too often by prosecutors wanting to look tough, that it's an utter barbarity. Given the ridiculous bias of it against the poor, black, indigent or mentally unstable, it's pretty much the textbook example of the 'cruel and unusual' punishment barred by the Constitution.
Marceline · F
if you ever punish an innocent it would make all the judges, lawyers and lawgivers involved murderers too which then had to be killed...
if everyone is fine with that then ok...
but if you agree that there could be mistakes made you cannot possible think death penalty is a good thing. better to leave thousand murderers free then kill one innocent
if everyone is fine with that then ok...
but if you agree that there could be mistakes made you cannot possible think death penalty is a good thing. better to leave thousand murderers free then kill one innocent
View 1 more replies »
Marceline · F
@firefall: good point
Harmonium1923 · 51-55, M
MarineBob · 56-60, M
@Harmonium1923: would you still be opposed if it was your wife and kids that was murdered
@Harmonium1923: me too
Harmonium1923 · 51-55, M
@MarineBob: yes. Life in prison with no parole. The death penalty is about revenge, and I don't like that as a basis for "justice" in a civilized society.
hunkalove · 61-69, M
I'm against it. Murder is wrong, no matter who is doing it. But if it was up to me prison would not be the pleasant place that it is. No one would be watching TV or working out or boinking each other, they would be working about 14 hours a day to grow food and make their own clothes and eating a vegetarian diet.
AnukBinary · M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Vgore0304 · 26-30, F
I'm against it I believe you someone murders someone they should be alive to rot in prison
Mondayschild · F
Ive noticed a lot of actual executions lately - wonder why?
PaleandPolluted · 36-40, F
Mondayschild · F
@Paleandpolluted86: Yes I know that but I also have noticed a political connection.
UndeadPrivateer · 31-35, M
Turnabout is fair play. If only the state were better at not convicting innocent people.
dmc313 · 36-40, M
Damn. You just had to get all deep on us this morning, huh?
MarineBob · 56-60, M
Most of those against is also against traffic citations I bet.
SW-User
For violent sex offenders yes I am for it.
It's bad. All life is precious.
meemo70 · 51-55, M
I am ok with it.