Are you for or against the death sentence?

I get torn, on one hand I do feel for the victims when it happens. On the other I know there's a lot of wrongful deaths and also that death penalties don't do anything to lessen crime so I'd have to say against.

I'm for lessening crime and stopping the cause of it, not furthering it. For instance there's this controversial prison in another country (I forgot which one) but they believe in rehabilitation and have some controversial practices regarding that. They been under scrutiny because the general public seems to believe that the more harsh you treat prisoners, the more it will stop crime.

Needless to say, that simply isn't true and the prison has one one of the lowest re-offender cases in all of Europe. In fact prisons ever rarely stop crime and can in some cases make people worse seeing as how mentally ill people are sent there as well, treated as prisoners and not treated like they are mentally ill in need of help.

I have a weird moral compass.

I have a theory on why the prison is so successful and it's not all that surprising if you think about it. From what I know, the line between victim and oppressor is a thin one, often times a person can be both or was at one point in time. Those types of people are the types that from when they are born, they are conditioned to be violent through outside influences much larger than themselves.

People learn based on their experiences.

I'm not saying that they don't know what they do but I am saying that ignorance is the root of all evil here and there's some things to consider when the death penalty seems to further a cycle of violence rather than stop it.

[quote]we can never be confident enough in guilt[/quote]

So, in other words, you'd have voted [b]against[/b] the death sentences for the war criminals hung at Nuremberg.

🤔

Against.

It's expensive and inefficient. It cannot account for false convictions. It is not a deterrent. And importantly, I don't think the state should have the right to kill its own citizens.

Against. Society shouldn't decide who lives or dies and it's best to save 1 innocent out of 10 than kill one.

I'll say against, but will also say that you cant hold up "What about Nazi's?" As an argument because that's such a stellar example of evil that hasn't been seen since.

I'd rather they take their chances in the general population. I hear the life expectancy is shorter.

I am for the death penalty for the more heinous crimes against others, but that it should only be used against those where there is zero doubt and the offender is quite unrepentant.

In concept, I'm... well, I don't want to say 'for it' because, well... ew. In concept, I'm not opposed to it.

In practice, however, I think we need to abolish it. There are way too many cases that get overturned. If we're going to have state-sanctioned end-of-life, we need to be damn sure. And right now, we can't be.

Against. For one, there's been plenty of cases where people are put on death row for a crime they didn't commit. And second, it's hypocritical. Killing people who murder to show that murder is wrong is like shitting on your dog's bed because he shat on the floor.

Completely agree

Against. Not only because of reasonable doubt, but I think it better that the person lives to face the horror of their crimes.

Death for irrefutable factual evident cases... Then again... Like you said in other comments... There will always be mistakes... WHATEVER!! Just labour plz.. ┬┴┬┴┤•ᴥ•ʔ/

I can go either way. However if we are going to have it, then I think the victim or the close relatives of said victim should be the one's to pull the trigger.