• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

This is why murderers, rapists and other violent criminals need to be dealt with in a permanent manner

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
156
247
255
Prisoners should be made to grow their own food and live without electricity. Minimum cost to taxpayer.
 

CausticVenom

Member
Apr 27, 2018
872
458
325
P-Personal p-point of p-privilege comrades, but...

I'm still not convinced that we need the death penalty, somebody tell me why we should give more power to the state when they'll suffer in prison.
 
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
P-Personal p-point of p-privilege comrades, but...

I'm still not convinced that we need the death penalty, somebody tell me why we should give more power to the state when they'll suffer in prison.
Waste of time and money. Always a chance they escape, or just get let out and commit more crimes.

Not worth the resources or risk.

Save those resources for good hearted people needing a break. Not for asshole crooks.
 

Dontero

Gold Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,724
1,574
565
When I said "permanent" I didn't necessarily mean execution, life in prison without the possibility of parole works too although it does cost taxpayer money that could be put to better use.
I don't see a reason why they should live if evidence is clear as day. Only waste of taxpayer money.
 

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
2,964
164
445
This question has been debated ad nauseam for hundreds of years. Spoiler alert: Blackstone won
Blackstone made his comments in the Eighteenth Century when the guilt of someone could not be proven in any meaningful way. He was perfectly correct then as many of the 10 'guilty' were innocent anyway.

Things have changed since then. Or should we use all legal principles from the 1760s today ?
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: matt404au

Ovek

Member
May 30, 2013
2,662
699
540
Of course it’s awful but the death of an innocent person is worse than any other thing.

What I’m saying is, because there is a probability of mistakenly killing an innocent person, it’s best not to practice the death penalty.
Implement the death penalty for people who have clear irrefutable evidence of guilt.... it’s not hard.
 

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,138
1,123
375
Implement the death penalty for people who have clear irrefutable evidence of guilt.... it’s not hard.
I’m no law expert and this is a genuine question.
Aren’t the people on death row there due to “irrefutable evidence”? if so how come there have been cases where after so many years the person was released due to new evidence.
 

womfalcs3

Member
May 11, 2007
5,400
508
1,250
I agree OP. Capital punishment isnt really a punishment, but a way for society to get rid of a cancer. When you get a cancerous growth, you have to kill it to survive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ornlu

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,388
1,340
if you are for capital punishment, they should put you in a lottery and force you to pull the trigger face to face
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,388
1,340
If you are against capital punishment, you should have paroled murderers stay in your house for a year.
i'm not against capital punishment, but i am against overbearing punitive justice in a reality without free will

re: your tit for tat, it's more like we should imprison them somewhere that isn't a hellhole and give them all the dignities we'd want for ourselves
 
Last edited:

Greedings

Member
May 23, 2016
1,720
1,125
440
I think the argument is pretty simple to be honest.

I'd rather let 1000 guilty men free, than kill a single innocent one.

I just can't understand how one could trust people, especially government appointed prosecutors and police, to have power over life and death. Even if you assume people are generally good (which is erroneous), people make mistakes ALL THE TIME.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
533
552
310
I think the argument is pretty simple to be honest.

I'd rather let 1000 guilty men free, than kill a single innocent one.

I just can't understand how one could trust people, especially government appointed prosecutors and police, to have power over life and death. Even if you assume people are generally good (which is erroneous), people make mistakes ALL THE TIME.
So it's better to lock them up & throw away the key forever, than to kill them? We're not talking about killing drunk drivers for "mistakes". We're talking about people who already are NEVER re-entering society, death penalty or not.
 

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
369
410
350
I'd rather let 1000 guilty men free, than kill a single innocent one.
This is because you don't understand managing risk or simply believe so strongly in principles that you aren't a very pragmatic or considerate person.
We're talking about murderers and psychopaths, if you released 1000 of them to save 1 guy wrongly convicted, you are probably condemning far more innocent people to die while giving the murderers another opportunity to pass on their genes.
"But at least our Governing Body is 'working' as intended according to my arbitrary principles and not killing any innocent people!"
*releases 1000 criminals
 

petran79

Member
Sep 17, 2012
9,494
1,036
750
I think the argument is pretty simple to be honest.

I'd rather let 1000 guilty men free, than kill a single innocent one.

I just can't understand how one could trust people, especially government appointed prosecutors and police, to have power over life and death. Even if you assume people are generally good (which is erroneous), people make mistakes ALL THE TIME.
Also the ones who have the best lawyers usually get lighter sentences. There are lawyers specialising in defending mobsters, drug lords, extortionists etc Not the kind of good lawyers you see defending human rights in the news.
It is like a prestige game to them
 

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
2,964
164
445
re: your tit for tat, it's more like we should imprison them somewhere that isn't a hellhole and give them all the dignities we'd want for ourselves
In theory life in prison is as effective as the death penalty but if the day comes the death penalty is fully abolished then the activists will start working to get life without parole abolished as well. It's already under pressure in Europe as being cruel and unusual punishment that a prisoner knows there is no way of ever being free again.

This is the kind of man the European Court of Human Rights thinks should be set free at some point:

Gary Vinter, from Middlesbrough, is currently serving a whole-life sentence - which means he will die behind bars.

The 47-year-old murdered his colleague Carl Edon, 22, and received a life sentence with a 10-year minimum term in 1996.

He was freed in 2005 but recalled to his life sentence for his part in a pub brawl in Eston on New Year’s Eve 2006.

But with favourable reports indicating he was a “model prisoner”, the Parole Board gave him back his liberty again in December 2007.

But just eight weeks later, at his mother’s Middlesbrough home, he stabbed his estranged wife, Anne White, to death.


In July 2011 he attacked Roy Whiting, the killer of schoolgirl Sarah Payne, at Wakefield Jail in West Yorkshire.

He tried to kill another lifer, Lee Newell, at HMP Woodhill in November 2014.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: Kamina

Kamina

Golden Boy
Jun 2, 2013
4,366
1,545
750
33
Austria
I’m no law expert and this is a genuine question.
Aren’t the people on death row there due to “irrefutable evidence”? if so how come there have been cases where after so many years the person was released due to new evidence.
Because it was never irrefutable sadly.
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
I’m no law expert and this is a genuine question.
Aren’t the people on death row there due to “irrefutable evidence”? if so how come there have been cases where after so many years the person was released due to new evidence.
No, not necessarily. If you get convicted of a homicide, a jury may recommend the death penalty and the judge usually decides the punishment. Now, if someone is convicted of a crime where the jury had to deliberate for a really long time, meaning that the defense did a really good job at making their case, they may not recommend the death penalty, and settle for life. And depending on the state, a judge may even opt for parole.

Death penalty is usually reserved for the heinousness of the crime, in conjunction with the evidence.

There are other factors too like age of the perpetrator, criminal history, etc. juries will be less likely to recommend death for a younger person unless the crime is really vicious.

As technology has gotten better, people aren’t as often convicted on eye witness accounts and testimony like they used to be back in the day, so you are not going to get the death penalty most of the time anyway unless someone is both convicted of a really brutal crime and they have DNA evidence and really strong evidence.

I think there are some people on this earth so sick and evil they just need to go. Beyond rehabilitation, beyond any type of remorse. Why waste a cell on them?
 
Last edited:

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,138
1,123
375
I think there are some people on this earth so sick and evil they just need to go. Beyond rehabilitation, beyond any type of remorse. Why waste a cell on them?
No arguments from me. I totally agree on this part.

My main concern was just that as long as there is a probability that someone might be innocent, death penalty should be avoided. But like you said, if there’s a hand-in-the-cookie jar evidence, together with modern tech and whatnot, then I agree with the death penalty. The evidence just has to be incontrovertible
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
No arguments from me. I totally agree on this part.

My main concern was just that as long as there is a probability that someone might be innocent, death penalty should be avoided. But like you said, if there’s a hand-in-the-cookie jar evidence, together with modern tech and whatnot, then I agree with the death penalty. The evidence just has to be incontrovertible
And you're on death row for a while, plenty of time for innocence projects and appeals. Many are on death row for decades. But I agree in cases where I'm not sure I wouldn't support the death penalty if there was uncertainty.