The Death penalty.

In 2014 22 countries partook in the death penalty.

Afghanistan (6), Belarus (3+), China (+), Egypt (15+), Equatorial Guinea (9), Iran (289+), Iraq (61+),
Japan (3), Jordan (11), Malaysia (2+), North Korea (+), Pakistan (7), Palestine (State of) (2+, Hamas
authorities, Gaza), Saudi Arabia (90+), Singapore (2), Somalia (14+), Sudan (23+), Taiwan (5), UAE (1),
USA (35), Viet Nam (3+) and Yemen (22+

So Is it right? does someone have no hope? should a life taken mean a state taking a life?.
Must admit If it was someone close to me who was the victim I would probably choose death for them but justice is supposed to be blind and deep down I would want them to spend time with no freedom even If it meant life inside for them.
So yes or no?.

Oh some good facts here.

www.amnesty.org...

a reply to: boymonkey74

There are no circumstances under which I would support the purposeful killing of another person by the state.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I'll take the death penalty argument seriously when abortions are discussed also.

Until then?

Man look at all those "savage uncultured countries..."

No to Death Penalty.

No one should have the right to take a life. The punishment should be life long unpaid work which is something beneficial.

---removed to prevent Derail

I can sometimes get torn on this, I am generally against it but every once in a while comes a case so off the wall and disgusting that I find my self agreeing with it.

ETA:Just never mind that point, I guess reading is hard!

a reply to: boymonkey74

289 in Iran!.....in 12 months!.....wowzer!! ...they aren't far off one per day!

Whilst there are crimes for which I do support the death penalty, my problem is it's irreversible (obviously) and we have and do see people being convicted of heinous crimes only to be exonerated years later when fresh evidence etc. comes to light.

It's a tough call.

I'm against the death penalty. I believe no one should be sentenced to death unless there is 100% certainty of their guilt .


It takes a very high standard to reach 100% certainty and no court in the world is capable of that standard .

a reply to: Greathouse

Yeah I guess no system is 100% because of human nature to corrupt evidence and such.
I think maybe a guy who has taken a life and has been given life inside no parole can make his own choice and give them the option.
I bet a few would walk right into the suicide booth.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: boymonkey74

I'll take the death penalty argument seriously when abortions are discussed also.

Until then?

It's an inconvenient question of timing...

Republican's= Commit a crime we will kill you.

Democrat's= Perfer to do their killing in the womb.

There's not a nickels worth of difference in my book.

I both support it.

...and don't.

There are certain circumstances that warrant the use of it. ...and we can all come up with instances.

But the stated, by some, that it is some form of deterrent? No. It's nothing of the sort. It's a method of removing a danger to society, nothing more, nothing less. As such, it should only ever be used in the most heinous of crimes.

MHO, of course.

I dont believe in killing, but however i can justify a deathpenalty for some, the intent is not to discourage crime but to make sure that the person is never let out in society again. A life taken in a society is a life forfeited, however i do not understand the basics of no abortion and deathpenalty in some states. Same analogy

a reply to: boymonkey74

Personally I think life in prison would be worse than death also . But the problem with volunteering for death after sentencing . Would cause innocent man to take that option. Anyone convicted to life without parole should be given extra leeway to prove their innocence .

Which brings me to one of the most ridiculous stances of the judicial system......, postconviction testing .

The traditional appeals process is often insufficient for proving a wrongful conviction. It is not uncommon for an innocent person to exhaust all possible appeals without being allowed access to the DNA evidence in his case.

• Sometimes it comes to light that DNA evidence available at the time of the defendant’s trial was never tested.

• The only way a person can access the DNA evidence associated with his criminal case, absent a protracted legal battle, is through post-conviction DNA testing access statutes.

- See more at: www.innocenceproject.org...

a reply to: boymonkey74

Good News---

No form of punishment or correction will work.,,,,ever. You dont kill murderers like some self righteous would love to think. Murdering murderers will always = more murder. Dress the word up and play with it as long as you see fit in your tiny souls.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I think maybe a guy who has taken a life and has been given life inside no parole can make his own choice and give them the option.
I bet a few would walk right into the suicide booth.

Maybe not as many as you would think mate!

Loss of liberty for life is a monumental thing, but once you get your head round it I'd hazard a guess that most are happily resigned to their fate, I'm talking from a UK stand point here, but prison for our lifers isn't nearly as bad as it should be, 3 meals a day, TV, playstations etc.

a reply to: Argyll

Did they also win their voting rights back also?.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Surprisingly the pro death penalty members havent turned up yet with their , they wont do that again arguments .

I am for.

Here is why: There are certain people in the world who do such evil things that they should never, for the sake of those around them be allowed into the public ever again.

At this point there are two options; keep said person in jail for the remainder of their unproductive lives at great expense to the public, or humanely remove them from society the same way we do a sick dog.

Whilst outright murder is wrong, killing remains a separate act, and should always be considered an option for the worst criminals who have no hope of rehabilitation.

Child molesters, rapists, terrorists and murderers all deserve this fate, as they serve no purpose and cannot be rehabilitated.

Execution does not work as a deterrent, but I, yourself and the rest of society shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes even after they are locked away.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Did they also win their voting rights back also?.

Not sure mate....I know they were lobbying for it.....don't think they got it though.

Like Ian Huntley deserves a vote!.....crazy world!

a reply to: Argyll
I bet there would be some takers at a supermax where there is no interaction and 23hr a day lockup.
On the OP subject I say no..something not right about it, nevermind how many out there may be falsely convicted on bogus evidence. Not even 1 mistake in this regard is acceptable.