• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you think your state should have the death penalty?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ShawnD1 said:
It's a fact that people are wrongfully convicted. The question is what you want to do with these people. Do you want an innocent man to be executed or do you want an innocent man to be held in jail for 30 years where he will be repeatedly beaten and gang raped by other in mates?

I think death is more humane. When I see an injured animal on the side of the road, I bash its head with a pipe rather than try to rape it because killing it shows mercy.
Click to expand...

Any fool can see it makes a lot more sense to keep him in prison for 30 years so that if it's later found that he's innocent (which happens regularly) he can be released.

And if the person is guilty, prison is an actual punishment. Death is not. People commit suicide to escape suffering. The very idea of the death penalty being punishment seems to be based on the belief that the person's soul will go to hell for eternity....
 
RocksteadyDotNet said:
If you thing someone deserves to die for stealing a car then you're a nut. It's just a thing, it's replaceable.
Click to expand...
And humans are not? Maybe I'm wrong here but fresh humans are bred every day. If one proves to be defective, it can safely be eliminated and replaced by one that is not defective.
 
Why not? What could go wrong with a band named death penalty? Sounds like Norwegian death metal.

Good wholesome cookie monster stuff for the kids.
 
Yes, it does. Why waste taxpayers' money on the worst of the worst, who are beyond rehabilitation. Why should they get to live after they snuffed out someone elses life flame through murder or terror?
 
ShawnD1 said:
And humans are not? Maybe I'm wrong here but fresh humans are bred every day. If one proves to be defective, it can safely be eliminated and replaced by one that is not defective.
Click to expand...

It's like P&N has become the meeting place for sociopaths, I wonder how many in total there are?
Got to say it's interesting at least
 
ShawnD1 said:
And humans are not? Maybe I'm wrong here but fresh humans are bred every day. If one proves to be defective, it can safely be eliminated and replaced by one that is not defective.
Click to expand...

What makes these people defective? From what you are saying it sounds like everyone would be defective, you obviously are along with the rest of the people in the world.
 
When an idiot steals a car runs into other people, gets involved in a high speed chase, and then either crashes the car into a building or runs off the road and forces the cops to chase him, I think he should get shot in the back. Chasing him on foot is too nice for such an idiot. Why should the cops put their officers at risk for such scum?

Taking a gun to commit a crime should be considered attempted murder at least. If one round is fired it should be considered premeditated murder.
 
I believe there is a worst penalty than death, but I believe the death penalty should be redefined.

Once convicted with overwhelming evidance, and is sentanced to death, the following should take place:

1) Immediatley the convicted should be removed from society and placed in complete isolation. The only human contact should be with their lawyer until the appeals process is complete.

2) The appeals process starts on the following hour after conviction and continue for a maximum of 4 years.

3) Once the appeals process is complete, the convict would then be moved to a total isolation cell. No human contact, no internet access, no phone, no radio, no Television, etc., etc. Meals would be served through a special box which the convict can't even see a glimpse of another person. Change of clothing will also be handled through this special box.

4) No writing materials, drawing materials, books, or other means of entertainment. The convict is to be bored out of their skull.

5) All record of this convict's existance, except in court records, will be removed.

6) The cell would consist of a light that is inaccessible from the cell in the ceiling, a toilet, sink, mini-shower, and bed. This cell would be totally sound proof to where they can't hear convicts in other cells, or even the food cart being pushed down the prison hallway. Total darkeness for 12 hours, total light for the other 12.

7) Also, the cell will have a special button on the wall. This button will first dispense an anethesia gas which will make the convict sleep, followed by a gas which will kill the convict while sleeping. The convict will be instructed on what this button is for, and how to use this button should the convict decide he/she no longer wants to live in total isolation, but to not to push this button unless they are ready to die. Once this button is pushed, there is no changing of his/her mind. Their suicide will continue regardless of whether they change their mind or not (did you ever notice how people tend to push buttons they are told not to push?) I'm thinking this button should be a large red button, about 10 inches in diameter with the words in white letters that reads "Easy", with the Staple's voice that says "That was easy". A small camera to monitor the convict should the convict decide to take his/her life in some other means so that the corpse can be removed.

8) Should the convict's conviction be overturned by evidance at some later date, this person's records will be restored from the court documents, and the convict released. If this person took his/her life followed by the conviction being overturned, their records would be released.

9) No medical or dental care of any type will be performed on the convict. The convict would be allowed to die of natural causes. No help, treatment, or surgery of any kind to prolong the life of the convict would take place. If they have an incapacitating stroke for example, and can't even move to feed themselves, they will be allowed to die.

I'm sure I've missed a few items of detail, but you get the point. Everyone in society would know the concequences of this new death penalty, and be reinformed should they be put on trial in which the death penalty is being considered.

Now the questions to you are, would you accept this type of death penalty? Or would you rather keep the old death penalty?
 
Last edited:
No; there is simply too high a margin of error and the consequences for being wrong are horrendous. That doesn't mean, however, that my sensibilities don't argue in favor of it in some of the worst cases.
 
punjabiplaya said:
In Texas, the death penalty isn't a question, it's a sport.
Click to expand...

That's not really true.

There is one jurisdiction in the US that's the absolute champion when it comes to sending people to the death chamber, that's Harris County, Texas. They have far more executions than any other county in the country, yet last year they sent a total of two inmates to death row. This is for the entire city of Houston. Most murderers, even in the most death-happy part of Texas, do not face a realistic threat of execution.

As for the DP, I'm am absolutely in favor of it but our current system is F'd up beyond belief. We need to throw out all of our current DP statutes and start from scratch. Right now the DP is a lottery, with an unlucky few getting the needle. Our laws should be written so that fewer criminals are eligible for the DP, those who are eligible are the absolute worst of the worst, and those who're eligible for it actually face and receive the DP consistently. Unfortunately most pro-DP politicians are simply looking to gain votes rather than fix the system.
 
If intended as punishment, then yes I support the death penalty for the crimes for which it is presently a potential sentence.

If intended as a means to dissuade others from committing similar crimes, no. I do not at all find it to be effective in that regard. Think about it... the people who commit crimes like this are either insane or do not value their own life. In either case they have nothing (in their mind) to lose; and that's when people are the most dangerous and the least receptive to reason.
 
Anarchist420 said:
I don't; it's too damn expensive, you can kill the wrong person, and it's race/class biased. It's also taking the role of a higher power.

I think some people deserve(d) the ultimate punishment (at least an absolute majority of people who have been Heads of State, for sure), but it should still be abolished for the reasons above.

The only objective reason though, is that the wrong person will be killed sometimes. There are only two objective reasons in favor of it. Do those outweigh the one reason against it?
Click to expand...

The Death Penalty is only expensive when it is not actually carried out and the perp gets to appeal endlessly for decades.

I respect the opinion of those against the death penalty because they would rather 1000 mass murderers get to sit in jail for life rather than one innocent person risk being executed (not being sarcastic here). Personally, I disagree and think the death penalty should be an option, reserved for the most heinous of crimes when the evidence is clear.

The death penalty, like crime in general, is not actually biased against race. It is biased against upbringing. It turns out if you normalize the criminal population by those brought up by single mother households, the race stats balance out. It's just that black families have like an 80% illegitimacy rate compared to ~20% for other races.
 
zsdersw said:
In either case they have nothing (in their mind) to lose; and that's when people are the most dangerous and the least receptive to reason.
Click to expand...

This argument is flawed. The fact that a criminal will be more dangerous because he has nothing left to lose since he is facing the maximum punishment of a death penalty applies just the same if the maximum penalty is life in prison. Once a criminal is facing the maximum penalty, whatever it may be, he will be just as dangerous as either way as he can't get into any more trouble.
 
QuantumPion said:
The death penalty, like crime in general, is not actually biased against race. It is biased against upbringing. It turns out if you normalize the criminal population by those brought up by single mother households, the race stats balance out. It's just that black families have like an 80% illegitimacy rate compared to ~20% for other races.
Click to expand...

There's also a jurisdictional disparity that people then try to pretend in racism. In Maryland Baltimore City (where most of the state's black murder victims are killed) almost never seeks the DP, whereas Baltimore County (far more white victims) used to have a policy of seeking it in every legally eligible case. DP opponents used this fact to pretend that prosecutors didn't care as much about black victims, when in fact the disparity was jurisdictional, not racial.
 
QuantumPion said:
This argument is flawed. The fact that a criminal will be more dangerous because he has nothing left to lose since he is facing the maximum punishment of a death penalty applies just the same if the maximum penalty is life in prison. Once a criminal is facing the maximum penalty, whatever it may be, he will be just as dangerous as either way as he can't get into any more trouble.
Click to expand...

It's not meant as a comparison to life in prison, merely to point out how stupid it is to believe that punishments like the death penalty deter the crimes for which they're used.
 
piasabird said:
Taking a gun to commit a crime should be considered attempted murder at least. If one round is fired it should be considered premeditated murder.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a law that says your punishment is a lot worse if you jack someone with a weapon. Pointing a gun at you and taking your wallet has a much stiffer sentence than just threatening you with fists.
 
Sad part is most die of natural causes on death row than ever making it to their 'penalty'.

Meanwhile we are fronting them $50-100k per year (or more if they have medical needs) to wait for it.
 
QuantumPion said:
The Death Penalty is only expensive when it is not actually carried out and the perp gets to appeal endlessly for decades.

I respect the opinion of those against the death penalty because they would rather 1000 mass murderers get to sit in jail for life rather than one innocent person risk being executed (not being sarcastic here). Personally, I disagree and think the death penalty should be an option, reserved for the most heinous of crimes when the evidence is clear.

The death penalty, like crime in general, is not actually biased against race. It is biased against upbringing. It turns out if you normalize the criminal population by those brought up by single mother households, the race stats balance out. It's just that black families have like an 80% illegitimacy rate compared to ~20% for other races.
Click to expand...
Good points🙂

I think that the appeals process is definitely too expensive, but if you take away that, then more innocent people get murdered. So, the way I see it is that if you take away the death penalty, then no more costly appeals and no more innocent killed.
 
I thought it was the judge that did the sentencing, not the jury? Or does the jury have a say in sentencing when the death penalty is involved? I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top