|
Post by dylansumner on Dec 8, 2010 0:04:47 GMT -5
Do you think the death penalty should be used again? If you don't think it should be used again then please tell why. On the contrary if you're in favor of it being a sentence then I'll give three situations and tell me if you would use it in those cases.
- Situation One... A drunk driver looses control of their vehicle and kills two people.
- Situation Two... A deer hunter sees the buck of a lifetime and shoots it while it is standing on a hill. He ends up missing the deer but his bullet goes 1/2 a mile to the highway and kills a father of two children.
- Situation Three... A doctor gives a patient the wrong medication which ends up killing the patient.
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Dec 8, 2010 0:08:57 GMT -5
Situation 1 - DUI, and Manslaughter. Not murder, treason, nor espionage - no death penalty. He IS going to prison for a long time, however Situation 2 - Accidental manslaughter - he wasn't being reckless, nor was he doing anything illegal. It's tragic, but he's innocent. Situation 3 - Unless it was intentional, it's accidental manslaughter again - but this time the doc can get sued for malpractice - no other legal actions
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Dec 8, 2010 0:09:35 GMT -5
Nope. Not at all.
Even if you killed a whole country.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
|
Post by dylansumner on Dec 8, 2010 0:15:16 GMT -5
Situation 1 - DUI, and Manslaughter. Not murder, treason, nor espionage - no death penalty. He IS going to prison for a long time, however Situation 2 - Accidental manslaughter - he wasn't being reckless, nor was he doing anything illegal. It's tragic, but he's innocent. Situation 3 - Unless it was intentional, it's accidental manslaughter again - but this time the doc can get sued for malpractice - no other legal actions Situation two is not really accidental at all. In hunter education they tell you NOT to shoot anything with a high powered rifle on a hill just because of this reason. Is getting a buck of your dreams worth taking another persons life for? NO.
|
|
|
Post by dylansumner on Dec 8, 2010 0:20:21 GMT -5
Nope. Not at all. Even if you killed a whole country. Two wrongs don't make a right. True, but would you really want to spend tax dollars by letting that person live?
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Dec 8, 2010 0:24:38 GMT -5
I don't care about spending on that. (besides, there's no death penalty in mexico).
I don't think I would kill someone for any reason. Even if he/she killed my family. I'd hate him (with all I can), but I wouldn't kill him/her.
|
|
|
Post by dylansumner on Dec 8, 2010 0:38:33 GMT -5
I don't care about spending on that. (besides, there's no death penalty in mexico). I don't think I would kill someone for any reason. Even if he/she killed my family. I'd hate him (with all I can), but I wouldn't kill him/her. So if there was another modern day Hitler you think that he shouldn't be sentenced to death, for killing thousands upon thousands of people? I don't know if I could sleep at night knowing there was such a man/woman in the prison down the street. Or even anywhere in the world.
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Dec 8, 2010 1:02:23 GMT -5
Situation two is not really accidental at all. In hunter education they tell you NOT to shoot anything with a high powered rifle on a hill just because of this reason. Is getting a buck of your dreams worth taking another persons life for? NO. You said the deer was on the hill. He shot upwards, I find it extremely unlikely that a bullet will hit somebody on a highway from such a trajectory and be fatal. But then again, I'm not a hunter
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Dec 8, 2010 1:03:44 GMT -5
Hitler (though I hate to say it) did not actually murder anyone. However, his acts were crimes against the world and thus he would be sentenced to death by hanging. 6.8 million times in a row. But regardless, that's a different argument.
The death penalty, along with most punishments in the American Justice System is horrible. Do I want to spend money to keep a murder alive? not really, but chances are that he's not a serial killer and his murder victim was an anomaly in his action. I really only think that punishment by death should only be reserved for people who kill without cause, kill for fun, and kill repeatedly. In all three of your situations, the death penalty would not be a wise course of action, as all three are accidental and at best all three are counts of manslaughter - which never gets the death penalty. I also don't think that a man who kills his wife in a fit of rage should be sentenced to death. I do think that he should suffer for his actions (and go to jail for a long period of time for them), but taking his life is not the best course of action. While I don't want to spend money keeping criminals alive, very few of my tax dollars actually go to keeping prisoners alive. The most any state pays out of its annually collected tax dollars is 11%. So, 11% of my state (not federal) tax dollars go to pay to keep criminals out of society, where I should hopefully be safe from them. That is really an insignificant amount, being that 21% of my taxes go to pay for social security, a program that I will never see the benefits in because the social security fund will run out.
So, is the death penalty good? far from it. Should it be used? in very special circumstances. What's a better punishment? the prison system. Am I ok with paying for the prison system? I sure as hell am.
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Dec 8, 2010 7:26:19 GMT -5
I like that argument better.
Even though I think that 99.99999999999% of the cases don't deserve death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Dec 8, 2010 11:32:07 GMT -5
I don't care about spending on that. (besides, there's no death penalty in mexico). I don't think I would kill someone for any reason. Even if he/she killed my family. I'd hate him (with all I can), but I wouldn't kill him/her. Of course you don't, you don't pay taxes.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Dec 8, 2010 12:18:20 GMT -5
Nope. Not at all. Even if you killed a whole country. Two wrongs don't make a right. True, but would you really want to spend tax dollars by letting that person live? Would you really want to spend tax dollars on the method of slaughtering that person?
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 8, 2010 14:44:52 GMT -5
I don't like the killing of people, I just don't. Also, even if legal, I wouldn't apply death penalty in any of those circumstances, try something like psychopath serial killer or genocide and you'll possibly get more people approving death penalty. Besides, unlike a prison sentence, death penalty is always permanent and can't be taken back, which should be an option if there is even a slight chance of an innocent person being convicted
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Dec 8, 2010 15:52:02 GMT -5
Say we just found some guy guilty, with no doubt, of multiple first degree murders.
Now, let's say this guy is a psychopathic, remorseless, shameless individual, who'd happily slaughter more people.
To put it to point - this guy has absolutely NO chance of being rehabilitated.
THEN let's execute him - to try to rehabilitate him would be pointless, and a waste of resources which could be spent rehabilitating others.
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Dec 8, 2010 16:49:37 GMT -5
Of course you don't, you don't pay taxes. But I will. I don't like the killing of people, I just don't.
|
|
|
Post by Sean on Dec 8, 2010 17:14:28 GMT -5
You pay more money to give someone the death penalty (including courts and stuff) than jail time for life (including all parts)
\Argument
|
|
|
Post by dylansumner on Dec 8, 2010 19:07:56 GMT -5
True, but would you really want to spend tax dollars by letting that person live? Would you really want to spend tax dollars on the method of slaughtering that person? It wouldn't cost much, a simple bullet to the brain would do... I believe it's the most humane. Why not take a persons life that has killed someone just from being reckless. It comes back to they made a stupid decision, that took another persons life. You don't know if that person was going to be a great person or an evil person. But yes I would spend tax dollars on a method of sentencing that person to death.
|
|
|
Post by dylansumner on Dec 8, 2010 19:09:56 GMT -5
You pay more money to give someone the death penalty (including courts and stuff) than jail time for life (including all parts) \Argument I find that hard to believe, we spend 40,000 dollars per inmate a year. A simple 2 dollar slug to the brain would kill them on the spot. \Argument
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 8, 2010 19:18:21 GMT -5
I think there is more to it than that 0.0
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Dec 8, 2010 19:41:17 GMT -5
I think there is more to it than that 0.0
|
|