Should terrorists get the death penalty?

Originally posted by socool8520
I don't see how imprisoning them is somehow better than just killing them but okay. Depending on the prison, you're basically keeping them in a shoe box and severely limiting their rights. I'm not against that, but I don't think it is better than just killing them and being done with it in the case of a terrorist/serial murder/rapist situation.

Originally posted by socool8520
I don't see how imprisoning them is somehow better than just killing them but okay. Depending on the prison, you're basically keeping them in a shoe box and severely limiting their rights. I'm not against that, but I don't think it is better than just killing them and being done with it in the case of a terrorist/serial murder/rapist situation.

You can question, then kill. it's not a one or the other situation. lol

Originally posted by socool8520
You can question, then kill. it's not a one or the other situation. lol

^ Works for me

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right, thats why I justified my viewpoint with reasoning. Not asking you to assume anything. On the other hand, what reasons? A person can be removed from society just as effectively with a life time of incarceration. I agree on the need to remove certain persons for the public good, but fail to see how that justifies killing them.

And the death penalty is more expensive for a number of reasons 1. the due process to establish is much more time consuming when a life is at stake 2. the the incarceration of death row inmates is more intensive 3. lethal injections are very expensive to aquire and administer.

A life is at stake in either case.

If anything, the fact it's easier to lock someone in a cage until they die is proof we don't really care what happens to the prisoner, but just don't want blood on our hands.

I mean, think about it, would you rather spend your life in a hospital bed hooked up to machines or be put down? I know my answer..

Originally posted by socool8520
^ Works for me

Originally posted by socool8520
I don't see how imprisoning them is somehow better than just killing them but okay. Depending on the prison, you're basically keeping them in a shoe box and severely limiting their rights. I'm not against that, but I don't think it is better than just killing them and being done with it in the case of a terrorist/serial murder/rapist situation.

One of them has a life time to reflect on what they did, the other gets a quick death.

One of them has costed the taxpayer ten of thousands of dollars, the other has not.

Life imprisonment is better, yeah. And FYI: Life imprisonment =\= a lifetime of solitary confinement.

Originally posted by cdtm
I mean, think about it, would you rather spend your life in a hospital bed hooked up to machines or be put down? I know my answer..

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Well one of them has had their basic human rights violated, the other has had their societal rights as a lawful citizen taken away from them because they committed a crime.

One of them has a life time to reflect on what they did, the other gets a quick death.

One of them has costed the taxpayer ten of thousands of dollars, the other has not.

Life imprisonment is better, yeah. And FYI: Life imprisonment =\= a lifetime of solitary confinement.

You're conflating "natural rights" with "legal rights" I think.

Also, some people consider life in prison, for the truly unrepentant and violent murderers, to be cruel and unusual punishment which violates our 8th amendment. And that it would be a mercy and a humane act to execute instead of life in prison.

There is no "moral high ground", in my opinion.

Also, yes, save the tax payers money. Or get the equivalent value out of the prisoner by putting him/her to work. So if it costs $70k a year to imprison an unrepentant murderer, then we had better get $70k in value back. If not, execute if both my requirements are met.

No one should get the death penalty, it's barbaric.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're conflating "natural rights" with "legal rights" I think.

Also, some people consider life in prison, for the truly unrepentant and violent murderers, to be cruel and unusual punishment which violates our 8th amendment. And that it would be a mercy and a humane act to execute instead of life in prison.

There is no "moral high ground", in my opinion.

Also, yes, save the tax payers money. Or get the equivalent value out of the prisoner by putting him/her to work. So if it costs $70k a year to imprison an unrepentant murderer, then we had better get $70k in value back. If not, execute if both my requirements are met.

Bingo to all of this. I would just add I don't care how much the murderer repents, they should still have go along with the idea you just put forth. Since it's not easy to tell if someone is being genuine when they repent for a murder or if they are just trying to avoid execution.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're conflating "natural rights" with "legal rights" I think.

Also, some people consider life in prison, for the truly unrepentant and violent murderers, to be cruel and unusual punishment which violates our 8th amendment. And that it would be a mercy and a humane act to execute instead of life in prison.

There is no "moral high ground", in my opinion.

Also, yes, save the tax payers money. Or get the equivalent value out of the prisoner by putting him/her to work. So if it costs $70k a year to imprison an unrepentant murderer, then we had better get $70k in value back. If not, execute if both my requirements are met.

Killing them instead of imprisoning them could be considered preferable or merciful to an individual (though not to many others), but cruel? So long their living conditions are humane and they are given an opportunity to reform (which I do get, is not always the case) I don't see an argument for cruelty. And if they choose to reject opportunities to reform, that's on them. Taking someone's life against their will however is always going involve cruelty, besides being a violation of their basic rights as a human being. And that's without including the part where they wait to die in solitary confinement.

And the death penalty is pretty extortionate in comparison to standard incarceration, so I highly doubt such a situation where killing them is cheaper would ever arise.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
No one should get the death penalty, it's barbaric.

There's another opinion than yours:

No one should be forced to spend life in prison: it's barbaric.

If they cannot be rehabilitated, they should be granted mercy and executed.

Are they truly doomed? If so, how would you know?

Not sure how life in prison is more or equally barbaric than state run executions. But if a law was passed where someone with a life sentence and a sane mind with zero change of parole could opt to die via humane ways, I'd not really have a problem with it.

My main gripe with the DP is the chance of an innocent person being executed.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'm trying to make a distinction between the two really, the government grants and protects your legal rights under the grounds that you abide by the law that enforces them, but that jurisdiction doesn't extend to your life. The government did not grant that to you, and it surely wasn't given with conditions by which it can be revoked - by them and by anyone else. Hence it's not right for them to maim, torture, rape or kill you, that's overstepping their bounds and entering into authoritarianism.

Killing them instead of imprisoning them could be considered preferable or merciful to an individual (though not to many others), but cruel? So long their living conditions are humane and they are given an opportunity to reform (which I do get, is not always the case) I don't see an argument for cruelty. And if they choose to reject opportunities to reform, that's on them. Taking someone's life against their will however is always going involve cruelty, besides being a violation of their basic rights as a human being. And that's without including the part where they wait to die in solitary confinement.

You agreed with me for the most part.

The cruel part is the freedom restrictions which you do get and you did mention living conditions which is an extremely critical problem in the US Prison systems.

Also, not everyone has prisons and Criminal Justice Systems as nice and amazing as Norway's. I am not the first person to call the US Prison System a "cruel and usual" punishment.

But I'd like to call special attention to something you said which is not agreed to quite obviously but you present your opinions as fact:

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Taking someone's life against their will however is always going involve cruelty.

I disagree. Unless you think it's cruel to stop murders, rapes, etc. You think it involves cruelty but your position involves forcing cruelty to others when it is very well within our power to stop that cruelty.

But I should not argue over the details because you've already seen my position and agreed to it so me continuing this is actually just masturbation and perhaps comes off as condescending towards you.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
And the death penalty is pretty extortionate in comparison to standard incarceration, so I highly doubt such a situation where killing them is cheaper would ever arise.

I've already addressed this point.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure how life in prison is more or equally barbaric than state run executions. But if a law was passed where someone with a life sentence and a sane mind with zero change of parole could opt to die via humane ways, I'd not really have a problem with it.

My main gripe with the DP is the chance of an innocent person being executed.

I always find it funny how it is MADE to cost more to Off these Living Piles of Shit over feeding, clothing ,and taking care of them for DECADES can cost LESS!

I smell Political and Legal BULLSHIT!!!!!

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure how life in prison is more or equally barbaric than state run executions. But if a law was passed where someone with a life sentence and a sane mind with zero change of parole could opt to die via humane ways, I'd not really have a problem with it.

My main gripe with the DP is the chance of an innocent person being executed.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Are they truly doomed? If so, how would you know?

See my requirements 1 and 2.

And if you disagree with how to determine 2, I ask you to determine how you'll determine a group of professionals deem as "non-rehabilitatable" can be rehabilitated. To make my point more clear for you: I'm not going to entertain the idea of "magic future things." If you want to keep them alive because of "magic future things", then I can go into fantasy land can pretend that your magic future things will not exist or the criminals will just get worse and people will be harmed or killed by them which makes you cruel and it makes the system cruel and usual. Except...my points would be factual and not rely on "magic future things."

Well, they use special injections to kill them "humanely"

It's bullshit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
See my requirements 1 and 2.

And if you disagree with how to determine 2, I ask you to determine how you'll determine a group of professionals deem as "non-rehabilitatable" can be rehabilitated. To make my point more clear for you: I'm not going to entertain the idea of "magic future things." If you want to keep them alive because of "magic future things", then I can go into fantasy land can pretend that your magic future things will not exist or the criminals will just get worse and people will be harmed or killed by them which makes you cruel and it makes the system cruel and usual. Except...my points would be factual and not rely on "magic future things."