Silkroad Online Forums

Today in Current Issues we were talking about the Death Penalty....and we had a debate and everything.....

EDIT: 38 States in the US have it...out of 50 states

Ok so do you think that the US should have the Death Penalty?
Also do you think Juveniles should be able to get the Death Penalty?

Sidenote: The US Surpreme Court ruled that the giving Juveniles the death penalty violates the 8th amendment which says No Cruel and Unusual Punishment....they said that 17 year olds (all Juveniles) arent fully morally developed and they dont fully understand right from wrong.

I think you should have a death penalty!

CrimsonNuker wrote:I think you should have a death penalty!

lol....1. i am a juvenile....2. i didnt commit murder

ThatOneMan3424 wrote:Sidenote: The US Surpreme Court ruled that the giving Juveniles the death penalty violates the 8th amendment which says No Cruel and Unusual Punishment....they said that 17 year olds (all Juveniles) arent fully morally developed and they dont fully understand right from wrong.

I think that's total BS just to keep parents from whining too much about it.

Death penalty is good, just don't make them wait a lifetime for it.

1. US already have death penalties
2. you know how expensive it is to keep a person is jail for his/her lifetime? just kill him/her to get it over with
3. underagers and serious crime, there is something called concentration camps?

well the US already has a death penalty.
Anyways, keeping someone in prison for his life is far better than killing him right away. You can say something for costs, but you wont see more than $0,01 taxes go away just because they're all executed now. Actually I think taxes wont change at all, they will probably go to something else, school or something.

woutR wrote:well the US already has a death penalty.
Anyways, keeping someone in prison for his life is far better than killing him right away. You can say something for costs, but you wont see more than $0,01 taxes go away just because they're all executed now. Actually I think taxes wont change at all, they will probably go to something else, school or something.

exactly, why spend the money on a criminal when you can improve health care

an eye for an eye. Crime would stop. stop making prison comfortable or even a decent place to be. Make them work, or beat the tar out of em. As a law abiding (mostly) citizen and tax payer I think I should have a say how my tax dollars are spent.

You kill, you are killed, you rape you are casterated, you steal you lose a hand.

No such thing as a repeat offender when it comes to murder, rape, etc.
How well will a one handed man steal?
If he does it again its a guarantee that he won't be caught 'red handed' again now will he.

Ok what would u rather do...

HYPOTHERICAL (Spelling? u dont answer this)

U kill someone and ur choice is?
1. Sit in jail for life...you will rot away in jail and have to deal with all the other inmates in stuff (showers espically) and u will have a slow and long death....
2. Death Pentaly and u die quick and easy death


Also it is more expensive to keep someone in jail for life than it is to give them the death pentaly

Edit: did a google search on cost of housing an inmate, Here are the stats for 2002.

Cost of Prison Incarceration

daily cost/inmate yearly cost/inmate
Minimum Custody $50.04 $18,265
Medium Custody $65.17 $23,787
Close Custody $80.19 $29,269
Average $62.43 $22,787

Death Penalty should be used for 2+ deaths. Death Penalties should usually involve a jury of some kind

user wrote:

woutR wrote:well the US already has a death penalty.
Anyways, keeping someone in prison for his life is far better than killing him right away. You can say something for costs, but you wont see more than $0,01 taxes go away just because they're all executed now. Actually I think taxes wont change at all, they will probably go to something else, school or something.

exactly, why spend the money on a criminal when you can improve health care

Its cheaper to give them death penalty than it is to keep them in jail for life so it would be better to give death penalty so then more money goes to improve health care

Then there's always the big question, what if you were the murderer? And it doesn't have to be because you hated someone/robbed something/you're psycho, could be in self-defense, you murdered someone that murdered your family etc.

For me that would be a real tough choice to make, though as you make it sound as a quick and easy decision(" U die quick and easy death").
I think I'd take my chances for parole, if that wouldn't be an option I'd like to die very fast, and not in a gas chamber which is a terrible death to me.

svante wrote:Then there's always the big question, what if you were the murderer? And it doesn't have to be because you hated someone/robbed something/you're psycho, could be in self-defense, you murdered someone that murdered your family etc.

Well selfdefense doesnt count as a crime so u wouldnt get the death penalty or any jail time...if they prove it was self defense

Revenege tho would count as a crime so then the death penalty should be applied

Xeroist wrote:Death Penalty should be used for 2+ deaths. Death Penalties should usually involve a jury of some kind

sorry for double post want to answer this


Ok there is basically 2 juries that they go through....
1. First trial/jury determines wheather there guilty of the crime
2. Once found guilty the 2nd trial/jury decides if the death penalty should be given for that case

svante wrote:Then there's always the big question, what if you were the murderer? And it doesn't have to be because you hated someone/robbed something/you're psycho, could be in self-defense, you murdered someone that murdered your family etc.

there's a difference between murder, premeditated murder, manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter.

ThatOneMan3424 wrote:

svante wrote:Then there's always the big question, what if you were the murderer? And it doesn't have to be because you hated someone/robbed something/you're psycho, could be in self-defense, you murdered someone that murdered your family etc.

Well selfdefense doesnt count as a crime so u wouldnt get the death penalty or any jail time...if they prove it was self defense

Revenege tho would count as a crime so then the death penalty should be applied

And does that seem fair to you? Eventhough I probably would have a deathwish after having my whole family (wife+kids) killed..

ThatOneMan3424 wrote:Revenege tho would count as a crime so then the death penalty should be applied

how is revenge consider a crime, if an illegal activity didn't act upon on you, then you wouldn't need to avenge. therefore, revenge is just getting even

thats like punishing the allies for stopping the nazi aggression is dubya-dubya-two

user wrote:

ThatOneMan3424 wrote:Revenege tho would count as a crime so then the death penalty should be applied

how is revenge consider a crime, if an illegal activity didn't act upon on you, then you wouldn't need to avenge. therefore, revenge is just getting even

thats like punishing the allies for stopping the nazi aggression is dubya-dubya-two

ok someone killed ur brother say and then u go out and kill that person....that is revenege and killing that person is a crime....that i wat i ment

EDIT: I have to leave and go to the NHS (National Honor Society) Induction Ceremony since i was accpeted and i will be back on tomorrow to post some more stuff in here

ThatOneMan3424 wrote:

user wrote:

ThatOneMan3424 wrote:Revenege tho would count as a crime so then the death penalty should be applied

how is revenge consider a crime, if an illegal activity didn't act upon on you, then you wouldn't need to avenge. therefore, revenge is just getting even

thats like punishing the allies for stopping the nazi aggression is dubya-dubya-two

ok someone killed ur brother say and then u go out and kill that person....that is revenege and killing that person is a crime....that i wat i ment

what i meant what killing that douche bag should not be a crime

But it is, because vigilantes are illegal.

An eye for an eye shouldn't be the law.

Nah.. send em to the military.

What the Russians did during World War 2 was induct all "deathrow" inmates into a special company in the military, these men were sent into battle first and their mission was to "lighten" the load, or clear the way for the real army. The men had to stay in this company until they died or until they were seriously wounded. If they tried to retreat they would be shot. Now there's a way to handle a death penalty. I agree with a death Penalty in the US. But only for serious crimes like murder. As for the penalty for juveniles, killing someone is killing someone.

Aye.. throw em in a parachuting squad.. tell em "jump or die"

cmon deathpenalty? isnt it worse getting put in prison for life? the only one getting the penalty is the family to the one who gets the death penalty.

bambskiii wrote:cmon deathpenalty? isnt it worse getting put in prison for life? the only one getting the penalty is the family to the one who gets the death penalty.

+1.

The only argument against the death penealty that isn't based on emotions/beliefs but instead on cold truth is what if you kill an innocent person... and we know that there is a good number of innocent people sentenced to jail/death

Of course, the entire prison/jail/justice system needs to be reformed.. not just one aspect of it.

But yes, I am for the death penalty.