And here I though we couldn't learn anything from Iran
 

I take back some of what I've said about Iran. Turns out that a state run by mostly oppressive laws actually can work out ok (well sometimes anyway): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4353449.stm

Yes I knows its an old story, but I just found it so bear with me.

Now if only our nation could learn from this...

I'm confused as to your point. You are against "oppresive" laws and the state dictating to the people but are all for the state killing people. Seems kind of contradictory to me.

Hmm...I meant to put this in General, actually. There really isn't much here to discuss, other than the merits of the death penalty I guess.

Actually, lets talk about that.

Firstly, I do not consider capital punishment an oppressive law. It does nothing to contrain lawful behavior. It merely insures that a heinous crime will be punished with a sentance severe enough to fit the bill. Honestly, in most 'progressive' states, rape and murder are punished less severely than most gun-laws are enforced against otherwise law-abiding citizens (of course, the lax enforcement of gun laws against violent repeat felons is another issue entirely). I read somewhere that the average sentence (it might have been time served, I can't remember) for rape and murder was 6 and 8 years, respectively*. Of coruse, with early release, parol, and plea bargaining serious crimes down to lesser ones, it comes out to be even less severe than that. Which leads to my second point:

Capital punishment ensures that criminal know that there will be at least a chance that they will face irrevocatable punishment (as opposed to serving 2 years for shooting someone dead during a robbery) if they commit a serious crime. Thats why I support it.

*I'll try to find the exact source for that 6 and 8 year claim. I know its a bit outdated though, so things might be better now

Lengthy flogging, stabbed by an onlooker, and slow death by crushed larynx (?).

Oh, yeah. God bless Iran.

I don't really have any problem with capital punishment. This, however, seems to be needlessly humiliating a person before their death just to appease a mob of citizens. The flogging could be understood as some final punishment before death, but allowing the people nearby to join in seems, to be blunt, barbaric.

I'm not sure what the lesson is you want learned. That capital punishment is a good thing, or that prisoners should be publicly humiliated before they die?

Capital punishment removes the highest of all liberties, ones own life. Surely that's the very definition of oppression.
You claim death penalty matches punishment with the crime. Should we rob the possession of thieves, should we slander slanderers?
Besides law courts are hardly infallible. About a month ago in NZ we had new DNA evidence emerge which vindicated a man who had been in jail for about 10 years for murder. Could we release him after he was dead.
It seems your problem is with sentence lengths over actual sentences.
Besides the US has the death penalty in some states, I don't really know what your point is.
As Tendornai said do you want to humiliate and torture them before they die?

When you've killed numerous other people, what do you say about that? So, we can't remove this guys life because, despite having done it to many other people, he deserve life? Not hardly. If you've killed several people, and will kill more when you're let out (in the case of most serial killers, come on!)... it's like removing a tumor from society.

I also support the death penalty in the cases of multiple rape, anything to do with child molestation or above. Just so you guys know where I stand.

People that do these things can quite literally be described as a tumor on society, and so I fully recommend ripping them out before they do more damage.

That is not punishment. Punishment is a means to teach a lesson. Killing someone does not teach a lesson, nor will it ever. And irrevocably 'punishing' someone? Yes, let's let the innocents like Alan Gell be killed because our justice system messes up- which it can, and will.

And, to give the State the power to kill citizens is a step in the wrong direction, or so I believe, atleast.


Revenge is not an adequate reason to end someone's life in the realm of law.

People who kill, or who are suspected of killing, should be sentenced to life imprisonment. We have a fallible justice system, and killing an innocent for the sake of killing any number of true murderers is not justifiable.

There's a difference between tumors and people. People are not things, think, have feelings and thought and consciousness, emotions, regardless of anything. Some of them might be sickos, fine, lock them up for all I care, but to drop down to their level and regard it as 'justice' is hardly a good excuse for what is, essentially, revenge.

The reason I'm against capital punishment, is how often you get the wrong guy. The statistics for wrongful imprisonment are too high to make me comfortable with that risk.

However if we could get perfect accuracy with it then yes I'd support capital punishment for serial murderers and rapists, because why pay I think it's around $80 000 USD a year to keep them alive and locked up?

Also I agree that actually humiliating them and torturing them before you do it is just disgusting.

Money's not really a reason to kill anyone.

Atleast from the standpoint of 'justice' it shouldn't be.