What is your stance on capital punishment?

[acuwibi]

execution death needs to be done to provide legal certainty. Positive law in Indonesia are still wedded to the death penalty. Therefore, as long as it's been disconnected the Court and clemency has been rejected, the executable can be run.

[1713580373]

1713580373

[1713580373]

1713580373

[1713580373]

1713580373

[1713580373]

1713580373

[AverageGlabella]

My opinion is Mixed.

I recognize that the state has the authority to administer the death penalty. I have no problem with this, “in principal”. However, it is poorly administered and does not perform it’s function well if at all.The death penalty is inequitably administered. Everyone knows this. If you are poor and/or a minority, you are vastly more likely to be given “death” than if you are wealthy/white.

That’s unacceptable.

Additionally, programs like “the innocence project” have proved that many people presently on death row were in fact innocent and had been improperly convicted, either by incompetent representation, faulty evidence, jury bias, or prosecutorial malfeasance. (withholding exculpatory evidence, not putting contrary witnesses on the stand…)

That’s horrifying.

There is nothing to add to this. If there was 100% justice in courts I would gladly support capital punishment for murderers. But people (incl. judges, jury, police et c.) are often corrupt and greedy and making mistakes and neglecting their duties so there is no small chance to execute innocent person. In such case (in terms of revenge which is the reason why caspital punishment supportes are so agressively defending it) there should be also capital punishment for judges, police officers and prosecutors who have convicted innocent person and for lawyer who didn't do his best to defend his client if it was proved later that executed person was innocent. Or, maybe just make execution of innocent person equal with first-degree murder with appropriate punishment for those involved in it. That would be fair.

Otherwise it looks like:

- Robber broke in to a house and killed the old lady living there
- Execute him!

- Jury sent innocent father of three to electric chair
- They have to say "I'm sorry"

When do you draw the line too? If a robber broke into your house and made it obvious that they wasn't interested in confrontation and try to run away yet the home owner kills him for breaking and entering who's the one that should be put up on trial?

This depends on the situation and what country you are located in. But in my opinion breaking into an house isn't the same as murdering someone. Quite often people turn to theft when they are struggling yet they don't actually mean any physical harm. I've had a burglar come to my home and caught him. He try to explain rather nervously that he's struggling and didn't mean no harm and agreed to leave quietly.

I let him go and told actually gave him some advise about consulting a professional to deal with his issues. I never saw or heard from him again but I hope that he's taken my advice and gotten himself out of the rut he was in.

The only time you should take a life is if they are trying to take yours and it's out of self defense. Capital punishment isn't doing this but acting on the behalf of a jury on whether someone should be executed or not. Which as you mentioned are easily bribed etc.

[TheGodson]

If somebody broke into my house my first instinct wouldn't be to kill them. If they were holding a baseball bat I think it would be understandable. A person who comes into your house with a weapon is a much larger threat. I'd probably suspect the person with a baseball bat to possibly be super desperate for drugs that they will do anything for money or someone with a vendetta/illness who wants to kill me. I'm not really the fighting type. I'd probably do the best to escape my house and call the police. If I got trapped in a corner though, you bet I'd fight to the death to stay alive.

[AverageGlabella]

If somebody broke into my house my first instinct wouldn't be to kill them. If they were holding a baseball bat I think it would be understandable. A person who comes into your house with a weapon is a much larger threat. I'd probably suspect the person with a baseball bat to possibly be super desperate for drugs that they will do anything for money or someone with a vendetta/illness who wants to kill me. I'm not really the fighting type. I'd probably do the best to escape my house and call the police. If I got trapped in a corner though, you bet I'd fight to the death to stay alive.

Baseball bat isn't considered a lethal weapon though. If they had a knife, sword or gun that's when you should be allowed to take the initiative in a situation. Baseball bats and golf clubs are extremely hard to swing in confined spaces as well as take time to connect and connecting doesn't mean your actually going to do any damage. That might sound mad but a knife wound is far more likely to cause problems than getting hit by a baseball bat.

A lot of thieves use weapons as a scare factor.

[blazingcherub]

My opinion is Mixed.

I recognize that the state has the authority to administer the death penalty. I have no problem with this, “in principal”. However, it is poorly administered and does not perform it’s function well if at all.The death penalty is inequitably administered. Everyone knows this. If you are poor and/or a minority, you are vastly more likely to be given “death” than if you are wealthy/white.

That’s unacceptable.

Additionally, programs like “the innocence project” have proved that many people presently on death row were in fact innocent and had been improperly convicted, either by incompetent representation, faulty evidence, jury bias, or prosecutorial malfeasance. (withholding exculpatory evidence, not putting contrary witnesses on the stand…)

That’s horrifying.

There is nothing to add to this. If there was 100% justice in courts I would gladly support capital punishment for murderers. But people (incl. judges, jury, police et c.) are often corrupt and greedy and making mistakes and neglecting their duties so there is no small chance to execute innocent person. In such case (in terms of revenge which is the reason why caspital punishment supportes are so agressively defending it) there should be also capital punishment for judges, police officers and prosecutors who have convicted innocent person and for lawyer who didn't do his best to defend his client if it was proved later that executed person was innocent. Or, maybe just make execution of innocent person equal with first-degree murder with appropriate punishment for those involved in it. That would be fair.

Otherwise it looks like:

- Robber broke in to a house and killed the old lady living there
- Execute him!

- Jury sent innocent father of three to electric chair
- They have to say "I'm sorry"

When do you draw the line too? If a robber broke into your house and made it obvious that they wasn't interested in confrontation and try to run away yet the home owner kills him for breaking and entering who's the one that should be put up on trial?

This depends on the situation and what country you are located in. But in my opinion breaking into an house isn't the same as murdering someone. Quite often people turn to theft when they are struggling yet they don't actually mean any physical harm. I've had a burglar come to my home and caught him. He try to explain rather nervously that he's struggling and didn't mean no harm and agreed to leave quietly.

I let him go and told actually gave him some advise about consulting a professional to deal with his issues. I never saw or heard from him again but I hope that he's taken my advice and gotten himself out of the rut he was in.

The only time you should take a life is if they are trying to take yours and it's out of self defense. Capital punishment isn't doing this but acting on the behalf of a jury on whether someone should be executed or not. Which as you mentioned are easily bribed etc.

I totally agree with you! But my point is:
- When thief murders soneone he most likely will be sentenced to capital punishment or long term imprisonment.
- But when judge or jury and prosecutor, careless lawyer et c. are murdering person (i. e. executing the innocent person) they bear no responcibility.

That's disgusting injustice!

[yoseph]

If somebody broke into my house my first instinct wouldn't be to kill them. If they were holding a baseball bat I think it would be understandable. A person who comes into your house with a weapon is a much larger threat. I'd probably suspect the person with a baseball bat to possibly be super desperate for drugs that they will do anything for money or someone with a vendetta/illness who wants to kill me. I'm not really the fighting type. I'd probably do the best to escape my house and call the police. If I got trapped in a corner though, you bet I'd fight to the death to stay alive.

Anyone who enters a house to steal with a weapon like a gun or a knife conveys a message that he/she is ready to kill so when that happens you have to decide to either shoot to kill or be killed yourself because it is self defense and to those who just people they should also be shown no mercy unless it was proven that it was an accidental death.

[_Miracle]

Unfortunately in my country capitol punishment (death penalty) is carried out inconsistently. Justice has a price tag but it is likely that way all around our globe.
We don't utilize the death penalty for the right things.
I don't care if it is a deterrent, if you kidnap children and kill or harm them then you need to be snuffed out of our existence.
There is not a punishment that atones for crimes such as those and there is no good reason to keep a person like that alive.
Anders Breivik should not be serving a 21 year sentence it is ludicrous to me that he is alive and will someday be free?
Serial murderers, rapists, calculating predators need to go. Keeping them in general population in prisons is a waste.

And proper "revenge" would be using them for product testing instead of animals *but we probably shouldn't go that far ;-)

[groko271]

there is not one crime anyone could do to me, my partner or children that would convince me to have them murdered in return by an appointed court sentence.....however if a violent setting were to arise and i had to defend them i'd kill the perp easily.

[RenatoVillarinJr]

Some Feel the Question of whether the death penalty deters can be argued as a matter of theory: capital punishment is worse than other penalties therefore it must lead to fewer killings. This contention misses much of the complexity of the modern death penalty. First, theory can’t tell us whether the spectacle of state-sanctioned killings operates to unhinge marginal minds into thinking that their own grievances merit similar forms of retribution that they then try to inflict on their Own.... Even if some other criminals were deterred by the death penalty, one must ask whether these avoided crimes would be more than offset by the possible brutalisation effect, Every day, people are executed by the state as punishment for a variety of crimes – sometimes for Acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries it can be for who you sleep with, in others it is reserved for acts of terror and murder. 

[AverageGlabella]

Unfortunately in my country capitol punishment (death penalty) is carried out inconsistently. Justice has a price tag but it is likely that way all around our globe.
We don't utilize the death penalty for the right things.
I don't care if it is a deterrent, if you kidnap children and kill or harm them then you need to be snuffed out of our existence.
There is not a punishment that atones for crimes such as those and there is no good reason to keep a person like that alive.
Anders Breivik should not be serving a 21 year sentence it is ludicrous to me that he is alive and will someday be free?
Serial murderers, rapists, calculating predators need to go. Keeping them in general population in prisons is a waste.

And proper "revenge" would be using them for product testing instead of animals *but we probably shouldn't go that far ;-)

I do not think any country has been consistent in handling the death penalty. In fact we probably haven't heard all of the stories of them fucking up.

[touchmelikeimfamous]

My problem with the capital punishment is that its quite final. When you execute someone, you cant bring them back when the law change or if they are proven to be innocent.
Besides, I believe, the penal system should be more about rehabilitation then punishment. We should strive to make a criminal a productive member of society again, not remove them completely.

[MairaObergh]

You seem to have some logic in assuming that crypto people will have more of a logical mind. We're all still lacking though, a lot, but not as much as other who would probably not have as open of a mind to look into it and understand it enough to stay.

As for the death penalty, I'm completely for it, so long as there is no deniable proof that the person committed the evil crime. I'm talking about DNA plus video of them doing the crime.

[dogtana]

Do I think some criminals deserve capital punishment? Yes. Some may deserve 50 years of forced labor instead.

Do I believe capital punishment should be used? That is for each individual country to decide, taking in regard their values.

In my country there is no capital punishment and I don't think there should be.

Legal system is far from perfect. Few people realise this, but evidence is too often unreliable. Especially witnesses, their memory and perception is often so flawed, many experts say there should always be corroborating evidence of highest forensic value or there is no ground to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Confessions are often false. 100% certainty is out of reach.

If legal system was clairvoyant and able to convict with 100% certainty, then maybe it could justify capital punishment. Beyond reasonable doubt is just not enough.