In your opinion, which of the following options best characterizes your thoughts on the use of the death penalty.

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.

 

Shooting by rifles. Say 10 rifles but only 2 with live bullets. Then no body feels that they were the killer. Having people in jail for 30 odd years before they are executed is inhumane. 

It's never appropriate to kill another member of humanity, it could be considered inhumane. 

 

That said, some have proven themselves beyond any doubt to be inhuman. Removing those who’ve committed the most heinous of crimes from humanity could be considered to be in the interest of society. 

 

A legal system which protects the general public from the moral dilemma of this issue is also in the interests of society. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 20205 yr by richard_smith237

Life in jail might just be worse than death. 

It doesn't make sense. The person should not be killed but be forced to work for the society until his last day. In Russia very famous. 

Personally I feel a bullet is too quick, some slow would be the go.... like  tied down to an ants nest.

4 minutes ago, Techno Viking said:

Personally I feel a bullet is too quick, some slow would be the go.... like  tied down to an ants nest.

Surrounded by accordion players ????

6 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

Surrounded by accordion players ????

Or this, but could be considered cruel and unusual punishment ????

 

Why does the Lethal Injection take so long to administer and work, when a doctor gives you a jab and says 'Count down from 10 to 1' , and you never get to three?

5 minutes ago, Tyler Visan said:

Why does the Lethal Injection take so long to administer and work, when a doctor gives you a jab and says 'Count down from 10 to 1' , and you never get to three?

 

I think it's a lot to do with the procedure and set up, last rights etc.

 

First injection is to make the ‘person’ fall asleep (i.e. a general anaesthetic). 

Then there is the ‘fatal injection’ to stop the heart - this is lined up to one of 3 people who push a button to administer the injection so none of them know which one administered the fatal dose. 

Then I think there is a 3rd injection which ‘makes sure’.

 

All of this information is not factual - just what I have read and may or may not be true, but it seemed legitimate enough. 

Mosaic law, and before him, Hammurabi, decreed an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

 

Of course, times were different, civilised, but in a different way to ours.

 

In modern times, it would seem to be just, and also dissuasive of others contemplating murder, if those found guilty of murder were to lose their lives also.

 

In the interests of a certain quality of mercy in our age, crimes of passion or where someone is shown to have been mentally unbalanced during the commitment of a murder, might be spared the ultimate sanction.

 

 

46 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

It's never appropriate to kill another member of humanity, it could be considered inhumane. 

 

That said, some have proven themselves beyond any doubt to be inhuman. Removing those who’ve committed the most heinous of crimes from humanity could be considered to be in the interest of society. 

 

A legal system which protects the general public from the moral dilemma of this issue is also in the interests of society. 

 

 

 

 

I am sorry I am unable to agree. Although removing those who have committed most heinous crimes would protect society, this inhumane method of executing human beings is absolutely wrong. It is no more than legal murder. Is stealing from a thief legal? The same principle applies here. Is it legal to kill a murderer? NO! 

Death penalty is considered ' inhumane ' by some people , but sometimes the crimes are inhumane as well ... in these cases it seems to be an adequate punishment .

44 minutes ago, Tyler Visan said:

Why does the Lethal Injection take so long to administer and work, when a doctor gives you a jab and says 'Count down from 10 to 1' , and you never get to three?

Why do they need a new needle each time.

Its not like the person being injected will die from any diseases 

Two different subjects here as there is no middle road unless you throw religion out the window.How can a true Buddhst possibly take a life ? This in this country is another classic example of hypocrisy

For me, for certain crime, "hang em high"

Absolutely no one has the right to take another oness life, without exception.!

In the same way no one has the right to force another to take up arms..!

Basic human rights.....!

Sure, lock them up for life if need be....!

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

It's never appropriate to kill another member of humanity, it could be considered inhumane. 

 

That said, some have proven themselves beyond any doubt to be inhuman. Removing those who’ve committed the most heinous of crimes from humanity could be considered to be in the interest of society. 

 

A legal system which protects the general public from the moral dilemma of this issue is also in the interests of society. 

 

 

 

 

That is also my thinking but for a death penalty the burden of proof should be really really high like video images or something. Especially in a country like Thailand. In the US they have quite a few cases where people that were on death row were innocent. In my country there was a high profile case (we dont have death penalty) that the police totally got wrong. 

So I would be pro death penalty in the most severe cases if there as a huge amount of evidence available.

After recently spending four weeks in hospital and then a further six weeks or so confined at home, I think that being locked up for life is a very appropriate penalty.

On this issue, I have a moral dilemma. Yes, or no, I cannot decide! I am glad it isn't my decision to make!

Quote:-

"It's appropriate but only in the most henious of cases."

 

In my opinion, authorities must be 100% certain of facts before committing an execution. For example, and with respect, the Koh Tao murders were certainly heinous but if the 2 Burmese boys had been executed soon after their final appeal, then a gross miscarriage of justice would have been committed by the Thai authorities. Fortunately they are still alive, despite being on death row.

On 11/22/2020 at 4:51 AM, Scott said:

In your opinion, which of the following options best characterizes your thoughts on the use of the death penalty.

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.

 

I am all for it, but only if the person is caught in the act, and not in the case of how good the prosecuting lawyer is. we cannot take the chance of an innocent person getting executed.

depends on the country

 

it shouldn't be used in Thailand imo, too many brown envelopes flying around it wouldn't surprise me if 80% of those killed were actually innocent

 

i'd like to see it in UK though, where you have HD footage of gangs stabbing people to death just for looking at them, they'll then gloat about it on facebook in their cell whilst smoking spice and playing FIFA on their PS5s

3 hours ago, abrahamzvi said:

I am sorry I am unable to agree. Although removing those who have committed most heinous crimes would protect society, this inhumane method of executing human beings is absolutely wrong. It is no more than legal murder. Is stealing from a thief legal? The same principle applies here. Is it legal to kill a murderer? NO! 

The law of the land stipulates what is legal or illegal, not some personal belief. 

1 hour ago, natway09 said:

Two different subjects here as there is no middle road unless you throw religion out the window.How can a true Buddhst possibly take a life ? This in this country is another classic example of hypocrisy

For me, for certain crime, "hang em high"

The majority of people in this country who consider themselves Buddhists are actually hypocrites. 

1 hour ago, Burma Bill said:

Quote:-

"It's appropriate but only in the most henious of cases."

 

In my opinion, authorities must be 100% certain of facts before committing an execution. For example, and with respect, the Koh Tao murders were certainly heinous but if the 2 Burmese boys had been executed soon after their final appeal, then a gross miscarriage of justice would have been committed by the Thai authorities. Fortunately they are still alive, despite being on death row.

"miscarriage", nothing has changed, it's still being perpetrated  ????

4 hours ago, JusticeGB said:

Shooting by rifles. Say 10 rifles but only 2 with live bullets. Then no body feels that they were the killer. Having people in jail for 30 odd years before they are executed is inhumane. 

Never understood that, there is a very distinct difference between firing a blank (no recoil) and a live round so the shooter would know. What is more, it is very obvious to anyone watching which weapon(s) is firing blanks

There are many instances of a convicted killer eventually  being released and then killing again.  There are no instances of a convicted killer killing again.

 

And to you 30 odd % who voted 'never', if it were your child who was tortured, raped and killed how would you vote then?

The edit button's gone!  "There are no instances of a convicted killer killing again." should read  "There are no instances of an executed killer killing again."

I'm against it 

my reasons are

its legalized murder we should as a society be above that. Life in prison is the most appreciate penalty for the worst of crimes.

even one innocent person executed is unacceptable and where do you then draw the line on the standard of proof. if you dont agree are you ok to be the dead victim of a miscarriage of justice? Even so called open and shut cases are sometimes incorrectly adjudicated 

I also pose the question to those in favor...are you willing to step up and be the executioner? 

3 hours ago, abrahamzvi said:

Is it legal to kill a murderer?

ask the victims families  instead