Should The Death Penalty Be Brought Back?

[danot 10]

Michael Adebolago Who slaughtered Lee Rigby in the street is 100% guilty.  

 

Zero doubt equals zero expense. 

[SnailyBoy 10]

1 hour ago, hobinfoot said:

No I wouldn't apply.

Why not?

[hobinfoot 25]

5 minutes ago, max said:

Killing someone is either wrong or it isn't; anyone saying that someone should be killed for killing someone is a bit paradoxical.

 

Plus, the commandment often quoted is "thou shalt not kill", which doesn't have exceptions attached to it.

Killing someone is wrong. If you are caught red handed then you get executed if there isn't enough evidence to support a death sentence but enough to find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then you should get a prison sentence that's why I don't believe in a mandatory death sentence.

 

15 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Why not?

I wouldn't want to do the job because I don't think I could do do it competently.

[danot 10]

41 minutes ago, max said:

Killing someone is either wrong or it isn't; anyone saying that someone should be killed for killing someone is a bit paradoxical.

 

Plus, the commandment often quoted is "thou shalt not kill", which doesn't have exceptions attached to it.

Nations won't sentence people to death but will happyly send people to their death. Now that's paradoxical. 

[SnailyBoy 10]

3 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

I wouldn't want to do the job because I don't think I could do do it competently.

Would killing someone affect you psychologically, is that why you couldn't do it competently?

[hobinfoot 25]

You're probably right.

[danot 10]

21 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

You're probably right.

Personally, I'll eat a chicken but I wouldn't kill one to eat it.  Granted, it's not quite the same as killing a human but killing a chicken would still affect me psychologically. That said, am I against chicken's being killed ? No. Am I against viscous mass murderers receiving the death penalty when found guilty beyond doubt? No.

Edited February 27, 2019 by danot

[*_ash_* 88]

3 hours ago, danot said:

Michael Adebolago Who slaughtered Lee Rigby in the street is 100% guilty.  

 

Zero doubt equals zero expense. 

It's laws that make it expensive, at least in western societies.

 

It's cheaper to give them (actual) life sentences.

[Cyclone 10]

5 hours ago, hobinfoot said:

I believe DNA evidence goes so far beyond doubt that it's so far out of sight in proving a persons guilt or innocence. And what about someone caught in the act of  murder ?

DNA evidence can of course be planted, and it's not a perfect science even if human failure weren't taken into account.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, *_ash_* said:

It's laws that make it expensive, at least in western societies.

 

It's cheaper to give them (actual) life sentences.

Which I have no problem with. Can't win an appeal when you're dead!

[danot 10]

7 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Which I have no problem with. Can't win an appeal when you're dead!

In some instances the evidence is to damning. Michael Adebolago Who slaughtered Lee Rigby in broad daylight on a busy street is 100% guilty and therefore forfeits all rights of appeal. 

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by danot

[Cyclone 10]

2 hours ago, danot said:

In some instances the evidence is to damning. Michael Adebolago Who slaughtered Lee Rigby in broad daylight on a busy street is 100% guilty and therefore forfeits all rights of appeal. 

 

Who decides when the legal process gets cut short?  How can that power not be open to abuse...

The law applies to everyone, it has to.  And that includes having appeals and legal arguments even when there are multiple witnesses to a crime.