Refer to my last post.

The innocent also end up in jail for murder/rape/being more awesome than me

because breaking out of jail is quite simple... all you need is a spoon and you start digging. then you are out and free to much around.

if they are notoriously deranged and they break out. within a day, 50km radius area is locked down by police with almost shoot on site directives.

if they are mentally unstable then a mental hospital doped on drugs is the answer.

no one has gone and addressed my 3 points.

Yes but usually they deserve it. I'm not saying innocent people should be sentenced to death, but people who do deserve it, should.

1. You have a point there. They do cost more. So that's actually a good reason. But we should use money for a good cause. It'd be well worth it I.M.O.

2. It's just to risky to let the "deranged, sadistic bastard" live that long. Plus you couldn't put someone like that to just do work. For one he probably doesn't have enough sense to even do something productive. And other is like I said before, letting him do some kind of work could get him to take adavntage of what ever he's doing. He could learn how to use the license plates as weapons (yes, they are sharp, I got cut by one).

3. It's not barbaric at all, compared to the other things we have done. It's not like we're beheading them or putting them in a grinder or incinerator. The process in done calmly, just injection of some leathal drug that gets the job done cleanly.

Pro-side:

Death sentences should be allowed.....

-Because criminals of that caliber are sometimes "hard-wired" to be that way; they can't control their urges and once they are free they'll eventually be starting to do criminal acts once more, and find ways to do them if they are otherwise under surveillance if their urge is strong enough.

-Lifers only crowd up the prisons, and we have to build or annex more to support the growing population. And also, lifers tend to find ways of commiting crime from the prison itself, even with all the protocols, if they're smart enough. Remember, nothing's truly foolproof.

-The death sentence is a policy that could be effective without actual appilcation. If you have to stare death in the face after you get convicted, you wouldn't have the motivation to do it anymore now, do you? Policy in place= Less crime, Less crime= Decreased need for prisons and the death sentence. / More peace.

-I know someone's going to make this argument sooner or later; let me counter it now.



That's from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is a good argument, until one notices the bit near the end, the one that says the Declaration applies to everyone, with the exception of upholding another's rights and freedoms. The criminals took away another's life and/or property, so they are now an exception, and now the government, if they signed the Declaration, is pressured to deal with them. Refer to the second argument for problems with life terms. And yes, they undergo fair, extensive trials and are able to appeal, and are found guilty by an -impartial- party. Also, while not legally binding, the Declaration sets standards a country should (not necessarily must) follow.

To mrducky:

1) Court appeals in terms of representation and other expenses, should be out of the defendant's or a related third-party's pocket, so costs wouldn't be generally that high. And that's part of democracy; the ability to appeal your case.

2) As I said, lifers crowd up prisons, so we have to build more annex more, and we lose land and resources for other useful means, as well as feed and house them; all for criminals who could set up a crime ring in the (dis)comfort of their own cell if they're smart enough, thus not solving the problem. Now I know what you're gonna say, why pay for the supplies needed to induce death when it could be used for more useful purposes? IMO, you lose more when you have to build and annex, land, money, manpower, etc., as well as to set up programs that wouldn't pay for itself before a long period of time; while you only have to buy a few syringes, some toxin, and a bed with restraints for the other.

3) No death is painless; every cause of death must have something that disrupts or destroys how the body normally functions, and so when one part of the body is disrupted or destroyed, the others would follow suit, and you either bleed or suffer organ failure and have a heart attack or choke. The injection is one of the less painful ones.

Oh yeah,



There's your death sentence.

(Note: I neither support nor detest the policy, I'm just here to debate.)

gratz on misunderstanding me.

How do the innocent deserve dead??
Why can't anybody answer that?

I never said innocent deserve death, only people who DO deserve it.

If it's a democracy, there would be a lengthy trial and tons of appeals, and if the convict is found innocent on one of them, he's aquitted.

zzz no one debates anymore D: discussion dies so fast >.>

i miss using my green writing and making posts unnecessarily long. no one is commited enough to go against my stubborness.

my points are all there, is the conservative right's position that weak?

@TheMasterOfGames

Innocent people are convicted..

Really, before you even try debating it, know your facts.
People have gone to jail, for years, while being innocent.