LOL! IKR! im getting tired looking for stories

the votes are 16 for, 9 against.

anyone from the 'for' camp got reasoning behind them or is it just plain gladiatorial need for human blood? a barbaric feeling of vengeance? an archaic idea of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? or is it because you have just been indoctrinated into the idea that all life is sacred, but we should kill people, as the only reason for clicking for?

Because most people have been indoctrinated in a culture of violence. I mean wars, right wing propaganda etc., Therefore they merely go where the herd goes. Most people do not think for themselves, or dare to stand out of a group because of their beliefs. They just tend to adhere and conform. So if someone in authority says, something is right, they think its right.

You know that Miligram experiment?

The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of notable social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Thats what it is.

There is no point in saying that the people who are "for" the death penalty have no reason behind it and are just "following the herd". That's a rather small minded viewpoint to have. "My opinion is better, your opinion is stupid".

I know, in some places (USA) the death penalty option is rather expensive and complicated etc etc. But being "for" the death penalty doesn't mean I think the way they do it over there is the right way. But I am for some form of death penalty to be implemented where I live.

I don't agree that it's impossible to create an effective and efficient system for the death penalty to work.

If people who are for the death penalty have a reason for it, then I havent seen any. Except for bringing up the cost factor. Which by the way is a reason that is both inhumane and silly, because for one, you'd be putting a price tag on someone's life, and for another you ignore the actual costs involved.

So looking at it,

Morally - Wrong
Culturally - Barbaric
Economically - NOT economical
Effectively - Ineffective

So I see no concrete reason why people who are for the death penalty, are for it. Except for what I said. Hence my assumption.

Its not just my opinion. Its the opinion of many others. If you say murder is morally wrong, which you obviously do, then what makes state sponsored murder right? If you say cultures where for example, honor killings take place, is barbaric, what makes state sponsored murder civilized? If you say that the due process system in the US is not effective, what is your suggestion, that makes it cheaper yet more fair? If you say its effective, explain how? I come from a country where we retain the death penalty. I dont see any decline in crime numbers. Not a bit.

Stop stating it as fact then.


In my opinion, some people do not deserve to live. If they spend the rest of their life in jail, they serve no purpose anyway. There are children who starve to death every day, yet we feed serial killers and terrorists 3 meals a day? That's morally wrong, too.


I don't know enough about courts/law/prison/etc to make a suggestion without flawed details. However I believe a better system is possible.


The serial killer/terrorist would be dead. The removal of the criminal from society is 100%, and therefore effective in that respect. Remember, I would only be "for" this if it was done in such a way that it was cheaper than keeping him alive in prison.


Do you remember a time before the death penalty was in use in your country? Also, "crime numbers"? No one is saying everyone who commits a crime should be sentenced to death. So your statement isn't relevant at all.

I told you once, and I am telling you again. I will state my opinions as fact, because I believe them to be true. I am opinionated. Convince me otherwise.



I obviously dont agree with this point of view. Not only do I not agree with it, I think...heck I KNOW its wrong. No one says who deserves to live and who doesnt. Secondly, yes you would be feeding terrorists and serial killers 3 meals a day. If there are homeless children in your country, do something for them. Not doing anything for them is what is morally wrong, not feeding terrorists.



Sure it could be better. But right now the death penalty, is not making anything better. It infact makes it even worse by making the process costlier and more cruel.



IF you jail him for life, the removal of the terrorist from society is also 100%. When you can do it in an easier fashion why do it the hard way? Secondly, cost is not even an issue. We spend billions on weapons, so its okay if the state spends a little more on a serial killers food. Cost is something I am not even willing to consider as a legitimate argument. Yes am opinionated again. lol.



No I dont. Do you? And if so what is the difference? Give me specific examples how something bad was made worse.

I believe that to be one of your flaws.


I KNOW you're wrong, too. Debate at it's finest.


Firstly, people do say who deserves to live and who doesnt. Infact, that's what happens when it comes to the death penalty. You know... the thing we are discussing?

Secondly, I do not think terrorists and serial killers deserve 3 meals a day. I wouldn't mind if they starved to death in their jail cells. I know you're going to tell me a bunch of "facts" about how terrible and "wrong" my opinion is though.

And it seems you have missed my point. Either that or you just "know" it's wrong and irrelevant. I feel that feeding serial killers 3 meals a day is wrong when there are starving children who do not get the same kind of treatment. You were asking for reasons as to why someone (me in this case) would be for the death penalty. Please attempt to understand that this is one of my reasons. It is a moral reason. I'm not trying to prove that my reason is factual evidence that the death penalty is the right choice. I am simply stating the reasons why I am for it, as you claimed not to know any of them before.



Right now in the USA, yes it may be more costly and it may even be more cruel. But I'm not "for" the style of death penalty in the USA, and I've stated that previously.


Again, your trying to push the USA model of the death penalty onto what I have said. Unless you don't understand what I have said previously about this, please stop doing this...


No I don't and I don't claim to (unlikely you). I don't even live in a country where the death penalty is in use.

I don't understand your request for examples on "how something bad was made worse". It probably isn't relevant anyway though.