POLL: Should rapist get the death penalty?

Should rape be punishable by death.

  • Yes (Make it a public event)

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
brimck325 said:
i'm sure criminals look at the laws n say " there's no death penalty so i won't rape or murder anyone". get a fuckin grip u retards!!! the coward brings up race again of course.....which had absolutely nothing to do with this thread....
the death penalty is a very good tool if used correctly, but it will never happen in this country. to put rapist in 1 group just wont work. u have a jilted lover who claims her boyfriend raped her then u have the vicious piece of shit that beats n rapes a child. which 1 should die, i know whom i would choose. to many people with blinders on living in a fantasy world.........................

COWARD
Click to expand...

i just want to know if OP's adherence to white supremacy has anything to do with his favoring of the death penalty. it is a valid question, no need to get worked up there, sport.
 
bearkat42 said:
When is the death penalty used correctly, dumbfuck?
Click to expand...


For the record, I know you were asking someone else the question, but I'll give it a try.

The "death penalty" is used correctly when it is administered by a person who is in imminent danger of being killed by another person who is applying offensive potentially lethal force. Self defense.



Killing people you don't even know in war, is a kind of legalized murder and advances the faulty idea that state sanctioned killings are exempt from morality. So, in general terms I think the state is a poor choice of being the "decider" for who lives and who dies.

However killing a rapist who has been subdued and has no way of continuing to harm you, creates a different set of circumstances. I think the best path then, is to find some kind of restitution for the victim(s). I wouldn't be opposed to the victim weighing in on how the rapist should go about restituting the victim(s).

While rape is a heinous crime, killing the rapist is an example of disproportionate justice, especially if the killing is done after the rapist is captive. This assumes the rapist didn't kill his victim.

Best to kill the rapist during the heat of the battle and feed his remains to the wild animals so there is no evidence.
Okay... maybe not this last part.
 
Rob Roy said:
For the record, I know you were asking someone else the question, but I'll give it a try.

The "death penalty" is used correctly when it is administered by a person who is in imminent danger of being killed by another person who is applying offensive potentially lethal force. Self defense.



Killing people you don't even know in war, is a kind of legalized murder and advances the faulty idea that state sanctioned killings are exempt from morality. So, in general terms I think the state is a poor choice of being the "decider" for who lives and who dies.

However killing a rapist who has been subdued and has no way of continuing to harm you, creates a different set of circumstances. I think the best path then, is to find some kind of restitution for the victim(s). I wouldn't be opposed to the victim weighing in on how the rapist should go about restituting the victim(s).

While rape is a heinous crime, killing the rapist is an example of disproportionate justice, especially if the killing is done after the rapist is captive. This assumes the rapist didn't kill his victim.

Best to kill the rapist during the heat of the battle and feed his remains to the wild animals so there is no evidence.
Okay... maybe not this last part.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with this, but we both know that I'm speaking specifically about government sanctioned killings. You're talking talking self defense.
 
Ace Yonder said:
No, I act like when they had the death penalty, the murder rates were higher than after they abolished it. Because those are the facts. For the murder rate to go down after they get rid of the death penalty, they have to have first had the death penalty, and then gotten rid of it. What about this is hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...
Because the reason the death penalty goes out of use is when it isn't used often. One should observe a decrease in the death rate if there is less need to punish murder. I'm not saying your facts are wrong, you're just putting the card before the horse.
 
RickyBobby26 said:
Any crime of torture should be punishable by death.

Rape, kidnapping or ab using a child, etc.
Click to expand...
I can agree to that. Ive often observed that many crimes are worse or at least as bad as murder or often the killing wasnt the worst part of the crime overall.

Some kinds of rape probably aren't appropriate, but what we all understand as rape, the brutal violent forceful penetration over objection not only lacking consent. In other words the death penalty shouldn't be on the table for hesaid-shesaids college party drunk sex incidents. Nor probably statutory rape, of most kinds. That's not death worthy.
 
ThickStemz said:
Because the reason the death penalty goes out of use is when it isn't used often. One should observe a decrease in the death rate if there is less need to punish murder. I'm not saying your facts are wrong, you're just putting the card before the horse.
Click to expand...
That is not at all the case, where did you ever get that idea? The death penalty doesn't get abolished because it is underused, it is abolished when people decide that it is a barbaric, unconscionable thing to do (especially when you realize how many potentially innocent people could be executed), and when they realize that all the evidence points towards it not actually being a deterrent. I am not talking about states or countries that have "stopped" executing people but still HAVE the death penalty, I am talking about states and countries that knowingly decide to end the use of the death penalty. I would like you to quote a single source that indicates the primary motivation for ending the death penalty in those places is "It wasn't often used", because you are working on a wildly inaccurate assumption.
 
Ace Yonder said:
That is not at all the case, where did you ever get that idea? The death penalty doesn't get abolished because it is underused, it is abolished when people decide that it is a barbaric, unconscionable thing to do (especially when you realize how many potentially innocent people could be executed), and when they realize that all the evidence points towards it not actually being a deterrent. I am not talking about states or countries that have "stopped" executing people but still HAVE the death penalty, I am talking about states and countries that knowingly decide to end the use of the death penalty. I would like you to quote a single source that indicates the primary motivation for ending the death penalty in those places is "It wasn't often used", because you are working on a wildly inaccurate assumption.
Click to expand...
There used to be a zeal for death. Execution was the penalty for a range of things, forever, how far back do we go? But it has also been public and frequent. This culminated in the court house lawn hangings in the early 20th century being the norm.

This grew unpopular and execution became sterile and unseen. Of course this has resulted in a mile of red tape and legal procedures. That expense combined with a lack of public advocacy for the death penalty resulted in a lot of states to stop using it. The death penalty is intentionally saught by the state, not just summing up charges. You're not dealing with randomly distributed characteristics. When you compare randomly distributed characteristics you'll see murder is higher in states with the death penalty. The death penalty follows murder and public opinion to that violence and murder.
 
RickyBobby26 said:
Any crime of torture should be punishable by death.

Rape, kidnapping or ab using a child, etc.
Click to expand...
You should look up the number of people who have spent 20+ years in prison for crimes they didn't commit.
I think keeping rapist and chmo's in gen pop is a more fitting punishment. Why protect them by keeping them separate?
 
Last edited:
ThickStemz said:
There used to be a zeal for death. Execution was the penalty for a range of things, forever, how far back do we go? But it has also been public and frequent. This culminated in the court house lawn hangings in the early 20th century being the norm.

This grew unpopular and execution became sterile and unseen. Of course this has resulted in a mile of red tape and legal procedures. That expense combined with a lack of public advocacy for the death penalty resulted in a lot of states to stop using it. The death penalty is intentionally saught by the state, not just summing up charges. You're not dealing with randomly distributed characteristics. When you compare randomly distributed characteristics you'll see murder is higher in states with the death penalty. The death penalty follows murder and public opinion to that violence and murder.
Click to expand...
I said site a source, not explain what you believe to be the case. Also, you are still ignoring the international statistics, which include countries where there still is a "zeal for death".
 
DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES?: THE VIEWS OF LEADING CRIMINOLOGISTS
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf)
"The criminologists surveyed included -1) Fellows in the American Society of Criminology (ASC), (2) Winners of the ASC’s Sutherland Award, the highest award given by that organization for contributions to criminological theory, or (3) Presidents of the ASC between 1997 and the present. Those presidents before 1997 had been included in the prior survey. Respondents were asked to base their answers on existing empirical research, not their views on capital punishment.

Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime – and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little empirical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either."
 
I don't believe in the death penalty. A question for some of you. If you were on a jury, and the State was trying to convict a father who killed the man for brutally raping his daughter. Would you vote to convict or set free? I would not convict.
 
Ace Yonder said:
DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES?: THE VIEWS OF LEADING CRIMINOLOGISTS
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf)
"The criminologists surveyed included -1) Fellows in the American Society of Criminology (ASC), (2) Winners of the ASC’s Sutherland Award, the highest award given by that organization for contributions to criminological theory, or (3) Presidents of the ASC between 1997 and the present. Those presidents before 1997 had been included in the prior survey. Respondents were asked to base their answers on existing empirical research, not their views on capital punishment.

Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime – and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little empirical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either."
Click to expand...
They don"t use it enough to deter anything. In 2015 in the US there were 28 people put to death. Between 10-40 children a year drown in 5 gallon buckets, 150 people killed by falling coconuts. The death penalty is an empty threat, even if sentenced to death you 20 years worth of appeals. Even if it doesn't deter crime it's certainly cheaper than housing them. Jails and prisons out number colleges in this country and that's a problem.
 
rollyouron said:
I don't believe in the death penalty. A question for some of you. If you were on a jury, and the State was trying to convict a father who killed the man for brutally raping his daughter. Would you vote to convict or set free? I would not convict.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of assumptions that go into that question, and without answering then I couldn't answer it. Did the father catch the rapist in the act, and kill him in the moment? Because then I would say he was defending his daughter, and his use of lethal force to stop it could reasonably considered justified (This has happened before, a Texas man killed a man he caught raping his 5 year old daughter and they didn't even press charges against him http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/3/texan-who-killed-man-raping-his-daughter-will-not-/). I would certainly vote to acquit if that were the case. But if he didn't catch him in the act, it gets a bit more hazy. Because then I have to be okay not only with retributive death penalty, but I also have to trust one man's judgement that he caught the right guy, basically allow him to be the detective, the jury, and the executioner in a process I'm already not particularly supportive of, and I'm not sure I am willing to set that precedent.
 
KryptoBud said:
They don"t use it enough to deter anything. In 2015 in the US there were 28 people put to death. Between 10-40 children a year drown in 5 gallon buckets, 150 people killed by falling coconuts. The death penalty is an empty threat, even if sentenced to death you 20 years worth of appeals. Even if it doesn't deter crime it's certainly cheaper than housing them. Jails and prisons out number colleges in this country and that's a problem.
Click to expand...
I already covered this. That is a fallacy. Executing them is MUCH more expensive. Again, death penalty cases cost the state between $500,000-$1,000,000 more than non-death penalty cases, and a death row inmate costs $90,000 more to house per year than an inmate in gen pop.
 
rollyouron said:
I don't believe in the death penalty. A question for some of you. If you were on a jury, and the State was trying to convict a father who killed the man for brutally raping his daughter. Would you vote to convict or set free? I would not convict.
Click to expand...
 
Ace Yonder said:
I already covered this. That is a fallacy. Executing them is MUCH more expensive. Again, death penalty cases cost the state between $500,000-$1,000,000 more than non-death penalty cases, and a death row inmate costs $90,000 more to house per year than an inmate in gen pop.
Click to expand...
Why does it cost more to prosecute someone for murder in a death penalty case opposed to live in prison?
If they cost $90,000 a year more to house, How is it not cheaper to execute them? A piece of rope is less than $20 and it can be used multiple times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top