• Please read the thread in Forum News and Announcements pertaining to race related discussion on SF - thank you :)

The death penalty as legally justified retribution in the criminal justice system

Do you agree with the death penalty?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 21.8%
  • No

    Votes: 24 43.6%
  • It depends/Unsure

    Votes: 19 34.5%

  • Total voters
Not open for further replies.

Prinnctopher's Belt

Antiquities Friend
SF Supporter
Is this something that's an outdated form of legal retribution in the United States?

Do you think the death penalty should be abolished? Why or why not?

Considering the exoneration of prisoners formally on death row, upon discovery of new evidence, could you continue to support or condemn the death penalty?


Well-Known Member
tough question but I said 'yes' I agree with keeping the death penalty..
I believe once you abolish it the punishment for the crime will not be enough to deter criminal behaviour.
we don't have the death penalty in this country anymore and are way too lenient with criminals.


Safety & Support
i like the death penalty. i read of a case once where a piece of crap brutally raped and beat to a pulp a young girl. then he hog tied her and dumped her in a river alive to helplessly drown. all i can say is this piece of crap is lucky im not the one meeting out his punishment.


Well-Known Member
i'm probably over simplifying the issue but its not the retribution system or the punishment system its the justice system, and justice is about being fair and reasonable and nothing about the death penalty has anything to do with being fair or reasonable in my opinion.


Well-Known Member
Death penalty should be continued. We waste too much of our tax on prison sentences. I don't think there are many cases where discovery of new evidences renders prisoners clear of charges.


Well-Known Member
I am for the death penalty.

There are many people behind bars that dont deserve to live. Removing someone from society by way of death is a fairly logical way to deal with someone who shows no remorce and who is not going to ever be released back in to the general population due to them always being considered a danger to others.

We should remove monsters. Instead we stick them prison and pretend they dont exsist.


Well-Known Member
In my opinion, if you are not capable of killing the person yourself, it would be just hypocrisy to say you agree with the death penalty.


Antiquities Friend

I don't agree with it. It's barbaric, and according to some message boards, the zealots for the death penalty have come out of the woodwork screaming 'needle needle needle!'

I thought we lived in a civilized society.

I was wrong.


Well-Known Member
'an eye for and eye'..isn't that in some famous book?
I believe If someone takes a life they should be prepared to receive the death penalty

If society was civilized there would be no need for prisons and no murderers, rapists, etc., and we wouldn't need the death penalty
*hops off my soap box*


Well-Known Member
I'm in favor of the death penalty, but executions run too slow in this country. Can't we have an electric bleachers so we can fry dozens of scum at once?



Antiquities Friend
Murderers, rapists, etc... are a product of their environment.

If society were civilized, there would still be people like this roaming around.

People are a product of their environment. Nuff said.


Well-Known Member
Their was a case here a few weeks ago where a 16 year old lured his ex into woods and beat her to death for leaving him, the guy told his friends he was going to do it and tried to cover up what he'd done.
He's likely to be released in his 30's, the earliest possibility being 29.

Generally I disagree with the death penalty but the very least the guy deserves is life without parole and makes me feel that I could make exceptions.


Well-Known Member
I'm tired of hearing criminals in court pleading "but we had a terrible childhood and a hard life" as an excuse for their crimes
So many of us have/had hard lives but don't go around murdering, stealing, beating people up, etc., on the pretext that we're owed something because our environment made us like that

We have a case here at the moment..a 14 year old boy missing for 8 years found murdered and no doubt this accused man will have some rubbish about his hard life that made him kidnap and murder a young innocent boy and have the family go through hell for these 8 years wondering what happened and now have to live with the facts of their sons last moments alive
perfect example for the death penalty if this man is proven guilty
get these scum off the earth!

Ooh I love a good debate on this subject ! :)
Last edited by a moderator:


Antiquities Friend
I didn't say that I agree with that line of BS that murderers, rapists, etc use to possibly get off without doing any time.

Usually the prisons have their own sort of justice. Once someone finds out that you raped or murdered someone, the news travels fast. Then you are set to be hurt by people bigger and badder than you.
This certainly is an interesting topic for debate.

Looking at it from one angle countries that have more lenient penalties such as Canada versus the USA have less crime, therefore one can come to the conclusion that the penalty isn't a deterrent. That's not to say I don't think the penalty should be more severe in some cases. Like If someone murders someone at age 20-25(Life is 25 Maximum in Canada) That person can be out by the time their 45-50. In the example outlined they could easily have 25-30 years of their life left, to have a family etc while their victim is dead, possibly leaving behind kids etc...

So what it really comes down to is thinking if someone deserves to be killed for the severity of their crime or crimes. As someone mentioned it is also costly to keep someone in jail so there is a cost saving aspect of things as well.

I had a guy tell me his sob story about being abused as a child from his mothers BF and I had told him some stuff I had been through. This man even told he murdered a person however he said the guy he killed was a pedophile. It's quite possible the person he killed was a pedophile, yet it's also possible he wasn't. People do use rationalization(making excuses) to justify their self involved interests. For example in war people will say we take care of the poor while the enemy rapes them, therefore we're 'good' and our enemy is 'bad'.

I'm pretty sure this same man found out a few days later some of the stuff I had done as an adolescent and I could tell his attitude changed towards me. It certainly appeared as if he had felt I deserved to have been abused, quite possibly due to him being friends with some of the people who had harmed me.

Anyways back on topic, I'm a bit on both sides of the fence on this issue. In some of the most severe, such as brutal or sadistic murders etc I can understand why it could be implemented.

We live in a society where human life is valued greatly. For example most psychiatrists, psychologists and therapist view suicide as irrational and that one must be mentally ill to commit or even consider such an act. Basically rational suicide is refuted as having any legitimacy by the general public because it is seen as a deviant behavior.

'an eye for and eye'..isn't that in some famous book?
I believe If someone takes a life they should be prepared to receive the death penalty

If society was civilized there would be no need for prisons and no murderers, rapists, etc., and we wouldn't need the death penalty
*hops off my soap box*
There's a quote an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. That quote isn't a specific to murder but other wrongs in general more so lesser crimes or misdeeds.

Off topic but I read an argument regarding drugs that the a good part of the problem with drugs is with them is it being illegal thus bringing the criminal element into play, and the violence that comes with illegal activity. Like you said what about other crimes committed obviously making those things legal isn't going to fix anything at all.
Last edited by a moderator:

Prinnctopher's Belt

Antiquities Friend
SF Supporter
From the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University Law:

In 2005, in a case known as Kansas v. Marsh, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declared that there has not been “a single case - not one - in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit.” He added, “If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent’s name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby.”
What is clear to Scalia, however, is not clear to everyone. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that a considerable number of innocent persons have been executed in recent years. To contend that it has not happened even once, as Scalia and countless other, less well known proponents of the death penalty do, defies the laws of probability and common sense.
Moreover, there are a number of cases in which there is such overwhelming doubt of guilt that the only rational inference to be drawn from reading them together as a collection is that almost all most, if not all, of the defendants were innocent.

Read about their cases:

James Adams

Timothy Baldwin

James Lee Beathard

Ruben Cantu

Willie Darden

Girvies Davis

Carlos DeLuna

Johnny Frank Garrett

Gary Graham (a.k.a. Shaka Sankofa)

Larry Griffin

Leonel Herrera

Claude Jones

Joseph Roger O'Dell

Roy Michael Roberts

David Wayne Spence

Jesse J. Tafero

Dobie Gillis Williams

Cameron Todd Willingham



Well-Known Member
I'm sad to see the poll equally split, I thought that people in general had moved beyond this barbaric type of punishment no -one I know is in favour of it, like I said on another thread those responsible for the most heinous crimes should be imprisoned until their death....no tv, radio or any of the luxury's...just books and craftwork.
Not open for further replies.

Please Donate to Help Keep SF Running

Total amount