[Poll] Whose opinion should be considered more? - Which side would you take?

The guilty should get

  • Total voters
    64
Outer Party Member

Outer Party Member

6079 Smith W
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
I’ve noticed some articles regarding child molesters killed in prison and the comments that followed, cheering for it. Let me make something clear, child molesters are the lowest of the low and deserve to be punished for taking advantage of someone who is trusting and defenseless against manipulation. I have no sympathy for them and would not associate with them whatsoever.

Then I thought of a dilemma that I think would make a good discussion.

Let’s say you’re the judge of a case, where a man kidnapped, raped, and killed a child. He has been found guilty of all charges, and now it’s time for the sentence.

It’s well known that the general population wants this man to die, and the death penalty would make a lot of people happy, knowing that a dangerous man has been removed. For them, this would be fair justice.

However, the victim’s family makes a statement. They state that they don’t want the death penalty for him. They don’t want any more death associated with their family. They want this man to live out his life behind bars with no parole. For them, life in prison is fair justice.

So we have two sides for this case. From a moral standpoint, which opinion would you choose and why? Should the general opinion decide or those close to the case? I don’t want to be the one influencing opinions, so I will leave you all to decide first.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: J A N D E K and The Last Stand
To me, it depends on how the law is written. If the death penalty is seen in my jurisdiction as the appropriate punishment for the crime, then I feel like it's my duty as judge to carry out the sentence. Judges are given leeway in their ability to interpret what is the most fitting decision, but I feel if it's in the spirit of the law as it's written for crimes like this to be punished by death then it has to be my duty to enforce it.

EDIT: So I guess what I'm getting at is that neither opinion should matter in the decision but rather what the law says. You'll see this come up with drug cases where a judge may feel (and express as much) that rehabilitation would be a better call with the offender but, due to how laws are written, they have to sentence people to prison time for possession.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: DuckSucker, registereduser, Some JERK and 1 other person
I would look to the cost of feeding and housing a guaranteed lifelong prisoner vs the death penalty.

I've heard that it costs more execute a prisoner than to house them for life, but I have a hard time believing that.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: The Last Stand
There is no way to fully repay taking a life, literally or metaphorically. Sparing them is doing them a favor for bad behaviour.
 
Getting "re-educated" by the prison inmates for life is a hell of a lot worse than death penalty.
I wonder if they can bring their own lube.
 
Sword Fighter Super said:
I've heard that it costs more execute a prisoner than to house them for life, but I have a hard time believing that.
Click to expand...

They usually spend decades in prison anyway, at ultra high security. On top of that there are usually numerous expensive appeals.

Outer Party Member said:
Let’s say you’re the judge of a case, where a man kidnapped, raped, and killed a child.
Click to expand...

Just being a child molester is horrific. Why make him a kidnapper, rapist and murderer as well?
 
Last edited:
I like to think the death penalty is something that only a barbaric, short-tempered tribe of ape-men would uphold. Which is why it's perfect for us.

A human life is a human life, no matter what decisions it's made. If it's no longer a threat to anyone, harming it just makes you as bad as however you think it is. I'm not saying to put them in a fucking swedish prison-hotel; getting shanked or going insane in solitary confinement is pretty appropriate in some cases. But I can't think of anything so dreadfully irreversible as killing someone, and if anyone supports the notion, they probably don't have the mental capacity to fully comprehend what they're doing. Which is why a lot of criminals have childish mindsets. I don't think criminals should be in charge of other criminals, that's just dystopic.

Sword Fighter Super said:
I would look to the cost of feeding and housing a guaranteed lifelong prisoner vs the death penalty.

I've heard that it costs more execute a prisoner than to house them for life, but I have a hard time believing that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the only argument I'm willing to hear is the economics of it. If it actually is that expensive to hold them indefinitely, then that makes it a question of if they can be permanently held or not. And if not, and they are that dangerous or heinous, then, yeah, death starts seeming more appropriate if it's for the actual common good.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Hellbound Hellhound, The Last Stand, Marinaca and 3 others
Like others in the thread have said, death row inmates spend years in expensive max security facilities as well as gumming up the works putting in appeal after appeal for getting off of death row. By the time they get to the proverbial chair, it's often fifteen to twenty years, and oftentimes the inmate is old enough to almost be of age to just pass away naturally. I think the death penalty as an institution (in the U.S. especially) is too flawed to work the way people see it working in its ideal form. A lifelong, supermax prison sentence with absolutely no enrichment or stimulation, barring the mandatory allowance of basic human needs, is a pretty miserable way to live out the rest of one's life, especially if other inmates get word of what the offender did. (And misery is exactly what these fucks deserve.)
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: The Last Stand, Angry New Ager and The Fool
There should be two classes of prison.
Prisons designed around reform that are comfortable and prisons designed around isolating dangerous people that are relatively spartan.

The death penalty is wrong simply because the government makes mistakes.


Regarding your question more directly. I think judges should apply the laws in a way that best protects society and in a way that actually has the laws being enforced. The feelings of the victims family should be entirely irrelevant. If the death penalty is the option demanded by precedent, the death penalty should be applied. The worst thing you can have is a rogue judge.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: The Last Stand, Dildo and The Fool
I'd have to say no, as much as I am against the death penalty personally because the state can and does get it wrong. There have been several occasions in my own lifetime where someone locked up for life fifteen to twenty years down the line has been found out to be innocent. But in this scenario something like murder it's not the victims family bringing the case; it would be the crown (in the UK, or a state in the US).

The crime is an affront to the crown/state, not the victims family and the regulations prescribed by them has to hold precedence. If the state prescribed death, as judge I would be obligated to prescribe it unless there were allowances to sentence to life imprisonment instead.
 
i like the death penalty as an option because i am a taxpayer and i don't want my taxes being used for people who can not get out of jail
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back