Death Penalty

Is death penalty justifiable?

In my personal view under certain circumstances it is. I'm convinced that some individuals will never be reformed and there's no point in spending time, space and reasources on such an individual. I think those who are capitalist by conviction and are eager to do anything to truncate communism's development and wouldn't accept communism would have to be sooner or later eliminated be it by direct execution or by reclusion in a gulag-like camp since they can't be put to forced work (they could sabotage) and, as I said, they're not worth keeping.

What are your thoughts?

I would never think that the State should have such power in its hands.

SicSemperTryannis wrote:

I would never think that the State should have such power in its hands.

Being an Anarchist I understand you don't think there should even be a State, something unexistant can't have any kind of power after all, am I not right?

What about execution amidst a revolution? Is Death Penalty justifiable as a way of punishment? If not, what alternative do you propose?

as a communist you think there should be one?

I'm against, beause it cannot be reversed, unlike the emprisonement, where the innocnce of a convict can be proven.

I THINK IS GOOD IN THEORY BECAUSS IT GET RID OF SCUM AND MAKE SOCIETY GOOD FOR EVERYONE. IT SHOULD BE FOR CAPITAL OFFENSES. I AGREE WITH THE OP THAT IT IS A WASTE TO SPEND ENERGY ON THOSE WHO WILL NOT CHANGE AND WE CAN ALLOCATE RESOURCES TO IMPROVE SOCIETY BETTER. WE SEE NO POINT IN HELPING CRIMINALS AND ME MUST ENFORCE THE PUNISHMENT THAT DETERS THEM. IF IT DOES NOT DETER THEM, AT LEAST WE DO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM AS WE CANEXECUTE THEM. HOWEVER, THE METHOD THAT THE US HAS CURRENTLY IS NOT EFFE CTIVE AND AMERICANS PAY MUCH TO EXECUTE THE CRIMINALS. THAT SHOULD BE SEVERELY IMPROVED SO THAT PEOPLE WILL PAY LESS TAXES, ESPECIALLY NOT TO PAY FOR THOSE THAT HAVE DONE WRONG. WHY SHOULD THOSE AGAINST SOCIETY GETS SOCIETY'S HELP? SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE WRONGLY CONVICTED AND THAT IS WHAT I AM AGAINST, KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE. I FULLY SUPPORT THE THEORETICAL COMPONENTS THOUGH. BUT WE CAN MAKE SURE PEOPLE HAVE A FAIR TRIAL TOO AND HAVE NO BIASES BEFORE. WE MUST PROVE THE GUILT BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT AND MOSTLY IS ACCURATE.

....criminality stems most often from social injustice and economic injustice....

without this, i'd say 90% of crimes wouldn't happen.

the remaining 10% accounts for the deluded and the insane - in which case, i believe that a separate center for them to be watched carefully and provided for, as well as encourage their study and work - the idea is to keep them as much an active part of society as possible but keep an eye on them in case they do something to hurt society again..

that said: the death penalty is absolutely barbaric, and is not fit to be used by any modern country, nor is it ever morally justified.

(however, i do believe in revenge....just not, cold-blooded execution. T-T i'm conflicting myself)

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Is death penalty justifiable?

Fuck no! Who ever has a right over another man or woman's life? And for what reason? And who gives them this right?

Quote :

In my personal view under certain circumstances it is. I'm convinced that some individuals will never be reformed

... So your conclusion is, they must die? I guess it's pragmatic, but is also barbarous.

Quote :

and there's no point in spending time, space and reasources on such an individual.

During times of revolution i believe you are right, but i think they should be let go and not given the benefits of federation and solidarity, not killed.

Quote :

I think those who are capitalist by conviction and are eager to do anything to truncate communism's development and wouldn't accept communism would have to be sooner or later eliminated be it by direct execution or by reclusion in a gulag-like camp since they can't be put to forced work (they could sabotage) and, as I said, they're not worth keeping.

I would think this is self-evident, but your post resembles fascism. How do you suggest the creation of an egalitarian, communist society when the methods you use are in contradiction to its essential principles? And i have problems with your gulag comment: Why would you say they should be sent to a gulag if they can't be put to forced work? And why would you send them to a gulag if resources shouldn't be wasted on them? Hell, why would you even have a gulag then?

Quote :

(however, i do believe in revenge....just not, cold-blooded execution. T-T i'm conflicting myself)

You have that right.

Quote :

I THINK IS GOOD IN THEORY BECAUSS IT GET RID OF SCUM AND MAKE SOCIETY GOOD FOR EVERYONE.

I thought you had said you were a studying revolutionary?

Quote :

I AGREE WITH THE OP THAT IT IS A WASTE TO SPEND ENERGY ON THOSE WHO WILL NOT CHANGE AND WE CAN ALLOCATE RESOURCES TO IMPROVE SOCIETY BETTER.

How can you be so sure they won't change? If you kill them, you don't give them the chance, so you can't say that for sure. The only reason that argument holds any wait is because no one can prove it wrong, because everyone who could be subject for that research you would have already killed.

Quote :

WE SEE NO POINT IN HELPING CRIMINALS AND ME MUST ENFORCE THE PUNISHMENT THAT DETERS THEM. IF IT DOES NOT DETER THEM, AT LEAST WE DO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM AS WE CANEXECUTE THEM. HOWEVER, THE METHOD THAT THE US HAS CURRENTLY IS NOT EFFE CTIVE AND AMERICANS PAY MUCH TO EXECUTE THE CRIMINALS. THAT SHOULD BE SEVERELY IMPROVED SO THAT PEOPLE WILL PAY LESS TAXES, ESPECIALLY NOT TO PAY FOR THOSE THAT HAVE DONE WRONG.

If you make it cheaper, you inevitably make it worse. It may be less humane, or it may inhibit how thoroughly the case is reviewed, leaving room for mistakes, but it will definitely be worse.

Quote :

SHOULD THOSE AGAINST SOCIETY GETS SOCIETY'S HELP?

No, but that doesn't mean you have no choice but to pull the trigger. There are other ways of dealing with ne'er-do-wells besides killing them. And besides, in today's world, if someone is a criminal, it's likely they weren't gettin any help from society to begin with.

Quote :

SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE WRONGLY CONVICTED AND THAT IS WHAT I AM AGAINST, KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE. I FULLY SUPPORT THE THEORETICAL COMPONENTS THOUGH. BUT WE CAN MAKE SURE PEOPLE HAVE A FAIR TRIAL TOO AND HAVE NO BIASES BEFORE. WE MUST PROVE THE GUILT BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT AND MOSTLY IS ACCURATE.

You just said you wanted to make it cheaper, and more efficient, didn't you? How can you make it cheaper, and more thorough and efficient?

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

... So your conclusion is, they must die? I guess it's pragmatic, but is also barbarous.

Well what to do with them? Keep them like vagabonds? Like criminals?

Quote :

and there's no point in spending time, space and reasources on such an individual.

During times of revolution i believe you are right, but i think they should be let go and not given the benefits of federation and solidarity, not killed.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I would think this is self-evident, but your post resembles fascism. How do you suggest the creation of an egalitarian, communist society when the methods you use are in contradiction to its essential principles?

There are capitalists, fascists, anti-communists by conviction. People that for mere conviction hate communism, hate the fact that an egalitarian society exists. These are people that won't change their mind and that are not eager to contribute to society in any way. Some of them will even try to sabotage communism, to harm this egalitarian society. What to do with them? Why wasting but few resources on them? Why allowing the possibility for these individuals to cause any harm?

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

And i have problems with your gulag comment: Why would you say they should be sent to a gulag if they can't be put to forced work? And why would you send them to a gulag if resources shouldn't be wasted on them? Hell, why would you even have a gulag then?

Being in Russia I heard there was a kind of gulag which was an ample perimeter with just a couple of wooden huts in the siberian woods which was delimited by armed guards so that those sent to that perimeter wouldn't escape that perimeter. Well, I believe their should be guarded ecologic reserves. For example, in the case of Siberia, armed guards that would prevent tigers and such endagered species get hunted or that would avoid intentional forestal fires to occur. These same guards would have the function to not allow these sentenced people out of that ecologic reserve. Basically my sentence, in this case is the creation of a "natural prison" that is, to force the sentenced individual to live like an animal, alone, away from society, under some circumstances that could be a mid to long-term death sentence.


Like Solpa says and most people here will agree I'm sure, most of the crimes would perish with the capitalist society. Most criminals are victims of this system... but what about those that precisely enjoy the satus quo? I mean, I actually know people that rejoice in the misfortune of others, rejoicing simply for the suffering of lower-class people's struggling to survive with the miserable salaries they're paid, making fun of them when some tragedy happens to them. People so glad there's social inequalty, people so glad to be able to put their shoes over someone else, that I don't know how they would possibly change...

I'm disgusted by the idea of killing someone, I hate it, but I don't see a more practical and benefic solution to individuals that wouldn't do but harm our society. Many of them would be tortured to live in such a world so... wouldn't it just be more merciful to kill them than letting them live in their hell?

I agree with Zealot for most, but I do not think one should kill based on political differences. That is a fascist idea, it is currently not communist yes?

To Anarchist,

I do not think that we should put effort towards those who are cold-blood murderers who get thrill out of killing people. Why should we keep them alive? To make society better for everyone, we must kill the sociopaths. The way the USA does it is makes it take way too long. A more efficient method is execution by firing squad. This is fast and we are done, at that. So I think that we must reform the justice system of America yes?

card wrote:

I agree with Zealot for most, but I do not think one should kill based on political differences. That is a fascist idea, it is currently not communist yes?

I wouldn't support killing for political differences but for actions against society based on political convictions.

i think we should put the crimanals to very hard labor (only rapists bombers murderers)
however for the most serious offeneses (child raping or mass murder)
there should either be a nation wide vote on whether to kill the guy or exile him to a jungle hundreds of miles away from people or maybe a desert

I am a firm beiliver in the "vis versa restraint"
Also known as what they do..is repeated to them..if they kill by means of knife, than by knife they shall die. Same with gun penalty.
Men who rape, attempt murder, or any of the such, shall be beaten to near-death or death considering the circumstances.
So i support it, under serious offenses.

Rename wrote:

I am a firm beiliver in the "vis versa restraint"
Also known as what they do..is repeated to them..if they kill by means of knife, than by knife they shall die. Same with gun penalty.
Men who rape, attempt murder, or any of the such, shall be beaten to near-death or death considering the circumstances.
So i support it, under serious offenses.

so lets show the people its wrong to murder by......murdering the muderers? that is dumb

Ruadhan wrote:

so lets show the people its wrong to murder by......murdering the muderers? that is dumb

You would feel differentely if you lost a very close family member...to see them gut with a knife, than to see his face in the trial, and to realize he will be out and able to do it again to someone else using the paroll system. The thought is unbearable, i wish them dead, all of those fucktards DEAD.

So what's your argument, then? People should be killed because you want them to be? Even if I had a close family member killed, I would still not wish the murderer to be killed just because I was angry. Who would it benefit? If it fulfilled some sense of vengeance of mine, it still wouldn't undo the deed, and we'd just have another dead human.

education and rehibilitation. look at other countries were murders dont really happen. they use this style of discipline

there should never be a state and if the public is under the oppression of one it certaintly does NOT posess the right to dictate life or death

KOMMUNISMUS wrote:

i think we should put the crimanals to very hard labor (only rapists bombers murderers)
however for the most serious offeneses (child raping or mass murder)
there should either be a nation wide vote on whether to kill the guy or exile him to a jungle hundreds of miles away from people or maybe a desert

Christ! I know very few people who would actually see the gulags return. But how is a gulag any different than a prison? Wouldn't you need guards, walls, guns and such? And your alternative isn't much better. Just leave them to die in a jungle or the desert? Comrade stalin, i don't think you quite grasp what setting that sort of precedent could do. Remember, people are a product of their environment.... I don't think i need to (and i just don't want to) explain my position on this again. I think you can put two and two together.

Quote :

Also known as what they do..is repeated to them..if they kill by means of knife, than by knife they shall die. Same with gun penalty.
Men who rape, attempt murder, or any of the such, shall be beaten to near-death or death considering the circumstances.

So why wouldn't you have the rapists raped?... Isn't that the point of vice-versa? And you condone torture... good to know. I'll be sure to throw that in your face the next time you're tryin to act all humanitarian.

Quote :

You would feel differentely if you lost a very close family member...to see them gut with a knife, than to see his face in the trial, and to realize he will be out and able to do it again to someone else using the paroll system. The thought is unbearable, i wish them dead, all of those fucktards DEAD.

Ya, he probably would feel different, and i'm sure all of us would, but it's not because we are becoming more logical; rather, we're abandoning logic and reacting with our emotions instead. But i'm sure if Ruadhan (and all the rest of us as well) collected ourselves and came to a rational conclusion, it would be that nothing can be gained by killing this person. Instead, we'd probably realize that this person needs attention. His/her ailment needs to be identified and dealt with appropriately so they can function properly instead of acting out their problem through violence.

Quote :

there should never be a state and if the public is under the oppression of one it certaintly does NOT posess the right to dictate life or death

And i'd go one step further and say that even the people of a society, collectively, do not have the right to determine whether someone should live or die. It's just authority, simple as that, and no one has rights over anyone else.