Do you agree with the death penalty?

Question

abc3643 · Accepted Answer

When going to Talos IV, yes!

=======

KIRK: (reading) For eyes of Starfleet Command only.
MENDEZ: Oh, I'm certifying I ordered you to read it. Know anything at all about this planet?
KIRK: What every ship Captain knows. General Order 7, no vessel under any condition, emergency or otherwise, is to visit Talos Four.
MENDEZ: And to do so is the only death penalty left on our books. Only Fleet Command knows why. Not even this file explains that. (unlocks the magnetic strip) But it does name the only Earth ship that ever visited the planet.
KIRK: The Enterprise, commanded by Captain Christopher Pike.
MENDEZ: With a half Vulcan science officer named Spock.

---

Captain's log, stardate 3012.6. General Court-Martial convened. Mister Spock has again waived counsel and has entered a plea of guilty.

MENDEZ: Mister Spock, are you aware in pleading guilty that a further charge involving the death penalty must be held against you should this vessel enter the Talos star group?
SPOCK: I am.
MENDEZ: Why? What does it accomplish to go there or to take Captain Pike there? I want to know why.
SPOCK: Are your comments a part of the record, sir?
MENDEZ: Yes, it's on the record.
SPOCK: Thank you. Request monitor screen be engaged.
MENDEZ: For what purpose?
SPOCK: To comply with the request you just made, sir, that I explain the importance of going to Talos Four.
KIRK: By asking why, you've opened the door to any evidence he may wish to present. Apparently what he had in mind.
MENDEZ: Present your evidence. Screen on.
SPOCK: This is thirteen years ago. The Enterprise and its commander, Captain Christopher Pike.

---

UHURA [OC]: It's for Commodore Mendez.
KIRK: Plead signal for you, sir. Go ahead, Uhura.
UHURA [OC]: Commodore Mendez, urgent. Subspace monitors show Enterprise receiving transmissions from planet Talos Four in violation of Starfleet General Orders.
KIRK: Receiving transmissions from Talos Four? Then the images we've been seeing are
SPOCK: Are coming from Talos Four, sir.
UHURA [OC]: Captain Kirk is here by relieved. You are ordered to assume command of the Enterprise. Disable vessel if necessary to prevent further contact. Message signed ComSol, Starfleet Command.
MENDEZ: Mister Spock, you're aware of the orders regarding any contact with Talos Four. You have deliberately invited the death penalty. You've not only finished yourself, Spock, but you've finished your Captain as well.
SPOCK: The Commodore must be aware that Captain Kirk knew nothing of this.
MENDEZ: And you're aware a Captain is responsible for everything that occurs on his ship. I order you to return this vessel back to manual control.
SPOCK: Sir, I respectfully decline.
MENDEZ: Very well. You've earned the consequences. This court is in recess.
(Mendez and yeoman leave, Scott and McCoy wheel Pike out after him)
KIRK: Do you know what you're doing? Have you lost your mind?
SPOCK: Captain, Jim, please don't stop me. Don't let him stop me. It's your career and Captain Pike's life. You must see the rest of the transmission.
KIRK: Lock him up.

---

TALOSIAN: Their method of storing records is crude and consumed much time. Are you prepared to assimilate it?
KEEPER: We had not believed this possible. The customs and history of your race show a unique hatred of captivity. Even when it's pleasant and benevolent, you prefer death. This makes you too violent and dangerous a species for our needs.
VINA: He means that they can't use you. You're free to go back to the ship.
PIKE: And that's it. No apologies. You captured one of us, threatened all of us.
TALOSIAN: Your unsuitability has condemned the Talosian race to eventual death. Is this not sufficient?
KEEPER: No other specimen has shown your adaptability. You were our last hope.
PIKE: But wouldn't some form of trade, mutual cooperation.
KEEPER: Your race would learn our power of illusion and destroy itself, too.

---

KEEPER [on screen]: What you now seem to hear, Captain Kirk, are my thought transmissions. The Commodore was never aboard your vessel. His presence there and in the shuttlecraft was an illusion. Mister Spock had related to us your strength of will. It was thought the fiction of a court-martial would divert you from too soon regaining control of your vessel. Captain Pike is welcome to spend the rest of his life with us, unfettered by his physical body. The decision is yours and his.
KIRK: Mister Spock, even if regulations are explicit, you could have come to me and explained.
SPOCK: Ask you to face the death penalty, too? One of us was enough, Captain.
KIRK: Yes.
UHURA [OC]: Message from Starbase Eleven, sir. Received images from Talos Four. In view of historic importance of Captain Pike in space exploration, General Order Seven prohibiting contact Talos Four is suspended this occasion. No action contemplated against Spock. Proceed as you think best. Signed, Mendez, J. I., Commodore, Starbase Eleven.
KIRK: Chris, do you want to go there? (flash - yes) Mister Spock, would you care to take Captain Pike to the transporter room, see him off?
SPOCK: Thank you, sir, for both of us. (flash - yes)
KIRK: Er, Mister Spock, when you're finished, please come back and see me. I want to talk to you. This regret table tendency you've been showing lately towards flagrant emotionalism
SPOCK: I see no reason to insult me, sir. I believe I've been completely logical about the whole affair.
KEEPER [OC] Captain Kirk.
(screen shows the healthy young Vina and healthy young Pike hand in hand)
KEEPER [on screen]: Captain Pike has an illusion, and you have reality. May you find your way as pleasant.

=========

The important thing here is that if any human learns and masters the ability to place illusions in the minds of anyone - a power the Talosians have - then what would likely occur is the destruction of human civilization like what happened to the Talosians. Thus, Starfleet wants no one whatsoever to interact with the Talosians. The death penalty is the only way to ensure that any human who has contact with them does not learn and, worse, use the powers that the Talosians have.

Thus, General Order 7: No vessel under any condition, emergency or otherwise, is to visit Talos IV.

nightdrot · Accepted Answer

Voted NO - and interestingly in relates to the same ethos as the abortion question.

In terms of the death penalty, there is no evidence that it deters crime. As a general rule, it is the surety of punishment rather than its severity that is the best deterrent.

To be sure, the purpose of the law is first to protect society, secondly to punish and third to rehabilitate where possible. As can be seen in the recent prison reform movement - backed by both some conservatives and liberals alike - that central insight has been lost.

However, we shape the law and the law then shapes us. See also the civil rights laws of the 1960s which have effected a revolution in race relations. (The idea that a black man and a white man cannot sit together at the same lunch counter is as alien to this generation as Neptune. Yet in 1965 it was pretty much the norm.)

In terms of abortion, the law is reflecting and reinforcing an ethos that freedom is an end in itself and that the value of life is a subjective judgment rather than an objective standard affording legal protection. That is a very - to say the least - problematic edifice on which to found a culture and base a legal standard.

In terms of capital punishment, it has a similarly coarsening and "relativizing" effect. It tends to reinforce not a health ethic of justice, but a vulgar sense of vengeance and - frankly - bloodlust. The aim is not to protect society, but to exact retaliation. This ethic, in its turn, becomes one that places emotion over reason.

A society so founded is apt not to be pretty - and you can see it in the coarse tone of the culture and the intemperate tone in both social media and our politics. What ought be prudent debates over public policy become screaming matches over good vs. evil - often over the most trivial things.

Aristotle said that the first questions of politics are, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?" A legal culture - and therefore a broader culture - that softens emotions, emphasizes reason over feelings, recognizes that freedom is a means to an end - the pursuit of civic virtue - and not an end in itself, and that gives primacy to an objective standard of the value of life best answers those questions.

That is the case against both the death penalty and abortion on demand. Given the ruins we see around us - and the public's acceptance of both policies - it is a solid case.

4ngelic · Accepted Answer

personally yes. i think a lot of prisoners can't be rehabilitated and we're wasting our tax money on keeping them alive. i think ideally prison should be focused on rehabilitation for prisoners who can be rehabilitated (neurotypical people capable of remorse & empathy, who can be made to not be a threat to other people and society), less about punishment. a lot of people who do lower level crimes do so often because of a bad environment, mental health problems and poverty, not innate malevolance. most people are in prison because they use drugs or petty theft, not crazy stuff. people who actually do severe crimes like murder, rape, sexual abuse of children, human trafficking, etc are usually sociopaths or psychopaths, or suffer with very heavy mental problems that cause cruel behavior. usually those people can't clinically ever feel remorse, guilt, shame and have a high risk of recidivism. those people ideally should be eliminated for the greater good. evil people dont deserve any compasson. the death penalty would help to free up tax money to spend on prisoners who actually deserve to survive and have a second shot at life, and prevents recidivism of severe crimes. it would help dissuade more too from doing certain crimes.

itsannalee · Accepted Answer

Yes 👏🏽
Some people deserve that.

Like corruptors, pedo, and poor people who can’t afford the kids, can’t be able to take food care of them and take responsibility of them, but still give birth of them.

Anonymous · Answer

No. I heard it actually costs more to go through with an execution than to simply keep them in prison for life, but even if that isn't the case, I don't care.

What if someone is executed, and they were actually innocent or actually did less than expected? Even if 99.6% of the cases had hard evidence, do a small minority of people dying who *don't* deserve it justify it?
What if terrorism is arbitrarily defined by the government, and non-violent people get executed for being "terrorists"?

While I would like to believe in rehabilitation, I'm not naïve enough to expect everyone would just turn over a new leaf like that. Which is why I think a long sentence (or even life without parole) is a fair punishment. Let's say we have hard proof someone killed like ten people and they're not sorry nor do they wish to change, wouldn't death be a little too easy of a punishment for them? Everyone will likely die someday, we're mortals. Prison sucks to live in, especially when you're being exploited for profit. That way, they contribute back to society in some way, they don't get to live a life worth living, and then they pass away anyway. Plus, there's always the chance new evidence could come out for the wrongfully imprisoned, death would take away that chance. The death penalty isn't justice, it just shortens their 'suffering' and penance. There's also solitary confinement, and I'd argue that madness and social isolation is a fate worse than death (which, again, everyone dies eventually anyway.)

Tl;Dr
Criminals should pay for their crimes with anguish, not be released into the peaceful void. If you're operating under the assumption they'll be sent straight to Hell, they could have double Hell (one on Earth and then one in the afterlife, if what they did is truly that bad.)

overlord337645 · Answer

when the death penalty is imposed it shows we are no better than the killer themselves i realize the family needs to greive and nothing can truly bring back the life lost but i do know that the death penalty is the easy way out it basicly gives them a free ticket outta prison not only that no one deserves that now thats not to say some people are not horrible people but rather that everyone deserves forgiveness for those of us who are christan i would like to remind you jesus said in the bible
Luke 23:34
While on the cross, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing"

this shows that if jesus can do so in death we can do so in life while mourning the death of others but again let me make this clear this does not condone or excuse the persons actions or the loss of a life nor does it belittle it but rather it helps us to understand forgiveness is hard and sometimes the best punishment is that

AManOnTheWeb · Answer

I support life without parole, which IS A DEATH PENALTY--just on a longer timeline. (I wonder if it was renamed to "death by God" if conservatives would support it more). They will never leave prison alive and I'm ok with that outcome. I'm not ok with accelerating that timeline.

Life without parole is cheaper than executing them (the judicial process for executions is extremely costly), and it removes the possibility of executing someone who happens to be innocent. We have many examples of innocent people being exonerated after 10+ years on death row. Who do you execute if you execute the wrong guy? the judge? the prosecutor? the jurors? the detective? the family of the victim?

EzraIsShy76028 · Answer

Like with most things, it depends.

To me the death penalty would only be an absolute last resort. Like if a guy has murdered many children, there's 100% absolute certain no doubt he did what he did, there's DNA samples, video footage, several witnesses, etc... I see no reason to keep a man like that alive.

However, a lot of people are also wrongfully convicted. So you gotta keep that into account. A person shouldn't get the death penalty just because people THINK they committed the crime. And I'd say that even being 99.99% certain is not enough. It HAS to be 100% certain. DNA samples, video footage, several witnesses, everything that removes any doubt.

HawkPerception · Answer

When there is enough evidence and it's 100% verified, then yes. It sucks when someone gets framed for stuff and unjustly dies.

People who murder in cold blood, rape, and even stealing expensive things from others that can't be easily replaced (might take a good portion of their life to get back the value of what was stolen) should all be put to death. It's also a good deterrent from criminals attempting to do stuff when the consequence is death. Here in Canada, I'm sick of people going into malls and just stealing whatever they want because law enforcers have to respect their "rights". It's crazy that things have gotten to what they've gotten to today. It's gotten so bad in Canada that police have told us to put our keys in the front of our houses so if someone tries entering to house to take the car, they can take it easily, rather than telling us to defend ourselves and our properties.

NaultD · Answer

No.Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you. Friedrich W. NietzscheI fundamental believe that justice shouldn't be transactional. The government has greater power then any individual and the government power is given by the masses. Even in the best case for death penalty it ends up more masterbatory then justice. Where victims become commodities to be abused and tossed away for satisfying blood lust. The same nature as the culprit of said death penalty. One is legal but the other not. Not even two sides of the coin argument but the same exact thing and expression. This is turning into the monster.

RingOfFire · Answer

I find it terribly ironic that the same people that have no problem murdering millions of completely innocent babies every year by abortion get so indignant and morally righteous when you talk about the death sentence for someone who rapes and murders someone else.

I guess murderers of the innocent stick up for each other.

I think these people have some sort of brain disorder. It's probably related to the same brain problem as Trump Derangement Syndrome since most people who have one also have the other.

KITEinStorm · Answer

75% of the girls said yes, why are girls always so harsh on punishment?

There are people who are proven innocent after 30 years, and as soon as they receive the death penalty, the case is closed with execution. So, are you ready to take this death responsibility?

@nightdrot is right : "In terms of the death penalty, there is no evidence that it deters crime."

CupcakeTheDestroyer · Answer

With exception to hate crimes and sex crimes, all criminal acts can be traced to external sources, meaning it’s because of something outside of the accused’s control, i. e. getting charged for theft when you just stole food to feed yourself and your family bc your 2 jobs somehow aren’t enough to do that.

Kelley1 · Answer

Yes, I do. Moreover, to save money, I would make it quicker and easier without the appeals. There would be unfortunate mistakes but we are not an endangered species so a few dozen unjustified death penalties would be more than offset by the money saved by lengthy trials and appeals.

malarkey · Answer

The death penalty is generally used for people that murder other people, people that commit treason, and now for people that forcefully rape prepubescent children. I wouldn't lose sleep over people like that being executed given the evidence is solid and they had a fair trial.

AviatorTom · Answer

I've always believed that someone convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to death should be executed in public, like they used to do in Olde England, and televised for all to see, rather than do it in secret, with only a handful of witnesses.

If we, as a society, don't want to do that, then maybe we should rethink capital punishment.

SofaKingsMart · Answer

Yes. I believe the government should have the final say in who gets to live and who gets to die.
It’s not like they ever mess things up. We don’t have to worry about things like wrongful convictions or malicious prosecutions. Those things just don’t happen. The government should get to decide who live and who dies.

Anonymous · Answer

Honestly, it's a hard call.

There are very serious crimes that led to someone dying. However, there are also plenty of cases where the wrong person is convicted, sentenced to death, and executed without evidence pertaining to the crimes.

I am not a liberal, I just believe innocent people shouldn't be executed.

Aiko_E_Lara · Answer

Yes and I'd support it done in a torturous way. Because if it's painless, it will only encourage those suicidal people to unleash their wrath disregarding that consequence because it's what they wanted after all. If I sound evil for supporting torture then don't commit crime. I'm not forcing you to do that.

Surely · Answer

I agree with capital punishment. My biggest concern is. Suppose that I was on a jury and sentenced someone to death. Then years later it comes out that the person on trial was innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt.
How would you feel?

GAGsucksballs89170 · Answer

No, I don't

The central park 5, are a perfect example of why we shouldn't.

Not only did they not do it, with scientific evidence to back it up, but, the guy who actually did it, a white man, confessed to it.

Trump, the racist, just wanted them behind bars and the death penalty, because, they're black/mexican.

beefcakebradybatson · Answer

No. Studies have shown that death penalty states have more murders than non-death penalty states, plus, it's racially and socioeconomically discriminatory against poor POC. (There's a jailhouse saying which goes that it's called "capital punishment" because if you lack the capital to hire a good defense team instead of overworked, underpaid public defenders, you get the punishment, as the death penalty is rarely meted out to affluent murder defendants.)

FreyaRed · Answer

Yes. For severe violent crimes. Only fools believe in resocialization, it's better to get rid of mentally sick individuals who committed unforgivable crimes.

OneViewpoint · Answer

In some cases, yes. Why keep a Charles Manson or Ted Bundy alive? What's the point? You can't reform them. You can never release them. Why spend the money to lock them up for 50 years or whatever?

TheStaleMarshmellow · Answer

If anything it should be a simple, bullet to the head. Why make it a show? Lethal injection, gallows, guillotine, firing squad with blanks in the guns except one.. All that sounds expensive. Just you know, click click boom, Next!

Drumlin2001 · Answer

I think there are circumstances where it is appropriate, and cost effective. Why incarcerate someone for 50 years with no plan of releasing them? At £50k a year.

Intheclouds00 · Answer

Our justice system is not reliable or thorough enough to kill people. Invariably we will kill innocent people. And if they deserve it, killing them is mercy. Make them rot til they die if they really did it.

SeekerOfTruth007 · Answer

Some people are so evil they will never repent of their crimes. Those people should be put to death for everyone else's safety.

Danzigdawson · Answer

It has no effect on crime and it's state-sanctioned murder.

slatyb · Answer

Too many innocent people have been found guilty and executed.

blackeagle007 · Answer

hey trumpers, you wouldn’t be praising this if a loved one of your is on death row. Keep that in mind. It doesn’t deter crime. Someone will likely die of natural causes in prison faster than execution

Guanfei · Answer

Yep. There are crimes so serious that you can't hope for rehabilitation, or hope it won't happen again. And keeping those criminals in jail forever cost too much. Better get rid of them.

MaxW1 · Answer

I am a retributionist, it's deserved if the criminal is guilty and has done terrible things

DrPepper12 · Answer

No. Anachronistic vengeful sadistic barbaric state sanctioned murder.

MannMitAntworten · Answer

No, because mankind would be better served by using the condemned to further human medical experiments.

Anonymous · Answer

Particularly for the pedophiles and serial killers.

NatalieKeller95 · Answer

yes and democrat politicians shouldn't be immune to it either

andreasderjuengere · Answer

Only when it's applied on others. And so - not really :)

exitseven · Answer

Yes, and it should be expanded to drug dealers who cause the death of another person.

MikeTheGreek1979 · Answer

No, I think they should've been confined to solitary confinement. When viruses like COVID-19 break out, they should be used as test subjects. In the words of Ivan Drago, if he dies, he dies.

bolverk · Answer

For certain offences, with overwhelming evidence then Yes,

Hispanic-Cool-Guy · Answer

Yes. Pedophiles, homosexuals and those that murder others should be put to death immediately upon conviction.

Ladsin2 · Answer

You only need to hang mean bastards, but mean bastards you need to hang.

msc545 · Answer

Hell no. It is barbaric, expensive, and vengeful.

GODBODY954 · Answer

It's not your life to take even if he/she deserve it

five_guy · Answer

In theory yes. In practice, sometimes. Punishment, generally speaking, should be commensurate with the crime. Some crimes warrant such a penalty.

Flower7 · Answer

No because two wrongs don’t make a right.

Priya99999 · Answer

Stop making stupid rules and live in the real world

MemeSupreme · Answer

YOU LIVE BY SWORD YOU DIE BY THE SWORD

Kaneki05 · Answer

Yes but only if proven without doubt.

katiesmuff · Answer

In some cases yes I do!

chrissykerdock · Answer

heinous murders fit death penalty

dreamstar72 · Answer

Haunting voices would be better

Dargil · Answer

Selectively, yes.

oldpigg · Answer

Only for serious crimes like abortion.

Kelly6 · Answer

Yes I do agree with it

KittygosMeoWW · Answer

Yes! I wish it was enforced in California

SmokinAces2000 · Answer

Only in certain cases

Hulk30 · Answer

There's only 1 God

Steve-the-lion · Answer

Yes, but only for politicians.

BCRanger10 · Answer

Yes, I do.

CheeseMonster · Answer

No. Not ever.

Jay-_- · Answer

Yes very much.

Iamcoming · Answer

Sometimes yes

Do you agree with the death penalty?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Do you agree with the death penalty?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.