Jump to content
Jotari

Death Penalty and Abortion, the overlap (or lack thereof) of opinions

I...  

102 members have voted

  1. 1. I...

    • Support both the Death Penalty and Abortion.
      21
    • Support the Death Penalty but not Abortion.
      17
    • Support Abortion but not the Death Penalty.
      48
    • Support neither the Death Penalty nor Abortion.
      16


Recommended Posts

So a few weeks ago upon watching this video

I spotted one comment that said "I find it odd that the same people who are anti-abortion on the grounds of "sanctity of life" also tend to be for the death penalty"  and I thought to myself, My, what a massively generalized statement. I wonder if there's any truth to it whatsoever. I should make a poll over on Serenes and see what kind of opinion the general populace over there has. Then I just didn't do it until now for absolutely no reason. But I have now one way or the other. Polls up there, vote and discuss how ridiculous or logical it is to try and spot a trend between the two things.

Also of course these subjects are very divisive with multiple cases of contested exceptions and scenario but I'm not going to try and fit all of them on to a poll. Vote based on your own belief of whatever the words encapsulate as general terms.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm for abortion if it's a last resort (as it generally is) and think criminals who commit crimes on the level of mass-murder should have the death penalty handled on a case-per-case basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is generally a very socially conservative opinion. There is not a huge amount of social conservatives using the internet, probably especially not in a place like SF.

Support abortion and generally not the death penalty except in cases where guilthood is proven beyond any doubt. There was a study that said 4% of those on death row were completely innocent. 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

I feel the death penalty should be for those where there is no doubt they are horrible people with no chance for rehabilitation. Which is why I don't really feel like fighting the death penalty in cases like Dylann Roof.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything Tryhard said. I'm against the death penalty but I would also not argue/fight against it in the case of obvious guilty people like Roof.

I'm for abortion, especially having had kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My views on abortion are confusing as all hell, which would make the poll needlessly complicated.

I'm against the death penalty because it's cheaper to imprison inmates for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather not have abortions in preventable(consensual) and non-life threatening circumstances. I think the death penalty is not so easily reserved, as crimes of passion reflect just as poorly on one's character as wanton destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support both abortion and death penalty. Death penalty is cheaper than keeping one in jail for lifetime, I cant understand why people keep saying it's expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Magical CC said:

I support both abortion and death penalty. Death penalty is cheaper than keeping one in jail for lifetime, I cant understand why people keep saying it's expensive.

This is why.  The numbers are outdated, but the logic is not.

EDIT: Numbers (PDF warning)

Edited by eclipse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support the death penalty but not abortion. The death penalty should only be used for when there is undisputed evidence against someone, and abortion only because of rape or danger for the mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't support the death penalty in any circumstance. I support legalisation of abortion but don't support it in the sense that I agree with it, more that I view it as an unfortunate neccessity given circumstances and human failings (I'd rather we didn't have unwanted pregnancies occur ever basically, but that's a different tier of societal problem, a shockingly large amount to do with the fact people can't use contraceptives properly)

Edited by Irysa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In support of abortion. Generally not a big fan of the death penalty, but I support it in certain circumstances. Like that guy who killed 77 people in Norway, why would you want to keep these people around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eclipse said:

This is why.  The numbers are outdated, but the logic is not.

EDIT: Numbers (PDF warning)

2,16 millions dollars, god, why executing in America so expensive? Here in my country, death penalty is reserved for extreme crimes and once you committed such crimes, you automatically get death penalty unless the judge lessen the penalty and jail you for life instead. There's no appeal unless you can prove that you didnt commit that crime which had to be done before the final judgement anyway. Then they give you some week and drag you out and shoot you. Either your family pay money to bring your corpse home or they burn your corpse and bury in a mass grave for executed people. We dont shoot people anymore and use poison instead but since we cant produce the poison ourselves yet so we still shoot people for a litte longer.

 

1 hour ago, Bandido Banderas said:

In support of abortion. Generally not a big fan of the death penalty, but I support it in certain circumstances. Like that guy who killed 77 people in Norway, why would you want to keep these people around?

So that he can sue the government because his internet in the cell is not good. Yeah, that is what happened.

Edited by Magical CC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Magical CC said:

2,16 millions dollars, god, why executing in America so expensive?

Lots and LOTS of court hearings/appeals to make absolutely positively certain that the legal system didn't screw up.  It's also another strike against the death penalty, IMO - is it worth the risk to kill someone who's innocent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Lots and LOTS of court hearings/appeals to make absolutely positively certain that the legal system didn't screw up.  It's also another strike against the death penalty, IMO - is it worth the risk to kill someone who's innocent?

Are you sure it's to make the death penalty absolutely right and not just the lawmakers wanting to drain as much money as they can from the government budget?

Edited by Magical CC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Magical CC said:

Are you sure it's to make the death penalty absolutely right not just the lawmakers wanting to drain as much money as they can from the government budget?

. . .and do you have any sources for this, or is this just speculation on your part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Magical CC said:

Just asking. Is now asking a crime too?

So it's speculation.  The reason why I think it would be improbable for the American death penalty to be some sort of fraud is because preparing for a trial is a really long, tedious process - a case can take years before it appears before a judge.  There's also filing fees, discovery, letters up the wazoo, phone calls, and a whole mountain of paperwork that makes it very improbable that the death penalty is used as some sort of money-making scheme.  Being a lawyer comes down to a ton of writing and correspondence.

Also, lawyers have to answer to the disciplinary board, and they do NOT fuck around.  Fraud is explicitly listed as one of the complaints that they take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro-Abortion, but Anti-Death Penalty since Norway has proved that prioritising restorative justice over retribution is a far more effective way of running a prison system, not to mention the statistics that Eclipse provided.

 

Edited by The Blind Idiot God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money's no object if the crime is serious enough. The problem is, some states apply this punishment a little too liberally, and force it upon people who made mistakes (stray bullets in a convenience store, etc.). I still support it because there are some really bad people out there who need the most extreme punishment imaginable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Money's no object if the crime is serious enough. The problem is, some states apply this punishment a little too liberally, and force it upon people who made mistakes (stray bullets in a convenience store, etc.). I still support it because there are some really bad people out there who need the most extreme punishment imaginable.

I'll disagree with that. The money spent on executions could be put to better use for numerous other purposes that actually make a meaningful contribution to society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Money's no object if the crime is serious enough. The problem is, some states apply this punishment a little too liberally, and force it upon people who made mistakes (stray bullets in a convenience store, etc.). I still support it because there are some really bad people out there who need the most extreme punishment imaginable.

What does killing them actually achieve though? If it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life rather than killing them, wouldn't that be the more logical option? You get the same net result, society is safe from the person, at less actual cost to society. Not like the death penalty serves as much of a deterrence anyway since regions that have it have just as much if not worse crime statistics. Take away the money factor and it basically becomes something purely based on revenge. Which I personally see as a pretty fruitless and egotistical way to view the world.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

What does killing them actually achieve though? If it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life rather than killing them, wouldn't that be the more logical option? You get the same net result, society is safe from the person, at less actual cost to society. Not like the death penalty serves as much of a deterrence anyway since regions that have it have just as much if not worse crime statistics. Take away the money factor and it basically becomes something purely based on revenge. Which I personally see as a pretty fruitless and egotistical way to view the world.

I find it less cruel to take life than see it go to waste. I would much prefer the appeals process removed, but there are ethical problems with that as well. Also, what does crime rate have to do with it? Having a death penalty does not correlate in any way to crime rate, even in the way most people want it to. Fruitless? Well, almost anything not for the betterment of society on the whole is most definitely fruitless. But what about egotistical? Man has been judiciously killing since before civilization began. I'm not so vain as to believe humanity is above killing when the wrong is considered heinous enough that even other criminals revile the offender. If a child slayer isn't executed by a body of government, his fellow inmates will do the work for them. The only way to protect them is Supermax, which I wholeheartedly disagree with on humanitarian grounds due to the barbaric nature of their living conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

I find it less cruel to take life than see it go to waste. I would much prefer the appeals process removed, but there are ethical problems with that as well. Also, what does crime rate have to do with it? Having a death penalty does not correlate in any way to crime rate, even in the way most people want it to. Fruitless? Well, almost anything not for the betterment of society on the whole is most definitely fruitless. But what about egotistical? Man has been judiciously killing since before civilization began. I'm not so vain as to believe humanity is above killing when the wrong is considered heinous enough that even other criminals revile the offender. If a child slayer isn't executed by a body of government, his fellow inmates will do the work for them. The only way to protect them is Supermax, which I wholeheartedly disagree with on humanitarian grounds due to the barbaric nature of their living conditions.

That's the point. What is actually gained by executing someone. Why do it? What logical, unemotional, reasoning leads to it being a good idea?

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jotari said:

That's the point. What is actually gained by executing someone. Why do it?

This question leads to debaters talking in circles. The ethics of capital punishment are as old as the wheel, if not older. If it's survived since then, it isn't going anywhere. This question isn't as simple as you would like it to be, and the answer is almost impossible to come to. If humanity could overcome its pettiness (which it can't), then I would agree with you, but as long as people try to excuse evil, it will need to be met with harsh, even fatal, reproach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...