Our law can't be lenient, one of those "Oh, you killed someone. Well, spend ten years in a room while I feed you three times a day, give you air conditioning, give you rights and privileges" like the one in the US. Also, we have to consider death penalty. I find it somewhat insulting to me that a government cares for a criminal's life instead of using that money (be it a hundred dollars or three cents) on useful stuff. Of course, death penalty is just for cruel, fully intended crimes such as first degree murder, rape, sexual assault until some degree, etc. Things such as burglary and assault should be punished with fines and permanent expulsion.

Idk, what do you think of this?

The general concensus of other threads of similar ilk is the death penalty is somewhat barbaric and primitive, and thusly sensibly avoidable.

As to law being severe, the general trend of other threads approaching this very subject seem to suggest a response of rehabilitiation to be favoured over punishment - which is well documented to do little about preventing re-occurances.

deleted

There are crimes so heinous that they call for a death penalty. I'm against death penalty. Why ? Because no matter how earnest, carefully and capable a crime is being investigated - there is plenty of room for error. "Oh, he was innocent in the end. Oops, we excuted him yesterday. My bad." is not an option. We are humans, we tend to do errors. We will put innocent people in jail because something went awry in the court. But you can't revive them. So death penalty out of quotation for me.

A single innocent man's life wrongly taken is too much for calling a law right. Also, laws should not be about revenge.

If Asgardia grows into a nation in my lifetime and I am there when it happens - and death penalty is made into a law and excuted - I will fight you.

I don't have any moral qualms with the death penalty.

I do, however, recognize its permanence and the inability to make appropriate reparations in the event of an error in judgment in favor of killing someone.

Thus, the death penalty should only be performed when there is no denial of guilt, especially if the guilty party is asking for it (which happens).

If it's specifically requested, in sound mind and good judgement then it should be granted regardless of "criminal status" - it shouldn't be considered a sentence of law or a penalty imposed upon, but an extension of their rights as sentient being to not be alive. Or at least this is my opinion.

If it's specifically requested, in sound mind and good judgement then it should be granted regardless of "criminal status" - it shouldn't be considered a sentence of law or a penalty imposed upon, but an extension of their rights as sentient being to not be alive. Or at least this is my opinion.

I can concur with this opinion. It allows for individual freedoms, self-determination, as well as equal respect.

Regarding requesting assistance with suicide, there have to be strong failguards. Angsty teenagers and people with severe psychological problems should not be able to simply request for being terminated. Anyway, discussion of assisted suicide derail this thread. It is important enough to create another discussion thread of its own.

I disagree with this idea on all levels, the stricter the laws, the more likely violent crimes are to occur and their rate of occurence to rise. In every situation where people are subjected to strict rules. In order to try and straighten their behaviour out the opposite has occured. Also, the death penalty is only a penalty if the person sentenced to it cares if they live or die. It is also useless for that very reason so, I do not see a place for it in Asgardian law. The most effective way to deal with folks who can not be rehabilitated. Is to lock them away in a place where they can still be of use to society. In the isolated environment of space every able bodied man/woman is a resource far too valuable to waste

Citations requested.

KEK

@Phicksur,

I am confused are you referring to me after requesting that I no longer reply to you? Doing so would make it difficult to honor said request,so, which is it reply or do not reply?

I know. I apologize. I appreciate your self-control and not responding to me in threads up until now.

I have been trying to be respectful as well, but your statements here seemed so emphatic and I have been unable to find verifiable facts to prove or refute them. Thus, I am hoping that, perhaps, we can begin again and you can share the sources you are using to back up your statements. I am honestly trying to just get more information about what you have said. Perhaps we can resume discourse without resorting to name-calling and discuss matters reasonably and respectfully. If you possess no citations and are speaking anecdotally, please just say so and I will not require further elaboration.

DFY

@Phicksur,

I admit that I should not have said every time considering that is plain false but. There are examples of strict laws being instituted and not having the results desired. Prohibition being one and the gun control issue being another

Ah, ok, it was a bit of hyperbole.

I understand now. Thank you. Carry on.

RLE

@Phicksur, @Brandon7

Thanks for being civil! 

BUMP: Interestingly, in the US, getting the death penalty actually costs much more than getting a life sentence, if you consider the millions spent on court hearings, attorneys, and so on. Besides, in a society that has the reliable means of imprisoning individuals indefinitely, the death penalty starts looking like a legal form of revenge.