My first Death Penalty Thread.

[Against ME]

The Death Penalty is something that I really like to argue about, because there is no right or wrong answer, and it basically comes down to the persons morals. With that said, I hope to start a nice discussion about it.

My personal problem with the Death Penalty, is not the fact that people are dying, but rather that the goverment is dictating the killing. And in my book the government does not have the right to take human life, and for that reason the death penalty should be illegal. Not to mention the fact that guilt usually cannot be proven without a doubt, so as DNA testing has showed us, many innocents have died needlessly.

The D-P also raises inconsistancies, between the same crime with a different jury. If the exact same crime was committed, I find it hard to believe that every jury would give it Life, or the D-P. So that in of itself should make the D-P not legal.

It does not deter Crime. I don't know the exact time, but there was a moratorium on the Death Penalty, from ???? till 1972, and during that time the crime rate neither went up nor down, but rather it stayed the same.

The money issue is also irrelevant, because a Death Penalty trial costs much more, and the mandatory review costs more. But life in prison isn't cheap either. The fact is that you cannot put a price on justice.

To me the Death Penalty is not Justice, it is revenge. It a superfluous punishment based around revenge.

[Against ME]

1. hmm

[TahitiNut]

43. You covered my perspective on the DP, except one.

One more point: It models killing as way to "solve a problem".

While I'm now 60, I still remember my moderately reactive (individualizing) youth. When someone tried to "put the hammer down" it only increased my reactive zeal. (I'll show you, damnit!) As a somewhat "normal" young (teens and 20's) person, I was able to heed my own sense of 'right and wrong' more than my "how dare you?" zeal, but I can only imagine how many people are to some degree less inhibited about killing since, after all, politicians do it. (I even must admit, as I examine my inclinations, it has even affected me. Else I probably wouldn't see it.)

It's bad enough that our government has shown little hesitency to use its military force to go in and kill the "bad guys" (which we humans always see as those who oppose us, the "good guys") -- and a few thousand more who merely "got in our way". Our militaristic "might makes right" policy contaminates all manner of thinking. The death penalty only amplifies it.

[Submariner]

2. Ban the Death Penalty

I'm against this easy-out lethal injection business. It is a painless exit from life with no possibility for long-term punishment, because once you're dead, you're dead...Period. (Like the myth of Santy Claus, there is no afterlife, so let's not go there).

Those currently deserving of the death penalty should get life without the possibility of parole. They should be put in a 6x6 ft cell with no reading materials, radio, or TV,...FOREVER. The only comfort should be clean clothing/bedding and enough food to keep them alive.

Maybe when the word got out on the streets that LIFERS are going mad from being 'stir crazy', some murderers may think twice about killing their victim.

[Against ME]

5. I disagree with that,

the prisoners are not animals, they are humans, and I don't care what they've done you cannot treat them like that. IT would be better for everyone if you gave them something to have pride in, Like reading, or sports.

[ProudGerman]

11. You continue the folly

The folly that somehow the death penalty actually deters any crime. You say that thinking about going stir crazy would be a deterrent to crime, well what would be more of a deterrent than forfeiture of breathing priviledges? I don't think the death penalty has stopped someone on a murderous rampage dead in the tracks, ever. With that assumption, I think its also safe to assume that prison life wouldn't either. To make the claim that punishment is a deterrent you'll have to convince me that rational thought is a capability humans have when filled with uncontrollable rage. It'll be hard though, I believe the two to be mutually exclusive.

I agree with you that the death penalty is unjust, and I agree with the life without parole part. I disagree with the treatment you suggest. I like to be able to claim superiority over those who have no value for human life. Don't make it a country club, but don't make it a hell hole either.

[Kellanved]

34. exactly

A murderer does not expect to get caught. So the actual penalty has no effect either way.

Besides: Why are poor convicted murderers far more often sentenced to death than rich ones?
What difference does it make for the public safety, if someone is dead or in jail?
Why does the US not even abide to basic international laws (execution of foreign nationals w/o informing their Gouvernment first) ?


The whole concept of the DP is medieval IMHO.

[Paschall]

15. No, prison is designed to deprive the accused of liberty

Not starve or deaden the prisoner's mind.

Prisoners should have access to reading materials, television, and other appropriate information and entertainment. To do otherwise would be cruel and inhumane. And no matter what the crime the prisoner committed, we are still held to certain Constitutional (and moral) standards in how we treat prisoners.

[Syrinx]

3. I'm against the death penalty

Mainly because it is inevitable that innocent people are going to be executed.

But I have mixed feelings, because there are certain high elected officials that should pay for their treason.

[AmyStrange]

4. Well since I don't have any morals...

than that sort of ruins the whole argument doesn't it?

I tend to be a person who believes in being totally honest, not because I'm moral, but because I have a very hard time remembering what I said or wrote and besides i love the look on people's faces when I tell them exactly what I think.

Uhhhh... what was the question again?

Oh the death penalty. I'm totally against it because I worry about an innocent being executed. I have too much empathy I think which is a lot different than morales, or maybe you don't think so.

I can put myself in other people's shoes absolutely and it is so devastatingly heartbreaking and so depressing. I try not to think about it too much. Right now I'm getting so depressed from all those soldiers being killed in Iraq and they had a show on last night about the other people who went missing and were found murdered at about the same time as laci Peterson and yet their stories were hardly in the media and all their Moms and family and friends and all those people who love them and the cops more or less have given up on one of them and jessica Lynch and her family and the family of those who died in Iraq who were with her.

Crap, sorry for rambling

Dave (AmyStrange.com)

DU (slang/ folklore) Glossary (Dictionary): http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/
Index of WMD Articles: http://WMD.SeattleActivist.org/

Here are some excellent resources and timelines of quotes and interviews and newspaper article quotes documenting the different things Bush and Co did and said for the last two plus years concerning the war in Iraq and WMDs (and other fun things) from the Howard Dean Website---even if you're not a Dean Fan, these are still excellent resources:

The Bush Administration And WMDs: Then And Now:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=bush_wmd_summary

Niger-Uranium Timeline:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=niger_timeline

Bush and WMD: Assumptions vs. Reality:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/TikTok_-_Bush_-_Iraq_-_Side_by_Side.pdf?docID=781

The Bush Administration and WMD: What did they know and when did they know it?:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/TikTok_-_Administration_-_Iraq_Deception.pdf?docID=762



(edited: double posted my sig lines)

[redeye]

6. Right you are...

...the right to life precedes all other rights, including property, for without life there is no ponit to any other right. Giving you tax rebates gotten from executing people instead of jailing them is pointless if you can't be certain that the government will not take your life for any reason; the death penalty thus makes sense about as much as guaranteed freedom of speech with legal restrictions on freedom of thought.

As you said, criminals are human beings too, not animals or machines.

[irate]

9. What about the right to life of the victim?

What about the right to life of the victim? I don't know if a murderer can be considered a human being or not....

[redeye]

12. The victim is dead either way...

...mainly because death penalty is not a proven deterrent (if at all, evidence shows that abolishing the death penalty doesn't increase murder rate).

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. No, not THAT victim

The next one. Yes, all of you are so moral that you forget what hell you unleash on the world. By refusing to end the life of these murderers and rapists you are inviting them, no, encouraging them to do so again.

Even if you give them life without parole, they are still a threat to all within the prison system -- guards, staff, visitors and other prisoners. And that assumes they can never escape, but somehow some do.

And, of course, if you give someone life without parole, you lose all ability to control their behavior in prison because they have nothing to work toward, no parole to behave for, etc. You are just making matters worse.

Ultimately, many of these monsters get out of jail and guess where they go? No, not to your cute suburban neighborhoods, but to the inner city where they prey on the poor and minorities who can't leave. And the cycle repeats again.

[Against ME]

39. Actually, there's something called Super Maximum Security

Prison where there is no flesh to flesh contact? So exactly how can someone hurt a gaurd or another inmate if they never meet?

First of all, if someone was being considered for the Death Penalty, they would get Life Withou Parole, and the would NOT be back on the streets, and they cannot kill again.

Your assumption that a maximum security prison is nothing more than a hotel with a few gaurds is incorect. They are watched 24 hours a day, and they cannot committ further crimes.

The only way a "monster could get out of jail would be if the monster didn't have life without parole, in which case they wouldn't have been considered for the DP. So they would get out with or without the DP.

Maximum security prisons do not allow for murders and rapings, and everything you see in the movie, it is a harsh enviornment where the prison is closely watched when and if he/she interacts with others. The prison will not get out because it's Life Without Parol. And the "monsters" you speak of wouldn't even qualify for the DP.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. No

I acknowledge the Supermax facilities are fairly (emphasis on that) safe.

But even those people need medical care, get transported to hearings, to court, to meet visitors, etc. In short, they have contact with people. That leaves them as a threat.

So life without parole, eh? How many prisons of the Supermax variety do you wish to build? Are you going to put ALL murderers in there? How about rapists and child molestors? Lord knows, they repeat their crimes damn often.

You see, when I talk death penalty, I include those people. They remain an ongoing threat to our society, our families and our children.

[Against ME]

49. Okay, so you think we live in some kind of Machiviallian

state, or something of that nature.

Rapists and Child molestors, if they repeat there crime it was only because they didn't get life without parole, and hence couldn't get DP, and got a lighter sentence and got out.

Transported to hearings, are you kidding me? The "hearing" happens right there in the prison, and it is foolish to think otherwise. And how can They hurt a visitor if there is no flesh to flesh contact, will they say something mean?

And, Maximum security prisons aren't a walk in the park either, no prison is. IF they are dangerous, they will be in Max, the purpose of prison is to remove the danger.

[depakid]

7. Most of the nations in the world have come to the same conclusion

for many of the same reasons.

Unfortunately, most Americans need their pound of flesh and are willing to pay for it- whatever the cost. It's not a rational thing. It's visceral. And it's easy. Which is why changing people's minds about it is like fighting the tides.

[sam sarrha]

there is no proof that death is a penalty.

i have heard some people's 'opinion' that life is prefered to death, but that is NOT always the case. prisoners will choose death, over life in prison. the problem is that there is no scientific proof that death is a punishment, nor has a prisoner come back from death to give a legal deposition to what degree that death is punishment. on the contrary most 'after life' experances involve the person being unhappy about having to come back, this was the case in my own personal experance after suffocating. there is a disturbing association of our politicians promising to execute prisoners in custody if they are elected... being that there is no proof that the DP detures crime, i can only see this as promising make Blood Sacrafices to the voters, for their votes. the Dp apparently has relationships to judao/christian dogma, ..sending the victom to a supreme being that will punish them more severely than we can. my conslusion is that the death penanty is cruel and unsual, ..cruel because not only because of the inhuman living conditions but of mental torture not knowing when or if they will actually die. the death penalty is unusual because no one actually knows if it really is punishment.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redeye]

10. Hmmm...

...Scientific studies have mostly debunked NDE. Besides, those NDE's are psychological, so Christians say they saw Jesus, Muslims say they saw Allah, and so on. Those who describe their experience as hell are generally not atheists but rather Christians who committed transgressions such as excess drinking or crimes.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Nicely put.

Philosphically, I'm against the death penalty because the government is an extension of the people, and if we can't go around killing off people, neither can the government. There are questions of self-defense, and other justifications for killing, but the death penalty alone defines a class of people to die. That the class of people is a despicable one does not matter-- the goverment has no business defining who should be killed under any circumstances.

I'm not big on the slippery slope thing, but if we have defined murderers, some rapists and drug dealers, and others as scum to be killed. We could just as easily define atheists or fundies or libertarians as scum to be killed, and we all know how that sort of thing has happened in the past.

In practical terms, there is no deterrent effect, the trials cost more, it is not applied uniformly for the crimes committed, and the error is far too final.

Just two of many anti-DP sites:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

http://www.journeyofhope.org/

[not systems]

14. The state has no right to kill

except in case of?

I am against the death penalty for these reasons
as well as a few others.

What would be different about the world if
all people killed wrongly by the state for
what people believed were good reason were
judged today?

How many would be free, or never charged.

Think witch trials, lynching by angry mobs
with state approval, and show trial executions.

The state should never kill, it has been found unsound by history.

[German-Lefty]

38. Look at what other more civilized countries are doing.

Here:
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty_countries_eng

Pretty much the only western country besides the US still killing thier people is Japan. Here's the list of backward countries that still have it.

"AFGHANISTAN, ALGERIA, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BENIN, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KENYA, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MAURITANIA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, TUNISIA, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE"

All of the EU and anyone that want's to join have given it up, even Turkey. We're in a club with Chian, Iran, Iraq (before), Korea, Cuba, ZIMBABWE, the Palestinian Authority, and most of the places terrorists come from.

Far be for me to say you should always do what everyone else is doing, but we should consider who our buddies are.

[TahitiNut]

45. Notice how many former colonies are in that list???

It's almost like a generational child abuse model. :puke:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong

???:shrug:
my $0.02

[Lexingtonian]

17. It's predicated on magical thinking

My basic problem with it is that it's de facto a ritual killing, a human sacrifice. The theological analysis says that there is some kind of magical connection between it and the victim(s) being happier both here and in The Other Realm. Whatever the religion underlying these beliefs is, it certain isn't Christianity.

I have a problem with places like Texas, which seem to want to kill every garden variety killer rather than reform its society to the point where it stops breeding as many as it does. Of course, that would mean that the state government of Texas be something other than an enabler of the elite and destroyer of the commoner, and- as we know- we can't possibly have that.

So I reject the death penalty. There are some extraordinary cases, though, e.g. Adolf Eichmann's. I think Arendt's argument (at the end of 'Eichmann in Jerusalem') about him holds up, that in human eyes he could never be anything to others other than the bureaucratic mass murderer, and as a result there was no meaningful life possible to him in human society anymore.

[FlashHarry]

19. You're wrong. There IS a right and wrong answer.

Simply stated, the Death Penalty is wrong. Period. The reason? It is irreversible. Until you can know with 100% certitude that a defendant is guilty, you cannot mete out an irreversible penalty. And, as long as fallible humans are judged by other fallible humans, you can never be 100% sure of anyone's guilt.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. A perfect world

You aspire to live in a perfect world. The rest of us have to acknowledge that will never happen. But we still have to pick up the pieces that are caused by the murderers, rapists and child molestors who prey on our communities.

The real math is this: If we execute the worst criminals on a regular basis, we will save more lives than we lose because we will prevent them from harming others.

[Mandate My Ass]

21. wrong

again. Violent crimes go up after executions in the very states that perform them. Your bloodthirstiness and intense need for vengeance are not valid reasons to put possibly innocent people, nor undoubtedly guilty ones, to death. Especially the ritualized death carnival we call an execution in this country.

[FlashHarry]

22. If one innocent is executed, the whole thing becomes wrong.

And you can't tell me that you believe that an innocent person has never been executed in this country.

Actually, if you read my post, you'll see that I'm saying, it's precisely because we don't live in a perfect world that the DP is wrong.

As to the other 'pros,' it isn't a deterrent and it isn't cheaper. What it is, however, is a way to slake our natural thirst for revenge. But that doesn't make it ok.

[trumad]

23. If you can convince me that the death penalty

is only carried out on only 100 percent guilty humans then I might be persuaded...(Might)

Until then you can't, so if you advocate the death penalty then you are morally wrong..PERIOD! er...why? Because there's a good chance that innocent folks have been put to death and there's a good chance that innocent folks will be put to death. If you kill the innocent then you will go straight to Hell! Me-Thinks!

[FlashHarry]

24. Bingo! N/T

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Then join me in hell

Because by letting these monsters live, you are killing others who are innocent.

I am not bloodthirsty and I don't give a damn about vengeance. I am pragmatic. It's math. No matter what we do, innocent lives will be lost or forever scarred. I want to see the fewest lives lost or damaged.

I want to streamline the death penalty process, do our best to ensure that it is fair, accurate and speedy. (No, not speedy like Cuba, speedy as in not 20 years long.) That will help prevent the innocent from being killed and help cut down on the ridiculous appeals process.

[FlashHarry]

26. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

How are you killing the innocent when you put somebody in prison for life without parole? Explain that one.

On edit: You just proved my point with this quote: "do our best to ensure that it is fair, accurate and speedy" Do our best? You mean we're gonna 'try real hard' not to kill an innocent person? Well, that's not good enough for me. Sorry.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Very easy

Do you think no one dies in prison? Have you ever seen the inside of a prison? People are killed there all the time -- guards, staff, visitors and especially other prisoners, many who are NOT there for serious crimes.

OF course, if you give someone life without parole, what does he/she have to lose by doing whatever he/she wants in jail?

And then there is the possibility that they will escape and we know what that means.

[FlashHarry]

28. Again, "possibility"

Boy, your argument for the DP sure sounds, well, I don't know... preemptive.

By the way, irreversibility, is also why I'm against castration for rapists.

[Against ME]

42. You are wrong, Prison's are not how you think they are.

Prisoners do not have the run of the place, and especial prisoners that are in Max security, and have life.
he/she stands to lose there life, broken nose, use of limbs, and the right to mingle with other human beings.
And sorry there is not a practical possibility that they will escape, only because we keep in mind that nothing is impossible.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Prison

Well, I've taken a pretty extensive tour of prisons as a visitor, so I DO know what I am talking about.

Only in Supermax do prisoners have any major league restrictions.

Yes, they can lose their priviliges. Big deal. Take a look at the deaths in prisons and the assaults and the rapes and you will see what I am talking about.

[Against ME]

46. You're talking about things you saw in a movie,

and nothing more. But lets say if it did happen, it would be a problem with the prison itself, and should not warrent the use of the Death Penalty.

[Mandate My Ass]

29. Because by letting these monsters live, you are killing others who are inn

That statement is not only inflammatory, but simply not true.

"This study provides some sobering evidence to those who believe that the death penalty deters," stated Vincent Schiraldi, Executive Director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and report co-author, "the evidence revealed in this report is that the death penalty is simply not a deterrent."

For the 15 year period in which California carried out an execution every other month (1952 to 1967), murder rates increase 10% annually, on average. Between 1967 and 1991, when there were no executions in California, the murder rate increased 4.8% annually. The study also found that, in the four months preceding Harris' death, the average monthly number of homicides in California was 306. In the four months following his highly publicized execution, an average of 333 persons fell victim to homicides, an astonishing 9% increase.

"This data mirrors research from other states which has shown that, contrary to deterring murders, state-sanctioned killing may actually have a "brutalizing effect", wherein the state legitimizes the act of taking another's life," stated Michael Godfrey, report co-author, "in that sense, the state may tragically be leading by example."

http://www.prisonactivist.org/death-penalty/dpstudy.html

[trumad]

30. fair, accurate and speedy.

Prove to me that it's accuarate? Come on..Prove It! Ya Can't can ya? But Pro Death Penalty folks will say that a few innocents will probably slip through the cracks for the good of the system... PLEASE! I say one innocent person is too many ...Period!

So do you think that innocent folks have been gassed AND do you think that it's something that we have to live with if we are to have the death penalty?

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. One innocent

Well, a lot more than one innocent will die without the death penalty. So you are choosing which ones who die, that's all. You are choosing the ones who are easier on your conscience, but I am choosing to save a larger number.

[Mandate My Ass]

32. why do you keep ducking my question?

Statistically more innocents die in the aftermath of an execution. What about them? Don't they count? Should several innocents be sacrificed for that one ritualized killing inside the prison walls? The only purpose of the death penalty is to make us feel safer, but we are no safer, and probably much less safe, by carrying out this barbaric practice.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Cause and effect

We make a big deal out of executions right now. There are few of them and they get a lot of press. Under my plan, there would be more and they would be a regular occurance, minimizes any societal impact.

[trumad]

35. Yah just what I thought

So you're playing God huh... Kill some innocents to save a whole bunch of lives.... Ya see...this is why I think the whole pro-death penalty crowd are a bunch of fucking morons...

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Playing God

So it's OK if you or the "fucking morons" who oppose the death penalty play God, just not OK if others do it?

You want to kill tons of innocents, you just want clean hands.

[FlashHarry]

37. Speaking of God

I find it interesting that many supposed Christians support the death penalty. How do they reconcile the teachings of Christ with their visceral bloodlust? Or do they just conveniently forget the New Testament when it comes to matters of life and death?

[Against ME]

47. Okay, you cannot say with truth on your side, that one innocent

will die, if there is no death penalty. But I can say with fact that one innocent will die if there is a Death Penalty.

[Against ME]

41. You're assumption that these people will be able to strike again is wrong.

Life without Parole, is exactly that, and in a prison they cannot kill, they are watched by guards, whenever they come into contact with anyone. And for the worst there are prisons with no flesh to flesh contact.

[Against ME]

40. Explain to me how

someone that has no flesh to flesh contanct, or someone that is constantly watched can harm others?

[OldEurope]

50. Then: how comes, that in countries without DP there are

far less murders than in the US?

[Against ME]

51. Every, or most 1st world countries have less crime,

and alot of 3rd world, or just less than 1st world counties have less crime also. DP is irrelevant, it's a society/envioronmental thing.

[OldEurope]

52. Exactely! DP is immoral and useless.

And the rate of murderers who commit another murder after a prison penalty is 1 to 3 percent. So the argument that murderers coming out of prison at once go downtown to kill someone, cannot convince me.

[Against ME]

53. That is irrelevant to the Death Penalty argument,

beause if they get out of prison they don't have a Life sentence, and if they don't have a life sentence then they wouldn't qualify for the Death Penalty.

[OldEurope]

54. Hmm. Life sentence means, he or she will never have a

chance to come out of prison? Here in Germany the longest penalty is 25 years, so there is a chance to come out. So this quote IS relevant.
And for the "monsters" after prison there is something called Sicherheitsverwahrung, wich means a high security hospital. There is therapy (or: they try a therapy), and every 3 or 5 years or so, a judge has to find out wether he or she must stay there or could get out. So there allways is a little bit of hope.

[Against ME]

55. Well that changes thing if you're talking about Germany,

but I was under the impression we were speaking of the United States.

Here in the United States life with out parole means you will be in prison untill you die, no exceptions, unless you get a pardon from the president, but that never happens.

But if we have turned the discussion to Germany's Death Penalty, I'm afraid I cannot continue this argument, because I know nothing about the policies of Germany.

[German-Lefty]

56. Death Penalty has no chance in Germany

If you are so worried about Bewahrung (parol) and early release, you should focus on them. I've been hier 3 years and I have yet to have a German tell me he'd be pro death, and many are completely disgusted with it in the states and view the US as a bunch of primatives in that respect.

Focus on longer better sentences. You might get somewhere.

[Kellanved]

58. Yes

There are Germans pro death, though.
I have met several people, from the former GDR (which had the death-sentence), who want it back.
Some don't even know, that it's no longer around.

[Kellanved]

57. Nope the longest is for life

If "besondere Schwere der Schuld" (grave level of guilt) is included in the sentence the 15 years don't apply. Usually this is used for planned murders.
And even without "grave" on the sentence it doesn't mean 15 years.

It only means, that every 15 years the situation is checked; if the prognosis is good, even a murderer can get out on parole.

Edit:
For felons considered a danger to the society "Sicherungsverwahrung" (preventive detention) is usually included in the sentence as well.