The Death Penalty

[Dc-xBluex]

I am opposed to the death penalty. Simply because i believe that no human being has the right to take another persons life. It's just not their place. However, like the first post said, If you've got some psyhco deranged killer, I would much rather see them put to death then to waste my countries tax dollars on supporting them in prison until they die.

[devonin]

So...you oppose it because it is wrong, and no human has a right to do it...except if the person is just a really bad guy? Doesn't that seem a little convenient to you?

[trillobyite]

Well, we can all sit and debate about the technical aspects of the death penalty, and sympathize with the poor man or woman strapped, restrained, and being injected with lethal chemicals. But when it is your sister, brother, or parent that was killed, you're not going to have any sympathy, and all this intellectual battle over the morality of the death penalty will go down the toilet.

As to a point chardish made- yes, the death penalty is expensive. But with the death penalty, money goes to appeals trials in an attempt to prove the potential innocence of the accused, whereas without the death penalty, money goes to convicted felons and monsters to get food and sustenance in prison.

[WeissPraline]

I have mixed feelings about capital punishment.

On one hand, seeing an axe murderer get killed is, as awful as it is, gratfying(spelling?). While we may think "Oh my god, that's horriable", it is still human nature to want revenge. Humans are far from perfect.

I think the punishment should fit the crime, though. If you kill 20 people, then I say death penelty ftw. If you kill one person, in a painless way, even though it's wrong...

I say it's not worth it. Sure, 'Eye for an eye' sounds nice on paper, but doesn't really work in reality. We're in America (Assuming you're talking about America, which uses capital punishment. If you're not in America, then, my bad. :B), not Ancient Mesopotamia.

[x-Thief]

The death penalty is appropriate in some cases.

I think that serial killers and other such people who have taken things to an extreme should be put to death. Also, like has been said, people who show no interest in rehabilitating or stopping their murder need to be put to death. True these cases are few and far between, but the death penalty should be there as a punishment if there is an absolutely necessity.

However, a murderer who doesn't take it to that extreme should just be reprimanded with a prison sentence. Besides, I think that the mental tourture of "life in prison without parrol" would detter more people from committing a crime. (But perhaps that's just my opinion)

[devonin]

The justice system has so completely and utterly failed to make prison (even for life) any kind of deterrant. As I said in another thread once: The rights of a person in jail are among the most zealously protected out there.

I think that the quality of life you have in prison should be inversely proportional to the length of the prison term. Get 6 months for B&E? I'm okay with the current standards of library access, computer access, reasonably good food and so on that exist today in most prisons.

Get life with no parole for murdering a half dozen people? You get an empty cell, enough food and drink to keep you alive, and not one damn thing more.

When prison life is enough better than life on the streets, that there is a -major- problem in places with cold winters, where homeless people let themselves get arrested for a minor crime, hoping for a 6-month sentence to get them through the cold months, because the guarentee of food, shelter and access to resources is -better- than what they can get outside prison, something is wrong with the system.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

What, to you, is the purpose of the justice/prison system?

It's first purpose is to minimize problems that occur as a result of actions of a non-voluntary nature. This implies in and of itself that the justice system should not inflict excessive punishment as a punishment is of a non-voluntary nature. Only as much punishment as is necessary. This function might also be argued to correspond to a restorative function for the justice system.

If someone is a serial killer, unrepentant, intending to continue, and the best psychologists and psychiatrists have determined that they are simply never going to "see the error of their ways" and rehabilitate, do you really think that the justice system lives up to its name to make taxpayers financially support such a person forever?

Sure. It's keeping them off the streets and in a place where they can't hurt others. The cost is also generally less to the taxpayer. The justification for lifetime imprisonment is surely there as well. Oh, and putting the lives of anyone in the hands of anyone else, no matter how "professional" or "enlightened" they may be, is a complete abuse of power.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by trillobyite

But when it is your sister, brother, or parent that was killed, you're not going to have any sympathy, and all this intellectual battle over the morality of the death penalty will go down the toilet.

Oh get over yourself. Not everyone is as shallow as you. I've personally had conversations with people who have had their whole families murdered in front of them and who still opposed the death penalty.

As to a point chardish made- yes, the death penalty is expensive. But with the death penalty, money goes to appeals trials in an attempt to prove the potential innocence of the accused, whereas without the death penalty, money goes to convicted felons and monsters to get food and sustenance in prison.

Because they certainly aren't eating while they stay in prison during the appeals! Great argument! So the death penalty is better than life because it makes taxpayers spend money helping a person fight a battle they probably won't win, regardless of their guilt or innocence, and this in addition to the other costs a life sentence would impose... GREAT THINKING!

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

he rights of a person in jail are among the most zealously protected out there.

A questionable assertion.

When prison life is enough better than life on the streets, that there is a -major- problem in places with cold winters, where homeless people let themselves get arrested for a minor crime, hoping for a 6-month sentence to get them through the cold months, because the guarentee of food, shelter and access to resources is -better- than what they can get outside prison, something is wrong with the system.

The system which has the problem isn't necessarily the prison system though. The economic and social situations which lead to the individual being homeless and incapable of providing sustenance are more likely at fault.

[ashleychauntel]

In all honesty I am not that crazy about the death penalty. I don't think that it is really justifiable: You kill someone, it was wrong, you shouldn't have done that, but we are going to kill you to make it right? Hypocrisy anyone?

On the other hand, completely deranged people don't exactly need to be walking around free... and putting them in jail just lets them live out their days in confinement, where nothing is happening to them that is nearly as bad as what they have done that would constitute a death penalty conviction...

So...

I don't think that the death penalty is completely the right thing, or completely the wrong thing. If someone murders another person many will rush to the conclusion that they should die in return, eye for an eye, Hammurabi's Code and all that jazz. And I guess sometimes that the death penalty should be seen as a fitting punishment, but other times no.

The A&E statistic quoted earlier is something I have heard not only on TV but in a few classes I have taken. 10% of convictions aren't right, so therefore, 10% of the time we would be killing the wrong person!?

IF and WHEN the death penalty is considered I think it should only be used if there in undeniable evidence that the crime was committed by the individual on trial and that beyond a shadow of a doubt it can in no way be anyone else's doing; that the punishment is that fitting the crime.

When it comes down to it I suppose I am a bit indifferent... I'm not the one injecting people with lethal doses of drugs or flipping switches to electrocute people or anything else; and fortunately me or my family have never been put in a position where we have to deal with such a thing and don't want to.

In short I suppose: Don't do it if you aren't sure about it, and even then, really think. Then, if the death penalty still seems fitting, then okay.



As for paying for those sentenced to life, I don't like that aspect; keeping criminals alive for life after committing such horrible acts. But, something has got to give.

[Kilroy_x]

You're paying money no matter what. You're actually paying more for the death penalty.

Oh, and to the constant argument "they did something bad, it doesn't feel right for them not to suffer in return"; **** that. The willingness to hurt others is at the core of the problem in the first place. Are you jealous of murderers or something? You hate them for choosing to satisfy themselves at the cost of another, so you use them to do the same? Get the hell over yourselves.

[Scythe_Star]

Let me drop my opinion , ok the death penalty, there comes a time when we have to look at a person and really judge if they are a menace to society or not. Ive known people that have did things to support their family, sure it was bad what they did and it wasnt right but should they die for trying to support their family? sure they could get a job, unless you are constantly judged by your color or the workplace you are at is discriminating you and there is nothing you can do about it. well I do believe certain people just shouldnt be let loose into society, I say the victim's family kill them the not government. I have no natural desire to hurt anyone, but if we dont hurt someone then they would ultimately hurt you or walk all over you and your family and do you really want that? personally I beleive we really dont have the right to judge someone, but sometimes you have to go against your beliefs to better support your life and family.

[Kilroy_x]

You're missing the point. You can prevent such a person from killing or injuring other people by imprisonment as easily as by the death penalty, and imprisonment is the lesser of the two evils. If you're going to go against your values you might as well choose the manner in which you sacrifice the least of them.

[slipstrike0159]

I have mixed view on this as well...

Honestly i agree that jail life (because of humanitarians) is a lot better than you think. The only thing you really have to worry about in jail is the other people with you and going insane from boredom. This is significantly less to worry about than if you are on the street where most criminals come from.

Spending life in prison: as humane as it sounds, would suck hardcore. The person would be placed in the jail cell for the rest of their known life with nothing to do. They would almost literally be suffering everyday mentally until they die. The only reason i could see this as good is that the only time it is too late to prove their innocence due to new evidence is when they die nearly 30 years later.

If someone knows that from the crimes they have committed will land them life in jail then they will know that they have nothing to lose but their life. So in this case they will continue their crime spree as long as they can. (Dont know how this fits into the conversation but it was a random on topic thought to consider).

Also, getting the death sentence (as i would only be able to imagine) wouldnt scare a hardened criminal so thinking of making it a legal practice to 'scare' them is not very logical.

Opposing this, although it gives more trials that could prove their innocence, giving the death sentence severely limits the chance someone who is innocent will be freed.

One last though, we as humans are not all knowing and as such do not have the ability to judge someone and say that they deserve to die. Through their actions we can judge them according to the crimes they have committed, however this does not give any one person (or group of people) any kind of right to say "YOU DESERVE TO DIE" and then do it.

Even with all the unethical arguments against it and having said all that, i am leaning more towards the pro death sentence side but still remain fairly moderate on the subject.

[unkdavar]

How much is a life worth? If someone can solve that we wouldn't have to think about this question at all. If one life was worth as much as another then kill them all.


By leaving someone who commits a murder alive we are saying that the criminal's life is worth more then the person he murdered.

[krazykhalid]

i tihnk the death penalty should be used for the people who are obviously guilty, for the worst of the worst of crimes, EG: Karla Homolka, i dont want this freakshow living in possibly my neighbourhood, knowing what she and her husband have done to their victims, its retarded that she's free now... she should have been put to death along with her husband, too bad Canada does not have the death penalty.

P.S if you dont know who karla homolka is, look her up on google or wikipedia...

*EDIT* adding onto my original lil post,

the death penalty should only be put on people, who have commited the worst of the worst of crimes, such as first degree murder, and which looking at the evidence, the credability of the witnesses, and other factors, whether they are indeed 100% guilty, and depending on the way they had done the crime, like did the victim suffer, and to what degree they suffered, while they had died, or how severe the crime had been, they should have been put to death.

[slipstrike0159]

You cant really measure how much the victim suffered though unless you ask them like someone said about asking the person if the stabs hurt. Also, i agree with unkdavar, in that we cannot show how much one life is worth in comparison to another.

[trillobyite]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Oh get over yourself. Not everyone is as shallow as you. I've personally had conversations with people who have had their whole families murdered in front of them and who still opposed the death penalty.

What the hell type of word is shallow to describe it? There are a significantly larger number of families who DON'T oppose the death penalty after seeing their families murderered in front of them. The victim should really have the right to choose the punishment for the killer. If someone massacred my family, I would strongly prefer to see them dead, and I don't care how "shallow" that makes me. I'd rather not see deeper into the "poor" criminal.

If the family forgives the killer then I don't see why the death penalty should be instituted. But in most unreasonable homicides, I doubt that is the case.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Because they certainly aren't eating while they stay in prison during the appeals! Great argument! So the death penalty is better than life because it makes taxpayers spend money helping a person fight a battle they probably won't win, regardless of their guilt or innocence, and this in addition to the other costs a life sentence would impose... GREAT THINKING!

That is one terrible argument. How in the world is the food that a person on trial happens to eat before the jury comes to a decision relevant? Their guilt isn't proven, so they have the right to be fed and treated well until (if) proven so. Then you make fun of my argument with sarcasm but haven't actually made a point.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by trillobyite

That is one terrible argument. How in the world is the food that a person on trial happens to eat before the jury comes to a decision relevant? Their guilt isn't proven, so they have the right to be fed and treated well until (if) proven so. Then you make fun of my argument with sarcasm but haven't actually made a point.

The point he was making (and admirably at that) was that the "it is so expensive to keep a criminal in prison forever, the death penalty is much less burdensome on taxpayers" logic doesn't actually hold that much water, because those sentenced to death are allowed a great number of appeals (for which there are costs) and the entire time they are on death row (often years) they are still being housed, fed, and recieving the same costly things that someone in prison for life gets -on top of- the costs from the DAs office in having to go through all of the lengthy appeals.

[trillobyite]

Originally Posted by devonin

The point he was making (and admirably at that) was that the "it is so expensive to keep a criminal in prison forever, the death penalty is much less burdensome on taxpayers" logic doesn't actually hold that much water, because those sentenced to death are allowed a great number of appeals (for which there are costs) and the entire time they are on death row (often years) they are still being housed, fed, and recieving the same costly things that someone in prison for life gets -on top of- the costs from the DAs office in having to go through all of the lengthy appeals.

Ohhh. Ok. I don't agree though. Like I said, I'd rather tax money go to feeding and housing people who have not been convicted of a major felony than I would people who have been convicted. Obviously the cost is higher when added to payment for the DA and possibly defense, but I wasn't arguing that the cost is less burdensome on taxpayers, I was arguing that I'd rather extra money go to proving the potential innocence of an accused over money going to feeding and helping someone who is already convicted. As to the fact that people end up on death row for years and the appeals process takes forever....that is a problem, but not a problem inherent in the death penalty itself. Just like alleged racism (the whole 50% of people who kill blacks given the DP while 90% of people who kill whites given the DP) is a huge problem, I don't think that's a problem inherent in just the concept of a death penalty.