Your opinions on the death penalty

No to death, but i do agree on some cruel and unusual punishment until they learn their ways.

Actually I am quite surprised that so many here start to look upon lives in terms of numbers (money, statistics etc) instead for individuals / persons etc.
Even more surprising is, that you are voting for death sentence, however on the other corner you cry about the US courts / justice being flawed and that you are having to keep guns to protect yourself from the judical executive force.

Now if you start to blame the deficit in the States upon the people imprisoned for life, you might aswell try to look at other politics that ruined your economy far more than the people in jail.

I mentioned it in another thread, but in other countries the inmates are working in workshops for cars, are working in the kitchen and so on. True it requires a bit more control of the inmates, however on the other hand you are able to make a large surplus by saving other personel (cooks, cleaners, builders etc).

However I blame the paranoia in the states and the media in the states that is pretty much leading you around like a flock of blind sheeps and directs you into the direction that they deem the most profitable.

In my opinion having a death penalty in a country that is paranoid is like giving a gun to a halucinating person that is high on drugs in the middle of a public square. He'll shoot everything that he deems dangerous in his illusions. Now if you try to say that the states aren't paranoid... try looking at the ridiculous "checks" for entering your country. There are people being held there for months, simply for the reason that one of the officers there said "he seemed suspicious".

I'm not for it. I know there is a lot of repercussion about keeping someone incarcerated for life, and the amount of money that takes on an already ailing economy, but I just can't use that to justify killing anyone.

I don't care if the person was a six-time, first degree murderer. Nothing justifies killing someone. Not revenge, not moral or social implications. Just because someone killed someone, doesn't meant you have the right to take that person's life in turn. I know, I know, "that's awfully idealistic of you, you need to get in touch with reality." What can I say, I'm an idealist sometimes.

Extreme it may sound, but I agreed on this.

People who has disregard the importance of other human lives other then their own to achieve benefit for their own selfish sake, in my opinion does not deserve to live. After court judgement of the death penalty, I would just shoot them straight instead of keeping them living untill the penalty date.

I regard murderers alot different from normal criminals, especially repeated murderers, they are a failure of the educational product and do not realise the importance of human lives. The thought of them killing their victim either for rape or money just for the convinience sickens me, there is a limit for forgiveness and the human society is not god.
I posted in another thread for giving second chances to criminals because the topic does not specify what crimes thus I regard is as general crimes. I believe there is still hope, when a criminal commits a crime, he will have the potential to threaten and hurt you, some will still have the mind to control and refrain from doing something too unhumanly.

There is a limit to treat a human, as a human, imo once a human disregard the life of others to commit selfish crimes for their own benefit, he shall be treated the same.

Criminals who just fcking kill people repeatly for the sake of mouth shutting and efficiency, I will say they should die and get out of the world, on the way we use that as a message to other potential criminals. Yeah, sounds so damn ruthless and lack of human concious, but being a decision maker on the higher level, society welfare should be the top priority. I agree that that too, makes them unhuman and quistion the right for them to take away another human live, but, at least they take lives for the benefit of majority others that wish to live their lives peacefully like you and me right here, not for themselves.

Ok, so, first things first, I personaly am against death penalty. I find it inadequate. Let me explain:
While it may serve as a greater threat than life imprisonment (though even that is debatable) and thus hinder the decision to proceed and commit a crime, it certainly does absolutely nothing about the improvement and reposition of the criminal in society as a useful member. In this case alone, every other form of punishment is more efficient.
What is more, there’s no way you can recover from the death penalty in case of mistrial. And don’t be mistaken, there are a lot of cases that are either misjudged or inexcusably harsh punished for this reason or another (bad lawyer, judge in a bad mood, misunderstood clues etc etc).
And I’m not even counting the fact that it is considered “inhumane” since it’s obvious that these guys are not exactly innocent lambs.

Reading behind the lines in a few posts I got the feeling that they’re supporting the death penalty as a means of revenge on those that couldn’t follow the rules of society. This “eye for an eye” idea is still alive even after so many years of human history when it was first introduced; I can only think it’s somehow part of our (egoistic perhaps?) nature. I’m not much of a religious fanatic so I can’t strongly support the “Jesus said it’s wrong” opinion. I can only say that if we acted on that impulse, we’d have much more conflict and violence in everyday life.

As for using the death penalty in order to rid society from the most “”evil”” characters, I say that life sentence would work just the same.

Moreover, people only mentioned the death penalty being the penalty of crimes that consist of directly taking a live (or lives), rape and the like. But what about crimes that are less… chaotic evil and more on the lawful evil side? The pharmaceutic company that released a medicine with inadequate clinical testing and resulting in miscarriages or monstrous births. The higher ups of a corporation that leech money and don’t care for the future, inevitably resulting in bankruptcy and a little less than a thousand families to suffer? Those that design houses that don’t meet the safety requirements and those that are paid under the table and give the ok to build them which may result in many deaths because of a fire or an earthquake? Are we going to shoot all of them too?

In addition, who’re we to decide who gets to live or die? It’s not their existence that is a danger to us but their actions. We can prevent one of these in let them keep the other.
Plus we can actually prosper from those that are actually reformed and rejoin society. It’s a mistake to believe movies and such which imply that 97% of released criminals will turn again to crime.

It's too bad the court process, lawyers, and other crap makes that point irrelevant.

I'm not against the death penalty, but i think that death is a release not a punishment, once you're dead, you are free from anything. Pain, suffering, fear, and guilt. Living is more painful than death itself. for you will be always be watch and judge by other for you every action.

Sure, there are people that doesn't deserve to live for their crime and wrong doing, but is killing them really the best way? even we put them at death roll, we just helping them to escape the world or society. after they die, who would remember the name of a bunch of criminal after 1-2 month's time.

they however should be put to work for their expense or for the community that they turn their back on, they should learn that crime does not pay and their action will be monitor and judge. so they do not repeat they mistake.(though i highly dough it that they will ever learn)

Still, Making them Live their life is more suffering than making them wait for their death sentence, but should psychopathic murder, repeated raper, fanatic terrorist, assassin, or sadist armed robber be trial first before put to death.
that will have to depend on if he's lucky or not. get caught, how unlucky. shot dead, you lucky bastard.

well, the death penalty is gonna hurt (depending on the penalty), anyways hell seems nice.

for serious matters, i agree that death penalty should be bestowed upon the ones who commit horrendous crimes...
Ex. mason family...

Why kill them? They can be used for something more...

I've seen the concept of Lamb (an animax original movie... yeah, it kinda sucked) and it got me thinking: instead of killing them (which costs money and time), why not put them on a level sub-human and used them for jobs regular people don't want.

Here on the Philippines, we recently got struck by a storm w/ more rain than hurricane Katrina and in a town near my place, it stinks so bad because of the trash and dead animals and shit floating around. Even if its a squaters area, they are too proud to clean their shit up. What I want to do is because they are illegal settlers, the police should arrest them, then enforce them to clean up the city. Seriously, we have too much shit here and fewer people to clean it up.

Seriously guys, slavery is the answer.

Some criminals are to dangerous to be kept alive. Slavery has been abolished ages ago.

While God said to forgive your enemies, He didn't say they shouldn't be punished by law.



Isn't life sentence more inhumane?

1. They give very low wages to the criminals who work. Throw in the cost to keep them alive and you'll be burning money.
2. After years, the criminal could fashion a weapon and kill himself if he grows tired of being imprisoned.
3. If a bigger guy gets thrown in, he could become a bitch until the big guy is moved or if he somehow gets released.
4. Let's say he does manage to get parole after 30-40 years. With the very little pay he got from working in the jail, and the fact that he's a criminal and old, it'll be hard to get a decent job and he'll have a crappy life for a long time (unless his family takes him in). Isn't that damning him to a miserable life?

As for the drug companies, I think it's illegal to send out a product with inadequate testing. But I think the only thing you can do is sue since you can't put the blame on any 1 person(guess you could throw the dude that green-lighted it in jail).

For the corp bosses, they're already doing that. We can't sue them since we can't afford to and since it's their company, they're "entitled" to more money(read: all the money).

The architects unfortunately can only be sued if he's in a company. He can however be thrown in jail or fired at the least.



Would you take the chance to reform a multi-offender? Maybe he will reform but what if he doesn't and more people are killed because of that? Because of your action to release him just greatly affected other people's lives.

Regarding the "low wage working" part, it depends on what job you let them take care off. Depending on their education and the open mindedness of the prison facilities, there are ALOT of possibilities.
Now again, I have to once again (as so often in other threads) ask to differentiate between the different kind of convicts. Sure you have those who killed for fun, for the kick etc. Than you have those who killed out of desperation. What happened so far in this discussion is that somehow everyone seems to think straight of a person that killed a dozen people in cold blood. There are many kinds murderers and many different reasons.
Regarding the point of a multi offender: Once someone has gone through his punishment and is no longer deemed a direct threat to society, be it because he changed and or regrets what he has done, what rights do you have to keep him locked up / kill him DESPITE your own paranoia? As I said above, if someone killed someone because he was driven to the edge physically and mentally, it is different from someone killing others for the fun.
The best option in my opinion is to give everyone in prison a time of X weeks to pick a work / line of education that suits them and see to that they do the job. That way, if you are really that concerned about your economy, the load gets easier by alot. And if you are going to say "Education is expansive" than why not let another convict take care of it if he is qualified. As long as he / she is under guard, it is way more efficient than having them sit in their cells fiddeling with their thumbs waiting for their release etc.
In my opinion, rejecting the rights of people for another chance after changing their ways just shows how scared and full of paranoia those are that vote for the death penalty. It is the easiest way out for you to close your eyes and say "the problem is fixed now", by bending your morals and humanity.

I was thinking about that and yes, people who kill in self-defense shouldn't be killed but like I said at the beginning of the thread, I think the death penalty should be for those who have killed multiple people on separate dates.

For your argument regarding the multi-offender, he could always do it again later on in life. Who's to say that he won't snap? For the guy who feels guilty, regardless if he's not a threat, he should still go to jail because he already killed the people. If everyone got off free if they felt guilty of committing an atrocious deed, there would be alot more criminals running around.

By giving the criminals several jobs, the people that are jobless and didn't commit a crime and/or have to take care of their family just lost out on a possible job because the criminals just went in without an interview.

Killing/imprisoning someone who killed another isn't inhumane. If the person killed without being in a position of life or death, that person should be punished. It won't bend your morals either depending what they are.

My argument about the jobs sounds a bit selfish but don't those people deserve the jobs more than the criminals (if the criminal has to take care of their family[most likely not since they can't support from prison], then it'd be more fair but they need to get an interview)

My opposition to the death penalty is based on two simple thoughts:

1.) The judicial system is full of humans, and therefore deeply flawed. Too flawed to grant it even more power than it already has. Too flawed to grant it power over life and death.

2.) The state must not be granted a license to kill in situations where such a lethal response does not serve to prevent immediate harm.

1. That actually sounds alot like the judicial system now. The tough murderers can go on without worrying about the horrors of jail so they don't really care if they're caught. It might actually be better for them because they'd have a room, 3 square meals a day and recreational activities which will keep them from blowing their brains out.

2. So you're saying that the state cannot kill anyone unless the crime won't happen again? That's impractical because citizens can turn to crime at any moment and killing 1 murderer cannot stop the others from doing so as well. What the death penalty can do though is strike fear into alot murderers or would-be murderers, thus preventing it (it can also prevent people from confessing to a crime but that's another story). But that cannot happen if the state is banned from doing so in the first place.

DEATH DEATH DEATH.

THE WORLD NEEDS LESS PEOPLE

POPULATION IS OUT OF CONTROL

KILL KILL KILL FOR SOCIETY TO CONTINUE ON

THE PLANET CRIES OUT.


I full support the death of people, by any means at this point.

Well that seems a little extreme, however, we do need a means to get rid of people who are only hurting society.

Well, when the rapture comes(or for those who don't believe in that, the apocalypse), alot of people will die so that'll solve that problem.