Your opinions on the death penalty
Are you against the death penalty?
0
I am not against the Death penalty, but I am not for it either because of the huge expense to the state when someone is sentenced to death. Not to mention in the US they are running out of the previous method of administering it. So the Death Penalty has lots of things to overcome before I think its a favorable option. Personally, life without parole and the death penalty is basically the same thing, keeping someone from ever returning to society.
Naturally my feelings against the death penalty are its not reversible, there is no new evidence that can free someone from death. Hence the huge cost in retrying someone over and over to make sure there isn't a mistake. Basically we must remember that the system is not designed to just get criminals behind bars or dead, its designed to safeguard against putting an innocent person behind bars or being put to death. Personally I prefer how its designed, but wish it had a better method and worked better.
Naturally my feelings against the death penalty are its not reversible, there is no new evidence that can free someone from death. Hence the huge cost in retrying someone over and over to make sure there isn't a mistake. Basically we must remember that the system is not designed to just get criminals behind bars or dead, its designed to safeguard against putting an innocent person behind bars or being put to death. Personally I prefer how its designed, but wish it had a better method and worked better.
0
[size=14]Death is too good for some of the people who are put to death. I'd rather see a murderer put behind bars for the rest of his life in the worst conditions possible than stoop to their level. Killing someone who has killed is essentially becoming just as bad as them no matter how you justify it, and then there are always cases where the person put to death was innocent so, no, the death penalty is not a good idea. [/h]
0
BagMan wrote...
[size=14]Death is too good for some of the people who are put to death. I'd rather see a murderer put behind bars for the rest of his life in the worst conditions possible than stoop to their level. Killing someone who has killed is essentially becoming just as bad as them no matter how you justify it, and then there are always cases where the person put to death was innocent so, no, the death penalty is not a good idea. [/h]What about people like Hitler and Stalin?
We waste tons of money of keeping criminals alive, might as well save up on the money and execute those sick bastards. They didn't give their victims a chance at living, so why let them?
0
The Randomness wrote...
BagMan wrote...
[size=14]Death is too good for some of the people who are put to death. I'd rather see a murderer put behind bars for the rest of his life in the worst conditions possible than stoop to their level. Killing someone who has killed is essentially becoming just as bad as them no matter how you justify it, and then there are always cases where the person put to death was innocent so, no, the death penalty is not a good idea. [/h]What about people like Hitler and Stalin?
We waste tons of money of keeping criminals alive, might as well save up on the money and execute those sick bastards. They didn't give their victims a chance at living, so why let them?
[size=14]You're right, these people absolutely don't deserve to live, but killing them is a soft option. Someone has already posted in this thread saying that they'd rather die than go to prison for life, and that's because a life sentence is a form of torture, the form that people like Hitler and Stalin deserved. They killed millions of people and we serve justice by killing one? No we make sure that they are treated harshly and forced to live with what they have done.
You are right however that we spend a hell of a lot on keeping prisoners alive, which is why I think governments need to spend time thinking of better, more effective deterrents. I just don't think the death penalty is a particularly good one. It also costs a bit of money to administer a lethal injection so it wouldn't really be saving too much. [/h]
0
BagMan wrote...
The Randomness wrote...
BagMan wrote...
[size=14]Death is too good for some of the people who are put to death. I'd rather see a murderer put behind bars for the rest of his life in the worst conditions possible than stoop to their level. Killing someone who has killed is essentially becoming just as bad as them no matter how you justify it, and then there are always cases where the person put to death was innocent so, no, the death penalty is not a good idea. [/h]What about people like Hitler and Stalin?
We waste tons of money of keeping criminals alive, might as well save up on the money and execute those sick bastards. They didn't give their victims a chance at living, so why let them?
[size=14]You're right, these people absolutely don't deserve to live, but killing them is a soft option. Someone has already posted in this thread saying that they'd rather die than go to prison for life, and that's because a life sentence is a form of torture, the form that people like Hitler and Stalin deserved. They killed millions of people and we serve justice by killing one? No we make sure that they are treated harshly and forced to live with what they have done.
You are right however that we spend a hell of a lot on keeping prisoners alive, which is why I think governments need to spend time thinking of better, more effective deterrents. I just don't think the death penalty is a particularly good one. It also costs a bit of money to administer a lethal injection so it wouldn't really be saving too much. [/h]
Just make it simple with a gun squad.
It's just that nowadays our prison systems are basically hotels and "suffering and torture" for many prisoners is no internet or facebook.
0
The Randomness wrote...
BagMan wrote...
The Randomness wrote...
BagMan wrote...
[size=14]Death is too good for some of the people who are put to death. I'd rather see a murderer put behind bars for the rest of his life in the worst conditions possible than stoop to their level. Killing someone who has killed is essentially becoming just as bad as them no matter how you justify it, and then there are always cases where the person put to death was innocent so, no, the death penalty is not a good idea. [/h]What about people like Hitler and Stalin?
We waste tons of money of keeping criminals alive, might as well save up on the money and execute those sick bastards. They didn't give their victims a chance at living, so why let them?
[size=14]You're right, these people absolutely don't deserve to live, but killing them is a soft option. Someone has already posted in this thread saying that they'd rather die than go to prison for life, and that's because a life sentence is a form of torture, the form that people like Hitler and Stalin deserved. They killed millions of people and we serve justice by killing one? No we make sure that they are treated harshly and forced to live with what they have done.
You are right however that we spend a hell of a lot on keeping prisoners alive, which is why I think governments need to spend time thinking of better, more effective deterrents. I just don't think the death penalty is a particularly good one. It also costs a bit of money to administer a lethal injection so it wouldn't really be saving too much. [/h]
Just make it simple with a gun squad.
It's just that nowadays our prison systems are basically hotels and "suffering and torture" for many prisoners is no internet or facebook.
[size=14]I still stand by my point that the death penalty is too good for some of the people that get it but you are again right about prisons being too soft, so rather than legalise the death penalty we should be focussing on making prisons as uncomfortable as justifies (i.e. Harsh on murderers less on thieves, that kind of thing) [/h]
0
waynoinsano wrote...
Cost of Imprisonment:$55.09 Per Day/ $20,108 Per Year
2,310,984 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails
lets just say that only 1% are in for murder although I believe the number higher than that, sadly.
23,109.84 murders * $20,108 yearly = $464,692,662.72
Talk about a waste of almost a half billion dollars, and thats just the US stats.
Deah penanlty is actually more expensive.
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42
0
petertje wrote...
waynoinsano wrote...
Cost of Imprisonment:$55.09 Per Day/ $20,108 Per Year
2,310,984 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails
lets just say that only 1% are in for murder although I believe the number higher than that, sadly.
23,109.84 murders * $20,108 yearly = $464,692,662.72
Talk about a waste of almost a half billion dollars, and thats just the US stats.
Deah penanlty is actually more expensive.
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42
The costs are mainly because they let them appeal over and over for years, not the actual execution. If your convicted with enough evidence to warrant the death penalty you should only get 1 appeal, 1 final meal and 1 bullet. And the meal part is iffy.
1
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
waynoinsano wrote...
petertje wrote...
waynoinsano wrote...
Cost of Imprisonment:$55.09 Per Day/ $20,108 Per Year
2,310,984 prisoners were held in federal or state prisons or in local jails
lets just say that only 1% are in for murder although I believe the number higher than that, sadly.
23,109.84 murders * $20,108 yearly = $464,692,662.72
Talk about a waste of almost a half billion dollars, and thats just the US stats.
Deah penanlty is actually more expensive.
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42
The costs are mainly because they let them appeal over and over for years, not the actual execution. If your convicted with enough evidence to warrant the death penalty you should only get 1 appeal, 1 final meal and 1 bullet. And the meal part is iffy.
Careful... in the past people were on the death-row who were later exonerated by DNA evidence. If not for this 'wasteful' system, a lot of them would've been executed.
0
Drifter995
Neko//Night
Flaser wrote...
As far as criminal law goes, I'm totally against it, for it's an irreversible action and no court or justice system has ever been faultless. Moreover, one should never say never... it's too long a time.While some people baulk at 'mere' decades of sentences handed out, these people are usually more concerned with appeasing their own sense of rage and living out their vindicative streak on a perceived "valid" target than actually wanting justice done.
Decades in prison is no joke and it *can* change a men... not necessarily for the better, but the above people simply have no real idea of how much things can change over such a long time.
The fact that prisons are overcrowded shouldn't be carte blanch for taking lives either... it's because our society is so corrupt, it's because the inane drug laws that put people - especially minorities - behind bars for crimes that endangered no-one, while at the same time ensuring the privatized prison system has enough warm bodies to turn a profit for a long while.
The only case I think death penalty could be permissible is in military law and only because in war you need strong and summary punitive measures to keep people straight, as the potential for abuse is so strong... which makes war all the more ghastly business, something I hope we could do without, but am not enough of a stupid, reality sheltered piecework to expect any time soon.
While I agree with what you're saying, I don't at the same time (to some things)
I don't think it's a very common case, but you hear of people being in jail for like 20 years, who end up knowing nothing but jail life, and the outside is just too much for them. An example being From shawshank redemption. He hung himself cause of it.
Now, it's not a good reason at all, but it does change people, for the worse sometimes as you said.
Obviously, if we were to use the death penalty, it would be for people who actually deserve it. For example, murdering somebody (But, only if it has been proven it was them, so you don't kill any innocents, maybe. Iunno there) I think it may have been dubai, where if you're caught stealing, you lose a hand or fingers, and if you kill, you get killed. It's harsh, but fair imo. The western society seems far too lenient on the people sometimes. That being said, I'm sure we wouldn't want to be too harsh, otherwise it'd almost become an oppressive place perhaps.
Either way, the people that get life in prison (in which I think america it's actually for life, not 40 years) it almost seems like a waste of space, if they have no chance of getting out.
0
I belive that if the crime is bad enough, don't let that person waste the air by breathing it. THROW THE SWITCH AND WATCH 'EM TWITCH! Especially where I live, inner-city people have no respect for life, so maybe if their life was on the line the might think twice before needlessly wasting someone else.
0
No one's right to give death to someone else, if one's should do a crime, the cause is the society, the education, or maybe he is ill, so prisons or hospitals should cure.
If one's is killed by justice mistake, no turning back possible, if you approved death penalty, you're accomplice of murdering an innocent.
That's all
If one's is killed by justice mistake, no turning back possible, if you approved death penalty, you're accomplice of murdering an innocent.
That's all
0
Even though I'm not adamant about my position on this theme, I'm against the death penalty. First of all, killing someone for comitting a crime is simply arcaic and torturing instead of killing, which someone mentioned here, is downright pathetic. We would be back in the dark ages in no time. I'll admit that the reasons as to why I'm not adamant about this is because as far as politics go, I'm bit behind but from a philosophical point of view, I'm against the death penalty for one reason: redemption. I think the moment our society kills a man for his crimes, we are basically saying "You were either born evil or became evil. There's no fixing you."
This begs the question of nature versus nurture. If men are naturally evil, then we would have to distinguish between good and evil men which we can't possibly know. If men are made evil, then society is to blame. Now, society can't create evil men and then kill them when they mess up.
Another reason as to why I'm against it is something whose name I don't know so I'll call it The Hero's Paradox. Have you ever seen a film where the good guy finally gets the upper hand on the bad guy but he decides to show mercy because if he procedes he will become just as evil as the bad guy? That's what I mean. It seems absolutely ridiculous to kill and, again, torture (this idea is seriously funny) a man who has tortured and killed. In a somewhat humorous example, it's like when, in pornos, a man is caught cheating on his wife and his wife punishes him by joining him in a threeway. Where's the logic in punishing killing with killing?
This begs the question of nature versus nurture. If men are naturally evil, then we would have to distinguish between good and evil men which we can't possibly know. If men are made evil, then society is to blame. Now, society can't create evil men and then kill them when they mess up.
Another reason as to why I'm against it is something whose name I don't know so I'll call it The Hero's Paradox. Have you ever seen a film where the good guy finally gets the upper hand on the bad guy but he decides to show mercy because if he procedes he will become just as evil as the bad guy? That's what I mean. It seems absolutely ridiculous to kill and, again, torture (this idea is seriously funny) a man who has tortured and killed. In a somewhat humorous example, it's like when, in pornos, a man is caught cheating on his wife and his wife punishes him by joining him in a threeway. Where's the logic in punishing killing with killing?
0
This question is eating at me now. Morally I'm for it, spiritually I'm not, but economically I split because (looking at the US) I'm for it, but looking at some other countries I am agaisnt it.
Let me try to elaborate a little bit here.
When I say morrally I'm not this is part of my beliefs which is why I have to split it away from the spiritual aspect. I believe that my body is simply a vessel for my soul and that my soul and body have different wants and needs. My body being a hunter in nature has no problem with the thought of killing one for wronging another. Whereas my soul does because part of my universal veiw is that on the course of getting the world mind you must experience the life of every creature that lives in the world. Seeing as this is Earth that includes the person I'm comdemning to death for a crime. So I'm condemning myself. I know that they may or may not feel remorse for what they did, but would it not make sense to let them try to atone in a way that is controllable and gives the rest of the nation profit. This aspect of it makes me confused about how I feel about it.
Talking about the sheer cost I am for it. Though on a much larger scale. If the criminal is deem/ed unable to do general labor or other work while incarerated for )a period longer than a year then I think they should be killed. I know that seems extreme, but the fact of the matter is if you don't work, you don't eat. Another note on this is, if they can't work we should at least try to educate them, make them better people. (Which would cost more money) One prison I read about was interesting in the fact that there were no guards and no warden within a set area. The prisoners had to maintain their own homes and even have their own businesses. If there was a dispute it was left up to the prisoners to settle it. I think that is a good step forward, although I see the obvious issue with that could lead to gangs and maybe even cordinated escape plans, but I still like where that is going.
While I was reading the first three pages I saw mention of they should have no social contact. In the US there is only one prison that is still a full Super Max, and a bunch others that have a section with this feature. These are reserved for people to dangerous to be in a lower security prison (Namely for extreme acts). The inmates are there for many reasons from Terrorism (such as some people responsible for 9/11) to treason. The regulations are 23 hours of cell time a day with only an hour of time outside the cell under heavy supervision. People have considered the super max approach to be very cruel.
Sorry for the long post I hope it was interesting to you guys and doesn't make anyone hate me ^^'.
Let me try to elaborate a little bit here.
When I say morrally I'm not this is part of my beliefs which is why I have to split it away from the spiritual aspect. I believe that my body is simply a vessel for my soul and that my soul and body have different wants and needs. My body being a hunter in nature has no problem with the thought of killing one for wronging another. Whereas my soul does because part of my universal veiw is that on the course of getting the world mind you must experience the life of every creature that lives in the world. Seeing as this is Earth that includes the person I'm comdemning to death for a crime. So I'm condemning myself. I know that they may or may not feel remorse for what they did, but would it not make sense to let them try to atone in a way that is controllable and gives the rest of the nation profit. This aspect of it makes me confused about how I feel about it.
Talking about the sheer cost I am for it. Though on a much larger scale. If the criminal is deem/ed unable to do general labor or other work while incarerated for )a period longer than a year then I think they should be killed. I know that seems extreme, but the fact of the matter is if you don't work, you don't eat. Another note on this is, if they can't work we should at least try to educate them, make them better people. (Which would cost more money) One prison I read about was interesting in the fact that there were no guards and no warden within a set area. The prisoners had to maintain their own homes and even have their own businesses. If there was a dispute it was left up to the prisoners to settle it. I think that is a good step forward, although I see the obvious issue with that could lead to gangs and maybe even cordinated escape plans, but I still like where that is going.
While I was reading the first three pages I saw mention of they should have no social contact. In the US there is only one prison that is still a full Super Max, and a bunch others that have a section with this feature. These are reserved for people to dangerous to be in a lower security prison (Namely for extreme acts). The inmates are there for many reasons from Terrorism (such as some people responsible for 9/11) to treason. The regulations are 23 hours of cell time a day with only an hour of time outside the cell under heavy supervision. People have considered the super max approach to be very cruel.
Sorry for the long post I hope it was interesting to you guys and doesn't make anyone hate me ^^'.
0
in my oppinion im vote 4 death penalty.Just u imagine that ur son or sister n soon getting killed. One man dies can be death sentence 4 his family, how can they live ? the family head has gone, no money, noprotection 4 their child. Not to mention the sorrow n anger the family has.
on different case rape. Yes rape. The rape victims mostly traumatized. Their favor death than given the shame that bestow upon them. Can u imagine ur daughter or sister wanted to die day by day?
One crime action bestow many much more than simple mess. SO i agree with death sentence. Its justice 4 the family upon victims. But then when the family given their forgiveness the verdict may change to 20 yr ++ in jails n service (consider ur nation law). The family hold the right wheter death penalty given or not. Its the most consideration i guess..
on different case rape. Yes rape. The rape victims mostly traumatized. Their favor death than given the shame that bestow upon them. Can u imagine ur daughter or sister wanted to die day by day?
One crime action bestow many much more than simple mess. SO i agree with death sentence. Its justice 4 the family upon victims. But then when the family given their forgiveness the verdict may change to 20 yr ++ in jails n service (consider ur nation law). The family hold the right wheter death penalty given or not. Its the most consideration i guess..
0
danielleve wrote...
in my oppinion im vote 4 death penalty.Just u imagine that ur son or sister n soon getting killed. One man dies can be death sentence 4 his family, how can they live ? the family head has gone, no money, noprotection 4 their child. Not to mention the sorrow n anger the family has.on different case rape. Yes rape. The rape victims mostly traumatized. Their favor death than given the shame that bestow upon them. Can u imagine ur daughter or sister wanted to die day by day?
One crime action bestow many much more than simple mess. SO i agree with death sentence. Its justice 4 the family upon victims. But then when the family given their forgiveness the verdict may change to 20 yr ++ in jails n service (consider ur nation law). The family hold the right wheter death penalty given or not. Its the most consideration i guess..
You are making quite the devious argument... First of all, laws and death penalty can't be awarded based on the effect crimes have on the victims. You are using quite extreme, emotional and biased, of course, cases where there's a happy humble family struck by tragedy. Real life isn't always like that. Your first wrong assumption is that a criminal case is crystal clear which it rarely is. Victims make mistakes too. What if a man kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills a homeless man with no family? Four crimes, three of them quite gruesome and yet they make your arugment meaningless.
The other wrong assumption you are making is that the death penalty will somehow bring comfort to the victims which, unless you are aware of some psychological study that I don't know about, is wrong. It is not uncommon at all to be traumatized even after the criminal has died. In fact, the event of witnessing someone's death is traumatizing on it's one, let alone be the killer...
...Which brings me to my last point: The family should decide whether death penalty would be given? This is simply preposterous. It's mob justice. Mankind has created police forces, courthouses and judges to prevent that. It's funny how many arguments supporting the death penalty are very similar to things done in Third World countries or things done in the 1500's.
0
i dont know bout 3rd world country in some many year ago, n i dont really2 know bout law too. But i watch india has legally done this verdict about rape > death penalty.N i think i had read china has too >corrupt> death penalty. So this verdic acctually used in modern times. Both china n india is a strong country in my range of view not a 3rd wolrd.
for ur example, i include the family not to applied the death verdict but instead "if family has forgiven the criminals then the death penalty canceled" So if some one die, n no famili of course the killer must be death verdict. Since he/she had ended some one live n family line.
The law exist to ensure people safety not to bring comfort , its to make it clear no one dare to break the law. I dont see another way out for the murder case (not accident) could u tell me another way ?? i happily to hear that.
for ur example, i include the family not to applied the death verdict but instead "if family has forgiven the criminals then the death penalty canceled" So if some one die, n no famili of course the killer must be death verdict. Since he/she had ended some one live n family line.
The law exist to ensure people safety not to bring comfort , its to make it clear no one dare to break the law. I dont see another way out for the murder case (not accident) could u tell me another way ?? i happily to hear that.
0
These people should do the all the underpaid work...
Would solve many problems, unfortunately a rapid change would break the system.
Would solve many problems, unfortunately a rapid change would break the system.
0
The assumption is death penalty will be meted out only against the most heinous crimes of its nature, correct? e.g. genocide, torture, etc. What I remember though is the most recent case about the abduction & rape of 3 minors for 10 years. 10 years in captivity. Imagine that. To hand out death on a silver platter to criminals of this kind is to willingly give them an easy means of escape. There are worse things than death.
0
Sgt.broski
Where's the futa Jacob
Maxiart wrote...
Yeah, the death penalty has its uses. If you have no regard for human life, why must others have regard for yours?But then again, instead of death there should be some kind of torture penalty. For some, death is simply too light a sentence...
I agree with you that if you have no regard for human life then no one should regard yours but the torture penalty is too much. Think about it. If every country did that then their citizens would be terrified of the gov't and try to expose them to the rest of the world and that is not what the Gov't would want! Not to mention its very unconstitutional and it breaks the 1st amendments and the bill of rights in U.S.A, Japan, and other countries.