Death Penalty

[Macroscopic]

Interesting topic, just wanted to see what everyone on here thinks about it.

[budullewraagh]

i'm in opposition

[Tetrahedrite]

I believe this has been done over and over before, however I am vehemently opposed to state sanctioned murder.

[Lance]

Im for it.

[john5746]

How come this stance isn't called Pro-Death?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What's the point? Wouldn't you find it a lot worse to be rotting in prison for the rest of your life?

 

Although it is cheaper than paying to keep someone in prison for 50 years.

[Tetrahedrite]

Although it is cheaper than paying to keep someone in prison for 50 years.

How come everyone keeps saying that! Get your facts right! It costs around three times more to kill a person than to keep them in gaol for the rest of their natural lives! This is not a justification for murder

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/NY-RCD-Test.pdf

[Lance]

What's the point? Wouldn't you find it a lot worse to be rotting in prison for the rest of your life?

 

In my eyes it has nothing to do with revenge or punishment.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In my eyes it has nothing to do with revenge or punishment.

Isn't punishment the point of a justice system?

[Coral Rhedd]

Ah, this death penalty thing has been done to death. To make it more interesting, why not narrow it down? Is it okay to execute the mentally retarded? How about the mentally ill? Fourteen year olds? Pregnant women? People who are going to die of a terminal disease in a few months anyway?

 

And how about those folks who seek their own execution? Should they be allowed to get away with that?

[Mokele]

IMHO, the purpose of the justice system it deterence. Killing or jailing a murderer will never bring back their victim, but harsh penalties may make people less likely to comit murder in the future, thereby saving other lives.

 

Given that, the main point to consider is "Is it effective as a deterent?"

 

The bad news is that, so far as I know, there isn't a simple, clear-cut answer to that question.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

I;m in opposition. This has happened before: innocent people have accidently been killed becasue there was enough evidence to prove them guilty...years later, with forensics, etc. we find that they were innocent. oops! Now there dead, there's nothing you can do. Without a death penalty this could never happen.

[Phi for All]

Check out this thread. It was started 7 months ago, and I'm not saying we can't bring up controversial topics every once in a while, especially with new members joining all the time, but take a read and see if there are any new angles that haven't been discussed. Your opinions are always appreciated, but wouldn't it be great to discuss some new insight on a tired old topic?

[blike]

There are some other threads on this, go read through them.

 

IMHO, the purpose of the justice system it deterence. Killing or jailing a murderer will never bring back their victim, but harsh penalties may make people less likely to comit murder in the future, thereby saving other lives.

Death isn't a harsh penalty?

[Mokele]

Of course, the harshest. What I was getting at was that harsher penalties should deter the same crime more effectively (at least in rough theory). But due to the complexities (both legal and psychological) around the death penalty, I'm not sure if it truly falls on such a "continuum of harshness", at least in terms of effectiveness.

 

Basically, my primary question on the death penalty is "Is it an effective deterrent?" (and I don't presume an answer; I really don't know and my mind isn't made up on the issue.)

 

Mokele

[Aardvark]

 

Basically' date=' my primary question on the death penalty is "Is it an effective deterrent?" (and I don't presume an answer; I really don't know and my mind isn't made up on the issue.)

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

From memory, criminals are more deterred by the likelyhood of being caught than by the possibility of very harsh punishment.

 

Simplistically put, a criminal who thinks he has a 1 in 100 chance of being caught with a death penalty is more likely to commit a crime than where he has a 1 in 3 chance of being caught with a much lower punishment.

 

I accept that is a simplified generalisation, but broadly speaking the likelyhood of being caught is more important than the maximum serverity of the sentence in deterring crime.

[Newtonian]

If i may venture an opinion,ive always agreed with the death penalty.

However there are those ,who dont like the idea of being inhumane to inhuman peoples.

Some are passionate for rehabilitation rather than death.While my own opinion is monsters are monsters,the fact they happen to be human is coincidence.

So ive changed my view,if a person who commits a heinous crime against another human.And as a result they are sentenced to 30 years incarceration,then that stay(in order to rehabilitate)should be one of sufference.

Solitary confinement,bread and water,with a bonus of diary products on their birthday.

The threat of prison and removal from society ,should make a statement to the effect that "you dont want this experience buddie".

One cannot help but feel that,the present system of coloured tv,satellite tv,movies,open university degrees,day trips,drugs,multigym,sports complex etc etc,is hardly a deterent or an effort to rehabilatate offenders.Its a psycho's full board holiday villa.

[Tetrahedrite]

I believe those who support state sanctioned murder are almost as bad as those who commit the crimes. I also find it highly ironic that the people who are most likely to support state sanctioned murder are conservative christians, who you would expect to be less violent.

It is also ironic that the USA, which raises itself atop the pillar of democracy and human rights, is the only major developed country (other than Japan) in the world that retains the death penalty.

[Macroscopic]

Originally posted by Newtonian

However there are those ,who dont like the idea of being inhumane to inhuman peoples.

 

I'm against the death penalty, but not for that reason. It's not that I value there lives at all, I just think life in prison is a worse punishment. Look at it this way; whether you give them life in prison or the death penalty, they still spend the rest of their life in prison! I think a normal prison is a lot worse than death row cells; They are safe in death row, but in prison they have the other inmates to worry about. And their life will be a lot longer and a lot more miserable in a normal prison, so why put them out of their misery?

[Newtonian]

I find it ironic how a deliberate mollesting and murder of a four year old child.Is somehow irrelevent to the people who view the perp as human and as such deserve humane treatment.Im baffled to understand how one could take this stance.

[Tetrahedrite]

Reason for my abhorance of the death penalty are summed up below in points taken from this UNHCHR website:

 

 

As a method of preventing crime, there is no evidence to suggest that the threat of the death penalty will deter the commission of a criminal act. International comparisons of crime rates in different countries suggest that the threat of execution has no effect on the rates of capital crime. The protection of society from serious and violent crime is crucial also, but Pax Christi believes that the death penalty will not solve the deficiencies in society that can be traced to the causes of serious crime. The death penalty will not prevent crime or compensate victims, and is a misleading solution to a complicated problem. Capital punishment is often imposed in societies that are not capable of, or willing to consider the complex causes or roots of criminal behaviour.

 

The death penalty tends to promote a harmful attitude of revenge amongst peoples. Those countries that have the death penalty enshrined in their law have hardened the views of society, creating a mentality of intolerance, vengeance and retaliation in relation to criminal offenders.

 

In many cases, the imposition of the death sentence is inconsistent with previous sentences for analogous crimes. Often the death penalty discriminates against social, political and racial minorities. Historical and contemporary evidence shows that the death penalty is borne unjustly by the poor, minorities and underclasses in general. It is alleged that those who can afford good legal representation have less chance of being sentenced to death.

 

There is always a risk that, even in the most carefully constructed legal system, human error, emotions or misjudgements could lead proceedings to become unfairly biased against the accused. History can recall numerous cases of wrongfully convicted prisoners being freed in light of new evidence, sometimes many years after being sentenced. In cases such as these, the finality of death makes the sentence irreversible if it has already been carried out.

 

It is a sad irony that nations that proclaim that the taking of human life is an intolerable crime, can punish the perpetrator in the same method thought so intolerable. The death penalty not only ends a life, it also subjects the convicted to inhuman and degrading treatment, and mental torture. Waiting many years for imminent death is a cruel punishment. However, this should not be an encouragement for Governments to shorten the time period between sentencing and death, leaving less time for the appeal process, and for new evidence to come to light.

[Lance]

My reason for the death penalty is not the same as those stated above. The only reason I see fit to end the persons life is when that life is a danger to other lives. When a person kills 10 different people I dont see why we should risk that that person should kill another. I dont see why we should put the monsers live above those of my children (not that I have any). Should the world be safer place for your children or murderers?

 

I believe those who support state sanctioned murder are almost as bad as those who commit the crimes.

 

I just lost a whole lot of respect for your opinions.

[Tetrahedrite]

My reason for the death penalty is not the same as those stated above. The only reason I see fit to end the persons life is when that life is a danger to other lives. When a person kills 10 different people I dont see why we should risk that that person should kill another. I dont see why we should put the monsers live above those of my children (not that I have any). Should the world be safer place for your children or murderers?

This is rubbish and you know it. Any person who "kills 10 different people" is going to be locked up for the rest of their lives, they're not going to be roaming around the street.

"Should the world be safer place for your children or murderers?" This is just emotive BS as well. The above applies here just as much. Revenge so you can feel better is not an excuse to murder anybody, at any time.

[Lance]

This is rubbish and you know it. Any person who "kills 10 different people" is going to be locked up for the rest of their lives' date=' they're not going to be roaming around the street.

[/quote']

 

Thats just speculation and you know it.

 

The above applies here just as much. Revenge so you can feel better is not an excuse to murder anybody, at any time.

 

Im sorry but that just doesnt make sense. Perhaps you could explain that a bit better. Or perhaps you should look up "revenge".

[Coral Rhedd]

I find it ironic how a deliberate mollesting and murder of a four year old child.Is somehow irrelevent to the people who view the perp as human and as such deserve humane treatment.Im baffled to understand how one could take this stance.

 

But what if the perp just couldn't help it. Newtonian, I would be interested in your view on the following odd but footnoted article I found by googling the words molester, heritable, and genetic:

 

http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~mwahn/bornevil.html