Death penalty [mature content]

[Eight Sage]

First of all, I put "mature" on the thread's title because this is, indeed, not for child discussion for obvious reasons. So, here we go:

In some countries, death penalty is abolished, in others, don't.

Some say it helps to end violence, it deters crime, prevents recidivism and is an appropriate form of punishment for the crime of murder. Others, argue that it doesn't deter criminals more than life imprisonment, violates human rights, leads to executions of some who are wrongfully convicted and discriminates against minorities and the poor.

But I don't think Argentina, Chile or Brazil (for example) have more crimes/murderers than China or US, where death penalty is allowed.

My question is: Should the death penalty be permitted? Should a criminal spend his life on jail or be killed?

 

[Blackadder]

I'm actually really against the Death Penalty.
Mainly because it sometimes (Though not too often) leads to the death of innocent people, but really because it seems like such a violation of human rights. No matter what the person in question did, I feel they should spend their life’s in Jail, and not be killed.

I just think it's wrong. Maybe I'm just a softie though.

 

[AltF4]

Human rights? What human rights? Making the assumption that a person is correctly convicted of murder, they no longer have any rights normally given to regular people. If they did, putting them in jail would be wrong too. It's not a violation of their rights because they chose to waive those rights when they committed murder.

The 'executing innocent people' argument has more merit, but human rights, no.

 

[McCloud]

While they chose to break social contract when they committed murder, that doesn't validate the death penalty. Human rights? Of course they have human rights, because they are, God forbid, still human.

"An Eye for an eye and soon the world will be blind." ~Gandhi

The death penalty is barbaric in nature and I'll be happier when it's gone. If we are to maintain our values and ideals as a civilized nation, then we must come to accept punishment that pushes away emotional attachments in favor of a logical and fair system. Yes, the perpetrator of the crime lives and spends time in prison, but he spends his days without something essential: freedom.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm actually really against the Death Penalty.


Mainly because it sometimes (Though not too often) leads to the death of innocent people

Got a source for such a claim?

but really because it seems like such a violation of human rights. No matter what the person in question did, I feel they should spend their life’s in Jail, and not be killed.

I just think it's wrong. Maybe I'm just a softie though.

AltF4Warrior makes a great point. If they're already wrongly convicted, letting them rot in jail for the rest of their lives is just as bad as the death penalty.

Are murderers human?

I don't think so - I think murder requires some kind of chemical in the brain. Something you find in animals.

I say let 'em fry. Quick and easy retribution, family is satisfied and the world is a little bit better.

 

[Blackadder]

Got a source for such a claim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution
It has a few examples in it.

AltF4Warrior makes a great point. If they're already wrongly convicted, letting them rot in jail for the rest of their lives is just as bad as the death penalty.

I actually thought about this for a bit, and I guess I agree here, for a part.
While they have damm limited rights now (obviously,) I'm going to have to go with Mcloud. They are still human, even if they killed.

I saw we throw them in jail for life and whatnot, but killing them just strikes me as wrong. Killer or not, life is a one shot thing, and tey deserve to live there's out 'till the full.

 

[Deleted member]

Exactly. Life is presumably a one shot thing, like you say. So why should someone who has taken that chance be given one themselves?

I remember previous debates on this topic and people thought that Saddam shouldn't be hanged but rather spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement. Which is a worse punishment? The people who proposed the alternative to execution sounded just as vengeful as those who advocated the death penalty.

That is to say, they want worse conditions for a murderer. They want a slow torture rather than a painless injection.

 

[Me14k]

Human rights? Of course they have human rights, because they are, God forbid, still human.

And that little 9 year old girl they ***** and murdered was still human too. How can you say it is fair for a man to live when he killed another person?

Many people against the death penalty will claim how it is 'destroying our people'. We are currently averaging about 40 death penalties being carried out a year. And at the cost of these 40 lives we are detering thousands of crimes every year.

 

[McCloud]

And that little 9 year old girl they ***** and murdered was still human too. How can you say it is fair for a man to live when he killed another person?

So you're saying it's justified on the basis of the perpetrator's actions? Air control to civilization, pull up, you're going down... down..

Many people against the death penalty will claim how it is 'destroying our people'. We are currently averaging about 40 death penalties being carried out a year. And at the cost of these 40 lives we are detering thousands of crimes every year.

Perhaps you could provide some statistical data that clearly shows that the crime rate is drastically lower in states that have the death penalty rather than just prison time? I have found data showing that the reverse is true (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168#stateswithvwithout).

The cost of 40 lives? Cost is intangible. It should never be in the government's interest to keep blood on its hands for the sake of "cost". By facilitating sanctioned murder, is the government better than the criminal?

It's not a question of satisfying the populace, who by and large are going to be outraged and for hanging killers, rapists, etc etc. It's a question of doling out proper punishment. Murder doesn't necessitate murder.

 

[Digital Watches]

I'm willing to argue both sides of this, but either way, I could only possibly be for the death penalty when it comes to repeat offenders for violent crimes (IE murder).

On the one hand, why should the state take care of a person who has done time and does not change their behavior, while continuing to be a danger to others? Should we let them back into society, putting innocent lives in danger? Obviously not. Should my tax dollars go towards keeping a person in a jail cell, unable to do really anything with their life from that point onward, just because people are too squeamish to realize that there's no real difference.

But at the same time, the justice system is and always will be inherently flawed. There are uninformed/corrupt/biased juries/police officers/attorneys/judges who will always be able to convict innocents, and the only way the death penalty can work well is to make the appeals system less convoluted and tangled. In order to viably institute a death penalty, large changes would have to be made to our legal system, some of which are simply not viable.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I fully believe that capital punishment is a uniquely useful tool that has a specific place in our society. I just don't believe the government and its bureaucracy is able to use it correctly nor efficiently. The removal of a cancer of society, permanently and efficiently is what capital punishment should be used for. But it has been misapplied or not applied where necessary and stalled due to red tape or used prematurely because of political stupidity.

IOW capital punishment is useful but our politicians are morons.

 

[DH_Ninja]

What politicians are trying to do are remove it, just recently, my state new jersey, abolished it. I believe that capital punishment is needed. If a person is sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole, they are left to sit and rot in jail till the day they die. Its pretty much the same as being dead and if say a serial killer is put in jail for life, we pay to keep that serial killer alive.

 

[Eor]

And that little 9 year old girl they ***** and murdered was still human too.

Oh look, a fake tear jerking story. How perfect. I bet she was in a church too, trying to help the poor. Posting a fake tearjerker adds nothing to anybodies case.

How can you say it is fair for a man to live when he killed another person?

If a man breaks into my house and I shoot him, would I have a right to live? You'll probably say yes, as my murder was justified. But that means that it's not the killing of another person that warrants the death penalty, but just the sever crime, which changes your argument.

How can I say it's fair? How can you not say it's fair? See what I did there? You're posing your question as if it's from the bastion of morality, I'm changing it to mine. It was a loaded question.

Besides that, you're stating that every murderer needs to be put down. We don't execute every murderer, not even close.

Many people against the death penalty will claim how it is 'destroying our people'. We are currently averaging about 40 death penalties being carried out a year. And at the cost of these 40 lives we are detering thousands of crimes every year.

lol. Source for that last statement?

And to the person about the cost: An execution costs more then letting somebody rot in prison. Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108#FromDPIC

 

[Foe]

I'm pretty split on the death penalty. I feel that if you kill someone and it was not out of self defense and just out of madness you should be killed. Then I also feel even though he did kill someone he also is human. Even if he did kill someone, does he deserve the same? How are we any better if we kill him? I think it's hypocritical to give people the death penalty. Shouldn't the people who put people in the chair/poison them for the death penalty also get the death penalty? What makes them ANY different from the convicted? They both killed someone. I can't see how it is justified.It is not like the officers are doing it in self defense or saving anyone. He is as good as dead if he is jail. I also think that life in jail might be worse than death. Not that I would know, but for most likely at least over 20 years to life staying in the same room eating the same crappy food, seeing people you meet for 8 years get out and other stuff most likely would make you want to die. I'd rather just be put down than be in jail for my life.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

If you have someone with a psychosis that makes them need to kill people, then I think the best action would be to eliminate them from society.

If you have someone that was put in a stressful situation and was confronted, believed that his life was in danger and killed someone, the maximum should be life imprisonment.

If you have someone that is smart and just wants to kill people ("The Most Dangerous Prey") then when they are caught they should be put to death.

If you have a dude that takes lots of steroids, goes on a roids rage and kills people, you should physically castrate them (not like they have much to lose).

If you have someone that was just sitting at home, minding his own business when people break in and try to rob him and he gives them all holes in their heads, you should call it finished and leave the man alone.

 

[Jihnsius]

This is a subject I have trouble taking any side with, the only real way I can contribute to an argument such as this is to raise the question: which is considered worse punishment, life in prison or near instant and painless death?

If the persons in question is to be sentenced to life (or multiple accounts thereof) in prison, the persons would thus be excluded from that country's society and would have to conform to a new type of society. In doing so, the person could still live a semi-happy life, or they could live a life full of regret and possibly fear of other inmates. And for the extremes, there's still a possibility of being killed in prison and there's always a possibility of escape. The point of imprisonment is, though, to remove the persons from mainstream society, which would be accomplished.

For the death penalty, on the other hand, I think the only question that should be taken into consideration is, "is the persons so much of a hazard to others that imprisonment in a maximum security prison could still harm the lives of others?" Even still, if the answer to this question is 'yes,' there's always other measures that can be taken in prison to exclude the persons from others for the duration of their sentence or until otherwise deemed safe for others.

 

[Your Hero]

I think the death penalty should be allowed.

I agree with:

[quote="DeLoRtEd1]If they're already wrongly convicted, letting them rot in jail for the rest of their lives is just as bad as the death penalty.[/quote]

If you truly did not commit the murder, but were punished for it, wouldn't you rather be killed and released to heaven/reincarnated/wherever you believe you will be brought after death, than spend the rest of your life in a jail cell where you aren't treated the way you deserve?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

If you truly did not commit the murder, but were punished for it, wouldn't you rather be killed and released to heaven/reincarnated/wherever you believe you will be brought after death, than spend the rest of your life in a jail cell where you aren't treated the way you deserve?

Given the choice between life imprisonment and death, I'd go with death. But I'd hope that the justice system isn't so messed up as to convict an innocent person of a crime befitting that punishment. To bad it isn't.

 

[AltF4]

Even if he did kill someone, does he deserve the same? How are we any better if we kill him? I think it's hypocritical to give people the death penalty.

Don't get the misconception that the legal system is trying to seek revenge, or somehow make the victim's family feel better by giving a harsher punishment. Remember that jails are "correctional facilities". The explicit intent on putting people into jail is to rehabilitate them, not to merely punish them.

Eye for an eye is not the issue here, we are not trying to "make right what was wrong". This is a matter of rehabilitation. If a convict is deemed beyond rehabilitation and a constant threat to everyone, including while in prison, then the death penalty is on the table as an option.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Don't get the misconception that the legal system is trying to seek revenge, or somehow make the victim's family feel better by giving a harsher punishment. Remember that jails are "correctional facilities". The explicit intent on putting people into jail is to rehabilitate them, not to merely punish them.

And this is one of the reasons why I don't believe in our justice system. The revisitism rate is so high that it is obvious that jail is not rehabilitation. If we actually had a rehabilitation program instead of just punishment (which jail essentially is), then we'd have less people in the justice system and a greater overall economy.

And if we did find an individual who can not be turned from the life of crime, permanent incarceration or death could be prescribed.

 

[AltF4]

And I agree that the justice system doesn't do a good job of rehabilitation, but that's what it's there for on paper. What jail really does, however, is deter people from doing things that would land them in prison. So it's sort of a preventative measure. Getting off topic though...


So for convicts that are unable to be rehabilitated, life in jail or death are the possible sentences. If the convict poses a significant threat to everyone, even in jail (like the guards, other inmates, etc...) death seems to be the safest and most logical choice.

 

[Eight Sage]

Human rights? What human rights? Making the assumption that a person is correctly convicted of murder, they no longer have any rights normally given to regular people.

You know Alt, they're humans too, even though they commit murder, they have the same rights as anyone (but I'm not trying to justify his acts, I'm just saying they do have rights). For example, when a criminal is caught, the police didn't say "you have the right..."? and they're policeman who are more in contact of this situations than you or anybody of us, so if for a person like that they have rights, there you have.

Are murderers human?

I don't think so - I think murder requires some kind of chemical in the brain. Something you find in animals.

That "chemical" you mentioned exists in us because we're animals too. Every emotion we have depends on some chemical reaction. So someone isn't human for having this chemical work and this not?

Many of you said our taxes go to jail prisoners justifying that execution is good for our pockets. But actually, an execution costs more than life imprisonment. See what Eor put?

And to the person about the cost: An execution costs more then letting somebody rot in prison. Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108#FromDPIC

He's right.

Also...

If you have someone with a psychosis that makes them need to kill people, then I think the best action would be to eliminate them from society.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

What?

 

[AltF4]

You know Alt, they're humans too, even though they commit murder, they have the same rights as anyone (but I'm not trying to justify his acts, I'm just saying they do have rights).

No, they don't. Convicted murderers do not have the same rights as everyone else, neither should they.

For example, when a criminal is caught, the police didn't say "you have the right..."? and they're policeman who are more in contact of this situations than you or anybody of us, so if for a person like that they have rights, there you have.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. If you're trying to say that people are innocent until proven guilty, then of course. I never said anything to the contrary, and it is completely off topic.

 

[DH_Ninja]

Yea, they have the rights until they are convicted, then there pretty much stripped away from said convict.

 

[Eight Sage]

No, they don't. Convicted murderers do not have the same rights as everyone else, neither should they.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. If you're trying to say that people are innocent until proven guilty, then of course. I never said anything to the contrary, and it is completely off topic.

Yes to both comments, and, as you said, this is off topic so I won't discuss about that, maybe in another thread about Human Rights

Gamer that face shows my expression while I was reading your post. Like I read in other comments, there's absolutely no excuse for killing someone. Do we have the right to decide "you live", "you don't?" Does It make us better than them?

I prefer life imprisonment all the way; and if you're innocent, you have time to prove it.

 

[DH_Ninja]

there's absolutely no excuse for killing someone.

A man comes at you with a knife with intent to kill you while your in your own home and you have a loaded gun in your hand. do you let him kill your or do you shoot him. Didn't Eor go over this already.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

As a trained killer, I take exception to that.

 

[Eight Sage]

A man comes at you with a knife with intent to kill you while your in your own home and you have a loaded gun in your hand. do you let him kill your or do you shoot him. Didn't Eor go over this already.

I'll shoot him on his leg /arm trying to not killing him.

touche.

 

[DH_Ninja]

Can't shoot on something.......... but the point is that in a life or death situation, you may have to take your assailants life to keep your own.

 

[Erimir]

AltF4Warrior makes a great point. If they're already wrongly convicted, letting them rot in jail for the rest of their lives is just as bad as the death penalty.

Well, let me see here.

If I were wrongly convicted, executing me removes any possibility of rectifying the situation. Life imprisonment means that if I am ever proven innocent, I will be released.

So yeah, spending the rest of your life in jail is bad, if wrongly convicted. But you at least have the possibility of having your sentence reversed.

Not to mention that a lifetime in jail is not necessarily a worthless life. It depends on what jail, what sorts of things you can do there, etc. One former gang leader spent his time writing books about gang life to discourage people from going the same way he did. They executed him anyway, even tho he was contributing more to society alive than dead at that point.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Prison, in general, should be replaced mostly by rehabilitation or corporal punishment. Criminals should be punished swiftly and efficiently, rehabilitated back into society or placed somewhere where they cannot disturb society. I say this out of principle and because it is pragmatic.

 

[Eight Sage]

Well, let me see here.

If I were wrongly convicted, executing me removes any possibility of rectifying the situation. Life imprisonment means that if I am ever proven innocent, I will be released.

So yeah, spending the rest of your life in jail is bad, if wrongly convicted. But you at least have the possibility of having your sentence reversed.

That's the point. While in jail You can prove your inocense, or if you're guilty, you can have time to change your mind. I think that gang leader you mentioned helped the society more with his books than the execution and his "this will happen if..." no?

Gamer rehabilitation is the key, but it's hard to do on some cases. If you commit murder, your options are death penalty or life imprisonment. So rehab is useful only for minor crimes, not for this kind of situations.

 

[Erimir]

Not all murderers are impossible to rehabilitate.

I don't know why people, when discussing this, keep acting like all murderers are sociopaths (psychopaths) who are incapable of empathy and so forth. They're not all crazy lunatics who will inevitably keep murdering until we execute them.

And this is why (surprise!) most states do not have mandatory life imprisonment or capital punishment for murder.

 

[Eight Sage]

I don't know why people, when discussing this, keep acting like all murderers are sociopaths (psychopaths) who are incapable of empathy and so forth. They're not all crazy lunatics who will inevitably keep murdering until we execute them.

I don't think we said they're lunatics, but killing someone isn't normal, don't you think? so they need a psychologist at least.

Anyway, I thought this was interesting to debate here:

Professor John Donohue of Yale University's School of Law recently conducted a study of death sentences in Connecticut and found that seeking the death penalty often correlated with the race of the victim and the defendant, and not necessarily with the severity of the crimes, as the law requires. "There was basically no rational system to explain who got the death penalty," Donohue said. "It really is about as random a process as you can possibly construct."

After reviewing 207 murder cases dating back to the early 1970s that were eligible for death penalty prosecution, the study found:

* Black defendants receive death sentences at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims were white.
* Killers of white victims are treated more severely than people who kill minorities, when it comes time to decide the charges.
* Minorities who kill whites receive death sentences at higher rates than minorities who kill minorities.

The study is being used in a suit brought by death row inmates in the state challenging the constitutionality of the way the death penalty is being applied. The state has contested the findings of the study.
(DAVE COLLINS, "Yale study: racial bias, randomness mar Conn. death penalty cases," Associated Press, December 12, 2007). See Arbitrariness and Studies.

Is the death penalty discriminatory? what do you think?

 

[halfDemon]

Human rights? What human rights? Making the assumption that a person is correctly convicted of murder, they no longer have any rights normally given to regular people. If they did, putting them in jail would be wrong too. It's not a violation of their rights because they chose to waive those rights when they committed murder.

The 'executing innocent people' argument has more merit, but human rights, no.

Very immature statement. Just because you're in prison doesn't mean you have no human rights. Last time I checked, prisoners are allowed their rights. Why? Because they're still human.

I am against the death penalty.

Statistics show that countries with death penalties still have roughly the same amount of crimes committed.

Someone wrongfully accused could be executed.

The death penalty itself makes little sense. Why you commit the same crime you're punishing the person for?

It has also been shown that prison actually can "correct" its prisoners.

 

[Deleted member]

Is the death penalty discriminatory? what do you think?

Get the hell out of here with that, it's obviously not. Let's not derail this thread with idiotic racial bias claims on something like the death penalty.

God, people try to find racism in everything, only to see that they're being racist themselves.

 

[DH_Ninja]

A penalty can't discriminate, however people can, thats like saying that poison chooses to kill who ever it wants when someone consumes it, it doesn't, moving on..........

 

[Eight Sage]

Get the hell out of here with that, it's obviously not. Let's not derail this thread with idiotic racial bias claims on something like the death penalty.

God, people try to find racism in everything, only to see that they're being racist themselves.

That makes absolutely nonsense. Why you came with such statements? I didn't invent the article, I didn't "try" to find it and I'm shocked because you claim such thing about "people finding articles is...", heck, I can even say it, because I'm the opposite of that (advice, next time don't judge).

I was reading a little more about Death Penalty and founded those statistics about it that stunned me. Here, in Latin America, we don't have Death Penalty so I wanted to discuss if this is real or not in your countries.... nothing more.

However, if you feel bad about the article, PM and I'll edit it.

 

[1337marth]

I am for it, because they can deserve it, Imagine them killing a nine year old, which was your sister, or niece, or also daughter, would you want the other person to pay and punish?