Skrah
Smash Ace
The death penalty. It's been around for as long as someone has been deemed worthy of deciding whether someone lives or not. Some say, "An eye for an eye, right? He took someone's life away, so he doesn't have the right to live."
Now, that takes me to another thing. The human rights. What are they? Who rules it and protects it? More importantly, can your rights as a human being be nullified? You have a right to live, as much as everyone else, so is it just that if you neglect someone's rights and decide to kill him you should be killed too?
So as this question in particular is based off a lot in morals, people have a different view of it. Religion, personal beliefs, it all comes into play.
People that don't want the life sentence say that murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and the like should be thrown into jail for the rest of their lives. People that base their opinion on religion say that they need to be "merciful" and that they should forgive others, to turn the other cheek lets say.
Now, I don't know about you, but I'd rather die than live the rest of my life in jail. So, merciful? I don't think so.
Another con about life sentence is that crooks get out easily. In my country, the drug dealers have so much control over the police and the judicial branch that they are out and kicking in a year. To evade this they sentence the culprit to 400 years of imprisonment, so if they cut off a few years, they still stay in jail till they die.
So how do the culprits that live in jail get their food, water, clothing, etc? Taxes.
And that is something that deeply annoys me. Why should I pay so some scum of the earth lives?
Now here is a quote that I found that expresses pretty much why the death sentence should be kept.
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
So in other words, yes, an eye for an eye.
The death sentence can take a long time, yes, and it IS more expensive than the life sentence, but if the trials were shortened it wouldn't be such a problem. We are ridding ourselves of murderers, which in turn saves the lives of the would-be victims of the killer. By applying the death penalty we also spread fear through the criminals, and there wouldn't be as much crime.
Another cause of Mexico's faulty system: Some years ago, a 16 year old killed a girl, chopped her to pieces, dug a hole and dumped her in there. Where is he now? He joined the clergy, two years later. He was two years in the teen prison.
Obviously I'm not saying that they should've killed him right then. They could have waited those two years, and then kill him. How can we know that he won't kill another person? Becoming part of the church doesn't change the fact that you have blood on your hands.
So in conclusion, the death penalty SHOULD be used, BUT only with a GOOD and EFFICIENT trial system to avoid casualties. What goes around comes around, son.
Now, that takes me to another thing. The human rights. What are they? Who rules it and protects it? More importantly, can your rights as a human being be nullified? You have a right to live, as much as everyone else, so is it just that if you neglect someone's rights and decide to kill him you should be killed too?
So as this question in particular is based off a lot in morals, people have a different view of it. Religion, personal beliefs, it all comes into play.
People that don't want the life sentence say that murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and the like should be thrown into jail for the rest of their lives. People that base their opinion on religion say that they need to be "merciful" and that they should forgive others, to turn the other cheek lets say.
Now, I don't know about you, but I'd rather die than live the rest of my life in jail. So, merciful? I don't think so.
Another con about life sentence is that crooks get out easily. In my country, the drug dealers have so much control over the police and the judicial branch that they are out and kicking in a year. To evade this they sentence the culprit to 400 years of imprisonment, so if they cut off a few years, they still stay in jail till they die.
So how do the culprits that live in jail get their food, water, clothing, etc? Taxes.
And that is something that deeply annoys me. Why should I pay so some scum of the earth lives?
Now here is a quote that I found that expresses pretty much why the death sentence should be kept.
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
So in other words, yes, an eye for an eye.
The death sentence can take a long time, yes, and it IS more expensive than the life sentence, but if the trials were shortened it wouldn't be such a problem. We are ridding ourselves of murderers, which in turn saves the lives of the would-be victims of the killer. By applying the death penalty we also spread fear through the criminals, and there wouldn't be as much crime.
Another cause of Mexico's faulty system: Some years ago, a 16 year old killed a girl, chopped her to pieces, dug a hole and dumped her in there. Where is he now? He joined the clergy, two years later. He was two years in the teen prison.
Obviously I'm not saying that they should've killed him right then. They could have waited those two years, and then kill him. How can we know that he won't kill another person? Becoming part of the church doesn't change the fact that you have blood on your hands.
So in conclusion, the death penalty SHOULD be used, BUT only with a GOOD and EFFICIENT trial system to avoid casualties. What goes around comes around, son.
