Should the death sentence be used more?

[theNater]

Well, I'll tell you what. If you go do something wrong, get convicted, and then proceed in having your feet and hands lopped off while a live snake is shove up your ass...and the people who get wind of it in one way or another DON'T react in a "Holy shit!" manner denoting a sudden desire to go straight...then I owe you a coke.

(In all seriousness, we're not allowed to punish people BEFORE they do it, so the only even-remotely-lawful way I could think of was to impress upon people that you don't get off easy anymore. No, most people DON'T think this stuff through, but if we don't do something that COULD make them think, we're not even trying.)

But the "Holy shit!" reaction won't denote a desire to go straight, because that's not what immediately preceded the punishment. It would denote a desire to avoid being convicted, which I suspect most criminals already have.

What if we only used the death penilty if more then 3 people saw you do the crime? that would kinda solve the "turns out he was innocent"

This might work, unless someone had 3 enemies who were willing to lie in order to see that person executed. Not worth the risk, in my opinion.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Quote Incarcerated.-

I understand you, but even if I don't agree, the truth of the matter is that you have no method outside of punishment that can be allowed by law when you factor in the justice system. As a part of that system, there is nothing else you can do but do something to them once convicted. That's the rule. If you have something better than what I'm saying, then please say so. The only way to make people stop doing bad shit is to make bad shit too hazardous a career to be acceptable. You can't put that wagon ahead of the horse, so work with what you got.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

It shouldn't be used at all. The correctional system should seek to rehabilitate people for the good of society, not engage in some barbaric vision of retribution.

 

[theNater]

-Quote Incarcerated.-

I understand you, but even if I don't agree, the truth of the matter is that you have no method outside of punishment that can be allowed by law when you factor in the justice system. As a part of that system, there is nothing else you can do but do something to them once convicted. That's the rule. If you have something better than what I'm saying, then please say so. The only way to make people stop doing bad shit is to make bad shit too hazardous a career to be acceptable. You can't put that wagon ahead of the horse, so work with what you got.

If the end goal is to reduce crime, making it more likely that criminals will be caught increases their risk very soundly. Any criminals who are considering consequences will have to go to greater effort to avoid it, and may therefore decide to find an easier(and hopefully, legal) route to achieve their aims.

The way to make criminals more likely to be caught is more funding towards law enforcement, including hiring more law enforcement officials, training them better, and developing new forensic techniques.

 

[godofallu]

As far as the US goes we shouldn't do the death penalty NOW. The reason being that it costs us way too much money, and we end up trying the same person 10 times before we actually fulfill our conviction.

In the future, where we get rid of this retry till you run out of cash system , I say death penalty all the way.

Some might argue that killintg someone for killing is Hippocratic, but I see that viewpoint as ignorant. You don't kill someone because killing is wrong, you kill them because killing a large amount of innocent people is wrong.

Whats better for society as a whole, keeping someone alieve (sometimes against their own will) for years. Paying for their room/food/healthcare/waste manage,ent ect, OR killing them and getting on with life?

The cheaper/better option should be obvious, the reason it isn't obvious is due to a flaw in our legal system.

That "Flaw" is absolutely necessary. You know how many people are wrongly convicted each year?
What if you were wrongly convicted and sentanced to death?
Despite the great lengths that your legal system goes to in an attempt to avoid executing innocent people it still happens.

Lengthly trials for death penalty cases are a necessity. As such, as are the costs of those trials.
This not only makes life in prison the more humane option, it makes it more financial viable.
If anything, people who still think in terms of "an eye for an eye" are the ones who are ignorant.

That's the thing though, why should a life sentence vs a death penalty be tried differently? Shouldn't both trials be treated equally? Is it ok that the rules for one are different than the other? Why is it that life sentence cases use the normal rules, why death penalty gets UNLIMITED retrials? If the legal system isn't accurate enough change the entire legal system. Don't add some phony rule that only applies to 1/10,000 cases.

If I was unjustly labeled a murderer, it would be a sad day for me whether i'm getting killed or going to prison forever. Adding unlimited retrials won't save me at all it will only delay the inevitable at a cost to taxpays of 3million a trial. If the first 3 trials don't go well, why on earth would the fifth or eighth?

I don't believe in eye for an eye, fuck vengeance. You kill because it is the morally right thing to do. It's better to protect society and other inmates from this monster than let him run around in prison eating food that the victims family pays for. I'd want a quick and noble death over a lifetime in prison as well, at least admit that people who would prefer death should get the option.

 

[Agila_77]

I say yes, we should use it more.

If you want reasoning, think about it from this perspective. They're convicts. They're in there because they've murdered someone. If they get out, whats to stop them from doing it again? It'll all just come down to a vicious cycle of sticking them in the equivalent of a time out corner.

Now execution, that means you are 100% sure they will never do it again.

Besides, if it was a fair trial, all the evidence was in that direction, but the man was innocent, I think God will forgive you for the mistake.

 

[Hairetos]

Every single time a person is convicted of rape or murder.

But, in the former, you would be sentencing them to a fate worse than the crime.

Not necessarily. They destroyed at least one life... you destroy one life.

Are you saying that rape victims are destroyed?

That's sensationalist nonsense, sorry.

Do you know any rape victims?

Does it matter? Because you're saying that rape victims are incapable of taking care of themselves emotionally. I can say with certainty that there are rape victims out there that have overcome the trauma eventually.

 

[theNater]

That's the thing though, why should a life sentence vs a death penalty be tried differently? Shouldn't both trials be treated equally? Is it ok that the rules for one are different than the other? Why is it that life sentence cases use the normal rules, why death penalty gets UNLIMITED retrials?

Could it be because with a life sentence, a meaningful attempt to rectify the error is at least theoretically feasible, while with the death penalty it isn't?

If the legal system isn't accurate enough change the entire legal system. Don't add some phony rule that only applies to 1/10,000 cases.

The only level of accuracy that is acceptable to me is 100%, which is not realistically achievable, no matter how the legal system is set up.

Besides, if it was a fair trial, all the evidence was in that direction, but the man was innocent, I think God will forgive you for the mistake.

One of the founding principles of the United States is that "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". Knowing that we will probably be forgiven is not an excuse for failing to live up to our own principles.

 

[Raddragon]

Everytime this comes up I just think about my friend who is blind, handicapped, needs a transplant and is still the sweetest person I know.

If someone commits a really severe crime, most of the criminals might just do it again, and thinking about my friend just makes me think about how death penalty would help this world. Wouldn't we have better ability to make transplants? A better society?

It just gets me thinking...

 

[Arizona Kyle]

Well, I'll tell you what. If you go do something wrong, get convicted, and then proceed in having your feet and hands lopped off while a live snake is shove up your ass...and the people who get wind of it in one way or another DON'T react in a "Holy shit!" manner denoting a sudden desire to go straight...then I owe you a coke.

(In all seriousness, we're not allowed to punish people BEFORE they do it, so the only even-remotely-lawful way I could think of was to impress upon people that you don't get off easy anymore. No, most people DON'T think this stuff through, but if we don't do something that COULD make them think, we're not even trying.)

But the "Holy shit!" reaction won't denote a desire to go straight, because that's not what immediately preceded the punishment. It would denote a desire to avoid being convicted, which I suspect most criminals already have.

What if we only used the death penilty if more then 3 people saw you do the crime? that would kinda solve the "turns out he was innocent"

This might work, unless someone had 3 enemies who were willing to lie in order to see that person executed. Not worth the risk, in my opinion.

well ya thats why its a "kinda" solution

 

[Razgrizaces]

Hmm... I might be too young to have a say in this, but, I'll go give it a shot.

I think that the death penalty should be fine where it is, but should be limited to mainly murders and rapists... but we should be able to justify when a person needs to die, and when they need to reform. If people are being killed and people are doing things that are not tolerated by the law, then I think that something's going wrong. Instead of giving people just an easy death, either by a bullet to the head, or by an electric chair, I'd say if there were a death sentence, that there should be a death by being hung, rather than doing that painless and quick death. Would you commit a crime after seeing somebody be hung, rather than shot or electrocuted? If I saw that, I would not commit a crime after seeing that. I'd think that crime would probably decrease if people saw that happen. It worked in the old times, I guess you could say.

Just my $.02

 

[godofallu]

That's the thing though, why should a life sentence vs a death penalty be tried differently? Shouldn't both trials be treated equally? Is it ok that the rules for one are different than the other? Why is it that life sentence cases use the normal rules, why death penalty gets UNLIMITED retrials?

Could it be because with a life sentence, a meaningful attempt to rectify the error is at least theoretically feasible, while with the death penalty it isn't?

If the legal system isn't accurate enough change the entire legal system. Don't add some phony rule that only applies to 1/10,000 cases.

The only level of accuracy that is acceptable to me is 100%, which is not realistically achievable, no matter how the legal system is set up.

Besides, if it was a fair trial, all the evidence was in that direction, but the man was innocent, I think God will forgive you for the mistake.

One of the founding principles of the United States is that "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". Knowing that we will probably be forgiven is not an excuse for failing to live up to our own principles.

None of those responses made any sense logically. A death sense isn't feasibly possible? Actually it is possible, we've done it before...

A death sentence you have a better chance of proving your innocence? Wrong.

You state that the legal system will never be good enough for you. So what's your solution? Let everyone go? Come on.

As for the god quote i'll respond for that one too. We believe 1/100 is acceptable, and we certainly pay for that ratio. Our actual ratio is far better than 1/100 too. So we are literally living up to our goals, and yet the next sentence you say we aren't. Contradictory.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

Hell why do inmates on death row take o long to die? Convict them, bring them out back and put a bullet in their head.

They're kept on death row for so long on the off chance they may be found innocent (though, again, if that's the case they should remove the penalty altogether imo).

I stand by my stance of within 15-20 minutes of conviction and sentencing they should be arriving at the morgue with a .45 in their heads

350 people have been found innocent while on death row (http://www.123helpme.com/assets/7073.html Third Paragraph). If the state did things your way those people would be dead. Again I have a bit of a beef with Capital Punishment in the first place. If you kill them to take them away from the misery of losing their freedom (unless those prisons come with luxuries in which case most of those luxuries should be removed. I don't mind prisons having things like books but letting prisoners watch TV seems like an unreasonable expense when you consider that one of the purposes of prison is to punish) if you keep them in prison (again, a prison WITHOUT most of the luxuries some modern prisons have) you let them stew in their own misery (especially if the criminal feels remorse) and give innocents more hope of being exonerated. Prison is arguably a crueller sentence than death.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

That's the thing though, why should a life sentence vs a death penalty be tried differently? Shouldn't both trials be treated equally? Is it ok that the rules for one are different than the other? Why is it that life sentence cases use the normal rules, why death penalty gets UNLIMITED retrials?

Could it be because with a life sentence, a meaningful attempt to rectify the error is at least theoretically feasible, while with the death penalty it isn't?

If the legal system isn't accurate enough change the entire legal system. Don't add some phony rule that only applies to 1/10,000 cases.

The only level of accuracy that is acceptable to me is 100%, which is not realistically achievable, no matter how the legal system is set up.

Besides, if it was a fair trial, all the evidence was in that direction, but the man was innocent, I think God will forgive you for the mistake.

One of the founding principles of the United States is that "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". Knowing that we will probably be forgiven is not an excuse for failing to live up to our own principles.

None of those responses made any sense logically. A death sense isn't feasibly possible? Actually it is possible, we've done it before...

A death sentence you have a better chance of proving your innocence? Wrong.

You state that the legal system will never be good enough for you. So what's your solution? Let everyone go? Come on.

As for the god quote i'll respond for that one too. We believe 1/100 is acceptable, and we certainly pay for that ratio. Our actual ratio is far better than 1/100 too. So we are literally living up to our goals, and yet the next sentence you say we aren't. Contradictory.

Read the comment again. It said that with a LIFE sentence you have a better chance of being proved innocent.

 

[spartandude]

I'm undecided however you can also raise another slightly off topic question, should we allow prisoners to be euthanise? While i don't doubt that most pisenors want to stay alive, some may see it as an easy way out so should we give a choice to those who arnt sentenced to death?

 

[vxicepickxv]

"Where are we talking? Violent crime in the US is down according to the BoJ." Yeah, but prison populations are rising.

Well, I guess that means that those other types of crimes are on the rise. You know, the nonviolent ones. The ones that the police find easier to deal with, because they don't get shot at, or stabbed, or anything like that. This is going too far into my philosophy on the "War on Drugsfreedom, civil liberties, states rights, and good use of taxpayer money" than I should get into. Of course, it's never going to change right now, because when your cousin or brother in law decides he wants to build a private prison and fill it with nonviolent offenders to legally exploit at wages similar to that of an illegal immigrant, and he's going to offer you a kickback, then you tend to oppose ending the War on Americans.


OT:The death penalty, as it is used in the United States is only cost effective if you expect someone to live more than 80 years in prison. Yes, the automatic appeals process for anyone sent to death row makes it more expensive in legal fees alone, than leaving someone in prison without parole, because they have to pay for their own appeals. There aren't too many 90 year olds in prison, in case you were wondering.

 

[shwnbob]

Yes completely. It gets rid of evil, corrupt people who are wasting away in jail and it sets an example for others. Would you be willing to murder someone if you knew the consequence of your action will cause your own death? I read that in some places (I don't know if they still do this.) that if someone was framed for stealing, not even caught just framed for it, they're brought in front of the whole town and burned alive. It rids the place of someone who steals things and it sets an example for others. Stop wasting your money on people who are never going to feel guilty about what they did and just execute them.
(note; it has to be people with serious crimes not someone with a speeding ticket or something.)

 

[Booze Zombie]

If you barely trust your politicians to be truthful to you about why they're even there, how can you trust them with decisions such as the death sentence?

 

[theNater]

That's the thing though, why should a life sentence vs a death penalty be tried differently? Shouldn't both trials be treated equally? Is it ok that the rules for one are different than the other? Why is it that life sentence cases use the normal rules, why death penalty gets UNLIMITED retrials?

Could it be because with a life sentence, a meaningful attempt to rectify the error is at least theoretically feasible, while with the death penalty it isn't?

If the legal system isn't accurate enough change the entire legal system. Don't add some phony rule that only applies to 1/10,000 cases.

The only level of accuracy that is acceptable to me is 100%, which is not realistically achievable, no matter how the legal system is set up.

Besides, if it was a fair trial, all the evidence was in that direction, but the man was innocent, I think God will forgive you for the mistake.

One of the founding principles of the United States is that "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". Knowing that we will probably be forgiven is not an excuse for failing to live up to our own principles.

None of those responses made any sense logically. A death sense isn't feasibly possible? Actually it is possible, we've done it before...

A death sentence you have a better chance of proving your innocence? Wrong.

Suppose, 5 years after the sentence is initiated, we discover the convicted person was innocent.

If they were sentenced to life in prison, we can release them, repay them a reasonable guess as to the amount of money they would have earned had they not been locked up, publicly declare their innocence, and generally attempt to put their life back on track.

If they were sentenced to death, we can't do anything like that.

It is theoretically possible to rectify the mistake with one punishment, but not the other.

You state that the legal system will never be good enough for you. So what's your solution? Let everyone go? Come on.

The legal system will never be good enough for me to accept an irreversible punishment, like death or mutilation. There are options between "kill them" and "let them go".

As for the god quote i'll respond for that one too. We believe 1/100 is acceptable, and we certainly pay for that ratio. Our actual ratio is far better than 1/100 too. So we are literally living up to our goals, and yet the next sentence you say we aren't. Contradictory.

The point is not getting the numbers to an acceptable level(and we can't know the actual numbers, because we'll never know precisely how many people have been wrongly executed); the point is that we should bend over backwards to ensure that we aren't punishing innocent people.

 

[theNater]

I read that in some places (I don't know if they still do this.) that if someone was framed for stealing, not even caught just framed for it, they're brought in front of the whole town and burned alive. It rids the place of someone who steals things and it sets an example for others.

Just a heads up; when someone is framed that means they are made to look guilty of a crime that they did not actually commit. Are you sure that's what you meant to say here?