Should the death sentence be used more?
- Thread starter Arizona Kyle
- Start date
Recommended Videos
By your logic we shouldn't have any penalties at all. That same logic can be used to say "A crazy bigot might get in power and make it illegal to be gay and that you would be put in jail for the rest of your life, therefore we shouldn't have jails." Personally, I would rather be killed than put in jail.The Stonker said:
And I disagree that killing murderers is "not right." It is VERY right to kill people who kill innocents. Eye for an Eye after all.
If you don't trust the justice system to keep them locked up, do you trust the justice system to even get the right guy?KeyMaster45 said:
My grief with the death penalty is that the action is irreversible, and innocent people have been put to death, with their innocence proven only after they died.
No, death sentence is not a punishment, it's a way to get out of the punishment, also it's really cruel. In prison, the criminal could think about what he did for a good time and learn that what he did was wrong and eventually live a happy normal life when he/she gets out.
And i have heard from alot of sources that executions cost about same amount or even more than many, many, many years in prison.
But i do belive that all the maniacs like mass-murderes should be killed or have rest of his/her lifetime in prison where he/she can't harm anybody.
Edit: Also, what if the guy who was killed by deat penalty didn't actually do the crime and was staged and the police would find this out many years later. It has happened, just horrible..
And i have heard from alot of sources that executions cost about same amount or even more than many, many, many years in prison.
But i do belive that all the maniacs like mass-murderes should be killed or have rest of his/her lifetime in prison where he/she can't harm anybody.
Edit: Also, what if the guy who was killed by deat penalty didn't actually do the crime and was staged and the police would find this out many years later. It has happened, just horrible..
But, then you are making a decision that is no better than what they most likely made.KeyMaster45 said:
By that logic, someone who kills people just because they believe said persons are "mentally deranged", can be considered deranged themselves.
You see where I'm going with this, right?
Do two rights make a wrong? Why do we have the right to take away someone's life, (actually two deaths, the fear of waiting decades to be killed, and then actual death) just because they took someone else's away?
Also, the death penalty does not work as a deterrent, it is shown over and over that crime rates slightly increase after an execution.
I want to take a more constructive approach. Let's actually try getting decreases in crime rates instead of killing people, get to the source of the criminal activity.
Also, the death penalty does not work as a deterrent, it is shown over and over that crime rates slightly increase after an execution.
I want to take a more constructive approach. Let's actually try getting decreases in crime rates instead of killing people, get to the source of the criminal activity.
Enforcing the death penalty in California costs the state $250'000'000 per year (yes, that's million), this cost is mostly incurred through legal appeals, maintaining Death Row and arranging said executions. That is substantially more than the cost of every single life prisoner in Cali state prisons.Arizona Kyle said:
Death penalty is a bad idea, expensive and if the convicted gets exhonerated later you can't release a corpse. Considering the hole in Cali's finances, you'd think they'd just ditch it.
I'm kinda undecided on this topic, on one side... most punishments are not hard enough if somebody killed someone (innocent) on purpose and with dedication he should be sentenced to death. But the problem is proving this point, his intentions and his guilt... If there were a way to be 100% sure, I would say, yes. But unfortunately it's impossible and so I say no, in our world no one should be sentenced to death.
Not quite, Japan and South Korea both still have the death penalty. But only for murder and treason. In Japan the death penalty is not usually considered until more than one murder has been commited, they execute a couple of people a year. I know nothing about S Korea's justice system beyond that they have it.Bocaj2000 said:
#Edit:
Useless facts.
Russia has the death penalty, but has not executed anyone since 1996, post Soviet era Russia is not big on executions.
The UK had the death penalty until 1998(!!!).
I think that prison shouldn't be the same... The countries of the world should establish a place where they send all their criminals and forget about them until their sentence is up. I don't mean getting criminals to start new lives in foreign countries, I mean that the world could pay Russia to send all the criminals to a large part of sparsely-habited land and get them to fend for themselves. And tax them. If we tax them enough, we might even make money from them. We could tax them for food and ban them from using technology that's too advanced. If they starve, so be it.
I don't see the point in the death penalty.
I don't see the point in the death penalty.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.Chrono180 said:
No, I'm saying keep them locked up! But if you want to throw morals out of the window because you're obviously not into those, then it actually costs more to legally execute a person rather then keeping them locked up, amazing isn't it?
IF you really want to go into practicallity then send them to serfdom!