Should the death sentence be used more?

[PinochetIsMyBro]

If you rape or murder someone and there's DNA evidence and multiple witnesses, then I firmly believe you should get to go straight to the front of the line - no appeals.

People who have moral problems with it confuse me. There's a difference between murdering someone in cold blood, and executing someone who has murdered in cold blood. You forfeit any "human rights" you had the second you decide to bloody your hands and end the life of another intelligent being.

 

[standokan]

The death sentence is wrong, no one has the right to decide over some one elses life,

 

[theNater]

Yes it should because criminals would think twice before commiting a crime

Do you really think criminals plan on getting caught? If they're assuming they won't get caught, then it doesn't matter what the penalty is.

Prisons don't work, you can send even non-violent criminals there and they will come out more violent.

Prisons can work; some criminals do reform. The fact that they work rarely is reason to study them and find out why they work when they do in order to make them work more often. It is not a reason to give up on them for a system with the flaws the death penalty has(irreversibility, expense, iffy morality, etc.).

 

[Flap Jack452]

rather then wasting tax payer money on some criminal that will never get out of prison

It actually normally costs more to euthanize a criminal than keep him in jail.

So you want to completely disregard human rights entirely because you don't want to spend money?

Human rights? I'm pretty sure the "Right to not be fucking murdered in cold blood" is a pretty fundamental one. The sociopaths who murder multiple people made the choice to "completely disregard human rights" long before they killed their first victim.

Giving sympathy to these guys is just ignorant. Give them an inch, and they will take a mile.

 

[Chewster]

No. First, if someone is wrongly convicted, for whatever reason, and they are put to death, it isn't enough to just say "Whoops, sorry bruv, turns out you were innocent" as the chappie will be toast and nothing can undo that.

Second, I don't see how the death penalty dissuades people from committing murders. Surely those who commit murder (the only crime really deserving of the DP) are not thinking of the consequences in the moment.

Third, locking people up for life protects citizens just as much as killing them.

Fourth, if you are looking for a proper punishment, sleeping with one eye open and a shiv under your pillow for fifty years in a Supermax is more than adequate a fate for the worst society has to offer.

Fifth, killing people to stop killing sets a bad precedent by telling people that murder is OK in some situations (perhaps true of self-defense, but I'd imagine that those situations are fairly rare) when we should be saying that it is not OK for anyone to do, even the State.

Sixth, are we not supposed to be better then criminals? How does killing them for killing, in light of the above, make us any better? Because we use a needle instead of a knife or a gun? I think the difference is negligible.

So no, I don't think we should be killing people to stop killing. That is like fucking for virginity. It makes no sense.

 

[Leg End]

<spoiler= There is at least one person they SHOULD have used the death penalty on> http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/september2010/070910top2.jpg

See, that is the closest person that I would agree with on this subject, but still don't. :/

Now, if he escapes and tries to kill again... well, that is actually a little more in it's favor. That would be possibly one of the few cases where it might be warranted and I would agree. :/

 

[YouEatLard]

Some people of proven that they are not worthy of living. These are the repeat offenders or those who do something truly horrific. These are the people that have proven that they can not be live in this world without destroying the world for others. These people were created just like everyone else. How they came to this point may not totally be their fault, but when they cross the line and kill others, the fault is theirs. They are damaged goods. This being the case, we have two options. Lock them up and feed them for the rest of their lives, or fix the problem so that they are no longer living in this world and have no chance to repeat offend.

While the death penalty may not be an issue in some cases (as the problem solved it's self early) ask yourself this. Do you think the parents of dead Columbine students would believe in the death penalty? Do you think Gabrielle Giffords would believe in the death penalty? What about her husband? There are countless other cases. There are cases as horrific where the offenders did actually live. Now, do you think these people should have to pay (taxes) to keep the offenders in these cases alive (again, assuming the offenders actually made it to police custody)?

Seriously, before speaking against the death penalty, look up some of the people who have died under it. See what they did to EARN that penalty.

Oh, yeah, and the mental defense is garbage. Someone being screwed up to the point where they don't understand what they did was wrong isn't a defense. If they have proven they can't live without destroying, this should be all that is needed.

 

[Leg End]

Some people of proven that they are not worthy of living. These are the repeat offenders or those who do something truly horrific. These are the people that have proven that they can not be live in this world without destroying the world for others. These people were created just like everyone else. How they came to this point may not totally be their fault, but when they cross the line and kill others, the fault is theirs. They are damaged goods. This being the case, we have two options. Lock them up and feed them for the rest of their lives, or fix the problem so that they are no longer living in this world and have no chance to repeat offend.

While the death penalty may not be an issue in some cases (as the problem solved it's self early) ask yourself this. Do you think the parents of dead Columbine students would believe in the death penalty? Do you think Gabrielle Giffords would believe in the death penalty? What about her husband? There are countless other cases. There are cases as horrific where the offenders did actually live. Now, do you think these people should have to pay (taxes) to keep the offenders in these cases alive (again, assuming the offenders actually made it to police custody)?

Seriously, before speaking against the death penalty, look up some of the people who have died under it. See what they did to EARN that penalty.

Oh, yeah, and the mental defense is garbage. Someone being screwed up to the point where they don't understand what they did was wrong isn't a defense. If they have proven they can't live without destroying, this should be all that is needed.

But who is anyone to judge who is worthy? That makes you just as bad to kill them just because YOU believe they are not worthy of life.

You also stated a flaw in your logic.

Lock them up and feed them for the rest of their lives, or fix the problem so that they are no longer living in this world and have no chance to repeat offend.

If they are locked up for life... how can they re-offend?

You are justifying it as revenge. That is not the point of the system itself. You are saying it should be the Government's job to commit acts of revenge on behalf of families.

You should also look at all of the Innocent People killed by the Death Penalty. :/

 

[Flap Jack452]

In sweden doing prison time is almost like a freaking vacation. Swedish prisons get better food than most schools, have hotel room like cells and even freaking satelite TV!

Probably much more sodomy, but I see your point.

 

[Leg End]

<spoiler= There is at least one person they SHOULD have used the death penalty on> http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/september2010/070910top2.jpg

See, that is the closest person that I would agree with on this subject, but still don't. :/

Now, if he escapes and tries to kill again... well, that is actually a little more in it's favor. That would be possibly one of the few cases where it might be warranted. :/

It's not just the murders he orchestrated, it's his family that worries me. Yes they're still around and growing. They had a chance to stop that but instead they keep him in prison where he wants to be and put him on display for the media every few years which only serves to feed his ego and gives him a medium for his lunacy. California is wasting money and a prison cell by allowing that... thing to continue living.

Which is also covered by that episode of Bullshit!. In the sense that, if they kill him, it could be like Jesus all over again, except with insane, murderous psychopaths as followers. :/

Wait... (O_O)... nevermind that group comparison. :/

If anything, I'm actually surprised he wasn't executed, considering all of those on death row being killed for far less. :/

Seems... fucked.

Seriously, the fucking KKK hates the guy! (O_O)

 

[mrscott137]

What do you notice about the counties on that list? Except for Japan (that barely made the top 10) and the US, do those strike you as countries that have human rights and justice systems you might want to emulate?

Not trying to be offensive, but from an outsiders point of view (UK), america ain't perfect either in terms of human rights and justice systems. For example- a national healthcare system, racism (DO NOT DENY THIS- It wasn't just me who saw southerners having fits over a black president). Oh and America- I visited once and made the mistake of admitting that I am partly socialist in a bar. Didn't go down to well, like I say, its the minority groups, but the same could be said for the middle eastern countries and china above. Not perfect, as I say.

 

[Kryzantine]

The whole prison situation in America is... complicated, and the truth concerning the death penalty is that the reason it's inefficient is because we insist on giving people their civil liberties in prison through countless appeals. If we were to keep the system of capital punishment, we would ideally give the prisoner one appeal. Then again, that's never going to happen, so it would be best to scrap the ideal altogether.

And America's prison system is rather complicated. There are a ton, probably over 40% of our prisoners who are non-violent drug users; they got prison time for getting caught with some weed or crack, around 50-50 distribution between prisoners. Getting all those inmates out would cut our prison population tremendously. The worse stat is that around 60% of our violent crime is directly related to drugs in some way. This is excluding marijuana and excluding the mere presence of a drug at a crime scene. You got guys killing each other as competition in dealing hard drugs. You got guys doped up on heroin who overreact to certain situations. You got meth lab explosions. You got drug addicts killing people just to get their fix, or much more common, robbing places to get their fix, either for the money to buy it off the streets or for the raw materials needed to produce their drugs themselves. On the West Coast, meth is a crisis. In the Southeast, Dixie America, you got crack. In the North, you have prescription drugs and opiates. Cutting down on, or legalizing marijuana, would let loose about 40% of our prison population. Getting rid of the flow of harder drugs into the US would probably lead to a decrease of around 50% (at that point) of the future prison population. It would be brutally effective.

But then, I'm not sure we want that. More people out of prison and on the streets just means more competition for jobs that already see a lot of competition. And the jobs lost from the downsizing of the prison industry would create even more competition at that point. It's either prison or going back to farming by hand the way China does it, and since Wall Street would subsequently lend tons of money to new farmers with no notable credit history so they can push falsely rated trusts, we're ruling out the latter.

To be fair, this situation has come up before. We call it the Great Depression. Prison populations also boomed then in America, probably because poor people with no work wanted food and clean water. I'd say we're in a similar situation now. I'm not gonna count on World War 3 to bail us out, though, so the only other solution is to slash our defense budget, train people in engineering and start improving our infrastructure like crazy. Using our own workers, not Chinese ones.

 

[Treblaine]

In a day and age where men/women are killing each other, stealing millions of dollars...

How is it possibly a balance of crime and punishment to take someone's life for them taking mere money?

Money isn't everything, but life IS!

Death penalty should definitely be limited to those who destroy life whether murder, or harming them so much that there is no real life after that (severe brain damage, emotionally destroyed, etc).

And they shouldn't be killed for emotional reasons like anger. Wrath is an emotion that fades but injustice lingers forever, death sentence must be done because - paradoxically - it is the "right" thing to do.

Is it ever right to intentionally take someone's life for purely the aim of taking their life?

Well it's clear who deserve it, the likes of Hitler and Pol Pot, but what about someone who murders a single person?

 

[Leg End]

What do you notice about the counties on that list? Except for Japan (that barely made the top 10) and the US, do those strike you as countries that have human rights and justice systems you might want to emulate?

Not trying to be offensive, but from an outsiders point of view (UK), america ain't perfect either in terms of human rights and justice systems. For example- a national healthcare system, racism (DO NOT DENY THIS- It wasn't just me who saw southerners having fits over a black president). Oh and America- I visited once and made the mistake of admitting that I am partly socialist in a bar. Didn't go down to well, like I say, its the minority groups, but the same could be said for the middle eastern countries and china above. Not perfect, as I say.

This man just summed up most of the issues that makes the US a partial backwards country at the moment.

You deserve a cookie.

Lemme find one...

 

[YouEatLard]

But who is anyone to judge who is worthy?[/b] That makes you just as bad to kill them just because YOU believe they are not worthy of life.

You also stated a flaw in your logic.

Lock them up and feed them for the rest of their lives, or fix the problem so that they are no longer living in this world and have no chance to repeat offend.

If they are locked up for life... how can they re-offend?

You are justifying it as revenge. That is not the point of the system itself. You are saying it should be the Government's job to commit acts of revenge on behalf of families.

You should also look at all of the Innocent People killed by the Death Penalty. :/

Far from flawed. I'm talking about people where there is no question. Possibly repeat offenders. Possibly someone that does a multiple murder where there are many witnesses/camera footage. There is no question in many cases.

If YOU are up for feeding, clothing, and taking care of the medical needs for a confirmed killer for the rest of his life then I understand your statement. I am not. If a dog kills we kill the dog. If a human kills we either effectly end his life by putting him behind bars for the length of it, or we end it with his own death.

Revenge? No. Again, it's no different then when a dog kills. When the dog kills he has proven that he is not worth the risk to have around. We end the dog. We don't cage it up for the rest of it's life (cruelty yada, and cost). As I see it this transfers directly to humans. I see no point in taking care of one of these people.

 

[Leg End]

<spoiler= There is at least one person they SHOULD have used the death penalty on> http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/september2010/070910top2.jpg

See, that is the closest person that I would agree with on this subject, but still don't. :/

Now, if he escapes and tries to kill again... well, that is actually a little more in it's favor. That would be possibly one of the few cases where it might be warranted. :/

It's not just the murders he orchestrated, it's his family that worries me. Yes they're still around and growing. They had a chance to stop that but instead they keep him in prison where he wants to be and put him on display for the media every few years which only serves to feed his ego and gives him a medium for his lunacy. California is wasting money and a prison cell by allowing that... thing to continue living.

Which is also covered by that episode of Bullshit!. In the sense that, if they kill him, it could be like Jesus all over again, except with insane, murderous psychopaths as followers. :/

Wait... (O_O)... nevermind that group comparison. :/

If anything, I'm actually surprised he wasn't executed, considering all of those on death row being killed for far less. :/

Seems... fucked.

Seriously, the fucking KKK hates the guy! (O_O)

That the really fucked up part. The judge actually sentenced him to death, but California threw out the death penalty before the sentence could be carried out! I know that executing him now would be pointless, but if they had taken care of him back in 71, he wouldn't have a following he does now. >(

[HEADING=1](O_O)[/HEADING]​

Flawed system is flawed.​

 

[Leg End]

But who is anyone to judge who is worthy?[/b] That makes you just as bad to kill them just because YOU believe they are not worthy of life.

You also stated a flaw in your logic.

Lock them up and feed them for the rest of their lives, or fix the problem so that they are no longer living in this world and have no chance to repeat offend.

If they are locked up for life... how can they re-offend?

You are justifying it as revenge. That is not the point of the system itself. You are saying it should be the Government's job to commit acts of revenge on behalf of families.

You should also look at all of the Innocent People killed by the Death Penalty. :/

Far from flawed. I'm talking about people where there is no question. Possibly repeat offenders. Possibly someone that does a multiple murder where there are many witnesses/camera footage. There is no question in many cases.

If YOU are up for feeding, clothing, and taking care of the medical needs for a confirmed killer for the rest of his life then I understand your statement. I am not. If a dog kills we kill the dog. If a human kills we either effectly end his life by putting him behind bars for the length of it, or we end it with his own death.

Revenge? No. Again, it's no different then when a dog kills. When the dog kills he has proven that he is not worth the risk to have around. We end the dog. We don't cage it up for the rest of it's life (cruelty yada, and cost). As I see it this transfers directly to humans. I see no point in taking care of one of these people.

>No question.
>Possibly repeat offenders.

? That should answer itself. No question to you might be "unjustified" to someone else. :/

The dog analogy is flawed, because in many cases the dog is provoked. :/ Either way, that is another case of humans having a God Complex.

By what you are saying, you don't want your tax money to go to keeping someone like that alive, fair enough. What you forget is, when they are executed, it is everyone else's tax dollars going towards murder, and they can't do jack shit about it. So, you are forcing others to indirectly commit an act of murder against their own will. By your logic...

Do you see where I am going with this and what I am implying?

 

[Treblaine]

You got guys doped up on heroin who overreact to certain situations.

Small correction there, someone high on heroine couldn't over-react to a kitten, heroine is an extremely powerful sedative which makes it so deadly it causes you to stop breathing and suffocate with only a tiny overdose. And the ensuing doped-out period they are more a danger to themselves.

That's to say nothing about how incomprehensibly powerful the addiction is and how great the urge is for another dose; theft, burglary and to a lesser extent robbery (stealing from person, like mugging, holding up liquor store).

Though realistically prostitution is more common, drug users are far more a danger to themselves than they are to society, though the greatest problem to them is the fact that their habit is an illegal one. They must source their drug from an unregulated source and everyone else is out to get them for it.

Check out this interview with Professor David Nutt:

http://current.com/groups/videos/92822690_howard-marks-interviews-david-nutt.htm

The BBC has also had a series recently taking a very in depth, scientific and objective look at drugs in modern British Society. I don't want to take drugs any more now than before watching the program but I'm not afraid of them any more and I don't look on drug users with as such or any disdain any more.

Also this article by Daily Mail is hilarious in it's circular and simplistic logic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1325788/Why-doesnt-Prof-David-Nutt-come-clean-admit-wants-legalise-drugs.html

They're not trolls, they're just stupid:

"We live in an age inclined to believe almost everything ­scientists say, even when it flies in the face of common sense and our own observations."

Yeah, I mean common sense and "our own observations" say the earth is flat and the sun orbits around our flat world which God made in 6 days only about four thousand years ago... but then these bloody scientists come along [/sarc]

Seriously, I don't think the balance of harm is right with drug laws at the moment, they hurt innocent people far too much and empower gangsters far more than it impedes them.

I'm definitely in favour of needles for drug-addicts now.

 

[Bugerion]

HMmm maybe replace death punishment with torturing that's what I would do but only to those really fu**ed up people like serial killers and those retarded war generals that were doing genocides and seriously why do they spend like 4-5 years at court when you have evidence they did it I will never understand that

 

[Tsaba]

short answer, yes, why waste money on these people who commit murder. We used to use the Guillotine because it was "civilized," instead of spending a crap load of money, let's find a cheap and efficient way to get rid of these buggers and make an express line.