Should the death sentence be used more?

[DevilWolf47]

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

There are multiple cases of people being convicted and executed only to be proved innocent later. We have an appeals system for that reason, we have a court system for that reason. People so obsessed with punishing criminals have constantly without fail caused more damage than they will ever mend with their perverted and sadistic idea of "Criminal Justice."

 

[Karma168]

If a murder/rape/child abuse case is considered serious enough that the person will never be allowed out of prison and the case is proven beyond all doubt (reasonable doubt is not good enough) then yes the death sentence should be used more.

I always think it's strange that deals are made to allow people to avoid the death penalty and instead serve life, if it was me I'd be asking for a quick kill rather than spending twenty odd years waiting. And it would save the government a fortune in keeping them cared for during their incarceration.

 

[Death God]

No. Unless it means they are going to jail. Jail is cozy with all the computers and free lunch and such. But if it is prison, no. Imprisonment is much worse than death.

I certainly didn't expect this from a Death God.

Oh the irony in my user name. Didn't even think about it until you mentioned it.

 

[Arizona Kyle]

wow didnt think that i would get this much response from people but i do like all your ideas and i do like that i can see both sides of the specturm on this both for and against

 

[Dancingman]

Do you believe that the death sentence should be used more often

I'm pretty sure most people find that it's used only once...

But what if it's like... a zombie or something.

Also I would actually support easing restrictions on the death penalty immensely. I think once a case is determined to be premeditated 1st degree or especially egregious examples of 2nd degree crimes that it should be the jury and judge who make that decision, I don't like the idea of determining whether or not its a death penalty allowed case, if its a serious violent crime it should be automatically up for consideration. I would even support adding additional crimes to the list of capital ones, I feel that drug possession for personal use is tragic but not as deserving of punishment as drug smuggling, which should warrant death.

 

[Hikikomori Ookami]

I have very mixed feelings on the death penalty. My gut answer is yes, everybody sentenced to life in prison or granted the death penalty should be the proud owners of a (not so) shiny new casket within a year of receiving their sentence. However, whenever I give the subject some thought, I consider the people that are or may be wrongly accused. Good examples of this are to be found in Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. Should people be killed for a crime they didn't commit? And what about people that are undoubtedly guilty but mistakes were made in the trial? Should there be vigilantes to hunt these people down as well?

In summary, I guess I'm trying to say that I am in favor of the death penalty, but our judicial system needs work to ensure that the right people are actually imprisoned and given the proper sentence.

 

[YouEatLard]

? 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.

Unjustified feeling would quickly change when it's their family members are on the wrong side of a murderer. If someone has proven themselves unworthy of living in our community by murdering it's citizens, I see no reason to keep them around in any capacity. I personally would have no issues with kicking them out of the community whether this means the state or country. Issue here is that I'd guess Australia wouldn't want them either. If it wasn't so expensive I'd have no issues with kicking them off the planet so long as they ceased to be a load or threat to society. Maybe if it was feasible we could make Mars into New Australia. Until then, we have to work within our limits.

Humans can also be provoked. Not speaking of self defense.

A while back in the news a convenience store clerk disabled a robber. The tape clearly showed that the robber was no threat as he was laying on his back. After disabling the robber the clerk proceeded to unload his gun into the robber, killing him. It was decided by the police that the case had moved from self defense to murder as the threat had been clearly removed before the robber was killed.

This is presented as an example of provoked murder in humans. Other examples could include road rage, lover's scorn, parents fearing for their children, etc. Dog, lion, monkey, Martian, or human killing another human is all on the same playing field in my eyes. If an entity has proven it's self unworthy of living by killing people..... yada yada

I'm not touching the god thing.

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?

This is a solid argument. However, it is not the job of the government to make everyone happy. It's just not possible. Tax dollars are going to go where many people don't want. However, the beautiful thing here (atleast in the U.S.) is that the federal government has left this up to the states to decide. If one doesn't like it and if it's that important to them, they can move. (Staying the hell away from Texas would help ) They can give their tax dollars to a state that represents their view point on the death penalty. Don't bother with "They shouldn't have to...". I'm not asking them to move to Mars, just driving a few hours to another state or country would do just as well.

 

[Haydyn]

The death penalty has two problems:
Bleeding hearts who don't want to execute people
It's cheaper to keep people in prison for life

If someone is on the death row, they can appeal and appeal, which takes up tax payer money. It's more ethical and cheaper to give life sentences. In my opinion, it should be used more, but only once it becomes cheaper than the alternative.

And yes, we do need to install a form of self control in children, not self rightousness.

 

[Leg End]

? 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.

Unjustified feeling would quickly change when it's their family members are on the wrong side of a murderer. If someone has proven themselves unworthy of living in our community by murdering it's citizens, I see no reason to keep them around in any capacity. I personally would have no issues with kicking them out of the community whether this means the state or country. Issue here is that I'd guess Australia wouldn't want them either. If it wasn't so expensive I'd have no issues with kicking them off the planet so long as they ceased to be a load or threat to society. Maybe if it was feasible we could make Mars into New Australia. Until then, we have to work within our limits.

Humans can also be provoked. Not speaking of self defense.

A while back in the news a convenience store clerk disabled a robber. The tape clearly showed that the robber was no threat as he was laying on his back. After disabling the robber the clerk proceeded to unload his gun into the robber, killing him. It was decided by the police that the case had moved from self defense to murder as the threat had been clearly removed before the robber was killed.

This is presented as an example of provoked murder in humans. Other examples could include road rage, lover's scorn, parents fearing for their children, etc. Dog, lion, monkey, Martian, or human killing another human is all on the same playing field in my eyes. If an entity has proven it's self unworthy of living by killing people..... yada yada

I'm not touching the god thing.

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?

This is a solid argument. However, it is not the job of the government to make everyone happy. It's just not possible. Tax dollars are going to go where many people don't want. However, the beautiful thing here (atleast in the U.S.) is that the federal government has left this up to the states to decide. If one doesn't like it and if it's that important to them, they can move. (Staying the hell away from Texas would help ) They can give their tax dollars to a state that represents their view point on the death penalty. Don't bother with "They shouldn't have to...". I'm not asking them to move to Mars, just driving a few hours to another state or country would do just as well.

But who are you to judge if they are unworthy of living?

To respond to the Mars bit, I hope Negadon awakens and comes to earth. :/

Same point as before, who is to judge who is unworhy? You would be making the exact same decision they made to kill another, with no way to justify it without justifying their reason.

Now... the next bit brings in many more issues. What if someone lives in a certain place out of necessity? Be it job, family or what have you? Then, they have no choice to put up with murder.

Even then, there is also the argument that even if you move, other states are still committing murder. But, I am not even touching that one.

 

[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.

Well that was your fault for being a socialist.

But, what is wrong with Socialism?

Wait, nevermind, that is a derail waiting to happen.

Continuing by PM is suggested.

 

[Carlston]

It should. Mostly do to the fact when I was in Seattle a 7 time child rapist kidnapped a little girl, raped and then burried her alive in a trash bag.

They say it doesn't deter crime...who cares I'm for yanking the plug on people who can't live in society, Then again I'd of killed that sicko the second kid he touched, let alone five more than a childs murder.

It's worse to let the animals do what they will, knowing the law protects them more than it punishes.

 

[8bitlove2a03]

The killing of other human beings is not and cannot be justified.

 

[Nova Helix]

In a day and age where men/women are killing each other, stealing millions of dollars, using drugs to the extreme, selling drugs, and oh so much more. Do you believe that the death sentence should be used more often rather then wasting tax payer money on some criminal that will never get out of prison

It's always funny to me when people say we should kill people to save money. It is "Tens of millions of dollars cheaper" to imprison killers for life than to execute them. source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-07-exepensive-to-execute_N.htm

The possibility of one mistaken execution sentence makes it morally reprehensible to execute someone. Besides it is shown that rehabilitation rather than punishment (killing them) decreases crime more.

 

[YouEatLard]

But who are you to judge if they are unworthy of living?

To respond to the Mars bit, I hope Negadon awakens and comes to earth. :/

Same point as before, who is to judge who is unworhy? You would be making the exact same decision they made to kill another, with no way to justify it without justifying their reason.

Now... the next bit brings in many more issues. What if someone lives in a certain place out of necessity? Be it job, family or what have you? Then, they have no choice to put up with murder.

Who has that right? No one? Ok. Now comes the fun part.

Someone is in the next room. You hear them about to kill a family member. You have a fully loaded gun, one in the chamber. But, sorry, you can't use it. You don't have the right to make the decision on their fate. You hear the family member pass. You hole your self up in the room and call the authorities. They get there just in time, but they can't do anything as they don't have the right to do what it would take to stop your attacker, to kill him.

There is a line that has to be drawn. In a scenario like this self defense does play with you, but not on the defense of the family member. The people in this scenario are just variables. The family member could be someone you don't know. The authorities could be a neighbor instead. The point of this is to show that there is justification, and because there is a justification and a standard, there must be a judge, and there must be an enforcer. What gives these roles the right? Some of it is the community and some of it will be taken on by those who will to fill the requirement.

Mix this into what has already been stated in the my previous post and you'll see what I'm getting at. This post is not my answer to the thread, but the answer to LegendaryGamer's quoted post.

Even then, there is also the argument that even if you move, other states are still committing murder. But, I am not even touching that one.

Hopefully it doesn't keep you awake at night.

 

[Jacob Lucas]

"This guy killed someone! How do we show him that killing is wrong?"

"Umm... We kill him?"

"...Brilliant."

Derp.

 

[FalloutJack]

You know what? No. There seems to be quite a bit of argument for the death penalty not being as useful as it should be. However, we still need to punish truly horrible people for their heinous crimes. This is probably me thinking with my wrathful evil side, but those deserving of capital punishment should be broken, either physically or mentally. Oh, give him a short prison time, but make sure he can never harm anyone again, and tell everyone what he did so they can take advantage of his helpless ass once he's out of jail.

This would probably be considered cruel and unusual, but the problem with these penalties is clearly that the punishment has yet to be a full and proper deterence of the act. Not enough people are afraid of life in jail and coming out only when they're old and gray, if that. Not enough people are afraid of dying in some fashion. If they did, this wouldn't still be happening and this discussion wouldn't be had. So, what's left? Well, unfortunately, pain and suffering is. Unless you've got a better idea.

 

[SirDoom]

The only time the death penalty should be allowed is when the sentence is carried out by the victim of the crime in self defense at the time of the crime. This is the only time when the death penalty serves a purpose other than revenge, which is no good reason to justify killing someone.

 

[Jacob Lucas]

You know what? No. There seems to be quite a bit of argument for the death penalty not being as useful as it should be. However, we still need to punish truly horrible people for their heinous crimes. This is probably me thinking with my wrathful evil side, but those deserving of capital punishment should be broken, either physically or mentally. Oh, give him a short prison time, but make sure he can never harm anyone again, and tell everyone what he did so they can take advantage of his helpless ass once he's out of jail.

This would probably be considered cruel and unusual, but the problem with these penalties is clearly that the punishment has yet to be a full and proper deterence of the act. Not enough people are afraid of life in jail and coming out only when you're old and gray, if that. Not enough people are afraid of dying in some fashion. If they did, this wouldn't still be happening and this discussion wouldn't be had. So, what's left? Well, unfortunately, pain and suffering is. Unless you've got a better idea.

One human killing another is never a simple matter. Not in the first world at least.
What if it was accidental? What if it happened in the heat of the moment? What if the person they killed had been convicted of rape or child molestation, does that make it ok?

If we send potential murderers the message that "if you kill, we'll kill you right back" we're only telling them that what they've done can be washed away with a lethal injection.

Killing them isn't going to bring back the people they've murdered, and it certainly isn't going to send the right message to any would be murderers out there.

What message should we be sending?

"Don't kill your fellow man. Ever."

 

[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.

 

[Jacob Lucas]

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.