I say, only if they absolutely deserved it. Otherwise, locking them up for the rest of their miserable lives is fine by me, as long as they can't hurt anyone else...
So, death penalty
- Thread starter David Bjur
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I believe in the death penalty whole-heartedly. I think the appeals process should be shortened. Considerably. Like, to a year. Rapists and murderers should die for their crimes.
And to all the people saying no because innocent people could die: Is it really so much more horrible to kill them than it is to lock them in a box with the worst humanity has to offer for 20 years? I'd prefer being killed, I can tell you that.
And to all the people saying no because innocent people could die: Is it really so much more horrible to kill them than it is to lock them in a box with the worst humanity has to offer for 20 years? I'd prefer being killed, I can tell you that.
Sociopathic or not, empathetic or not, they remain fully aware and choose to do these acts. There have been sociopaths who have chosen to seek help, and these people I have no issue with. A person's worth, to me, is determined by their actions, not their thoughts.Daystar Clarion said:
Better to lock them up for the rest of their lives instead of killing them? Adds to the problem of overcrowded prisons; jacking up the costs.
More expensive to execute then to keep alive? The legal system jacks up the cost given the nature of the appeals process.
Inhumane to execute? A life time of torture with prison rapes, assault and additional murders seems a bit less humane.
Rehabilitation a better idea? Arguing for further costs given the facilities and staff required, even if successful. How many people actually support the science of psychology?
Put them to work? Taking away jobs from productive members of society, adding to unemployment.
Removal of freedom an appropriate punishment? Just make sure you feed them, cloth them, provide them with entertainment (however limited), health care and the opportunity to pursue education and career assistance if/when they depart.
It's unethical and barbaric? Taking a life to save others is nearly universally accepted as an ethical choice. There's little difference between a cop ending the life of a criminal on the street in defense of civilians and the state doing so after a criminal is found guilty by a jury of their peers.
It's not worth the risk? I would suggest you avoid any transportation or the use of any mechanical or electrical device. Failure rates are deemed acceptable on a daily basis so long as the necessary steps are taken to lower them as realistically as possible.
This discussion always confuses me. I'm not interested in trading one problem for another merely because some people get morally philosophical when it comes to ending the life of another human being. Are there flaws in the system? Certainly. Does that mean we end the system entirely? Absurd, repair the system and be on with our lives.
More expensive to execute then to keep alive? The legal system jacks up the cost given the nature of the appeals process.
Inhumane to execute? A life time of torture with prison rapes, assault and additional murders seems a bit less humane.
Rehabilitation a better idea? Arguing for further costs given the facilities and staff required, even if successful. How many people actually support the science of psychology?
Put them to work? Taking away jobs from productive members of society, adding to unemployment.
Removal of freedom an appropriate punishment? Just make sure you feed them, cloth them, provide them with entertainment (however limited), health care and the opportunity to pursue education and career assistance if/when they depart.
It's unethical and barbaric? Taking a life to save others is nearly universally accepted as an ethical choice. There's little difference between a cop ending the life of a criminal on the street in defense of civilians and the state doing so after a criminal is found guilty by a jury of their peers.
It's not worth the risk? I would suggest you avoid any transportation or the use of any mechanical or electrical device. Failure rates are deemed acceptable on a daily basis so long as the necessary steps are taken to lower them as realistically as possible.
This discussion always confuses me. I'm not interested in trading one problem for another merely because some people get morally philosophical when it comes to ending the life of another human being. Are there flaws in the system? Certainly. Does that mean we end the system entirely? Absurd, repair the system and be on with our lives.
I am in favour of the death penalty for sex trafficking, torture, and murder. Provided there are multiple pieces of evidence which confirm guilt. Capital punishment makes criminals pay in a way that affirms that they are responsible for an unforgivable wrong, that they will never again have a place in this world.
I am usually immensely against parliamentary democracy, in favour of a more direct and 'democratic' system.
Issues like the death penalty really make me question my own beliefs, because they reveal the immense level of ignorance and lack of thought most people give.
No way should a death penalty be an option, unless for some reason it would genuinely be dangerous to keep a person alive. It doesn't affect crime levels (and its actually been shown in some studies that US states without the death penalty have a lower murder rate http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates ), its barbaric (who are you to decide who lives and dies?) and there's a chance, an arguably high chance, of getting the wrong person. The majority of arguments I see in favour of it either argue that it'll reduce crime rates (which it has shown not to, and just shows the small amount of research people like this put into these things) or just want it to commit some savage vengeance against people they deem to deserve it (they see some article somewhere that is specifically designed to provoke an angry and emotional response, not necessarily to deliver impartial information). Again, they haven't put much objective thought into it and who are they to decide that?
Anyway, as inhumane as people who commit those kinds of crimes can be, that is often down to severe mental illness. Even if you can't fix that, you don't just discard those people.
Issues like the death penalty really make me question my own beliefs, because they reveal the immense level of ignorance and lack of thought most people give.
No way should a death penalty be an option, unless for some reason it would genuinely be dangerous to keep a person alive. It doesn't affect crime levels (and its actually been shown in some studies that US states without the death penalty have a lower murder rate http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates ), its barbaric (who are you to decide who lives and dies?) and there's a chance, an arguably high chance, of getting the wrong person. The majority of arguments I see in favour of it either argue that it'll reduce crime rates (which it has shown not to, and just shows the small amount of research people like this put into these things) or just want it to commit some savage vengeance against people they deem to deserve it (they see some article somewhere that is specifically designed to provoke an angry and emotional response, not necessarily to deliver impartial information). Again, they haven't put much objective thought into it and who are they to decide that?
Anyway, as inhumane as people who commit those kinds of crimes can be, that is often down to severe mental illness. Even if you can't fix that, you don't just discard those people.
Except the death penalty is a terrible deterrent. Crimes in states with the death penalty are on average higher and show absolutely no fall in murder/rape/etc. when the DP is introduced. Every single shred of evidence supports the idea that a justice system based only on punishment instead of rehabilitation is worthless.immortalfrieza said:
If you want to deter crime, then how about funding schools in inner cities? Sponsoring rehab clinics? Starting job training centers and mental health monitoring organizations? You could do that with half the money we spend on the meat grinder of our current system and soon we would have more productive citizens and rebuilt lives instead of just a pile of bodies that we hang outside the prison walls as a warning.
I disagree with completely but at least understand when people say, "If you murder someone, you don't deserve to live." But when you try and dress it up in a language of prevention or deterrence, you're bullshitting.
I like also how so many people here seem to be legal experts, psychologists, and prison wardens wrapped into one. Statements like "Give them solitary confinement so they go crazy" or "the problem is it isn't fast enough" are fucking retarded. Come on guys. Leave this one to the experts, who time after time have stated:
1. People don't want to die, in prison on outside. Solitary confinement is not a "worse punishment." Every psychologist and criminologist would disagree with you.
2. More and more innocent people are found either on death row or in the grave every day.
3. The system of execution cannot be made cheaper or faster due to the constitutional rights of the victims.
4. The rates of murder and sexual assault in death penalty countries are on average higher than those that focus on rehabilitation.
5. No one commits crimes assuming they will be caught. Punishment rarely influences a decision by someone who is sure they won't suffer it.
I would absolutely agree with this, but the second circumstance isn't really a criminology matter nearly as much as it is a policing matter and the first circumstance is never the case. If a prisoner wants to die, they should be allowed to, as many end up just taking their own lives or acting out violently in such a way that their death is guaranteed.DrOswald said:
The only possible circumstance I would support the death penalty in, besides when a prisoner actively requests it outside of any kind of coercion, is for those who commit crimes in prison while already on a life sentence. Then it would function as an actual deterrent; to say "here's another life sentence on top of your four previous ones" does not stop anyone and we can see that many lifers with violent pasts act out with immunity due to the impossibility of a higher punishment.
Killing someone for their crimes is justifiable under 3 circumstances:
1. When leaving them alive (even imprisoned) will almost certainly cause more loss of innocent lives. Such a circumstance would be extremely rare, so rare I can't think of a good real world example, but Batman should really just kill the Joker.
2. When attempting to capture the criminal for incarceration is unrealistic or will likely result in the deaths of additional innocents, such as taking a man alive when he is actively shooting into a crowd (or at the men attempting to capture him.) Basically, if you have a chance to shoot Hitler but not capture him, take the shot.
3. When they request the death penalty. It then ceases to be a cruel punishment.
There may be additional circumstances that I have not thought of.
Edit: I thought of a real world example for 1. When a person is guilty of murdering a fellow inmate or a prison guard and no realistic or humane methods remain to prevent them from doing so in the future. If they are going to keep on killing even if they are in prison then we have to stop it some how.
1. When leaving them alive (even imprisoned) will almost certainly cause more loss of innocent lives. Such a circumstance would be extremely rare, so rare I can't think of a good real world example, but Batman should really just kill the Joker.
2. When attempting to capture the criminal for incarceration is unrealistic or will likely result in the deaths of additional innocents, such as taking a man alive when he is actively shooting into a crowd (or at the men attempting to capture him.) Basically, if you have a chance to shoot Hitler but not capture him, take the shot.
3. When they request the death penalty. It then ceases to be a cruel punishment.
There may be additional circumstances that I have not thought of.
Edit: I thought of a real world example for 1. When a person is guilty of murdering a fellow inmate or a prison guard and no realistic or humane methods remain to prevent them from doing so in the future. If they are going to keep on killing even if they are in prison then we have to stop it some how.
I agree that death is too good for these people.
Now visciously torturing them for so long they see death as the alternative? That's the ticket.
Now visciously torturing them for so long they see death as the alternative? That's the ticket.
Out of curiosity, what's your stance on the death penalty for people that admit to murder?Daystar Clarion said:
I saw a documentary some time last year about people serving life in prison. One of the guys admitted to murdering a few people, and said if he was ever released for any reason, he guaranteed he'd kill again.
What's your stance on a situation like that?
Note that I'm not asking you to provoke an argument. Your opinions and views are your own and I don't intend to argue for or against them. I'm just curious.
Would you support the death penalty for people that have admitted to murder, assuming there is enough proof to support their claim?
No, because they don't need to die. There is no reason to kill them besides a barbaric revenge kick. If a human being is alive, and you have absolutely no pragmatic reason to end their life, then it's immoral to do so. That seems like a generalization but it's really not. It's the basis of human morality.-Samurai- said:
I'd still be against it.-Samurai- said:
I believe it's the ultimate form of hypocrisy for a society to condemn killing, by killing someone.
It is 100% effective as a deterrent to re-offending.AnarchistFish said:
The potential for miscarriage of justice is a problem of sufficient proof. There should be a threshold system which guarantees convicts are only sentenced to death if the evidence overwhelmingly proves guilt.
Explain what is so "barbaric" about cleanly ending a convict's life after they have had a fair trial under due process of law.
Murder is distinct from killing. Murder is wrong and illegal, killing is morally and legally neutral until put into context.Daystar Clarion said:
Money? That's really more important than making sure the wrong person isn't executed?DevilWithaHalo said:
So what? You don't go down to their level. And you can't really say that will happen in prison for sure, but if it will, that's the problem that must be fixed.DevilWithaHalo said:
Again, are you really saying money is the most important thing here? Also, Sweden and Denmark base their judicial system around rehabilitation and they have some very low crime rates, even compared to the rest of the western world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homicide-world.pngDevilWithaHalo said:
This is also interesting http://releasedandrestored.org/statistics.html The recidivism rate in the US is 67.5%, in Sweden it's 35%. The incarceration rate in Denmark is 58 per 100k people, in Sweden it's 69, in the US it's 689.
Unemployment is a problem because of the price of labour, not because of limited jobs. Since this doesn't apply to prisoners, you can theoretically create new jobs without affecting unemployment. Either way, you don't need to make them work if it's that much of a problem.DevilWithaHalo said:
Not really sure how this is that much a problem outside of "they must suffer!".DevilWithaHalo said:
But they're not a danger if they're in prison.DevilWithaHalo said:
Yes there is. A cop will kill someone on the street if they must, to save themselves or others. It's a necessity, they're not doing it to punish the criminal like you would in court after they've been captured.DevilWithaHalo said:
They're not acceptable. And they're unnecessary.DevilWithaHalo said:
I'd love to see how you propose to do this.DevilWithaHalo said:
I think it's justifiable, but I'm still against it. Death is an escape from punishment. I think it's safe to assume most criminals that would be considered for the death penalty would rather die than spend 23 hours a day inside a cell, and killing them spares them from the misery of a life sentence. As a bonus, we save money and people that were later found innocent can walk free.
Yeah, well most people who'd be up for the death penalty would still get life imprisonment without it, so this point is pretty irrelevant.MammothBlade said:
There already is. You can only convict someone beyond reasonable doubt. You can never be 100% sure, and unless you are, you shouldn't be able to execute someone. There have even be cases of people admitting to murder and turning out to be innocent.MammothBlade said:
Because you're killing them. Doesn't matter if you've made it look all nice and formal and pretty on the surface. The fact is; you're killing them. And I'd argue against these trials always being fair. Especially in the US.MammothBlade said:
True, if life meant life the 100% effectiveness as a deterrent would be equal. But then, why spend tens of thousands of pounds a year feeding and guarding murderers for the rest of their lives?AnarchistFish said:
With some convicts, you can be certain. Especially serial killers who are connected to multiple murders through multiple pieces of evidence.
I'll quote what I said before:
Saying "you're killing them" doesn't mean anything.
I'll go back to something I said in another post, is money really the most important thing here? Anyway, it's the system's duty to try, however likely it is, to rehabilitate and treat these people. Many are mentally ill.MammothBlade said:
No.MammothBlade said:
Never 100%.MammothBlade said:
This really just backs up what I said.MammothBlade said:
"One is wrong and one isn't".
How so, and who are you to decide it?
"One is legal and one is illegal".
Again, just changing formalities, just changing the law to make killing by themselves legal. They're both ending someone's life and that's the main thing.
This is why I said "Killing someone for their crimes" instead of "Death Penalty." I find that just cutting though the crap and talking about killing instead of using comfortable euphemisms prevents obscuring the issue. It allows us to compare instances of justifiable killing more easily.peruvianskys said:
In any case, you gave a perfect example for number 1. A person who continues to commit murder even while incarcerated and no realistic or humane measures remain to prevent such crimes must be stopped some how. Killing the guilty to prevent the death of the innocent is an acceptable practice. So circumstance 1 can be the case.
Also, can you point me to the studies that have been done on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent? You see, people always claim the Death Penalty is ineffective because states that have it have a high rate of crimes that would qualify a person for it, but a higher murder rate in death penalty states actually makes sense. Places with less murder would not need as extreme a deterrent. As we see, correlation does not imply causation. We cannot draw conclusions based purely on statistics. We must understand the underlying cause of those numbers before we can draw conclusions. I have yet to see a study that attempts to do so, if you know where one is I would love to see it. In particular can you point me to studies of areas when the death penalty has changed? These sorts of things can be very difficult to find from a reliable source, and if you already know where they are it would be a great help.