Is the death penalty ever justified?

[littlerob]

The point of prison isn't (or shouldn't be) to make them suffer. It's primary function should be rehabilitation and treatment. People who commit these serious crimes obviously have something seriously wrong with them, and prison, in an ideal world, would be an isolated place to let them get specialist help for their problems in order for them to be able to exist in the outside world.

Of course, that doesn't happen, becausr there's such an overwhelming 'eye for an eye' view going around.

 

[oppp7]

Death penalty is letting the real bastards off easy. Make them suffer i say. =D
But then there's always the problem, what if they're wrongly convicted... I honestly think they should make the punishment fit the crime, both physically and emotionally.

uh, im for dp, but govt run torture centers dont work (see the wikipedia article for info about guantanimo). also, justice systems should never b used for "revenge."

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

One thing I've always thought about in school whenever we talk about the death penalty: what if I get falsely accused. You know, wring place, wrong time, and that's it.

 

[notme]

No, killing another sentient being is never justified. Human rights for everyone were declared for a reason.

First of all, human justice is never perfect, who knows how many people, even in the US, have been killed but were innocent over the decades. Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man gets hung.

The "enough evidence" argument can not have a clearly defined lower limit, so it can become a slippery slope.

Then there is the escalation problem: Oh, crime X sure was bad - death penalty! But then the next one comes alone and does X - but with children, triggering the "zomg think of the children" effect, or kills X + 1 persons. Soon you'll want to kill and torture them to compensate.

Also, people change after years in jail, a bit like the ship of theseus does. While the person who did the killing 10 years ago might have "deserved" it, the person now has changed quite a lot. Remember for example the guy in California, Stanley Williams, who was involved in murder in his teenage gang years, but later became a five time Nobel Peace Prize nominee but was nonetheless killed.

And using the death penalty is a final confirmation that violence is a means to an end, especially when you are killing a defenseless person. That has widespread implications for all walks of life.

And on a final note, it has repeatedly been shown that the death penalty does not deter criminals.

 

[DN83]

I'm not for it. What lesson is learned if the crimminal is simply killed in the end?

 

[Tempest Fennac]

On one hand, I have a sadistic streak as far as some types of people are concerned, meaning that I'm in favour of them being executed, but on the other hand, I tend to be really concerned with the possibility of someone being wrongfully killed as a result of the death penalty (I don't particularly like the idea of torturing people due to hating the idea of it happening as well).

Regarding Islamic punishments for theft, I remember reading something a while back about there being tons of conditions which need to be met before someone can lose a hand, including not showing remorse for the theft; how easy is it in practice to convince the judge that you are sorry if you are convicted for theft? Also, if someone lost a hand and it turned out later that they were innocent, would the victim be compensated in any way?

 

[Antlers]

The point of prison isn't (or shouldn't be) to make them suffer. It's primary function should be rehabilitation and treatment. People who commit these serious crimes obviously have something seriously wrong with them, and prison, in an ideal world, would be an isolated place to let them get specialist help for their problems in order for them to be able to exist in the outside world.

Of course, that doesn't happen, becausr there's such an overwhelming 'eye for an eye' view going around.

I agree with this too. I absolutely loathe the 'eye for an eye' approach. How bloody old testament.

One issue is that they may be innocent, but that still isn't my main concern. My MAIN concern is that say you murder a murderer... How is that any better? He deserves it? Well, what if whoever HE murdered deserved it?

 

[G1eet]

But then there's always the problem, what if they're wrongly convicted... I honestly think they should make the punishment fit the crime, both physically and emotionally.

Agreed. I've never been a huge fan of Hammurabian laws, but it seems fitting that someone who has killed should be killed.

Because I don't think the taxpayers should pay for someone to be well fed, warm, and secure for the rest of his life just for killing a few people. Homeless people die every day on the street.

 

[Antlers]

But then there's always the problem, what if they're wrongly convicted... I honestly think they should make the punishment fit the crime, both physically and emotionally.

Agreed. I've never been a huge fan of Hammurabian laws, but it seems fitting that someone who has killed should be killed.

Because I don't think the taxpayers should pay for someone to be well fed, warm, and secure for the rest of his life just for killing a few people. Homeless people die every day on the street.

Alright. Let's imagine a situation then.

3 men. Matthew is Mark's father. Luke is someone else.

One day, Luke kills Mark for some reason. The next day, Matthew kills Luke, in revenge. Does Matthew deserve the death penalty?

This is a ridiculously black and white situation, and there would be countless factors taken into consideration in court, BUT it fits your 'someone who has killed should be killed' theory. So what do you think?

Also, if prisons are so great, why don't I want to go there?

 

[oppp7]

But then there's always the problem, what if they're wrongly convicted... I honestly think they should make the punishment fit the crime, both physically and emotionally.

Agreed. I've never been a huge fan of Hammurabian laws, but it seems fitting that someone who has killed should be killed.

Because I don't think the taxpayers should pay for someone to be well fed, warm, and secure for the rest of his life just for killing a few people. Homeless people die every day on the street.

Alright. Let's imagine a situation then.

3 men. Matthew is Mark's father. Luke is someone else.

One day, Luke kills Mark for some reason. The next day, Matthew kills Luke, in revenge. Does Matthew deserve the death penalty?

This is a ridiculously black and white situation, and there would be countless factors taken into consideration in court, BUT it fits your 'someone who has killed should be killed' theory. So what do you think?

Also, if prisons are so great, why don't I want to go there?

ppl like u wouldnt want to go there, but gangs n other criminals dont mind it bc their friends r there to protect them. they get free food, health care (dammit...), n other such things that, while some of it is necessary, others r rediculous (example: exercise equipment so they can overpower guards).

for ur hypothetical sit, yes, matthew should get the dp bc he didnt let the law decide legaly n just killed some one. last i checked, vigilantes were illegal.

 

[notme]

I absolutely loathe the 'eye for an eye' approach. How bloody old testament.

You see this through the eyes of an enlightened person, but back in the time it was quite a step forward. It meant that if you got wronged by an eye, you only got to take an eye or the equivalent of one, i.e. compensation - not more!

Millennia ago, and in some regions of the world still, such things easily lead to blood feuds leaving a trail of suffering and misery behind, that is what this rule meant to address.

 

[Tempest Fennac]

Also, if prisons are so great, why don't I want to go there?

Loss of freedom would be a punishment to most people (from the "protecting the public" standpoint, this is always going to be a part of keeping people in prison even if the aim is to rehabilitate people rather then punish them).

 

[ben---neb]

Why discriminate numerically? One murder is just as bad as two or three or four. Death Penalty for murderers. It's like giving them life but skipping out the long, expensive bit of keeping them in jail.

Many argue that this makes us as bad as the murderers. This is an illogical arguement which carried through to its conclsuion would mean that we could not punish anyone at all for their crimes. Also it mistakes the actions of the indivdual with the due process of law and order set down by society.

And it is precisly because I value the scantity of human life that I support the death penalty. Murder is a terrible terrible crime and should be treated as such.

In addition with modern forensics it is becoming harder to make false convictions, it is nt impossible but we would have to accept that mistakes will be made but such is the price that has to be paid.

Also its not about deterring other criminals. It is about proper retrebution for crimes committed.

 

[Antlers]

for ur hypothetical sit, yes, matthew should get the dp bc he didnt let the law decide legaly n just killed some one. last i checked, vigilantes were illegal.

OK... But the only real difference in the situation is that in one case, a person does the murdering. In the other case the government does. I'm extremely against vigilante justice also, but I think saying 'well... it's the law' is a bit weak. Some places the death penalty is the law, and I think i've made it pretty damn clear that I don't agree with it. So do you have any more justification?

 

[sov68n]

I think there are only several extreme cases in which the death penalty could be justified (rape followed by murder, physical/psychological torture followed by murder, etc.) but even then I think the penalty itself should be abolished because of the message it sends to the international community. If we are ever going to become a truly civilized species, barbaric things like the death penalty need to go away.

 

[MClardizzle]

If you take a life then you should have yours taken simple as that.

 

[Antlers]

Why discriminate numerically? One murder is just as bad as two or three or four. Death Penalty for murderers. It's like giving them life but skipping out the long, expensive bit of keeping them in jail.

Many argue that this makes us as bad as the murderers. This is an illogical arguement which carried through to its conclsuion would mean that we could not punish anyone at all for their crimes. Also it mistakes the actions of the indivdual with the due process of law and order set down by society.

It's not that illogical an argument. I think jail is punishment enough. And anyway... I'm still much more on the 'rehabillitation' side of things regarding jail.

Since there seem to be some very bloodthirsty folk around this thread, would it not bother you that getting the death penalty is a bit... Easy? Like, that's it. Dead. They're not going to be bothered. They're dead. That's not my standpoint at all by the way... But I don't really understand.

There's another point I'm simply dying to bring up but I'm scared of flames... Maybe later.

 

[Antlers]

If you take a life then you should have yours taken simple as that.

I'd quite like to report you for putting zero justification for that sentence... But I won't.

 

[Ceefax]

A dead man doesn't learn nor can death be considered a punishment if punishment is described as:

...the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles...

The only thing a death sentance gives is a sense of revenge for the anger felt by relatives of the wronged.
Western justice systems are supposed to be about just that, justice, not revenge. As hard as it may seem when you yourself are at the centre, emotions should not be involved in issues of law.

Edit - i also feel that prison should be completely solitary for everyone with only the basic amenities, no matter the crime.

 

[Elivercury]

Yes, i wish they'd bring the death penalty back. The crimerates in the uk are going through the roof because there is no punishment. The prisons are all full so unless you do anything REALLY serious, you'll just get a slap on the wrists then let out to do it again. If you do something really serious they just give you the minimum sentence as again they're full.

Besides, people are re-offending because prison is NICE. Have you seen what they get? It's better than most people first flats. Beating has been outlawed so no worries about that.

If nothing else i think from the purely financial point of view we need to do something about the prisoners. Be it killing them or deporting or something else. My personal favourite solution is killing them and harvesting their organs. Give the scum some uses and save some lives to counter those that they have taken.

Although i did have this argument recently and my friend doesn't like it purely because it gives you the "Fuck it i'm going down i may as well take as many of you bastards with me" mentality. Which is possibly valid.