Poll: Death penalty discussion

[Stu the Pirate]

Tl;dr: School project, also opinions on death penalty in general.

I was originally going to put this on the politics/religion board, but then I had a think and realised I don't particularly care about purely religious or political views on the death penalty, and that I'm looking for a more individual answer.

This is for a school project, hence the poll, however it's a subject I'm interested in and I'd like to get some good discussion/debate going.

The question: What do you, personally, think about the death penalty. Are you for it or against it?


My personal views: I don't think there are many cases where it can be justified. It is incredibly hypocritical to give the death penalty for, say, murder. That's basically saying "Don't kill people...or we'll kill you". It also leaves no room for rehabilitation. If you kill the offender, then it'll never really fix the problem they obviously had, especially in the case of serial offenders.

 

[astrav1]

I believe in it. I don't like it but I believe in it.

 

[Flishiz]

Huuurrrrgghhhhh

Sorry it's just that death penalty threads on the Escapist are as common as dust in an old house.

Yeah I'll just say what is always said: no system is every 100% foolproof, many forms of capital punishment are inhumane, cause great deals of pain to the convict, and the accumulated expenses are far more than they would be to keep that person locked up in prison, even for life.

 

[Flishiz]

Yes.

Because death is cheaper on the taxpayer than imprisonment.

Only if it's a gunshot to the head and the body's dumped in a river. But there are so many costs and fees associated with capital punishment that in the aggregate lifetime imprisonment is a more cost-effective solution.

 

[Kair]

Your enemy is you. When you sentence someone to death, you sentence another you. Every human sees the world just the way you see it. It is only information and experience that is the difference. Every sane human is capable of reason. For most biological behavioural heritage, every human has the potential of rejecting it to a great extent.

Crime and other inabilities to counteract biological heritage is simply a dysfunction or disease. The act of killing a Human to prevent his current disease or dysfunction from having serious consequences (or as a deterrent to have this disease or dysfunction) is therefore the an irreversible compromise of great significance. This should not be taken lightly as it is done by the ignorant.

 

[Stu the Pirate]

Yes.

Because death is cheaper on the taxpayer than imprisonment.

Only if it's a gunshot to the head and the body's dumped in a river. But there are so many costs and fees associated with capital punishment that in the aggregate lifetime imprisonment is a more cost-effective solution.

I've come across quite a lot of people talking about the cost of the death penalty when I've been asking around. I'm not attempting to judge, but some would argue that putting a currency value on a human life like that is wrong. Thoughts?

 

[t4nz1t]

Because death is cheaper on the taxpayer than imprisonment.

Speaking strictly of the US, this is only true when the convicted waives all legal appeals. Otherwise it is more costly to execute than incarcerate. Apart from the legal costs associated with the appeals process, death row inmates must be housed individually and separately from the general prison populations. This greatly increases overhead costs for housing them during the 5~15 years (or more) they wait from conviction to execution.

I answered nay for the reason mentioned above and the following: I do firmly believe that society has the moral authority to remove its most dangerous constituents by means up to and including execution. However, the implementation of the legal processes of capital punishment are so flawed and the alternate punishments completely capable of fulfilling the needs of self protection for society that there is no reason it should continue.

 

[t4nz1t]

Yes.

Because death is cheaper on the taxpayer than imprisonment.

Only if it's a gunshot to the head and the body's dumped in a river. But there are so many costs and fees associated with capital punishment that in the aggregate lifetime imprisonment is a more cost-effective solution.

I've come across quite a lot of people talking about the cost of the death penalty when I've been asking around. I'm not attempting to judge, but some would argue that putting a currency value on a human life like that is wrong. Thoughts?

Are there any other means available to pay for a criminal justice system?

 

[JoJo]

I think there's too much risk of excuting innocent people to have a death penalty, although there's certain people who probably deserve it such as child murderers (although I suppose life imprisonment can be worse).

 

[thylasos]

In my opinion the prison system is for the protection of society, be that by rehabilitation or, if that's not possible in a particular case, simply by removing certain people from it for the rest of their lives.

And I'm of the opinion you shouldn't give the state license over human life; you don't create a society where killing is abhored and then endorse it when it's by collective approval. You don't protect your morals by betraying them. Obviously there's the problem of the wrongly accused, too, as well as the fact that getting someone from death row into a position where they're about to die takes an incredibly long time and is invariably expensive.

 

[rokkolpo]

No deed deserves death, because it's the easy way out.
I want serial killers to sit it out for 20 years (which is arguably a lifetime)

 

[The Wykydtron]

Well at least the UK doesn't have the Death Penalty, way to stick to your "murder is bad" policy America XD I'm generalising of course i think some states don't have the Death Penalty but you get my point

Also if you imprision someone who was accused wrongfully you can just let them out with a pat on the head and a biscuit (and compensation) but if you kill a guy you can't just necromance them back to life.

Hell i'll just throw the "we're civilised people" arguement in there as well

 

[Lord Kloo]

The death penalty removes a problem it does not solve it.. I always ask myself the same question when we come to this topic, would the victim of a particular crime really want their attacker/etc. to die? And should governments really bow down to the tyranny of the right wing press and a load of nutters to whom vindication is something necessary as they haven't gone past the early stages of man..

TBQH, its an outdated system in a much more liberal and caring world, it shouldn't be allowed, for anything, for any crime..

+ a good quote for you to use in your argument against, "We must remember that every murderer, serial killer and thief may also have been a son, a father or a brother.. The day we forget that is the day that collateral damage gets removed from the dictionary."

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

Well, I have read news about racist murderers, I won't go into the details but let's just say that a child's death was involved.

THOSE people, who do stuff like that, deserve death.

They deserve death by burning.

 

[Palademon]

This is a discussion that proves my status as Palademon.
In one hand people can needlessly die, on the other I think some people in the world deserve to die.
I want it to be kept how it is. i.e. death penalty in certain countries, but death penalty only in England for high treason. Unfortunately there was a change and you can't be killed for that anymore, but I wish you could. Going down in history for killing a monarch or fucking a (hopefully younger) member of the royal family.

 

[Flishiz]

Yes.

Because death is cheaper on the taxpayer than imprisonment.

Only if it's a gunshot to the head and the body's dumped in a river. But there are so many costs and fees associated with capital punishment that in the aggregate lifetime imprisonment is a more cost-effective solution.

I've come across quite a lot of people talking about the cost of the death penalty when I've been asking around. I'm not attempting to judge, but some would argue that putting a currency value on a human life like that is wrong. Thoughts?

Well seeing as it's still cheaper to imprison than to execute, then there really shouldn't be a moral problem. If it were the reverse, the are the other fallback arguments, such as the lack of a truly 100% foolproof system where everyone knows the exact thoughts and feelings of everyone else, and the inhumanity of several execution methods. In many ways, a gunshot to the brain would even be better than injection, etc, but it's still not preferable.

 

[Valkyrie101]

It is incredibly hypocritical to give the death penalty for, say, murder. That's basically saying "Don't kill people...or we'll kill you".

No more hypocritical than imprisoning someone for kidnap, or fining a petty thief.

 

[Deathsong17]

I am against Capital Punishment as the legal system is not, and never will be, infallible. The blood of an innocent isn't worth the blood of a thousnad criminals.

 

[Bob the Average]

i support the death penalty. Utilitarian ethics makes the justification pretty straight forward, a murderer has clearly demonstrated blatant disregard for the well being of others and it is probable that he/she will continue to be a detriment to society.