Should the death sentence be used more?

[New Troll]

Eye For An Eye justice, with extreme prejudice. I'm all for it.

I believe executions are much more economical than life-imprisonment. I could be wrong, but have yet to see otherwise. Course I'm also not a big fan of the prison system. Turning criminals into sadists before releasing them back among the world. Sure there's those who do in fact turn thier life around, but they seem to be the minority. Just not worth it in my opinion.

 

[CODE-D]

Its better than taxing on 3 life sentences, which is just pointless unless theyre immortal.

 

[Katana314]

I sort of think killing a mass murderer is something you do when there just seems to be no hope of correcting the person, or it's not worth the risk. I don't believe it should be used as a form of "revenge", or "justice". Any form of crime punishment is meant to make you think "Maybe next time you won't do it again." or "I ain't going back to prison. I won't risk it." But when those don't seem to be working, it may be better to go for death, especially if releasing that person back into society could put other people in danger.

That said, I'll believe what people are saying about death penalties being expensive.

I'd also like to note that people who follow simplistic, easily-defined laws like "Never kill" may be failing to take in the broad scope of the issue. Obviously, there is the military, and death penalties; and sure, both are taken to excess at times but you can't really call everything they do unnecessary. They're often saving lives.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Killing people to show them that killing is wrong? Nope, not what I see as justifiable.

I really don't like this line of logic. Saying that two wrongs don't make a right assumes that there is in fact, two wrongs. There is one wrong being done if a mass murderer is given lethal injection, and that is the murders he committed.

And if you believe killing to be an inexcusable, unambiguous wrong, perhaps you would like to jettison the military? Their whole business is killing after all.

I'm just going to state that in the case of war, it has to be a Just War, otherwise the killing isn't justified. You have to be going in for legitimate, serious reasons, and that is when I back it. And only then.

On execution, I believe there are always alternatives. There is a chance that the criminal can reform, though it's not always going to happen, but that opportunity has to be given, and in the mean time, they can wait in prison, which can be viewed as a worse punishment. Execution at least gives the criminals the opportunity to escape their actions.

Also, there is the scenario in which a mistake is made, and it has happened, in which the wrong person is executed, which is beyond terrible for anyone involved. At least with alternatives punishments, like prison, the mistake can be undone to an extent. But with Capital Punishment, that's a serious screw-up.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

Seeing as you're American, I hope if you understand if I don't believe China, Iran and Iraq being in the top 3.

He's Canadian, at least judging by his profile. And even if he were American, what the hell does that have to do with the accuracy of his figures, which are (indirectly) from Amnesty International?

 

[Dasrufken]

Spoiler

I think it should be used more, 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.

This, ya could argue that there's a lot of convictions where the person was innocent, but there's even more where it was blatantly obvious that the person was guilty, described it in detail, then laughed about it. Throwing him on death row for 25 years, and using tax payers money to keep him fed, sheltered and healthy is just lame. It's sad that someone in jail could get a toothache, go to the site doctor to get fixed, and sit back in their cell sucking a lollipop by weeks end. But then a tax payer does the same thing, and ends up with a $750 bill at the end cuz he finds out his insurance doesn't cover what he needed done.

Well, this argument of course only works in those backwater, third-world countries where routine medical procedures regularly bankrupt people due to a non-functioning care-system.

Additionally, you might wanna find someone who has actually been in prison and have nice chat with him, about how much golly fun it is to lose control over your life and be deprived of your freedom.
Best find somebody who tried to kill himself while in prison,
I hear there are one or two people who tried to do that for whatever silly reason.



(Seriously dude, if you think prison is fun or IN ANY WAY preferable to live outside of prison, you might want to get your head chec... oh shit, forgot, that´s expensive. Dammit.)

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!

 

[meowchef]

Every single time a person is convicted of rape or murder.

 

[Vryyk]

Killing people to show them that killing is wrong? Nope, not what I see as justifiable.

I really don't like this line of logic. Saying that two wrongs don't make a right assumes that there is in fact, two wrongs. There is one wrong being done if a mass murderer is given lethal injection, and that is the murders he committed.

And if you believe killing to be an inexcusable, unambiguous wrong, perhaps you would like to jettison the military? Their whole business is killing after all.

I'm just going to state that in the case of war, it has to be a Just War, otherwise the killing isn't justified. You have to be going in for legitimate, serious reasons, and that is when I back it. And only then.

On execution, I believe there are always alternatives. There is a chance that the criminal can reform, though it's not always going to happen, but that opportunity has to be given, and in the mean time, they can wait in prison, which can be viewed as a worse punishment. Execution at least gives the criminals the opportunity to escape their actions.

Also, there is the scenario in which a mistake is made, and it has happened, in which the wrong person is executed, which is beyond terrible for anyone involved. At least with alternatives punishments, like prison, the mistake can be undone to an extent. But with Capital Punishment, that's a serious screw-up.

What you're saying here is reasonable enough. I disagree, but it's reasonable, so let me try a different tack.

Would you agree that as a taxpayer, having to shoulder the cost of their imprisonment for the entirety of their lives (and note that they receive full medical care, recreational activities such as D&D and painting supplies, not to mention pretty good food) is a bit excessive?

And if you agree with this sentiment, would you consider severe prison budget cuts a legitimate means to alleviate the tax burden off of us honest citizens?

 

[Duffeknol]

When (s)he's still alive, there's always the chance of escape.

That's true, though risks can be minimised. Nobody has ever escaped from a US Supermax prison, ever, for example.

Also with modern DNA evidence techniques we can pretty much rule out the possibility that innocents get executed,

No, you can't. DNA comparisons are almost without possibility of error, yes, but all they can do is tell you if the sample matches a person. They can't tell you if the criminal left the sample in the first place, and they don't guarantee you will find a sample.

It's still a very strong indicator, though. And the key words in my post were 'pretty much'. I know nothing is ever 100%, but it's getting close.

 

[Chrono180]

.

Also, there is the scenario in which a mistake is made, and it has happened, in which the wrong person is executed, which is beyond terrible for anyone involved. At least with alternatives punishments, like prison, the mistake can be undone to an extent. But with Capital Punishment, that's a serious screw-up.

I hate to break it to you, but if someone goes to jail, even if they are later found out to be innocent, their life is basically over. NOBODY is going to hire someone who went to jail, even if they were innocent.

OT: I personally believe that some crimes are so severe that people who commit them cannot be redeemed. In those cases the death penalty is justified. This includes murder, perjury, severe corruption, and possibly mutilation. Also, I think that those of you who say that the death penalty is wrong would change your tune pretty quickly if your family were killed by some sadist or robber.

 

[-Samurai-]

Surely, as killing people is a crime, killing someone for committing a crime is a bit..daft?

But keeping someone locked up is also a crime, and what do we do with the people who do that?

Honestly, I don't see death as a punishment, I'd rather have serious murders live out their lives miserable in a cell.

I'd rather not have to pay for them to live their entire life in a cell.

My tax dollars give them a place to live, clothes to wear, an education if they want it, and 3 meals a day. I don't get 3 meals a day! I sometimes don't even get 1 meal a day! And my meals consist of things like 2 grilled cheese or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

If we're not going to kill them, I say we put them to work. I'm sick of these lowlifes getting things I can't have as a working, law abiding citizen of society, and the government using my money to give it to them.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Killing people to show them that killing is wrong? Nope, not what I see as justifiable.

I really don't like this line of logic. Saying that two wrongs don't make a right assumes that there is in fact, two wrongs. There is one wrong being done if a mass murderer is given lethal injection, and that is the murders he committed.

And if you believe killing to be an inexcusable, unambiguous wrong, perhaps you would like to jettison the military? Their whole business is killing after all.

I'm just going to state that in the case of war, it has to be a Just War, otherwise the killing isn't justified. You have to be going in for legitimate, serious reasons, and that is when I back it. And only then.

On execution, I believe there are always alternatives. There is a chance that the criminal can reform, though it's not always going to happen, but that opportunity has to be given, and in the mean time, they can wait in prison, which can be viewed as a worse punishment. Execution at least gives the criminals the opportunity to escape their actions.

Also, there is the scenario in which a mistake is made, and it has happened, in which the wrong person is executed, which is beyond terrible for anyone involved. At least with alternatives punishments, like prison, the mistake can be undone to an extent. But with Capital Punishment, that's a serious screw-up.

What you're saying here is reasonable enough. I disagree, but it's reasonable, so let me try a different tack.

Would you agree that as a taxpayer, having to shoulder the cost of their imprisonment for the entirety of their lives (and note that they receive full medical care, recreational activities such as D&D and painting supplies, not to mention pretty good food) is a bit excessive?

And if you agree with this sentiment, would you consider severe prison budget cuts a legitimate means to alleviate the tax burden off of us honest citizens?

Yup, I see where you're coming from on this one, and it can be frustrating to realise that I'm paying for what could be considered a relatively easy going lifestyle for them, considering their position in life. In an ideal world, the authorities would cut back on some of the features of prison life that aren't entirely necessary, such as some of the luxuries they're allowed. This would cost less for the rest of society.

Also, I'd like to see the government providing them with work to be doing, similar to community service. At least, then, we're paying to some degree towards bettering our society as whole, rather than just paying to keep them away from everyone else. It would contribute to them repenting for their crimes.

Another important point, I find, is that if we're imprisoning dangerous people, then part of the reason for it is to protect others from them. Amongst other reasons, we're paying to protect ourselves from them.

I'm perfectly willing to respect your viewpoint, considering it you argued it so reasonably, and I understand your reasoning. I just personally believe there are alternative methods or retribution which are better for humanity as a whole.

 

[Merkavar]

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

i think in this day and age we should be using the death sentence less and less and using rehabilitation and crime prevention more.

why do people kill each other? why do people use drugs? maybe if we are such an advanced society maybe we should be addressing these issues instead of just killing the people who get trapped by poverty, abusive families etc. Education seems to be the best start, making sure everyone finishes high school is a must nowadays.

and the people who steal millions of dollar are never in prison very long anyway so thats not really using up as much tax payers dollars as a murder sentence. if your able to steal millions you normally are able to buy a good lawyer.

from what i could gather in the US it costs $112 500 000 000 per year for all the prisoners. thats going off an average cost of $45000 and 2.5 million prisoners.

 

[Leg End]

No. I believe it is a big load of bullshit and makes you a killer in the end.

To sum up my beliefs, I point you towards an episode of Bullshit!

 

[Zarmi]

HELL YES! I'm all in for death sentence.

Too bad it was removed here in Denmark in 1994...

 

[Leg End]

Every single time a person is convicted of rape or murder.

But, in the former, you would be sentencing them to a fate worse than the crime.

 

[meowchef]

Every single time a person is convicted of rape or murder.

But, in the former, you would be sentencing them to a fate worse than the crime.

Not necessarily. They destroyed at least one life... you destroy one life.