Should the death sentence be used more?

[Treblaine]

In a day and age where men/women are killing each other, stealing millions of dollars...

How is it possibly a balance of crime and punishment to take someone's life for them taking mere money?

Money isn't everything, but life IS!

Death penalty should definitely be limited to those who destroy life whether murder, or harming them so much that there is no real life after that (severe brain damage, emotionally destroyed, etc).

And they shouldn't be killed for emotional reasons like anger. Wrath is an emotion that fades but injustice lingers forever, death sentence must be done because - paradoxically - it is the "right" thing to do.

Is it ever right to intentionally take someone's life for purely the aim of taking their life?

Well it's clear who deserve it, the likes of Hitler and Pol Pot, but what about someone who murders a single person?

 

[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.

This man just summed up most of the issues that makes the US a partial backwards country at the moment.

You deserve a cookie.

Lemme find one...

 

[YouEatLard]

But who is anyone to judge who is worthy?[/b] That makes you just as bad to kill them just because YOU believe they are not worthy of life.

You also stated a flaw in your logic.

Lock them up and feed them for the rest of their lives, or fix the problem so that they are no longer living in this world and have no chance to repeat offend.

If they are locked up for life... how can they re-offend?

You are justifying it as revenge. That is not the point of the system itself. You are saying it should be the Government's job to commit acts of revenge on behalf of families.

You should also look at all of the Innocent People killed by the Death Penalty. :/

Far from flawed. I'm talking about people where there is no question. Possibly repeat offenders. Possibly someone that does a multiple murder where there are many witnesses/camera footage. There is no question in many cases.

If YOU are up for feeding, clothing, and taking care of the medical needs for a confirmed killer for the rest of his life then I understand your statement. I am not. If a dog kills we kill the dog. If a human kills we either effectly end his life by putting him behind bars for the length of it, or we end it with his own death.

Revenge? No. Again, it's no different then when a dog kills. When the dog kills he has proven that he is not worth the risk to have around. We end the dog. We don't cage it up for the rest of it's life (cruelty yada, and cost). As I see it this transfers directly to humans. I see no point in taking care of one of these people.

 

[Leg End]

<spoiler= There is at least one person they SHOULD have used the death penalty on> http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/september2010/070910top2.jpg

See, that is the closest person that I would agree with on this subject, but still don't. :/

Now, if he escapes and tries to kill again... well, that is actually a little more in it's favor. That would be possibly one of the few cases where it might be warranted. :/

It's not just the murders he orchestrated, it's his family that worries me. Yes they're still around and growing. They had a chance to stop that but instead they keep him in prison where he wants to be and put him on display for the media every few years which only serves to feed his ego and gives him a medium for his lunacy. California is wasting money and a prison cell by allowing that... thing to continue living.

Which is also covered by that episode of Bullshit!. In the sense that, if they kill him, it could be like Jesus all over again, except with insane, murderous psychopaths as followers. :/

Wait... (O_O)... nevermind that group comparison. :/

If anything, I'm actually surprised he wasn't executed, considering all of those on death row being killed for far less. :/

Seems... fucked.

Seriously, the fucking KKK hates the guy! (O_O)

That the really fucked up part. The judge actually sentenced him to death, but California threw out the death penalty before the sentence could be carried out! I know that executing him now would be pointless, but if they had taken care of him back in 71, he wouldn't have a following he does now. >(

[HEADING=1](O_O)[/HEADING]​

Flawed system is flawed.​

 

[Leg End]

But who is anyone to judge who is worthy?[/b] That makes you just as bad to kill them just because YOU believe they are not worthy of life.

You also stated a flaw in your logic.

Lock them up and feed them for the rest of their lives, or fix the problem so that they are no longer living in this world and have no chance to repeat offend.

If they are locked up for life... how can they re-offend?

You are justifying it as revenge. That is not the point of the system itself. You are saying it should be the Government's job to commit acts of revenge on behalf of families.

You should also look at all of the Innocent People killed by the Death Penalty. :/

Far from flawed. I'm talking about people where there is no question. Possibly repeat offenders. Possibly someone that does a multiple murder where there are many witnesses/camera footage. There is no question in many cases.

If YOU are up for feeding, clothing, and taking care of the medical needs for a confirmed killer for the rest of his life then I understand your statement. I am not. If a dog kills we kill the dog. If a human kills we either effectly end his life by putting him behind bars for the length of it, or we end it with his own death.

Revenge? No. Again, it's no different then when a dog kills. When the dog kills he has proven that he is not worth the risk to have around. We end the dog. We don't cage it up for the rest of it's life (cruelty yada, and cost). As I see it this transfers directly to humans. I see no point in taking care of one of these people.

>No question.
>Possibly repeat offenders.

? 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.

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?

 

[Treblaine]

You got guys doped up on heroin who overreact to certain situations.

Small correction there, someone high on heroine couldn't over-react to a kitten, heroine is an extremely powerful sedative which makes it so deadly it causes you to stop breathing and suffocate with only a tiny overdose. And the ensuing doped-out period they are more a danger to themselves.

That's to say nothing about how incomprehensibly powerful the addiction is and how great the urge is for another dose; theft, burglary and to a lesser extent robbery (stealing from person, like mugging, holding up liquor store).

Though realistically prostitution is more common, drug users are far more a danger to themselves than they are to society, though the greatest problem to them is the fact that their habit is an illegal one. They must source their drug from an unregulated source and everyone else is out to get them for it.

Check out this interview with Professor David Nutt:

http://current.com/groups/videos/92822690_howard-marks-interviews-david-nutt.htm

The BBC has also had a series recently taking a very in depth, scientific and objective look at drugs in modern British Society. I don't want to take drugs any more now than before watching the program but I'm not afraid of them any more and I don't look on drug users with as such or any disdain any more.

Also this article by Daily Mail is hilarious in it's circular and simplistic logic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1325788/Why-doesnt-Prof-David-Nutt-come-clean-admit-wants-legalise-drugs.html

They're not trolls, they're just stupid:

"We live in an age inclined to believe almost everything ­scientists say, even when it flies in the face of common sense and our own observations."

Yeah, I mean common sense and "our own observations" say the earth is flat and the sun orbits around our flat world which God made in 6 days only about four thousand years ago... but then these bloody scientists come along [/sarc]

Seriously, I don't think the balance of harm is right with drug laws at the moment, they hurt innocent people far too much and empower gangsters far more than it impedes them.

I'm definitely in favour of needles for drug-addicts now.

 

[Bugerion]

HMmm maybe replace death punishment with torturing that's what I would do but only to those really fu**ed up people like serial killers and those retarded war generals that were doing genocides and seriously why do they spend like 4-5 years at court when you have evidence they did it I will never understand that

 

[Tsaba]

short answer, yes, why waste money on these people who commit murder. We used to use the Guillotine because it was "civilized," instead of spending a crap load of money, let's find a cheap and efficient way to get rid of these buggers and make an express line.

 

[Leg End]

Yeah, I mean common sense and "our own observations" say the earth is flat and the sun orbits around our flat world which God made in 6 days only about four thousand years ago... but then these bloody scientists come along [/sarc]

Common sense is just another way of saying "Something I believe but no one else does so I'll make them believe they should think the same by saying it is "common sense".

Which is why people believe I should be executed for committing no crime yet believing I pose a massive danger. :/

All in the name of "Common Sense".

[sub]If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'll tell you in PM. :/[/sub]

 

[Leg End]

short answer, yes, why waste money on these people who commit murder. We used to use the Guillotine because it was "civilized," instead of spending a crap load of money, let's find a cheap and efficient way to get rid of these buggers and make an express line.

It's a waste of money killing them, with the key factor being it costs a fuckton more. :/

 

[Treblaine]

Isn't the difference between life in prison and the death sentence pretty trivial for all intents and purposes?

Prison is no life, especially American prisons.

Though for more political crimes there are pros and cons:

Pros:
Contract-greedy politicians won't be tempted to subjugate justice to release a mass murderer as with the release of Al Megrahi (interesting Gadaffi is getting his comeuppance finally, maybe once he runs away/rebles nab him HE can stand trial for the orders he gave to Al Megrahi)

Cons:
Releasing killers can often be the best strategy for ending bloodshed like the Good Friday agreement, the early release of all those convicted of terrorism treating them de-facto as prisoners of war and in doing so, doing a lot to largely end the conflict.

And also, those who were eventually vindicated of any wrong doing who were merely pinned with the crime because they were the nearest Irishmen and the police wanted results even if fabricated nonsense. I am still no where near confident enough in the police and justice system to not again try to pin crimes on innocent men as police still have a central dilemma

Cop's Dilemma:
-INCREDIBLE pressure for "results", person in cuffs.
-They cannot take a scientific or balanced approach to actually selecting who to charge, they go on conjecture, instinct, and spurious circumstance.
-once they have their man it ALL focuses in on them and get stuck into poor analogies like "letting the trail go cold" they have a "good trail" with this one suspect and the more time they focus on him the hotter this trail seems and all others go cold
-After the fact they begin the assemble evidence.

Police essentially use INDUCTIVE evidence, not DEDUCTIVE! As in they chose a suspect - almost at random - and then try to find all the evidence that leads to him.

Deductive investigation is not used so often for how resource and time consuming it is and unless you have a LOT of evidence and data, you often won't home in on anyone.

as to the courts:
-trial by jury of peers? A crowd is only as smart as the stupidest individual, juries are so easy to manipulate towards prejudice. A jury debating is hamstrung by they can only share their assessment as well as they can articulate their thoughts and then be understood by others.
-Juries are selfish, they are far more worried about a criminal walking free than sending an innocent man to prison
-Juries like most crowds want justice even if it is just the illusion. If a man charged with a heinous crime walks free... then who did do it? If the defendant didn't do it then the real person must be totally gone if the police are charging this person instead. This is a HORRIBLE thought, to unbearable for most to consider and it works on the juries mind giving them a bias to find him guilty "for justice" as in "someone must pay for this crime" even if the back of their mind they know he is just a scape goat.

Barry George was convicted of the murder of journalist Jill Dando to spite virtually no evidence against him, appeals later concluded the sole forensic evidence against him has worthless as the very lab that tested his clothes contaminated them simply by handling them.

Indefinite imprisonment of solitary confinement is probably worse than death. It is interesting that Harold Shipman, the most prolific serial killer ever known; more familiar with taking life than possibly anyone else decided death was better than continuing his sentence and took his own life.

It doesn't seem right completely banning capital punishment, it's always good to have a power like that around for when you need it, but it would be so rare that it would be a fitting punishment.

I say keep the death penalty, but only the be administered several years AFTER conviction when everyone had calmed down a lot and it should be the highest decision made by the democratically elected legislature/executive branch only after the highest judicial courts have found a case.

But then again, it could still be open to abuse by political manipulation. grrr, i really and conflicted about this, I is a matter of faith in your very country's method of justice and democracy

 

[springheeljack]

I dont think there should be a death penalty
It costs more to kill people than to incarcerate them for life
and uh..you cant take away peoples right to appeal

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Isn't the death sentence "Congratulations, you're now owned by Activision"?

 

[Lord Doom]

YES. Criminals need to fear breaking the law.

 

[Kryzantine]

You got guys doped up on heroin who overreact to certain situations.

Small correction there, someone high on heroine couldn't over-react to a kitten, heroine is an extremely powerful sedative which makes it so deadly it causes you to stop breathing and suffocate with only a tiny overdose. And the ensuing doped-out period they are more a danger to themselves.

That's to say nothing about how incomprehensibly powerful the addiction is and how great the urge is for another dose; theft, burglary and to a lesser extent robbery (stealing from person, like mugging, holding up liquor store).

Though realistically prostitution is more common, drug users are far more a danger to themselves than they are to society, though the greatest problem to them is the fact that their habit is an illegal one. They must source their drug from an unregulated source and everyone else is out to get them for it.

Well, prostitution isn't really enforced in America. There are some parts of cities where police crack down on prostitutes like crazy and some parts where prostitutes are just fine. Police don't crack down on it simply because they're useful sources of information in crime ridden areas, and cracking down on one band of prostitutes often means cracking down on them all, which is much harder to do. It's kind of like jaywalking in NYC, a cop would have to be insane to enforce it.

And I don't know the science behind what a drug does to a person, I have only witnessed what drugs do to certain societies. Some areas of the US, not most of them, but some of them are severely affected by hard drugs. Probably the ugliest and largest example is most of Oregon, which has been affected most harshly by the meth epidemic. Miami sees quite a lot of gang violence relating to drugs. Los Angeles and Denver have gotten better in the last 10 years, but they still have some problems. The Northeast is relatively clean, but weed is all across the US. But I'm not going to use it, because weed is actually kind of like prostitution in that it's semi-legal. The police can crack down on it at any time, but they won't.

Most of the violent drug-related crime is indeed related to the illicit nature of hard drugs. And most of that category of crime has little to do with actual intoxication. It's simply that the business is illegal and widespread.

Again, we have a precedent in American history. Prohibition spawned a lot of crime, and it had nothing to do with illegal alcohol intoxication, but rather the illegal nature of the business. I'm not sure how Finnish prohibition fared (all I know is that they were the only other Western country to try it, and it didn't last nearly as long as it did in America), but it killed some parts of America.

 

[Leg End]

Isn't the difference between life in prison and the death sentence pretty trivial for all intents and purposes?

Prison is no life, especially American prisons.

Though for more political crimes there are pros and cons:

Pros:
Contract-greedy politicians won't be tempted to subjugate justice to release a mass murderer as with the release of Al Megrahi (interesting Gadaffi is getting his comeuppance finally, maybe once he runs away/rebles nab him HE can stand trial for the orders he gave to Al Megrahi)

Cons:
Releasing killers can often be the best strategy for ending bloodshed like the Good Friday agreement, the early release of all those convicted of terrorism treating them de-facto as prisoners of war and in doing so, doing a lot to largely end the conflict.

And also, those who were eventually vindicated of any wrong doing who were merely pinned with the crime because they were the nearest Irishmen and the police wanted results even if fabricated nonsense. I am still no where near confident enough in the police and justice system to not again try to pin crimes on innocent men as police still have a central dilemma

Cop's Dilemma:
-INCREDIBLE pressure for "results", person in cuffs.
-They cannot take a scientific or balanced approach to actually selecting who to charge, they go on conjecture, instinct, and spurious circumstance.
-once they have their man it ALL focuses in on them and get stuck into poor analogies like "letting the trail go cold" they have a "good trail" with this one suspect and the more time they focus on him the hotter this trail seems and all others go cold
-After the fact they begin the assemble evidence.

Police essentially use INDUCTIVE evidence, not DEDUCTIVE! As in they chose a suspect - almost at random - and then try to find all the evidence that leads to him.

Deductive investigation is not used so often for how resource and time consuming it is and unless you have a LOT of evidence and data, you often won't home in on anyone.

as to the courts:
-trial by jury of peers? A crowd is only as smart as the stupidest individual, juries are so easy to manipulate towards prejudice. A jury debating is hamstrung by they can only share their assessment as well as they can articulate their thoughts and then be understood by others.
-Juries are selfish, they are far more worried about a criminal walking free than sending an innocent man to prison
-Juries like most crowds want justice even if it is just the illusion. If a man charged with a heinous crime walks free... then who did do it? If the defendant didn't do it then the real person must be totally gone if the police are charging this person instead. This is a HORRIBLE thought, to unbearable for most to consider and it works on the juries mind giving them a bias to find him guilty "for justice" as in "someone must pay for this crime" even if the back of their mind they know he is just a scape goat.

Barry George was convicted of the murder of journalist Jill Dando to spite virtually no evidence against him, appeals later concluded the sole forensic evidence against him has worthless as the very lab that tested his clothes contaminated them simply by handling them.

Indefinite imprisonment of solitary confinement is probably worse than death. It is interesting that Harold Shipman, the most prolific serial killer ever known; more familiar with taking life than possibly anyone else decided death was better than continuing his sentence and took his own life.

It doesn't seem right completely banning capital punishment, it's always good to have a power like that around for when you need it, but it would be so rare that it would be a fitting punishment.

I say keep the death penalty, but only the be administered several years AFTER conviction when everyone had calmed down a lot and it should be the highest decision made by the democratically elected legislature/executive branch only after the highest judicial courts have found a case.

But then again, it could still be open to abuse by political manipulation. grrr, i really and conflicted about this, I is a matter of faith in your very country's method of justice and democracy

You require an award for being one of the most balanced and logical mofos in this thread.

Someone get this man the free beer we always say we have. :/

 

[Treblaine]

Yeah, I mean common sense and "our own observations" say the earth is flat and the sun orbits around our flat world which God made in 6 days only about four thousand years ago... but then these bloody scientists come along [/sarc]

Common sense is just another way of saying "Something I believe but no one else does so I'll make them believe they should think the same by saying it is "common sense".

Which is why people believe I should be executed for committing no crime yet believing I pose a massive danger. :/

All in the name of "Common Sense".

[sub]If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'll tell you in PM. :/[/sub]

The phrase "common sense" invokes democratic approval, it is what "the common" think as if "all these people can't be wrong".

Interestingly the phrase "common wisdom" that semantically means the same thing is used usually to invoke that the masses are wrong:

"it is common wisdom that one can drink a moderate amount and have it not affect their ability to drive, but in fact almost any amount will have a certain diminishing capacity on your driving ability though it is limited by blah blah blah"

I can't be completely against the death penalty, though it is good that the government is limited in their power as they are so oft to abuse it, I feel that an outright ban is too inflexible. It doesn't make anyone think, it doesn't encourage greater justice, it's like taking scissors away from the class because a few kids can't be trusted with them.

Crazy idea: condition to award the death penalty the standard of evidence must be MUCH higher not just on the actuality of their crime but their capacity, and true severity of effects. Number 1 get rid of jury trials, my god, they didn't do a damn bit of good for the Guildford Four, Barry George and especially not for the REAL perpetrators who got away with it for so long.

Prosecutors who pursue the death penalty know they are putting their original conviction under far greater scrutiny that they would only want if they DEFINITELY had the right man.

You require an award for being one of the most balanced and logical mofos in this thread.

Someone get this man the free beer we always say we have. :/

Thank you, this why I love these forums, you can discuss such a broad range of topics and get such great responses for digging deep into the issue.

(also thank you for the applauding Wells, I take it as the highest compliment)

But this is all academic unless we can get this discussion SOMEHOW into the public. We are (UK and USA at least, more so than less) are both democracy, not a technocracy (run by technocrats) to have any real change we have to condense these ideas and float them on public opinion.

Death penalty will always be a difficult one because it combines together all the most contentious issues of society:
-Faith in the justice system
-fallibility of democracy
-Political manipulation
-Function of punishment
-concepts of evil
-the allure of revenge
-Contradictory "Word of God": "Vengeance is mine" - "a life for a life" - "thou shalt not kill"

In the end the UK abolished the death penalty not because I think the consensus was that no one should be sentenced to death, but that we couldn't bear the blood on our hands. That I think is the most conflicting aspect, it's one thing to say it is the justified thing to do, it's another thing to actually actively do it.

 

[lacktheknack]

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 read in a book of "Myths That Need To Be Debunked" that the death sentence is more expensive than life in prison, due to increased likelihood of pleading innocent and a ton of bureaucracy to jump through.

So... no. No we should not.

 

[Magicman10893]

I think it should be used more, and by "more" I mean more states should use it. Sure, there is some hypocrisy to killing a killer, but a punishment should be more intense than the crime committed in order to deter people from doing it again. I mean, a life sentence in prison won't deter them from committing more crime.

Spoiler: Spoilered for length

Look at the amount of murders, rapes and assaults in prison. I remember seeing one of those caught on tape shows about prison where an inmate that was in for murder and got a life sentence attacked the prison guards repeatedly because every time he did it he got "another life sentence" tacked on to his life sentence. How is that fair? People that get locked up for life don't really have a greater punishment available except for solitary confinement, but there are only so many solitary cells available.

Then what about the people who go to jail for a less serious crime and get locked up with the murderers? A person that sells Marijuana and gets locked up will go to the same prison that murderers, rapists and other violent criminals are sent to. Then the little guy that never hurt anyone gets raped, beaten and possibly even killed. On top of all that, tax payers have to pay for all the murderers expenses in prison.

What about the murderers that go to prison for only like 20 or 30 years? They come out of prison after spending about half their lives there and their life is a wreck. They turn back to crime and make lives worse for more people. My dad's friend went to prison for "conspiracy to commit murder" because he helped his friend flee the state for murder and after coming out of prison he had no where to go and had trouble getting a job. He turned to hard drugs like Meth and Crack to relieve stress, beat his kids, and took out his drug dealer's eye with a key when he stiffed him on a deal. He went back to prison, got out and then continued doing crack, meth and beating his kids. We cut off all ties with this man before he did something to us.

I think if you commit a murder or have repeated violent offensive with enough proof to be absolutely certain that the person is guilty (Such as being caught on video committing the crime or DNA testing proving it) then they should be put on death row and be ready to receive their lethal injection. It would prevent a good bit of future crimes and save us money for them living in prison. And if you say that the lethal injection costs more than the food, plumbing and electricity costs FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE, then fuck it, shoot them in the head. They murdered one or people in probably a more painful method than this.

And to those that think there are two many wrongful convictions: Most of those wrongful convictions are from decades ago when DNA testing wasn't anywhere near as advanced. Most of the ones I've read about where rape cases from the 60s and 70s when the DNA testing was nonexistent.