Should the death sentence be used more?

[Something Amyss]

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

Where are we talking? Violent crime in the US is down according to the BoJ.

But yes, despite the fact that crime is actually going down, and it will only satiate punishment fetishists and scaredy cats who believe the over-dramatic reporting on the news, I think we should totally execute more people. Sure, it costs more to execute people due to the attempt to weed out murdering wrongfully convicted people, but maybe we could circumvent due process somehow to sae some taxpayer money. The rights of the innocent are nothing compared to getting our pound of flesh, after all.

 

[JoJo]

In theory, I'm not opposed to the use of the death penalty upon child murderers or rapists, however it practice as sometimes innocent people get excuted and it's much more expensive I don't think it should be used. Luckily in my country (the UK) it hasn't been done for over 40 years.

 

[Vitum]

"Country Number executed in 2009
1 People's Republic of China Officially not released.[48][49] At least 1700 (estimated),[50] may be up to 6000.[51]
2 Iran At least 388
3 Iraq At least 120
4 Saudi Arabia At least 69
5 United States 52
6 Yemen At least 30
7 Sudan At least 9
8 Vietnam At least 9
9 Syria At least 8
10 Japan"

Seeing as you're American, I hope if you understand if I don't believe China, Iran and Iraq being in the top 3. And 1700 false deaths?? That's pure propaganda. And if you give the argument that China's population is 1.3 billion, then why doesn't India register in the top 10 countries. just in 2007 they wrongly killed 100 people.
But my honest opinion: Killing a killer just makes you one, so you're with absolutely nothing better than the initial murderer. Lock the bastard up and make sure he realizes his crime and atones for it. I'ts hard to give an exact option for less murder, but I suppose the best option is to live in a more equal society, and educate people about the importance of life.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I only support it when the criminal is completely beyond saving. Someone like the Joker, for example.

If they're a massive danger to society and there is no hope to reform them, then yes, I think that's the best option. But for everyone else, they can cool their heels in jail.

 

[Vitum]

"Where are we talking? Violent crime in the US is down according to the BoJ." Yeah, but prison populations are rising.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

So your plan is to punish murderers by murdering them? So you want to punish criminals with their crime? So you want to completely disregard human rights entirely because you don't want to spend money?

Get out. Just get out. I don't care where you get out to, just get out.

Did you ever stop to think about the family of the criminal, the person who would have to kill them, whether or not they were framed or civil rights? Have you seen crime rates for countries with the death penalty? They're higher than those without it, or usually are anyway. There are reasons why the death penalty was cut.

Hey while we're at it, lets put kids in factories and take the vote away from women. /sarcasm.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

There's too much hypocrisy with it. Killing is a crime, and rightfully so, but killing is also perfectly fine and justified? That's just giving them power over life and death, I'm glad it's not been too abused so far.

And what about the people who are falsely convicted?

Spending a fortune providing for them in prison is a bad system too, but less abusive and has that chance to make up for any mistakes with relative ease.

 

[Life_Is_A_Mess]

No, since killing only gives the criminals an easy and quick end. Rotting in prison for the rest of their life, on the other hand, provides a much more suitable punishment for the criminals.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

It costs a lot more money than you imagine killing someone.
It actually costs more tax payer money than holding them up in a prison for the rest of their natural life. Mostly because going ahead and killing someone is a tricky business.

And I half think it?s a good thing it?s such a long expensive process. There?s a certain flippancy that comes with just convicting someone and taking them outback to shoot. And when you deal in the shaky business of trying to figure out if someone actually committed a crime or not, within reasonable certainty, I think we do well not to make it to simple a process if we are to do it at all.

 

[Duffeknol]

No, since killing only gives the criminals an easy and quick end. Rotting in prison for the rest of their life, on the other hand, provides a much more suitable punishment for the criminals.

I'd much rather to just be done with it. Bam. The end. Done. We don't think about it any more. When (s)he's still alive, there's always the chance of escape. Next to that, tax payers are paying for the crook's daily needs. The people are paying for him to stay alive. I don't think that's a just thing.

Also with modern DNA evidence techniques we can pretty much rule out the possibility that innocents get executed, so I'm all for more death penalties nowadays. This society could do with a little cleanup.

It costs a lot more money than you imagine killing someone.
It actually costs more tax payer money than holding them up in a prison for the rest of their natural life. Mostly because going ahead and killing someone is a tricky business.

That's because people that oppose the death penalty turned it into a bureaucratic mess. They actually made their own argument of 'it's more expensive' valid by making it so themselves. With DNA evidence and the likes, the process can be cut much shorter and cheaper, without jeopardizing integrity.

 

[Ryouma]

I am agains death sentence, dont have a really good reason why, other then thats how iam raised.

In norway we do not have death sentence
And the max prision time is 21 year

And it seems to be working pretty well. Tho i dont have numbers infront of me just now =/

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

No it's pointless.
It doesn't deter people and you if you support it then you have to deal with the paradox of the death sentence.

 

[saruman31]

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

Absolutely, drug users should definitely be executed and while we are there we should also execute all smokers, drinkers, movie buffs and the worst of them all; those gamers. Boo how dare they get addicted to things that causes them pleasure? And don`t worry, your precious tax money will end up in the pockets of politicians one way or another.

 

[Neuromaster]

No. First of all I believe it's morally wrong, and second of all it's not an action you can take back if the justice system fails.

Because you know, our justice system is 100% foolproof.

Furthermore, crime has plummeted [http://www.slate.com/id/2284662/] over the last 20 years. "Between 1990 and 2009, the national violent-crime rate was halved, while property crime dropped to 60 percent of its previous rate... The disparity has been especially clear in New York City. That city saw the most dramatic crime decline of all: Since 1990, the homicide rate has dropped 82 percent, robbery by 84 percent, rape by 77 percent, and auto theft a stunning 94 percent."

So why exactly do you want to start offing more people?

 

[KeyMaster45]

I don't trust the US justice system to keep people locked up, at all. Considering though that someone can rot on death row for several decades before actually being killed I can't really hold my argument based on that.

The worst of the worst never feel bad about what they did and in the most heinous of crimes yeah, I support the death penalty. Not because I think that's some kind of adequate punishment but because I don't want someone that deranged to continue living be they locked away or not.

 

[EHKOS]

I think we should use it as much as we do, maybe one or two more, but on different people. The decisions on who should die are really weird, like leaving the wrong people alive.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

 

[Vryyk]

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

It should not be used at all. Two wrongs don't make a right.

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.

 

[flamingjimmy]

For the record I think it's totally wrong to punish murder by murdering someone, but putting aside any moral arguments for a minute.

Having the death penalty is a horrible idea that does not make society better for anyone. For one thing, it can be shown that it simply does not work as a deterrent, like, not at all.

Then there's the cost to consider, in many cases, it actually costs more to execute than to imprison people, partly because of the absolutely necessary appeals process to ensure that innocent people are not killed.

Thirdly, even with a rigorous appeals process innocent people will still be murdered by the state.

Now, moving on to the even worse part of your idea, that the death penalty should be used more, for crimes other than murder presumably. This is just a horrible idea.

If you have the death penalty for 'stealing millions of dollars' or 'selling drugs' as well as murder then anyone caught stealing millions of dollars or selling drugs will have absolutely nothing to lose by killing the witnesses.

 

[Verlander]

No. Of course not. You only get one life, taking away someones is a crime, no matter how self justified you feel. Death sentences denote that everything is black or white, and has no concept of the grey area of human existence

Every civilized country has abolished the death penalty, and it's up to us to inspire the rest to follow suit