Should the death sentence be used more?

[Carlston]

It should. Mostly do to the fact when I was in Seattle a 7 time child rapist kidnapped a little girl, raped and then burried her alive in a trash bag.

They say it doesn't deter crime...who cares I'm for yanking the plug on people who can't live in society, Then again I'd of killed that sicko the second kid he touched, let alone five more than a childs murder.

It's worse to let the animals do what they will, knowing the law protects them more than it punishes.

 

[8bitlove2a03]

The killing of other human beings is not and cannot be justified.

 

[Nova Helix]

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

It's always funny to me when people say we should kill people to save money. It is "Tens of millions of dollars cheaper" to imprison killers for life than to execute them. source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-07-exepensive-to-execute_N.htm

The possibility of one mistaken execution sentence makes it morally reprehensible to execute someone. Besides it is shown that rehabilitation rather than punishment (killing them) decreases crime more.

 

[YouEatLard]

But who are you to judge if they are unworthy of living?

To respond to the Mars bit, I hope Negadon awakens and comes to earth. :/

Same point as before, who is to judge who is unworhy? You would be making the exact same decision they made to kill another, with no way to justify it without justifying their reason.

Now... the next bit brings in many more issues. What if someone lives in a certain place out of necessity? Be it job, family or what have you? Then, they have no choice to put up with murder.

Who has that right? No one? Ok. Now comes the fun part.

Someone is in the next room. You hear them about to kill a family member. You have a fully loaded gun, one in the chamber. But, sorry, you can't use it. You don't have the right to make the decision on their fate. You hear the family member pass. You hole your self up in the room and call the authorities. They get there just in time, but they can't do anything as they don't have the right to do what it would take to stop your attacker, to kill him.

There is a line that has to be drawn. In a scenario like this self defense does play with you, but not on the defense of the family member. The people in this scenario are just variables. The family member could be someone you don't know. The authorities could be a neighbor instead. The point of this is to show that there is justification, and because there is a justification and a standard, there must be a judge, and there must be an enforcer. What gives these roles the right? Some of it is the community and some of it will be taken on by those who will to fill the requirement.

Mix this into what has already been stated in the my previous post and you'll see what I'm getting at. This post is not my answer to the thread, but the answer to LegendaryGamer's quoted post.

Even then, there is also the argument that even if you move, other states are still committing murder. But, I am not even touching that one.

Hopefully it doesn't keep you awake at night.

 

[Jacob Lucas]

"This guy killed someone! How do we show him that killing is wrong?"

"Umm... We kill him?"

"...Brilliant."

Derp.

 

[FalloutJack]

You know what? No. There seems to be quite a bit of argument for the death penalty not being as useful as it should be. However, we still need to punish truly horrible people for their heinous crimes. This is probably me thinking with my wrathful evil side, but those deserving of capital punishment should be broken, either physically or mentally. Oh, give him a short prison time, but make sure he can never harm anyone again, and tell everyone what he did so they can take advantage of his helpless ass once he's out of jail.

This would probably be considered cruel and unusual, but the problem with these penalties is clearly that the punishment has yet to be a full and proper deterence of the act. Not enough people are afraid of life in jail and coming out only when they're old and gray, if that. Not enough people are afraid of dying in some fashion. If they did, this wouldn't still be happening and this discussion wouldn't be had. So, what's left? Well, unfortunately, pain and suffering is. Unless you've got a better idea.

 

[SirDoom]

The only time the death penalty should be allowed is when the sentence is carried out by the victim of the crime in self defense at the time of the crime. This is the only time when the death penalty serves a purpose other than revenge, which is no good reason to justify killing someone.

 

[Jacob Lucas]

You know what? No. There seems to be quite a bit of argument for the death penalty not being as useful as it should be. However, we still need to punish truly horrible people for their heinous crimes. This is probably me thinking with my wrathful evil side, but those deserving of capital punishment should be broken, either physically or mentally. Oh, give him a short prison time, but make sure he can never harm anyone again, and tell everyone what he did so they can take advantage of his helpless ass once he's out of jail.

This would probably be considered cruel and unusual, but the problem with these penalties is clearly that the punishment has yet to be a full and proper deterence of the act. Not enough people are afraid of life in jail and coming out only when you're old and gray, if that. Not enough people are afraid of dying in some fashion. If they did, this wouldn't still be happening and this discussion wouldn't be had. So, what's left? Well, unfortunately, pain and suffering is. Unless you've got a better idea.

One human killing another is never a simple matter. Not in the first world at least.
What if it was accidental? What if it happened in the heat of the moment? What if the person they killed had been convicted of rape or child molestation, does that make it ok?

If we send potential murderers the message that "if you kill, we'll kill you right back" we're only telling them that what they've done can be washed away with a lethal injection.

Killing them isn't going to bring back the people they've murdered, and it certainly isn't going to send the right message to any would be murderers out there.

What message should we be sending?

"Don't kill your fellow man. Ever."

 

[godofallu]

As far as the US goes we shouldn't do the death penalty NOW. The reason being that it costs us way too much money, and we end up trying the same person 10 times before we actually fulfill our conviction.

In the future, where we get rid of this retry till you run out of cash system , I say death penalty all the way.

Some might argue that killintg someone for killing is Hippocratic, but I see that viewpoint as ignorant. You don't kill someone because killing is wrong, you kill them because killing a large amount of innocent people is wrong.

Whats better for society as a whole, keeping someone alieve (sometimes against their own will) for years. Paying for their room/food/healthcare/waste manage,ent ect, OR killing them and getting on with life?

The cheaper/better option should be obvious, the reason it isn't obvious is due to a flaw in our legal system.

 

[Jacob Lucas]

As far as the US goes we shouldn't do the death penalty NOW. The reason being that it costs us way too much money, and we end up trying the same person 10 times before we actually fulfill our conviction.

In the future, where we get rid of this retry till you run out of cash system , I say death penalty all the way.

Some might argue that killintg someone for killing is Hippocratic, but I see that viewpoint as ignorant. You don't kill someone because killing is wrong, you kill them because killing a large amount of innocent people is wrong.

Whats better for society as a whole, keeping someone alieve (sometimes against their own will) for years. Paying for their room/food/healthcare/waste manage,ent ect, OR killing them and getting on with life?

The cheaper/better option should be obvious, the reason it isn't obvious is due to a flaw in our legal system.

That "Flaw" is absolutely necessary. You know how many people are wrongly convicted each year?
What if you were wrongly convicted and sentanced to death?
Despite the great lengths that your legal system goes to in an attempt to avoid executing innocent people it still happens.

Lengthly trials for death penalty cases are a necessity. As such, as are the costs of those trials.
This not only makes life in prison the more humane option, it makes it more financial viable.
If anything, people who still think in terms of "an eye for an eye" are the ones who are ignorant.

 

[Leg End]

But who are you to judge if they are unworthy of living?

To respond to the Mars bit, I hope Negadon awakens and comes to earth. :/

Same point as before, who is to judge who is unworhy? You would be making the exact same decision they made to kill another, with no way to justify it without justifying their reason.

Now... the next bit brings in many more issues. What if someone lives in a certain place out of necessity? Be it job, family or what have you? Then, they have no choice to put up with murder.

Who has that right? No one? Ok. Now comes the fun part.

Someone is in the next room. You hear them about to kill a family member. You have a fully loaded gun, one in the chamber. But, sorry, you can't use it. You don't have the right to make the decision on their fate. You hear the family member pass. You hole your self up in the room and call the authorities. They get there just in time, but they can't do anything as they don't have the right to do what it would take to stop your attacker, to kill him.

There is a line that has to be drawn. In a scenario like this self defense does play with you, but not on the defense of the family member. The people in this scenario are just variables. The family member could be someone you don't know. The authorities could be a neighbor instead. The point of this is to show that there is justification, and because there is a justification and a standard, there must be a judge, and there must be an enforcer. What gives these roles the right? Some of it is the community and some of it will be taken on by those who will to fill the requirement.

Mix this into what has already been stated in the my previous post and you'll see what I'm getting at. This post is not my answer to the thread, but the answer to LegendaryGamer's quoted post.

Even then, there is also the argument that even if you move, other states are still committing murder. But, I am not even touching that one.

Hopefully it doesn't keep you awake at night.

No, in that case, you have the right to protect the assaulted person with necessary force. Lethal force is necessary. The only time you can justify killing another, only because they pose a grave and immediate threat to someone else.

No, I am kept up at night by the pseudo-fear of the police busting down my door and arresting me on bullshit charges or killing me and making it look like I attacked them.

Or the FBI unpersoning me.

Whichever it is for that night.

I have not had a good night's rest in over a fucking year. (O_O)

 

[YouEatLard]

No, in that case, you have the right to protect the assaulted person with necessary force. Lethal force is necessary. The only time you can justify killing another, only because they pose a grave and immediate threat to someone else.

No, I am kept up at night by the pseudo-fear of the police busting down my door and arresting me on bullshit charges or killing me and making it look like I attacked them.

Or the FBI unpersoning me.

Whichever it is for that night.

I have not had a good night's rest in over a fucking year. (O_O)

Do not get me wrong. I have seen your points through every post, including this one. They are solid points.

I just have a different point of view on the matter.

I lived in 6 different states growing up, and moved around more after leaving the nest. Because of this I see nothing forcing a human to occupy an area.

I have been shipped off to places where I could not talk to who I wanted or when I wanted. I could not leave or go where I wanted. Entertainment was largely limited to books and the list available was predetermined and/or out of my control. I had to eat when I was allowed. I could only sleep when allowed. I had to do hard manual labor. I had to shower in mass showers with others. I was forced to live with others and privacy was largely non-existent. My stay would be lengthened or shortened, and I had no say or influence on this variable. There was worry of attack. In many ways the life of a member in the armed forces can be compared to imprisonment and yet people stick around. Guess what. We got used to it. So will long term inmates.

So to me, besides the company that would be living with an inmate (which isn't considered when a person is sentenced), imprisonment doesn't seem like it's even close to a fitting as a threat or correctional tactic. Hell, they could even murder/rape while in the facility. If it was a functional scare tactic to keep people from killing we shouldn't have as many murder cases.

This being the case, all I see in life sentences is our community keeping offenders out of the public for a time (to limit further damage). Even if this time period is for "life" they still have a chance to get out, maybe get out early, and possibly get revenge and/or inflict further damage afterward.

I see the effect, life or extreme sentences as falling far short from the cause that put them there. [rant]This isn't about revenge either. I could just as well fight to have these people left in a cell with 3-5 Gorillas hyped up on PCP and viagra. Or left in a room with family members granted immunity. Now that would be revenge. [/rant]

Because of the above, the only logical solution I see is to remove offenders from the living population. Is our justice system perfect? Hell no. Can/Does it make mistakes. There is no question. However execution does still appear to be the best logical solution given the tools we currently have available. I am willing to leave Mars and gorillas on the table though (laugh damn it ).

 

[EvanJO]

If someone is found to be guilty (that is, proven guilty without a shadow of doubt) of rape, child molestation, or pre-meditated murder in the first degree, they should be sentenced to death by firing squad no later then a day after the trial.

That simple.

 

[theNater]

This would probably be considered cruel and unusual, but the problem with these penalties is clearly that the punishment has yet to be a full and proper deterence of the act. Not enough people are afraid of life in jail and coming out only when they're old and gray, if that. Not enough people are afraid of dying in some fashion. If they did, this wouldn't still be happening and this discussion wouldn't be had. So, what's left? Well, unfortunately, pain and suffering is. Unless you've got a better idea.

Do you really think criminals are saying to themselves "If I kill this person, I'll go to jail for 20 years. Yeah, I'll take that deal."?

It's likely that most criminals either aren't thinking about consequences at all, or believe they won't be caught. Changing the penalty waiting for them after they get caught them isn't going to change their behavior in either case.

 

[bader0]

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.)

i should probably refrain from low content posts but basically this is awesome

 

[Leg End]

No, in that case, you have the right to protect the assaulted person with necessary force. Lethal force is necessary. The only time you can justify killing another, only because they pose a grave and immediate threat to someone else.

No, I am kept up at night by the pseudo-fear of the police busting down my door and arresting me on bullshit charges or killing me and making it look like I attacked them.

Or the FBI unpersoning me.

Whichever it is for that night.

I have not had a good night's rest in over a fucking year. (O_O)

Do not get me wrong. I have seen your points through every post, including this one. They are solid points.

I just have a different point of view on the matter.

I lived in 6 different states growing up, and moved around more after leaving the nest. Because of this I see nothing forcing a human to occupy an area.

I have been shipped off to places where I could not talk to who I wanted or when I wanted. I could not leave or go where I wanted. Entertainment was largely limited to books and the list available was predetermined and/or out of my control. I had to eat when I was allowed. I could only sleep when allowed. I had to do hard manual labor. I had to shower in mass showers with others. I was forced to live with others and privacy was largely non-existent. My stay would be lengthened or shortened, and I had no say or influence on this variable. There was worry of attack. In many ways the life of a member in the armed forces can be compared to imprisonment and yet people stick around.

So to me, besides the company that would be living with an inmate (which isn't considered when a person is sentenced), imprisonment doesn't seem like it's even close to a fitting as a threat or correctional tactic. Hell, they could even murder/rape while in the facility. If it was a functional scare tactic to keep people from killing we shouldn't have as many murder cases.

This being the case, all I see in life sentences is our community keeping offenders out of the public for a time (to limit further damage). Even if this time period is for "life" they still have a chance to get out, maybe get out early, and possibly get revenge and/or inflict further damage afterward.

I see the effect, life or extreme sentences as falling far short from the cause that put them there. [rant]This isn't about revenge either. I could just as well fight to have these people left in a cell with 3-5 Gorillas hyped up on PCP and viagra. Or left in a room with family members granted immunity. Now that would be revenge. [/rant]

Because of the above, the only logical solution I see is to remove offenders from the living population. Is our justice system perfect? Hell no. Can/Does it make mistakes. There is no question. However execution does still appear to be the best logical solution given the tools we currently have available. I am willing to leave Mars and gorillas on the table though (laugh damn it ).

I thank you for the compliment.

As we all do.

I have lived in this state my whole life and plan to stay here because of my grandparents(one dead, the other not doing to good these days), my mother and sister and for my future daughter.

You... have certainly gone through hell. (O_O)

The death penalty isn't truly a deterrent either. :/ Neither one really is. People will do what they do. :/

If they warrant life in prison, the odds of them getting out at all, under any circumstances is incredibly slim. Though, if there was any major chance of them actually re-offending, they wouldn't be released to begin with, though I'll give you the fact that it does happen. :/

But, it differs on what actually put them there. In certain cases, someone could be killed for something far more trivial than Mr. Serial Killer Of Lolis. :/

Because of the above, and for other reasons, I believe life imprisonment to be a better solution, also fits as a more grueling punishment depending on the person.

As I mentioned before, Negadon would awaken and kill us you all, including the gorillas.

 

[FalloutJack]

This would probably be considered cruel and unusual, but the problem with these penalties is clearly that the punishment has yet to be a full and proper deterence of the act. Not enough people are afraid of life in jail and coming out only when they're old and gray, if that. Not enough people are afraid of dying in some fashion. If they did, this wouldn't still be happening and this discussion wouldn't be had. So, what's left? Well, unfortunately, pain and suffering is. Unless you've got a better idea.

Do you really think criminals are saying to themselves "If I kill this person, I'll go to jail for 20 years. Yeah, I'll take that deal."?

It's likely that most criminals either aren't thinking about consequences at all, or believe they won't be caught. Changing the penalty waiting for them after they get caught them isn't going to change their behavior in either case.

Well, I'll tell you what. If you go do something wrong, get convicted, and then proceed in having your feet and hands lopped off while a live snake is shove up your ass...and the people who get wind of it in one way or another DON'T react in a "Holy shit!" manner denoting a sudden desire to go straight...then I owe you a coke.

(In all seriousness, we're not allowed to punish people BEFORE they do it, so the only even-remotely-lawful way I could think of was to impress upon people that you don't get off easy anymore. No, most people DON'T think this stuff through, but if we don't do something that COULD make them think, we're not even trying.)

 

[Hairetos]

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.

Are you saying that rape victims are destroyed?

That's sensationalist nonsense, sorry.

 

[mrscott137]

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.

Well that was your fault for being a socialist.

My point is completely proven. Bravo to you sir, Bravo.

 

[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.

Well that was your fault for being a socialist.

My point is completely proven. Bravo to you sir, Bravo.

You know he was joking right? :/

I asked him about it and he meant it in a joking fashion, it just didn't come out that way.