Should the death sentence be used more?

[Razgrizaces]

Hmm... I might be too young to have a say in this, but, I'll go give it a shot.

I think that the death penalty should be fine where it is, but should be limited to mainly murders and rapists... but we should be able to justify when a person needs to die, and when they need to reform. If people are being killed and people are doing things that are not tolerated by the law, then I think that something's going wrong. Instead of giving people just an easy death, either by a bullet to the head, or by an electric chair, I'd say if there were a death sentence, that there should be a death by being hung, rather than doing that painless and quick death. Would you commit a crime after seeing somebody be hung, rather than shot or electrocuted? If I saw that, I would not commit a crime after seeing that. I'd think that crime would probably decrease if people saw that happen. It worked in the old times, I guess you could say.

Just my $.02

 

[godofallu]

That's the thing though, why should a life sentence vs a death penalty be tried differently? Shouldn't both trials be treated equally? Is it ok that the rules for one are different than the other? Why is it that life sentence cases use the normal rules, why death penalty gets UNLIMITED retrials?

Could it be because with a life sentence, a meaningful attempt to rectify the error is at least theoretically feasible, while with the death penalty it isn't?

If the legal system isn't accurate enough change the entire legal system. Don't add some phony rule that only applies to 1/10,000 cases.

The only level of accuracy that is acceptable to me is 100%, which is not realistically achievable, no matter how the legal system is set up.

Besides, if it was a fair trial, all the evidence was in that direction, but the man was innocent, I think God will forgive you for the mistake.

One of the founding principles of the United States is that "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". Knowing that we will probably be forgiven is not an excuse for failing to live up to our own principles.

None of those responses made any sense logically. A death sense isn't feasibly possible? Actually it is possible, we've done it before...

A death sentence you have a better chance of proving your innocence? Wrong.

You state that the legal system will never be good enough for you. So what's your solution? Let everyone go? Come on.

As for the god quote i'll respond for that one too. We believe 1/100 is acceptable, and we certainly pay for that ratio. Our actual ratio is far better than 1/100 too. So we are literally living up to our goals, and yet the next sentence you say we aren't. Contradictory.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

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.

They're kept on death row for so long on the off chance they may be found innocent (though, again, if that's the case they should remove the penalty altogether imo).

I stand by my stance of within 15-20 minutes of conviction and sentencing they should be arriving at the morgue with a .45 in their heads

350 people have been found innocent while on death row (http://www.123helpme.com/assets/7073.html Third Paragraph). If the state did things your way those people would be dead. Again I have a bit of a beef with Capital Punishment in the first place. If you kill them to take them away from the misery of losing their freedom (unless those prisons come with luxuries in which case most of those luxuries should be removed. I don't mind prisons having things like books but letting prisoners watch TV seems like an unreasonable expense when you consider that one of the purposes of prison is to punish) if you keep them in prison (again, a prison WITHOUT most of the luxuries some modern prisons have) you let them stew in their own misery (especially if the criminal feels remorse) and give innocents more hope of being exonerated. Prison is arguably a crueller sentence than death.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

That's the thing though, why should a life sentence vs a death penalty be tried differently? Shouldn't both trials be treated equally? Is it ok that the rules for one are different than the other? Why is it that life sentence cases use the normal rules, why death penalty gets UNLIMITED retrials?

Could it be because with a life sentence, a meaningful attempt to rectify the error is at least theoretically feasible, while with the death penalty it isn't?

If the legal system isn't accurate enough change the entire legal system. Don't add some phony rule that only applies to 1/10,000 cases.

The only level of accuracy that is acceptable to me is 100%, which is not realistically achievable, no matter how the legal system is set up.

Besides, if it was a fair trial, all the evidence was in that direction, but the man was innocent, I think God will forgive you for the mistake.

One of the founding principles of the United States is that "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". Knowing that we will probably be forgiven is not an excuse for failing to live up to our own principles.

None of those responses made any sense logically. A death sense isn't feasibly possible? Actually it is possible, we've done it before...

A death sentence you have a better chance of proving your innocence? Wrong.

You state that the legal system will never be good enough for you. So what's your solution? Let everyone go? Come on.

As for the god quote i'll respond for that one too. We believe 1/100 is acceptable, and we certainly pay for that ratio. Our actual ratio is far better than 1/100 too. So we are literally living up to our goals, and yet the next sentence you say we aren't. Contradictory.

Read the comment again. It said that with a LIFE sentence you have a better chance of being proved innocent.

 

[spartandude]

I'm undecided however you can also raise another slightly off topic question, should we allow prisoners to be euthanise? While i don't doubt that most pisenors want to stay alive, some may see it as an easy way out so should we give a choice to those who arnt sentenced to death?

 

[vxicepickxv]

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

Well, I guess that means that those other types of crimes are on the rise. You know, the nonviolent ones. The ones that the police find easier to deal with, because they don't get shot at, or stabbed, or anything like that. This is going too far into my philosophy on the "War on Drugsfreedom, civil liberties, states rights, and good use of taxpayer money" than I should get into. Of course, it's never going to change right now, because when your cousin or brother in law decides he wants to build a private prison and fill it with nonviolent offenders to legally exploit at wages similar to that of an illegal immigrant, and he's going to offer you a kickback, then you tend to oppose ending the War on Americans.


OT:The death penalty, as it is used in the United States is only cost effective if you expect someone to live more than 80 years in prison. Yes, the automatic appeals process for anyone sent to death row makes it more expensive in legal fees alone, than leaving someone in prison without parole, because they have to pay for their own appeals. There aren't too many 90 year olds in prison, in case you were wondering.

 

[shwnbob]

Yes completely. It gets rid of evil, corrupt people who are wasting away in jail and it sets an example for others. Would you be willing to murder someone if you knew the consequence of your action will cause your own death? I read that in some places (I don't know if they still do this.) that if someone was framed for stealing, not even caught just framed for it, they're brought in front of the whole town and burned alive. It rids the place of someone who steals things and it sets an example for others. Stop wasting your money on people who are never going to feel guilty about what they did and just execute them.
(note; it has to be people with serious crimes not someone with a speeding ticket or something.)

 

[Booze Zombie]

If you barely trust your politicians to be truthful to you about why they're even there, how can you trust them with decisions such as the death sentence?

 

[theNater]

That's the thing though, why should a life sentence vs a death penalty be tried differently? Shouldn't both trials be treated equally? Is it ok that the rules for one are different than the other? Why is it that life sentence cases use the normal rules, why death penalty gets UNLIMITED retrials?

Could it be because with a life sentence, a meaningful attempt to rectify the error is at least theoretically feasible, while with the death penalty it isn't?

If the legal system isn't accurate enough change the entire legal system. Don't add some phony rule that only applies to 1/10,000 cases.

The only level of accuracy that is acceptable to me is 100%, which is not realistically achievable, no matter how the legal system is set up.

Besides, if it was a fair trial, all the evidence was in that direction, but the man was innocent, I think God will forgive you for the mistake.

One of the founding principles of the United States is that "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". Knowing that we will probably be forgiven is not an excuse for failing to live up to our own principles.

None of those responses made any sense logically. A death sense isn't feasibly possible? Actually it is possible, we've done it before...

A death sentence you have a better chance of proving your innocence? Wrong.

Suppose, 5 years after the sentence is initiated, we discover the convicted person was innocent.

If they were sentenced to life in prison, we can release them, repay them a reasonable guess as to the amount of money they would have earned had they not been locked up, publicly declare their innocence, and generally attempt to put their life back on track.

If they were sentenced to death, we can't do anything like that.

It is theoretically possible to rectify the mistake with one punishment, but not the other.

You state that the legal system will never be good enough for you. So what's your solution? Let everyone go? Come on.

The legal system will never be good enough for me to accept an irreversible punishment, like death or mutilation. There are options between "kill them" and "let them go".

As for the god quote i'll respond for that one too. We believe 1/100 is acceptable, and we certainly pay for that ratio. Our actual ratio is far better than 1/100 too. So we are literally living up to our goals, and yet the next sentence you say we aren't. Contradictory.

The point is not getting the numbers to an acceptable level(and we can't know the actual numbers, because we'll never know precisely how many people have been wrongly executed); the point is that we should bend over backwards to ensure that we aren't punishing innocent people.

 

[theNater]

I read that in some places (I don't know if they still do this.) that if someone was framed for stealing, not even caught just framed for it, they're brought in front of the whole town and burned alive. It rids the place of someone who steals things and it sets an example for others.

Just a heads up; when someone is framed that means they are made to look guilty of a crime that they did not actually commit. Are you sure that's what you meant to say here?

 

[Shadeovblack]

Yes, its far more humane than prison.

 

[The Heik]

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

Actually it would be a example of how society is supposed to work. If you've committed a heinous crime such as murder or rape, then that warrants the death penalty as an equable punishment. Not only have you proven that you're a genuine threat to other people, but also that you are capable of doing it again. If society were to keep you alive, then it would not only be a waste of precious resources, but it'd be putting others at risk. That's not something that I would want to live with personally.

I'd prefer to see harsher schooling, kids get away with far too much at school which perhaps leaves them open to believe that they can get away with what they like out of school? At my school kids used to be smoking, cigarettes and weed, and used to just do what they liked. Plus my school was one of the better ones in the area. Now i'm not old enough to know what it was like to get caned for misbehaving but I know I wouldn't have kept doing stuff wrong if I got caned or worse for it.

I quite agree. A lot of the bad habits and mindsets that a kids develops are formed in the younger years, mostly because parents and teachers don't care enough to set them straight early. Seriously, a good smack upside the head would do wonders for bad behaviour. It doesn't have to be hard, as the simple activation of pain nerves is a direct way of associating bad behaviour as being a negative emotion. It's the hand on the stove thing. You'll burn your hand, feel the pain, and after that you'll probably never do that again.

 

[Flying Dagger]

statistically, 20% of convictions are overturned/lessened on appeal, from retrial or new evidence.

make of that what you will.

 

[Astoria]

The problem with that is that if that person is later proved innocent then you can't exactly say oh sorry we messed up. If you're gonna use it it should only be used on those who have been proved beyond all doubt that they are guilty and don't show any remorse for what they've done.

 

[neoontime]

Yes I do, though the reason behind it for me would only generate larger discussion behind it that I don't need right now.

 

[Ldude893]

Dead men don't learn from their mistakes.

Besides, it's insanely costly and less effective at deterring crime compared to imprisoning and rehabilitating criminals.

 

[Levi93]

I think it should be used more, I mean some people just need to be removed from society all together not rotting in a cage where taxpayers money is pay for them to eat.

 

[Arizona Kyle]

Dead men don't learn from their mistakes.

Besides, it's insanely costly and less effective at deterring crime compared to imprisoning and rehabilitating criminals.

while it is more costly there are also reason for a lot of the cost because of the extended trials that go on to prevent the people from being wrongly put to death

thus is why i put the "express lane" option up that if more then 3 people saw you do the crime then it would cost the same as a normal trial and only cost extra to kill the person and bury them