Three really good reasons to abolish the death penalty

[WheresMyCow]

[/quote] 1. the jedi are not real, and dont try to pull the religion one as proof

2. the guy "flipping the switch" was permitted to do so by either the judicial department, or the Government, i dont pay too much attention to those things, so i dont know which. also, that would mean there would be an endless killing line......think.

3. it means we dont like spending money keeping prisoners for 60 or 70 years where we could just put them down. but lets do one better, lets just place ALL of the prisoners in one gigantic prison with sticks, last one alive gets a presidential pardon.[/quote]

You, my sir, are a genius. (No sarcasm for a change)
I think the death penalty is perfectly fine and to be honest, I really don't care about the innocent deaths. Even if it happened to me I wouldn't really care.
Then again I'm religious of sorts so death seems like a sort of trivial thing.

As numerous people have already brought up, it costs a small fortune and in my opinion if they are sentenced to prison longer than they will live I think they should die or should be put on some sort of workforce or they will be dead weight to our society.

I'm a bit of an extremist though so take everything I say with a handful of salt.

 

[kawligia]

A leopard can't change his spots. I do not believe that the number of criminals that are "rehabilitated" in jail are any higher than the number of criminals who "see the light" on their own without prison. I therefore reject the idea of rehabilitation.

I both accept AND reject deterrence. The law provides little deterrence to those who do not think about the consequences of their actions OR those who do not believe they will get caught. Criminals are always one or the other (or both). Deterrence DOES however, keep honest people honest. Usually, personal morality keeps me in line, but I have been tempted to commit crimes at various points in time. The thought of punishment kept me on the straight an narrow. The harsher the punishment, the better the deterrence for those who are deterred. But like I said, not everyone IS deterred by ANY punishment.

I accept retribution as a theory. When criminals are punished, it reaffirms to the rest of society that they are not being abandoned to the mercy of criminals. If criminals got no punishment or punishment that was too light, then people would not feel that the law did justice. When people do not feel that the law protects justice, then they are much more likely to take the law into their own hands...and who knows what will happen then. For murder, death is the only penalty that can possibly fit the crime. Anything else is too lenient for me to feel that the legal system is validated by upholding justice.

I accept incapacitation as a theory. A dead man cannot commit murder. A man in prison can escape and murder, or he can murder a person in jail who did not deserve death as a punishment. Escape is unlikely, but no more unlikely than an innocent man getting convicted. Murder in prison is not only likely, its common. There is nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose, so its best to incapacitate him to the maximum extent possible - death. Also, 95% of crimes are committed by the same 5-10% of the population. People rarely move in and out of criminality (at least after the teenage years). They are either criminals or they aren't. A 10% decrease in punishment leads to a 10% decrease in crime, generally speaking.

It's true that every once in a while, an innocent may be convicted of murder. For that reason, I support our system of "innocent until proven guilty" by proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and mandatory appeals. That means we are as sure as we could possibly be. Nothing is perfect. Just because something might cause an occassional unintended death is not enough to scrap the system that does the right thing 99% of the time. That would be like getting rid of child vaccination b/c it DOES, IN FACT, KILL a child every now and then.

I would not be opposed to the following system:

- Commit a serious crime, repay your debt to society by forced labor for varying lengths of time.

- Those who will be in jail for very long periods will receive mandatory training in a certain field of work (like construction). They will perform that work under close supervision of citizen professionals and the prison guards. Then, they will be in a habit of working and will have a trade to go to when they get out and they can repay their debt to society in a way that the short term prisoners cannot.

- Long term prisoners who refuse to learn will lose all privileges and will work the more menial jobs that don't require training. The ones who refuse to work will be punished with increasing degrees of severity, the final step being execution.

I would accept this system because knowing that the work is HARD and LONG and will do good things for society might be enough to satisfy justice. But locking them up in jail where they can sit around and watch T.V. (which is exactly what they would have done at home anyway, in between crimes) or at most polishing license plates, is NOT ENOUGH.

 

[xChevelle24]

Even when the death penalty is in effect, Congress usually rules it unconstitutional anyways. But I find that it could be effective in some cases

 

[Zombie_Fish]

The death penalty is also an abolishment of human rights. Even criminals have the bare minimum of rights, yet the death penalty destroys all these values and rights democracy is supposed to be based upon.

 

[Azraellod]

i am for the death penalty for even small scale crimes. i live in england, and let me tell you that the law enforcement methods are thouroughly pathetic. the best thing ive seen recently is the police getting given tazers to use, and i cant understand why this hasnt happened sooner.

the law really needs sorting out here. what do we have to do to get the government to take this seriously???

aww, poor baby murdered 5 people, but his parents were nice to him, so rather then putting him out of his misery like we should do, lets just lock him in an expensive room for 5 years befre releasing him back into the wild.

humans are animals, nothing more, nothing less. what would you do with a dog that savaged and killed 5 people??? you would freaking kill it, because it was dangerous.

the whole point of the law is not to deter people from committing crimes, but to protect those that dont. as it is, im fairly certain that if i went on a killing spree and killed everyone i hated, i would get barely any time in prison.

this is because of a vicious circle. say someone killed someone suspected of a crime, then said "i was preventing him from doing that crime" that would usually be accepted by some thick jury that doesnt know who is lying and who isnt.

so then this guy gets off free, and this sort of thing happens so much, that 12 random people have no clue who is a criminal and who isnt. anyone has freinds that they can get to say "no hes not a criminal", whether they are telling the truth or lying, really impossible to tell.

although the small scale crimes is just me (i think), it just tics me off about the current pathetic system of government. (nono, cant go into rant about the government, end here)

 

[GrimReaper801]

I'm not for the death penalty in it's current form.

On the other hand, like some have stated, some people shouldn't be alive. It's sad to say but it's true.

Anyone that can't be rehabilitated shouldn't be alive IMO. Doesn't matter if your crime is a simple robbery. If after getting out of prison you do it again then screw you. You're basically wasting my air and pumping CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh yeah, and hurting people. And since you're repeating your offense and got caught again you're obviously guilty which illiminate the whole chance that the guy is innocent or repenting.

Crimes like murder and rape should be treated the same way unless there proof beyond any doubt that you did it. If there proof beyond any doubt that you killed someone then a professional should evaluate if you can be rehabilitated. If you killed someone in cold blood then FU, you don't deserve life, no human should be able to kill another human in cold blood. If you have absolutly no regrets then you obviously don't care enough to get "better".

Of course for that to be an effective system we'd need to change quite a few things in society. I mean not all robbers do it because they're greedy or whatever, some do it for "good" reasons. I mean a guy who went to prison for, say, 1 year for some small robbery doesn't chance of getting any decent job(if any at all) which IMO isn't right. We want to rehabilitate people through prison but once they're out we don't even give them a chance to re-integrate themselves into normal society.

Also the prison system would need to be changed. Like someone said before some criminals have it better in jail than out on the streets. Why the heck does a murderer gets a frigin' tv while serving his time? Why are they even allowed to communicate with the outside? There no doubt that this small amount of contact allows some criminals to keep up with their criminal activities.

They'd also need to find some way of making it more "automated". Like I said before, a human being shouldn't be able to kill another human being in cold blood, it's simply unnatural, and lots of people carrying out executions have had mental issues. The whole pro-eye for an eye thing is really fun untill you're standing there knowing full well you're killing someone and you realise you don't feel good about it. If you do feel good about it then you've got some serious issues yourself.

 

[PxDn Ninja]

I read the OPs post, but nothing following, so forgive me if I repeat something already said.

I am completely for the death penalty. The greater the punishment or threat of punishment, the less likely it is that someone will commit a crime. AND if someone commits a crime so heinous that the death penalty is incurred, then by all means nuke them.

 

[retro himself]

You just watched a movie like "Green Mile" didn't you?
Not one of those "really good reasons" apply strictly just to death penalties. They apply to other forms of punishments too. And if the government wants to shut someone out, they'll strike them out, death penalty or no death penalty. They'll just murder them.
Most of the people that get the death penalty damn deserve it. Enough said.

 

[IHaveNoCoolness]

Response to three good reasons for abolishing the death penalty are three good reasons for the death penalty:

1) Some people will not rehabilitate. Child molesters, many when about to be released when asked if they are likely to repeat their offences admit that they likely will. What is the point to having someone like that around?

2) The cost it puts on society. Sure you could say the child molester above belongs in prison, but if they live 50 years, in incarceration, think of the money that would have been saved if they'd just caught a bullet in their brain and put under six feet of earth.

3) Closure. Imagine someone murdered the person closest to you or even yourself if you're that selfish that you're the most important person in your life. Would you not want revenge? An eye for an eye, and all that? Sure there's the "eye for an eye and the whole world is blind" thing, but still if someone killed me, I'd want them killed too.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I strongly disagree with death penalties and those that would argue them as "good".
I believe that most people can be made "normal", if given the appropriate "treatment" (a better word alludes me).

It must be acknowledge, however, that some people simply can not be reformed and the safest thing for them and "society", is to keep them within a secure location. Some might view it more humane to "euthanize" them... I don't.

 

[The Shade]

"Some who live deserve to die. And many who die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement."
-Mithrandir

Or something to that effect. Running on pure memory here.

 

[Lexodus]

At any rate, get the fuck rid of that stupid bail system.
-
"So, you killed fourteen people and ate their livers?"
"Ten thousand says I didn't."
"Didn't what?"
-

 

[ryai458]

im not sure either way although im leaning towards keeping it

 

[Swordsponge]

The death penalty is also an abolishment of human rights. Even criminals have the bare minimum of rights, yet the death penalty destroys all these values and rights democracy is supposed to be based upon.

Thats bullshit they had a right to be tried by jury.
the jury found them guilty after that they lost they fucking rights.
stick a bullet in there fucking heads be done with it and move on.
next will be like man if you do that shit and get caught there going to stick a fucking bullet in your head and let you rot think twice bud.
Any better that the crime rate would drop down to that of Singapore? i love it there you fuckup they cane your ass in public.
one of the safest place in the world to be a tourist

 

[Crowghast]

Oscar Wilde's Ballad of Reading Gaol influenced my decision on the death penalty early in life. No man deserves death, it's far too final. For each man he kills the thing he loves.

The greater the crime, the more necessary and urgent the charity. People often need to be helped.

But I agree with most of you (Some of you are just jumping up and down foaming at the mouths, so excuse me if I can't believe your stance) on the fact that there are plenty of irredeemable animals out there who have no sense and think nothing of humanity. In their case, and any other completely insane and helpless sadists, death would be an excellent release for them.

 

[Crowghast]

"Some who live deserve to die. And many who die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement."
-Mithrandir

Or something to that effect. Running on pure memory here.

Ah, Gandalf Stormcrow, you endless font of wisdom!

 

[jasoncyrus]

The death penalty is also an abolishment of human rights. Even criminals have the bare minimum of rights, yet the death penalty destroys all these values and rights democracy is supposed to be based upon.

Actually if we are to go back to when rights in general we developed, centuries ago. The only people who had rights were people who obeyed the law.

Just because you're human doesn't mean you have the right to live.

And as others have pointed out, some people just can't be fixed.

 

[Good morning blues]

OK, I need to be heading out pretty soon so I only went through and responded to the first page; I promise to get to the rest eventually. If I didn't respond to you, it's because you agree with me (and therefore we don't really have anything to discuss or debate) or because I can't take you seriously.

Three really good reasons to KEEP the death penalty:

1) Murder (you kill someone, we'll kill you back)
2) Rapists/Child abusers/molestors
3) Chavs.

All three above reasons are why we INTRODUCED it to begin with. Plus prison doesn't work for these idiots. Every person who murders in cold blood WILL re-offend, so far I've yet to hear about either a 1/2/3 who HASN'T re-offended.

As for 2, currently we only have the Death penalty for serial murderers and possible other extreme crimes. Not like a couple centuries ago where you got hanged for far less.

And as for number 3, thats why they have YEARS on death row. YEARS. To appeal and PROVE they are innocent with new evidence etc etc etc.

Personally, I'm all in favor of the death penalty, especially if theres a mountain of evidence against you and 3 or more credible witnesses.

You don't hear about people who don't re-offend because it's not news, it's just the system functioning properly. You don't hear news stories about people not getting swine flu for the same reason. If you're referring specifically to murder, the other reason you don't hear about rehabilitated convicts is because they spend the rest of their lives in prison or institutionalized.

I don't quite get what you're saying with your second point, maybe you could clarify for me? It doesn't matter how extreme the crime you're using the death penalty for is - it doesn't work as a deterrent for crimes like murder.

Yes, people have years on death row to appeal. No, this does not catch everyone - just ask Leonel Torres Hererra. It happened at least once, and almost certainly dozens of times in Texas alone. We cannot take the risk of it ever happening again.

Weeeeeelllllll....... I had a proper argument written about it, but it crashed, and im pissed off about it but here it goes.

I dont mean over crowding as kill of everyone, I mean as the ones who have zero chance of leaving that prison outside of a box.

Think about it, it would be cheaper to do, as they would dont have to feed them, if they use the lethal injection, its Humane and painless for them, no nasty consciounce on the executioners head, it was safe, and reletevley painless.

There, im not pro death, just defending my topics, and keeping peoples perspectives open.

Prison overcrowding is, to me, a separate issue - more related to drug policy, in my opinion. Either way, we cannot risk killing innocent people in order to prevent the comparatively trivial problem of prison overcrowding.

Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, it's more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives.

Surely using that mentality, all it takes is one wrongly accused innocent person to be sent to jail to render the whole law as broken?

I'm pro capital punishment. It sends a message, loud and clear;
"Do not fuck with us"

I'm very much an eye-for-an-eye person, unfortunately here in England, troublemakers on any scale have more rights than those they victimise. And as such, I hate our government, it is weak and pathetic. And I'd very much rather I feared my governments threats of death then laugh at how they struggle to regulate such a tiny little country.

Indeed it does only take the jailing of a single innocent man to render the criminal justice system (not law) broken. That said, jailing an innocent man is a completely different beast from executing him.

Capital punishment may be sending a message, but that message is not being received. As has been exhaustively noted in this thread, the death penalty is not effective as a deterrent; doing it just to say "do not fuck with us" when burdened by this knowledge is therefore little more hardass posturing and infantile dickwaving.

I'm sure people who have had their loved ones brutally murdered would have a difference of opinion. Not sayin I'm one of those people, but just saying. Kind of a hazy line between revenge and retribution when it comes to stuff like that. Sometimes life without parole isn't enough.

If there is one principle the criminal justice system should not be based upon, it is revenge. "Justice" and "revenge" are far from synonymous.

I am for the death penalty, as I believe that certain crimes should be punishable by removing your defective genes from out pool. That being said, I think other things could be done with the people that should be put to death.

Cheap labor. Make the guys that fuck up, do things that need doing. A lot of people that get put in jail ARE skilled at one task or another. My parents used to tell me that people in jail made license plates. Not sure if that's true, but if it is, then good. They should also do things like repair government owned structures.
Got a statue that needs cleaning, or a park that needs a deliterizer? Call Asshat #23452 and make him clean that crap up.

A lot of these guys have it better IN jail than they did OUT of jail. Books, excercise, food, and even cable TV. Even the U.S. Military makes you pay for all of those, save exercise. So make them work. Hell, give them the choice! A- you work 6 days a week doing things for the city. B- We kill you. Pick one.

The only problem is that the government actually uses it as a way to get revenge on people... Which sucks.

I mean, if you're going to destroy their lives anyway, then you might as well kill them (not that I think that you should kill them).

If you live in the US of A: I feel bad for you. That whole system is pretty messed up, to quote Rage Against the Machine- "Some of those that work forces, are the same that burnt crosses."

The system isn't really that bad. It's infinately more helpful, than it is hurtful. That being said, everyone knows it's not perfect. Unless there's some high profile thing going on, "revenge" isn't really a reason people are put to death. Unless by "revenge", you mean "people who dicked up BAD and need to be dealt with."

Forced labor is pretty clearly unconstitutional both in the United States and other developed societies. That said, there's no reason that people who are in for life sentences can't be given the option to do labour during their sentences.

Which do you think is worse though, keeping someone against their will, for an entire decade, or killing them? Either way they've lost their life because if a fault of someone else. You can't say "oh, it's only 10 years". That's a long f'n time to be kept away from society, and then to just be pushed out there one day, your record ruined, owning nothing in your life, having nothing to do. The world today changes too fast.

What's life in prison? 50 years? 10 is plenty to mess up your life for good. Especially if you didn't do anything wrong. Is it perfect? No. I would truely feel bad that an innocent person died, and the guilty got away. At some point though, you have to weigh things.

Yeah, putting innocent people in prison for 10 years is a pretty terrible deed - and that is why they are able to sue and reap millions of dollars in compensation. You do need to weigh things, and no matter what I am drawn to the conclusion that it is better to have the possibility of undoing some small part of the damage that you have done to the wronged innocent party, regardless of the circumstances.

I agree with the death penalty, just not the way the USA implements it. The only crime in my state that warrants the death penalty is aggravated first degree murder, although regular first & second degree are still in the same class of felony, they are not death penalty worthy. So saying that I think the death penalty should be decided by the victim's loved ones. Sounds like a huge burden, but I'm willing to bet most people who would be given that chance would take it seriously. Many people would see it as a form of retribution, but lets not kid ourselves, that's basically what it is in the end.

Also if execution is sentenced , whether by my proposed method or the one that is currently used, I think it should be carried out swiftly. Not the next day mind you, because I believe in appellation. But i think it's stupid that a person will sit in prison for 20 years wasting tax money only to be killed at the end of the road. Spending money on a condemned individual just seems pointless. I also don't see why it should cost a state a vast amount of money to carry it out when the cost of a bullet is only around 90 cents and does the job.

Someone above me said that it's not a deterrent, that's just bullshit. Maybe if they brought back public executions you would change your mind.

You really advocate condoning revenge killings? Is that really something that has a place in an enlightened, developed society?

And you don't need to take my word for the fact that it's not a deterrent - there are mountains of literature in criminology and psychology records.

Though it's hard to make a good argument for the death penalty I am for it
I'm a fan of eye for an eye justice

And why are you a fan of eye for an eye "justice"? Because it appeals to our most base and reprehensible urges? Because justice should be about instant gratification rather than improvement of society? Frankly, I don't think there are any defensible arguments in favor of eye-for-an-eye "justice."

 

[Rath709]

Perspective informs decision and policy. Perspective is unique to the individual based on their own expereiences. From my perspective, a significant portion of the human life on this planet should end for the benefit of the remainder. What is termed base and reprehensible by one is seen as entirely acceptable and justifiable by others.