the Death Penalty
 

I was reading a thread here a few minutes ago, and the death penalty was discussed in it a bit... it got me thinking, and now i want your guys's opinions on it.

I personally think that you can't respond with violence with violence... it's like what Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Thoreau said. You have to fight back peacefully... people say "fight fire with fire", or in this case "fight hate with hate" and "fight death with death"... but doesnt that just make more hate, and death?

i can understand the position of those who dont want to pay taxes to feed them, and they're rightful in that belief. but still, i dont think that it's a human beings right to take another one's life. And when you do that, you're creating a path which goes back to the times of the old testament... an eye for an eye, and such. And if you're not the better person, going above using killing to solve your problems, how are you really any better than the killer him/herself?

and besides, isnt life rotting away in a tiny cell in solitary confinement a bit worse a punishment than the death penalty?

Ehhh, i dont know where my opinions are on the death penalty, There are pro's and con's to it for me. But yea, i do think life in prison is a far worse fate then the death penalty.

It may depend on what that particular individual did to receive such verdict. Give an example of a crime. Would you say that someone who had raped and killed little girls should still be left in solitary confinement? Even if it's evident that this individual believes it wasn't an act of crime and that he had done nothing wrong? Not even a shred of regret.

It's not an eye for an eye in this case I would think. This person had destroyed the lives of many families. The family will be haunted by that and the fact that he still breathes while their little girl had suffered such a horrible fate. Would his life alone be enough to make it up? No, not at all, his death isn't bringing them back but for those families perhaps they will be a little at ease knowing such a monster is no longer here.

If a state could prove conclusively that a person was guilty of a capital crime, I would be in favor of the death penalty. As it stands, many people are put to death that aren't guilty of the crime they've been convicted. That's intolerable to me. I'd rather some guilty people go free rather than punish an innocent.

Granted, this is fairly idealistic and it's probably impossible since humans are flawed. The most pragmatic approach is to not execute the convicted, but the imprison them. Then, if new evidence surfaces, a new trial can be had.

For more reading, visit The Innocence Project.

but if he rotted away in a cell in a mental assylum, in solitary confinement (because that's deffinitely where that kind of person would belong), melting in his own insanity, never hearing another person's voice, having to stew there with no way out, wouldnt it be a bit more of a just punishment? you're not killing him, and not continuing the cycle of violence, but you're still granting him the punishment he deserves

hm... but still, it wouldnt do anything for the loved ones to know he was dead. i mean, there's very little difference between that and a maximum security prison. and if you kill... is it right to kill a killer? i mean, it's better than an innocent, but you shouldnt take anyone else's life unless yours is threatened. i believe it's not for us to decide who lives or dies. as long as there's little to no chance of escape, there's no point in killing him, especially since i read somewhere that it costs more money to find a doctor who will use the lethal injection than to feed the prisoner and stuff... dont know if that's true though.

If not us, and by that I mean we as a society, then who?

*shrugs*i believe it would be God's decision, but that gets into religion, which this isnt about. i dont think society should choose to kill. that takes us back to more prehistoric times... more primitive. if we dont have the common sense to stop the killing, how are we any better than apes?

That would fall under unethical treatment of prisoners, or torture. I believe the U.S. outlawed torture in federal prisons.

not neccesarilly torture. but if they're psychopathic enough to think that it's ok to rape and kill, with no moral consequences, i'm relatively sure solitary confinement is appropriate

Aaaand that's where you lost me. It's hard to have rational discourse with someone that holds irrational truths so near and dear.

Here's a little newsflash, we ARE apes.

but is it not the goal of humanity to rise to greater heights and become the best we possibly can? to extend our understanding of the world, and to extend the correctness of our actions? to extend our moral correctness, and try and live the best we possibly can?

God's "decision" isn't going to help us.

Sorry.

That may be a goal of some humans, and it is laudable, but to say that humanity itself has some sort of ultimate goal is missing the mark. There is no fate, no ultimate end point. We are what we make of it.

If you want to have that goal, boffo. More power to you. My goal might be to have sex with the most women possible, or to acquire the most wealth, or to write the perfect sonata. I think life can be summed up like this: "Your mileage may vary."

good point. but humanity seems to be working together to progress. we always have been, even though it's just for our own good at first glance. for example, no matter your lifestyle, you'll most likely have a job, working to provide some form of service, or thinking to solve a problem. that will cause an advancement of some sort, when the company is working as a whole. that advancement will snowball. for example, do you think the first man to make fire was thinking "if i do this, i'll change the world"? no, he was more likely than not thinking "i wonder what will happen if i rub these sticks together..." Therefore, even if it's unwittingly, we all play a part in some form of advancement, whether it be philosophical, ecological, technological, political, whatever.

what exactly do you mean? your comment doesnt make sense to me. i'm simply saying there's no point in killing the prisoner. the death penalty just ends things. as previously stated by hrae, new evidence comes up all the time. however, there's no way to be 100% sure. plus, as i said before, the death penalty is more expensive than feeding the prisoner. i was simply saying that no human has the right to take that of another, no matter who the person. unless your life, or the life of another is in danger, you shouldn't kill, therefore giving a moral reason to stop it along with the logical one.

I'm referencing this quote. I'm saying that someone has to decide.

Thus quoth the sage Geddy Lee, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

I think people should have the choise.
If they want to die or spend the rest of their lives in jail.
ofc, then they would need to ake killing quick and painless.

...they're criminals. i dont think that they should really have a choice at that point ._.

the judge deciding is for the best.

Yeah, I agree with Hrae here.. (or his first post at least.. skim read the rest)

That just because we cant be SURE that someone has committed a deadly crime.. the fact that a wrong person could be killed... I don't support death penalties..

I'd think that most victims and their families are "relieve" to some point, to know that the person is locked away from the society... Just that they cant be out harming more people is usually the most important thing... (or I would think it is)

I just don't like the idea that people with a "life sentence" could be release after 30 years or something...

good point... but i dont see how the life sentance would expire after thirty years, unless they got through on parole, or were proven innocent.

Yeah something like that.. I still don't understand all that parole stuff...

well, basically, if a criminal is convicted, he has a chance for parole every so many years. he/she then goes on trial again, and tries to prove he/she's either innocent, or has reformed. if they can, they're released, but if he commits any crimes for a certain amount of time, he's sent back.

Is it? I thought it had something to do with being good, and "holidays" and stuff.. =/

meh. maybe. im no lawyer. but i think that's it... you get let out early with good behavior, but there's no holidays. not that i know of. and the good behavior doesnt really apply with a life sentence.

Hmm yeah.. a life sentence should mean.. life sentence..

I don't get all the illegal jargon too

my mom watches crime shows constantly so i know a bit about it XD

I think it's fair. IMO, if you kill someone for a reason other than self-defense or protecting someone, you deserve to die also. And it clears out our prisons. Slowly. Very slowly.

People can be wrongfully be convicted and punished, but that's unavoidable in any system.

who are we to say who lives or dies? vengeance is not the way to go... an eye for an eye doesnt work. so you kill someone... so they kill you... how is that fair, really? i mean... if you kill, it's wrong, regardless of who it is you kill. there's no reason to kill unless it's to save your life. if you shed another humans blood, it's still wrong...

I think all heinous crimes should be served out locked up in prison til the day they die or at least on the verge of becoming insane cuz they've been in there so long. And their rights inside that prison should be determined by their mental health (like... if they obviously aren't regretting it, make their time there even harsher).

I think that the death penalty should at least be an option for inmates. I would definitely choose it after a while if I was locked up for life with no chance of freedom.

Law says who lives or dies in this kind of situation. And law is needed in order for society to remain out of chaos.

And please be realistic, if everyone you knew was killed, you would certainly want to have revenge.

LOL.

I'd like to know how this works.


The Death-Penalty would not be needed in a perfect world. Even the threat of life-imprisonment and detainment isn't enough for some people. If you ask who we are to decide who lives and dies, then you clearly haven't absorbed the scope of the crimes the Death-Row inmates commit.


Some people just cannot be accepted into society. There are some crimes for which even life isn't enough. It may sound inhumane, but why waste everyone's time and money on keeping someone alive but forever locked away? I'm sure that if you asked some people facing the rest of their lives in jail, death would be a mercy.

I heard each in-mate costs around $40,000. Dunno if its montly or yearly. Either way, thats a lot x.x

Maybe you should start watching a bit more. I'm speaking of the US justice system here, other countries may have a different system in place. Parole is available to inmates that can show they are ready to reintegrate back into society. There are life sentences with the option of parole. That's determined during sentencing. These are the sentences with the year range (5-10, 20-15, 15-life). Some states also have the "life without possibility of parole" sentence.

Parole is determined by a hearing of a parole board (generally, this might vary state to state). If granted, the parolee must abide by certain conditions and restrictions agreed upon before the release. If these conditions are not met, the parole is revoked and they must return to jail. Some states have gotten rid of the system entirely.

no way! it cost a person's salary to keep a prisoner? Gosh surely their live spending shouldnt be more than how much us crime-free people earn and spend on ourselves...

then it makes me wonder how much it cost to give someone a death sentence.. does all the cost come from the legal and court fees to determine the death sentence? or is it.. really the physical cost for the procedure...

You don't know if that's punishing him, because you can't understand his psychopathic mind. Like Loveless, said if a person is going to kill multiple people, I think he deserves death. Jesus, whom you hold so dearly, said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So murder, and get murdered. *shrug*

Or, to take this argument to an even more absurd level, who are you to say what punishment he deserves? Who are you to say if he even deserves punishment?

@Vasu I'd agree, but that Bible quote is really taken out of context xD

Geez, you said what I wanted to say... but to add to that, who are you to say that the person deserves to live even after causing grief to many lives?

If someone is given a death sentence, I've said this already I think, they would have done something that deserves such a decision. You say to not face violence with violence but you know what? It's obvious that not everyone thinks that way... if they did there would be no such thing as a death sentence.

meh. i was just stating my opinion. i believe that if you continue bloodshed, it simply wont stop. you kill someone, so you're given the death sentence... why not stop the killing and just keep the person away from society? i admit i was probably going overly dramatic when i talked about solitary, but the people who first criticized life imprisonment were talking about the need for a harsher sentence. they said that it would comfort the family that that kind of person could never get out of jail again. i was talking about a specific circumstance, in which a rapist/murderer/pedophile was involved, so if you're going with the "eye for an eye" punishment, as i believe vasu was just advocating, you WOULD be going with that, locking up a person with no way out, just as the criminal had given the child no way out of it's hell. im not advocating that kind of thinking, neccesarilly, but simply pointing out a flaw in your argument.

But also, the life sentence, as stated previously, would give the innocent a chance at getting back out. you cant really go and ressurect a guy who just got the lethal injection, saying "oops... DNA evidence just came out. sorry about that :D", though it would still be quite horrible for a person who spent like, 10 years in jail to get that news too...

Bloodshed will continue to happen. If the entire world instantly stopped state-sponsored executions, people would not suddenly stop killing each other.