A Highly Controversial Topic: The Death Penalty.

[sportytalk 0]

hmmmm, this is a tricky one and I wasn't sure which one to go for, so I voted for I don't care. The simple reason is that in my opinion, many cases do not warrant death, although people who cause suffering, like on the London bombings last year or on September 11th in America, I feel these get away lightly with just a prison statement.I don't really mind to be honest. If the government want to bring back the death sentence, which they most likely wouldn't be able to do, due to new health and safety laws etc, then it's fine by me. Hopefully, it will stop all this pain and suffering thats happening unnecessarily.Nice thread by the way, it's interesting to see different people's views about past punishment

Edited February 22, 2006 by sportytalk (see edit history)

[morosophos 0]

Rehabilitation is indeed an important factor in the punishment system. The ultimate goal of punishment is rehabilitation, that criminals might reform themselves to fit into society. This is the very reason why the capital punishment should not be used--it does not allow for rehabilitation. Once you're dead, you're dead. There is no reformation there.

 

Secondly, it scares me how much trouble the government is willing to endure in order to kill people. Defendents' lawyers fight as hard as they can to keep their clients from incurring the death penalty. Soi-disant justice nevertheless stops at nothing to depose these lawyers and do what some would unfortunately call just. Lawmakers in many places give energy to ensuring the death penalty doesn't meet its own untimely end. Just how bloodlusted in the state? It makes me sick.

 

Yet we must analyse lawmakers' motives for keeping the death penalty alive. No doubt it was once used for protection. Prisons not having been perfect at all times, society would have wanted to protect itself; at the time, such protection could only be guaranteed by death. Another viable hypothesis is that religion perpetuates the death penalty. Western religions, which tend to have punishment "Hell" and reward "Heaven," would suggest that evildoers have already condemned themselves, on some level, to Hell, or the respective equivalent. Such actions can be seen during the corrupt periods of the Catholic Church. However, what about modern religion? Didn't Christ state that killing was wrong?--Like people listen to him. Not saying that religion is per se the breeder of the death penalty, but it has surely played a role.

 

As for deterrence, it hasn't worked. If the death penalty truly deterred people from heinous crimes, no one would commit them, or at least a significantly fewer number. However, crimes warranting the death penalty have not shown a downward trend.

 

As an ultimate punishment, life in prison should be used. Society is at risk from the criminal, it costs significantly less (40% less to keep an inmate alive for life than a single execution, 70% less in court costs), and it gives due and proper respect for life.

[Albus Dumbledore 0]

personally, i think that if they did the crime they should pay the price..if they killed a family becuause they pissed them off they should get the death penelty jsut because they took away the lives of others..and basicly made them suffer...so we should make them suffer..make them sit on death row knowing they are going to die in 4 years..make them feel sorry for themselves them kill em..if you think that killing them in this painless way (leathel injection) is cruel and unusual punishment, try being electricuted in a chair...or the gas chamber..thats gotta suck!

[htdefiant 0]

I think it is a very complex arguement from both sides...

Pro-Death Penalty

Not wasting cell space

Not wasting government dollars

Depending on the case, the criminal getting what "s/he deserves"

no possibilites of it ever happening again

Anti-Death Penalty

It's a life!

Rehab possible

If rehab is done properly, this person could become a contributer to society

Part of my take is, life in prison without bail or parole is worse then death! If you are going to waste away with no chance of getting out (unless you are falsely accused, which is rare these days), then why not just die then? What's the point? Am I missing something on that?

 

Also, because of rehab possiblites, and if no rehab is available (worse punishment then death), I vote abolishment of capital punsihment.

[Albus Dumbledore 0]

rehab, on a murder, that is kind of like having these rapists in jail for a whole year...and then letting them back out onto the streets..even if they are regestered sex offenders...i do not think a murder should even have the option of rehab..i do not even think that a murder should have the option of pleaing insane..because then they could jsut stay in a mental phacility for 10 years or less and get better every so often then leave again...

[wariorpk 0]

I think that the death penalty should be used. Is it really fair that some one who murders someone gets to go to jail for life when they killed someone? How come this person should get less punishment than the innocent person they murdered? Well they should not. If there it is murder (not self defence) then that person should take what they dished out.

[JasperIk 0]

In jail you shouldnt be able to watch tv, go online, lift weights, or do any other activity. Harsh? NOT really you do the crime you pay the time. There should be no death penalty because they shouldnt have rights in jail, it should be a miserable experience they killed someone why should they be treated well? The death penalty, you would think would be the easy way out for members in jail to wish they could die, but instead its 'dreaded' cuz they are treated well in jail. They should be treaty poorly, because they have caused pain to others. They shouldnt have the luxary of tvs and computers they should be in a cell with a bed and a toilet, and it be SMALL.And for those who havent murdered, jail should be such a bad place that they never go back cuz itll SUCK. But instead jail is a pretty good place and many people like to be in it cuz they get everything for free.You did a crime why should you be treated like a king/queen?

[killdrake 0]

They shouldn't use the death penalty..When you're dead you don't know anything, you're just dead..It's better to put the criminal in a small cell with a small bed en 2 times per day getting food.. so he knows what he did and he suffers also pain..

[Full rune killer 0]

its worst to spend life in prison cause thenthe see what poor a chose they made and they might go crazy. chair wow no way that teaches them nothingbecause they don't feel it.

[morosophos 0]

The death penalty should not be used. After all, what is the purpose of punishment? The way you answer that question inevitably dictates how you view the issue. For instance, if you view punishment as a sort of exacting revenge, then the death penalty achieves that revenge: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. However, my belief is that punishment has several different functions.1. RehabilitationIdeally, any punishment given to the criminal would reform that criminal to be reassimilated into society. In this case, punishment is penance and a time to reflect on the bad deed in order to fix oneself to to good. However, the death penalty is execution, where the criminal has absolutely no time for reformation, as they are dead.2. ProtectionIf society has no means of defending itself from criminals, then they must be done away with. It would not be to anyone's benefit to have rapists and murderers roaming free. This is a major reasons why there are prisons?we can isolate them so they are unable to harm anyone. The presence of these prisons, however, makes the death penalty obsolete in this facet in industrialised nations, where prisons are almost fulproof. Raving lunatics are not escaping from their prisons any time soon.3. DeterrenceThis is probably the only real argument the death penalty may have for existing in most places. Deterrence means that the punishment prevents others from performing the same crime. However, let me pose a question. If someone is in such a fit of rage that they would even consider taking another person's life, are they going to have the common sense to put their anger aside and consider the consequences? My answer is no. Furthermore, there are no statistics showing any correspondence between death penalty and lower murder rates.So from these three goals of punishment, execution holds no place in most modern societies. Whereas I can see capital punishment being a necessity in some environments such as third-world countries where unstable governments and prisons have the tendency to allow prisoners to escape, industrialised, modern nations have no justification for the death penalty apart from sheer bloodlust. The death penalty, in fact, isn't even instituted in most western countries; the largest practitioner is the United States (which also outranks in murders-per-capita just about every other western country).

[sasuki 0]

i don't agree in death penalty, i prefer life in prision.What good will do if you just kill the person for their violent behaviors and crimes, isn't it better to let them repend for their sins with all their lifes?Killing is non-sense even because if you kill a person, probably he/she will never nothing ever again (i don't believe in life after death as it is thought... ) so you're giving peace to someone who doesn't deserve it... is there any real good in it?i think not... i would prefer to let them repend with all their lifes... but that's just me :)cheers

Edited May 12, 2006 by sasuki (see edit history)

[leeleelee 0]

Reports from NGOs opposed to the death penalty tend to publicise the view that abolition is a global trend. In 1977, 16 countries were abolitionist, while the figure was 122 for the end of 2005. In more detail, 86 countries have abolished capital punishment for all offences, 11 for all offences except under special circumstances, and 25 others have not used it for at least 10 years. However, Sri Lanka recently declared an end to its moratorium on the death penalty. A total of 74 countries retain it. Among retentionist countries, eight use capital punishment on juveniles (under 18). China performed more than 3400 executions in 2004, amounting to more than 90% of executions worldwide. In China, some inmates are executed by firing squad, but it has been decided that all executions will be in the form of lethal injections in the future. Iran performed 159 executions in 2004.[3]. The United States performed 60 executions in 2005. Texas conducts more executions than any of the other U.S. states that still permit capital punishment, with 359 executions between 1976 and 2006. Singapore has the highest execution rate per capita, with 70 hangings for a population of about 4 million.

In demographic terms, many retentionist countries have large populations and high population growth. When the relative demographic proportion between retentionist and abolitionist countries is taken into account, this may indicate an underlying trend of increase in retentionist population, which is seemingly shifted in favour of the number of abolitionist countries when new countries switch to being abolitionist. However, it is important to note that use of the death penalty is becoming increasingly restrained in retentionist countries, which is often masked by the population growth because it may nonetheless increase the number of executions being carried out. Japan and the U.S. are the only fully developed and democratic countries that have the death penalty. The death penalty was overwhelmingly practiced in poor, undemocratic, and authoritarian states, which often employed the death penalty as a tool of political oppression. During the 1980s, the democratization of Latin America (with its long history of progressive and Catholic tradition) swelled the rank of abolitionist countries. This was soon followed by the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, which then aspired to emulate neighbouring Western Europe. In these countries, the public support for the death penalty is low and/or decreasing. The European Union and the Council of Europe both strictly require member states not to practice the death penalty. The only European country to do so is Belarus - this is one of the reasons that Belarus is excluded from the Council of Europe. On the other hand, democratisation and rapid industrialisation in Asia have been increasing the number of retentionist countries that are democratic and/or developed. In these countries, the death penalty enjoys strong public support, and the matter receives little attention from the government or the media. This trend has been followed by partial democratisation in some African and Middle Eastern countries where the support for the death penalty is high.


see more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty

a bit more

At one time the death penalty was used in almost every part of the globe; but over the last few decades many countries have abolished it. Amnesty International classifies countries in four categories. 74 countries still maintain the death penalty in both law and practice. 86 countries have abolished it completely; 11 retain it, but only for crimes committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war). 25 other countries maintain laws permitting the use of the death penalty for ordinary crimes, but have allowed the death penalty to fall into disuse for at least 10 years. Finally, it is not unknown for countries to practise extrajudicial execution sporadically or systematically outside their own formal legal frameworks.

[Blue Lightning 0]

If someone has a mental deficiency large enough to make them want to kill someone else, I doubt that hearing about some unknown person being killed in some unknown room in a more than likely unknown prison (unless they've been before, then we have to worry about why such a person was ever let out) is going to deter them from doing anything. I would be more worried about being locked in a single room for the rest of my life.

Depends, do you want them to live the rest of their miserable life i utter hell in a high security prison or put an end to their life quickly.
I put don't care becasue its the closest option to depending on how they kill the person.

[homeloansnow 0]

In order for the death penalty to be reinstated, which I feel it SHOULD be, some changes need to be made:1. Grant ONE appeal. The convicted has 6 months to prepare his/her best case. If found guilty again, they get 1 month to get their affairs in order before they are executed. This saves the taxpayers HUGE amounts of money, as well as taking some of the burden off an already overtaxed court system.2. While in prison, provide only the basics: Food, shelter, clean clothing and baths. We as taxpayers should not pay for them to have cable TV, John Grisham novels or internet access. I will make an exception for internet access to research their appeal, but only under supervision.3. Use the money freed up by not paying $30,000 + a year per death row inmate to actually do some GOOD. Job training for low income and homeless, and for lesser offenders not responsible for KILLING SOMEONE, for example. Building more affordable housing. Small business loans. Food for OUR poor, not the poor in other countries who can't stop having kids long enough to find a way to feed themselves.4. Make it nationwide, not up to the states. One of the reasons the death penalty is so ineffective is that its use is not universal across the nation.Controversial? Sure. But how many survivors of these deviants would truly disagree?

[True2Earn 0]

You may not know it but the United States leads worldwide in child executions. In some countries, children are executed for crimes as young as 13, sometimes younger. And it is not necessary to take another person's life to get the death penalty. A good example is the 13 year old girl, Zhila Izadyar, who was condemned to death by stoning. Under Iran's "divinely ordained justice", girls as young as nine are charged with "moral crimes". The best that they can hope for is to die by hanging. And there are people who believe this to be justice. Girls who are virgins are first raped before being executed to "ensure they do not go to heaven."

 

One thing that people who are in favor of the death penalty do not consider is who is executing the condemned person. What gives this person the right to take another's life without any repercussion? Is man's law above that of God's? Is not the executioner guilty of taking a life? Or many lives, for that matter? An executioner takes lives unjustly. He kills the condemned without batting an eyelid. He may say that he is only doing his job but that is not an excuse. The death penalty is nothing more than government condoned murder. It sends the message that the citizens have no right to take a life but they can any time they wish.

 

Life is a precious gift given us by God. We all own our own lives. It is our property given to us by God. We all have the God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as spoken so bolding in the Declaration of Independence. There is no law above God's that gives mankind the right to take a life, whether through anger, violence or government-sponsored premeditated murder that they so elegantly label as justified execution.

 

There was a time when I was for the death penalty. But then I became educated and even read Supreme Court records on the death penalty. There are still some states in the USA that still have hanging, electrocution and the firing squad on the books. There is even a Supreme Court case on the books where the condemned man (who was overweight) was hanged and his head popped off. Another one where it took 5 times before they successfully electrocuted him and he screamed in bloody agony.

 

There are many examples of how barbaric execution is. You just have to do a little research. The execution of Allen Lee Davis is one such example. I quote an excerpt from the link:

His execution was so bungled that his cause of death was at least partially due to asphyxiation. In killing Davis in such an intentionally inept manner, the State of Florida sank to a gruesome level of barbarity. For those who don?t care that Florida violated Davis? civil rights, and for those, in fact, who applaud the cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on Davis, I can only say that in trashing his rights Florida trashed everyone?s rights. Does anyone really want the government in charge of torture as well as incarceration and execution? A government with such power would be known as a police state.

You can find a great deal of information concerning the death penalty at the Death Penalty Information Center. If you spend enough time there you will find out that the death penalty is not a deterrent. The southern US is a good example as they execute more people than any other region in America and yet their murder rate is the highest. You can also read about many of the botched executions.