Death Penalty, Right Or Wrong?

[ArmTheMob 0]

I agree with you all - however, while I won't cry for this guy, I do think that death penalty for this is a little too harsh. In other words - whatever substance he might be trafficking, if you think logically, it's upto the end-users to buy it OR NOT. In a way we too are responsible for indulging in such substances and letting this kind of business thrive. If all of us (invariably everyone knows about the "benefits" of drug usage these days) - were to exercise a good bit of self-restraint, such substances would find no market and flop down as lucrative business makers.

 

On the other hand, I strongly feel that death penalty should be awarded to psycopathic murderers. These guys are nothing short of cold-hearted butchers. While I'm aware that some murders occur under exceptional circumstances, such as self-defense & out of burning desire for revenge due to some harm that came to a loved one, but how do you explain terribly heinous acts where such psycopaths rape teenage girls and them chop them up to pieces to hide the evidence ??? To me, such offenses are completely unpardonable - I don't believe there exists even the least vestige of sanity & rationale in such people. They cannot and will never be converted through whatever form of jail sentence you might put them through. They are simply unfit to live in a normal soceity.

1064327426[/snapback]

With you all the way. It's unimaginable that people could even do that. There is no excuse for stuff like that and people who do things like that deserve much worse than the death penalty.

[s243a 0]

Well, here is my opinion and it may not be popular but it is what it is.

 

More than likely, the accussed knew what the penalty was in the country he or she commited the crime.  Do not participate in the activity unless you are prepared to accept the penalty for that activity if you are caught.  "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time".

 

I agree but as I mentioned earlier what if the law is unjust.

 

Death penalty for drug smuggling is a little harsh I think.  I prefer to reserve the death penalty for violent crimes.  The overwhelming majority of the World does not view the death penalty as a crime deterant.  I agree with that, it isn't a deterant at all and shouldn't be viewed as such.  The death penalty is a solution to a problem.  Some people can not be rehabilitated into decent human beings. 

 

A solution to what?

 

Here is my list of death penalty crimes.

Most crimes involving the death of a human.  Few exceptions here like vehicle "accidents" for whatever reason.

 

If someone dies as the result of a fist fight do they deserve the death penalty?

 

Nearly all forms of rape.  (I would exclude "date rape" because there is a lot of room for false accussations and misunderstandings {change of heart after the fact}) - "Date Rape" involving the use of an illeagal drug or other physical abuse should still get the death penalty.

 

I think this comment really highlight the death penalty is an emotional choice and not a logical choice. You base what crimes are worthy of the death penalty not on how much damage a person suffers but how vile you consider the crime. This is not a position unique to you and it is really hard to argue for or against.

 

Let me elaborate on this more. One fundamental principle of crime and punishment is the punishment should fit the crime. This is pretty much equivalent to the biblical reference of an eye for an eye. Thus if we accept this as our basis for crime and punishment we do not logically conclude that rape is worthy of the death penalty. But if you try to argue this position the opposition will go on the offensive and make the distasteful accusation that you are supporting the rapist.

 

At this point the futility of the debate is apparent. People can quote statistics until their eyes are blue but it really comes down to how each individual personally feels. Does our sense of anger and disgust for a crime out way our belief that it is wrong to kill.

 

I don’t think we can pretend for a second that there is any logic to this debate especially if we choose to give out the death penalty for rape and not for assault. With assault we can measure the damages. We can look at the bruises and the broken bones. We can see what wounds are permeate and what will heal.

 

For rape the majority if not all of the damages could be purely emotional. They are not quantifiable. I don’t want to dismiss the significance of emotional damage as emotional damage can be far worse then physical damage. As pain is only temporary and many wounds heel. I can’t say if I was rapped if it would be much worse for me then a debilitating assault or not as bad.

 

All I can say is if it is much worse why is it much worse? Is the majority of the damage that results from rape a natural emotional response or is it something we are taught. And if the damage is purely emotional can we be taught to better deal with it. Can we strengthen our inner self to better deal with things that we don’t like. If one person suffers worse emotionally for a crime then another should the punishment be different? Or to give another example, If a seatbelt could of saved someone’s life is the charge of vehicular manslaughter appropriate.

 

Anyway, I think society if free to choose or not to choose the death penalty as an action for a crime. Be it murder or rape. However, if you choose the death penalty for rape there will be a lot more mistakes. What bugs me is the clame of a moral high ground of people that choose to deal out death as punishment when infact they are responding more with the emotional mentality of a mob in a which hunt then a companionate missionary.

 

In the United States the justice system is so lame.  Prison is not any real deterant to crime because all of the human rights activist have ruined the prison system.  What about the human rights of the victims of the criminals.  Don't the victims rights need to be satisfied first?  Prison is simply not harsh enough in the U.S. 

I don’t know what it would be like to be in prison but I do know it is a place I wouldn’t want to be. As for if it should be harsher, that depends on our objectives. I would like to point out that if our goal is to rehabilitee someone then we don’t want to put them into a prison system that will make them angry and depressed. So how can we be harsh and help rehabilitee someone. Perhaps the boot camp is the right approach. Give them discipline make them work, learn and exercise. Maybe a lot of surveillance to make sure everyone behaves and if they step out of line then we can talk about real punishment. In the old days they use to have solitary confinement. It was removed because it was considered cruel and unusual. But once a person is already in jail what recourse do we have for when they break the rules.

 

The only real problem with the death penalty in the U.S. is that it takes too long.  We store these dead prisoners for years before we actually put them to death.  What is the point of that.  The seemingly endless appeals process in the U.S. is ridiculus.  We keep them alive for years and sometimes decades prior to execution.  It cost like a million dollars a year to keep an inmate on death row.

It is a choice we make as society. We have the choice of doing our best to make sure mistakes aren’t made (endless appeals) or doing our best to save money. There is little middle ground.

 

So you'll argure that with my system a few innocent people may be executed.  Yeah, that is a tiny possibility and even tinier problem.  The justice systm isn't perfect and a few innocents may die in the process but I think it is worth it and here is why.  Rarely are saints accussed, procecuted, found guilty, and sentenced.  If you don't want to suffer the death penalty, I highly reccomend not putting yourself in a situation to be falsely accused of a crime.  What I mean to say is that those persons that have been wrongly executed have in most cases done something else for which they deserve such a punishment.  It is the law of averages and average people don't participate in the activities that lead to violent crimes.

I find this opinion interesting. It sounds terrible for someone to be wrongly accused but the fact is in every aspect of life there are risks society accepts and people die because of those risks. If we wanted to illuminate all possible risk of people dieing from human error, know one would ever drive a car and maybe not even cross a bridge. The notion that we can save everyone is ridiculous if we want to have a reasonable level of freedom. So the question is not really are mistakes made but what level of mistakes are an acceptable risk.

[ArmTheMob 0]

Just to clear things up, these days people don't get the death penalty unless they really are guilty. Most juries don't give the death penalty if there is any possibility of them being innocent. Usually the death penalty is for people proven beyond guilty by forensics. So I don't think you have to worry about innocent people getting the death penalty anymore.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

To ArmTheMobNo, dealth penalty is still given out. And sometimes forensics are wrong. We are even now freeing people based on DNA evidence, where we once thought they were guilty beyond any possible doubt. Now that we have DNA evidence, we may think we won't have this problem anymore. That our evidence is ACTUALLY beyond a doubt. Then, in 30 years, we will discover that.......You get the idea.Once we have somebody, killing them is sort of beyond the point. In a cell, they cannot hurt people (provided the cell is actually a cell). On the other hand, we CAN learn from them, and figure out (or try) why the hell they went bonkers, and what we can do about that.Of course, this solution requires people to listen, and think, instead of freak out and play politics, so...good luck on that ever happening.

[akijikan 0]

As punishment for crimes, I really don't get it. It's actually the easy way out; with life in prison, the person will have to think about what they've done for the rest of their life. Much worse.

1064327401[/snapback]

On first reaction, I agree. Seems like life in prison would be a slow form of torture. I'd lose my freaking mind after spending half a life time in jail.

 

But then I look at what happens in court. It's interesting how many people plea down to life, so the don't have to have the death penalty. Somehow, when you're in that situation, when you've been caught and are facing sentencing, when you know you're guilty. Spending the rest of your life somehow appears better than just ending it quickly.

 

To me the whole thing probably becomes something like and near-death-experience. You realize, "Hey! I really might be put to death!" It's a whole nother feeling (I'm sure, but I wouldn't know!) than what we think of, sitting here and speculating.

 

Do life-sentence prisoners without parole really change all that much once they are in jail? I don't know. Do the people who were facing the death penalty and plead down make a difference from their cell? I don't know. Is there ever a shawshank redemption-esque enlightenment and improvement? I doubt that.

 

Do I believe in the death penalty as a valid punishment? Yeah. For Drugs? Probably not. But I do have to point out the effect it has on those Asian countries that have that option open for the judge. It doesn't curtail the huge organized crime gangs, but it cuts down. the small time street guys alot. Worth it? I don't know. I know that I did do things that would have landed me the death penalty if I had been doing them in those Asian countries that do that (though I've moved on). So that right there makes it hard for me to decide if it's worth it. Maybe, you get to punish the druggers but save on the prison overpopulation?

 

I believe it's a good one for killers and such. The only problem is that we'll never stop those "heat-of-the-moment" killers. How many times have you been angry and done something you regreted? You didn't kill anyone, but that's how some murders happen. How many times in those moments did you think of the consequences when you did the wrong thing? Me neither. Neither do the killers who make the "angry-mistakes." Sometimes this is a reason for a lesser sentence. How does that make sense? It may not be premeditated, but when "heat-of-the-moment" killings are not given lesser sentences, it might cut back on them.

 

One last thing I have to talk about is a irresponsible statement in this thread

 

Are the prisons really overcrowded because criminals donât take it seriously or is it because a of poverty?

Excuse me? You mean if I am in poverty than I'm not responsible for my actions? Poverty is never the reason for a crime. People making choices are reasons crime happens. That has to be one of the most socially irresponsible suggestions I have seen in a while.

[s243a 0]

Are the prisons really overcrowded because criminals don’t take it seriously or is it because a of poverty?

One last thing I have to talk about is a irresponsible statement in this thread

Excuse me? You mean if I am in poverty than I'm not responsible for my actions? Poverty is never the reason for a crime. People making choices are reasons crime happens. That has to be one of the most socially irresponsible suggestions I have seen in a while.

1064327739[/snapback]

It is called desperation. Desperate people do desperate things. If someone can’t pay the bills they can’t feed themselves are they suppose to go hungry? I agree that many poor people will hold there moral principles high no matter how much they suffer but not everyone is that strong. The easier life is for people the less likely they will look for an and easy way out. Some people think there situation is so bad that they would rather be in prison then on the streets. At least in prison you get shelter and 3 square meals a day. If you don’t believe me then check the statistics. Look at the employment rate vs the crime rate. See if there is any correlation.

[pomjim 0]

The attempt to draw parallels regarding poverty & crime is useless. If there was a connection, then why is it that there is, generally speaking, less crime in poor countries than rich ones?Most crime like theft etc are committed becaue of greed and envy.

[organicbmx 0]

on the issue of a death penalty i have a solid view that i really feel is uncontestable - but no dout it will be it is uncontestable that not everyone who is in jail is guilty. humans make errors, sometimes court is a place to purely gudge who's word is more valued. There ARE incarcerated people who are innocent. therefore there have been people put to death for crimes they did not commit. i feel that in this situation that is not aceptable.also i had read [until he was realeased] for 2 years the weekly article of a convicted murderer and he was fully repentant and fully rehabilitated. when he left he became a normal member of society that paid his bills and worked a job.so for the prison situation you can either ask for punishment which will most likey leave a resentful, hating person that is more likely to re-offend. or you can rehabilitate and hopefully gain a new contributing member of society.

[s243a 0]

If there was a connection, then why is it that there is, generally speaking, less crime in poor countries than rich ones?

1064327856[/snapback]

Russia would be a good example of this right . Anyway as another example take a country like the united states and compare property values with crime rates.

[beatgammit 0]

I personally don't agree with the death penalty being used for drug smuggling, but since this penalty was made very clear, I guess I can't argue with it.I believe in the idea of the death penalty. I believe that the death penalty should be applied whenever someone has the ability to harm people if left alive. This includes: serial killers, serial rapists (who have gone through therapy and failed multiple times), pedifiles (same as previous), calculating murderers (lots of pre-planning), terrorists, genocidal dictators (Saddam Hussein) and the like. I think the death penalty has not been used enough, with people like Gary Ridgeway (raped and killed 49 women before he was caught, got the death penalty, but got lessened to life terms instead because he told police about where and how he killed many of the women). If there is any way to rehabilitate the individual, then the death penalty should not be used, otherwise, the individual should be killed because he has no chance of rehab and does not deserve to live anymore (he has given up that right).Oh, I use he in the general sense referring to both men and women.

[Daniel666 0]

In the United States the justice system is so lame. Prison is not any real deterant to crime because all of the human rights activist have ruined the prison system. What about the human rights of the victims of the criminals. Don't the victims rights need to be satisfied first? Prison is simply not harsh enough in the U.S.
vujsa

Only Humans deserve human rights..........someone who could rape and kill a child is not human

[ChrisAF071405241549 0]

In my opinion, there is only one rational reason to give a sentence of death. That is murder. Yet I do believe that there are two very rational reasons to oppose the death penalty even in this case. The first reason is that not every criminal convicted is actually guilty. The death penalty for every murder case means that some innocent people will get killed. The second, and some may find this silly, is that it gives the government a right that we ourselves don't have. If you come home and find out your family has been murdered you're not allowed to kill the guy who did it, but government is.

[pino 0]

First, I read something about the US (previous posts), where the jail system is supposed to be too nice? Really have to ask, where you from? I'm from Holland, and in comparison with where I'm from, the US has quite a harsh criminal system.But, to get back on the subject - Death penalty, right or wrong? - I just have to say wrong. I know, me too can imagine situations in which the death penalty looks like the right solution (I think numerous examples already are mentioned in previous posts..), but, still a lifetime in jail is much worse. I think...What I do think is that the justice system cán be too 'nice' sometimes. Especially here in Holland! In this country you're better of raping someone (about 3-7 months jailtime) then burning 7 cars (about 2-3 years!)... It's hopeless..

[foolakadugie 0]

I don't think I would ever support killing another person unless your own life depended on it. I just don't see any good reason t o do so. As some people have already said, it is an easy way out. Sure they go through the stress and fear just before hand, but then it is over. Keeping someone in a boring prison cell for the rest of their life is much worse punishment. They know they will be there fr the rest of their life, with no chance of freedom and they have to wait it out. Not many people get the death penalty so I don't suppose that it puts too much more of a burden on our taxes(I could be wrong about that. I don't really know) to keep them alive.

[foolakadugie 0]

I don't think I would ever support killing another person unless your own life depended on it. I just don't see any good reason t o do so. As some people have already said, it is an easy way out. Sure they go through the stress and fear just before hand, but then it is over. Keeping someone in a boring prison cell for the rest of their life is much worse punishment. They know they will be there fr the rest of their life, with no chance of freedom and they have to wait it out. Not many people get the death penalty so I don't suppose that it puts too much more of a burden on our taxes(I could be wrong about that. I don't really know) to keep them alive.