PDA

View Full Version : Death Sentence VS. Life Sentence


Winter Wonderland
July 5th, 2011, 12:50 PM
What's your opinion on them? Which shouldn't exist? Which is worse?


Personally, I believe the life sentence shouldn't exist. It's cruel to stick someone in a prison with a bunch of criminals for the rest of their natural life. I think it would be a fate worse than death, and people are already complaining that death is too harsh.

Cherrim
July 5th, 2011, 12:58 PM
I'm not sure I believe in the death sentence for anything. I'm not even religious but I don't believe any human has a right to kill another, even as punishment for any amount of crimes they did. But anyone who's done something horrible enough to get a potential death sentence definitely deserves to be locked away from the general populous, so that's what the life sentence is for.

The only thing that makes me sort of waver on my position is the idea that someone who might have killed many people is taking up money because they need to be looked after, fed, etc. in jail and that doesn't seem fair.

Freedom Fighter N
July 5th, 2011, 01:00 PM
Not so different. You're going to die anyway.

It's obvious what is worth. Life sentence, of course. I think that some people should rot in jail if they do something terrible. They will more likely die from another cause than natural death anyway.

Winter Wonderland
July 5th, 2011, 01:03 PM
I don't think the life should exist though. To lock someone away until someone else kills them or they just rot away in confinement is more cruel than just ending their life.

shenanigans
July 5th, 2011, 01:08 PM
I absolutely agree with the Life Sentence for murderers. You take someone's life, you pay for it with yours. You can throw in the fact that they have to spend life in prison instead of just being killed through the Death Sentence because of the damage they caused the family of the murdered person too.

Cassino
July 5th, 2011, 01:12 PM
Killing someone removes concern of their existence, the problem is entirely gone and we can all move along. It's efficient, that's all. Of course I don't support death sentences being handed out carelessly, I'm just saying, that's why we tended toward executions prior to any notion of 'human rights'. Besides, I'm not vindictive enough to wish that people suffer to their ends in prisons — the common argument that death is the 'easy way out' actually doesn't go in favour of imprisonment, the way I see it.

Winter Wonderland
July 5th, 2011, 01:16 PM
Exactly. The life sentence is so much more cruel than the death sentence. If you pay for a life with your life, then boom. Problem solved.

donavannj
July 5th, 2011, 01:31 PM
The only thing that makes me sort of waver on my position is the idea that someone who might have killed many people is taking up money because they need to be looked after, fed, etc. in jail and that doesn't seem fair.

On this point, in the US, the death penalty costs about as much as a life sentence due to the higher likelihood of appeals for death sentences, which can drag on for years, a time period in which the public has to pay to support those sentenced to death row while their appeals get processed as well as paying for the legal costs of the appeals for both sides.

FreakyLocz14
July 5th, 2011, 02:09 PM
When you take away somebody else's life intentionally, the only justice that can be done is that your life is taken away from you. You still enjoy extensive appeal rights, and the method of execution used is usually far more humane than how the victim was killed.

インフェルノの津波
July 5th, 2011, 02:18 PM
Can you be let out of prison with good behavior on Life?

shenanigans
July 5th, 2011, 02:25 PM
Can you be let out of prison with good behavior on Life?
I know that this is pretty common in England. Someone can kill someone else, be jailed for "life", and be let out on bail after just 10 years or sometimes even less. I believe two teenagers who tortured and killed a toddler a long time ago got something pathetic like 8 years. I skimmed this so I could be wrong, but reading material (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger#Appeal_and_release).

In June 2001, after a six-month review, the parole board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole_board) ruled the boys were no longer a threat to public safety and could be released as their minimum tariff had expired in the February of that year. The Home Secretary David Blunkett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blunkett) approved the decision, and they were released a few weeks later on a lifelong licence after serving eight years.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger#cite_note-bulger_blunkett_statement-55)[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger#cite_note-bbc_bulger_victims_danger-56) Both men were given new identities and moved to secret locations under a "witness protection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_protection)"-style action.[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger#cite_note-witness-57) This was supported by the fabrication of passports, national insurance numbers, qualification certificates and medical records.I can't really be bothered to remove the links but yeah. Not only did they get an early release, but they got given new identities too.

Maybe this is off-topic tho since I don't know if these two were sentenced life in the first place. They should have been, imo.

FreakyLocz14
July 5th, 2011, 02:34 PM
Can you be let out of prison with good behavior on Life?

If you get Life Without the Possibility of Parole here, the only way you can be let out is if you win an appeal and your sentence is reduced or you are exonerated of the crime.

Cherrim
July 5th, 2011, 02:39 PM
Can you be let out of prison with good behavior on Life?
It depends on the country. I think here in Canada, if you're sentenced to life, there's usually a date set (between 7 and 25 years, iirc) where there's a possibility of parole following (and with continuing) good behaviour. I imagine it's similar in other countries.

Myles
July 5th, 2011, 04:43 PM
If we're taking people's lives if they're not a threat to anyone else, how does that make us a civilised society? Morality is subjective; who says that we have the ultimate right to decide who gets to live?

A life sentence is not too cruel a punishment; if you're arguing we be more lenient on them, then why not let them decide? Are you really sure that's the reason you're arguing for the death penalty? Because some people who didn't commit murder get the life sentence in America.

A life sentence is a way to protect innocents. If people in the future have a different, more refined sense of morality than us (as we do than people in the past), than we would look like savages for killing people, but probably not if we were just keeping people away from people to protect them.

Really, if life imprisonment is so bad, then we just need to improve the prisons.

Sodom
July 5th, 2011, 05:16 PM
I'm not exactly for the death sentence, but I wouldn't exactly say I'm against it either. It makes poetic sense to me that if you take away someone's human right to a life, then you forfeit your own. But I think we need to be VERY VERY SURE that the person actually did it before handing out that punishment.

That said, life sentences are also good in that a murderer gets tortured for the rest of their life having to remain in one small surrounding.

The one thing to consider is the cost of it all. It sounds callous, but a murderer is not worthy of a life. Why have taxpayers pay to support him/her for however many years it takes him/her to die, when they could just end his/her life at the beginning and have the same outcome only cheaper?

~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~
July 5th, 2011, 05:21 PM
What's your opinion on them? Which shouldn't exist? Which is worse?


Personally, I believe the life sentence shouldn't exist. It's cruel to stick someone in a prison with a bunch of criminals for the rest of their natural life. I think it would be a fate worse than death, and people are already complaining that death is too harsh.

If they did something so evil (such as killing) or something (i dont know what exactly) its good for them to stay in jail so they can live with the rest of their life thinking about what they did as it slowly eats them within. But I do believe that life in jail is worse because of the scenario I just gave.


:t354:TG

donavannj
July 5th, 2011, 05:31 PM
The one thing to consider is the cost of it all. It sounds callous, but a murderer is not worthy of a life. Why have taxpayers pay to support him/her for however many years it takes him/her to die, when they could just end his/her life at the beginning and have the same outcome only cheaper?

I don't know how it is in Australia, but here in the US, as I mentioned above in this thread, contrary to popular perception, it isn't exactly cheaper to sentence someone to death, due to the fact that, most of the time, they will drag out the appeals process for years (presumably to keep themselves alive as long as possible), and all this time they are being provided for in prison (other than being among a bunch of other inmates and subpar bedding, they live quite comfortably there) as well as having a state-supplied attorney throughout the appeals process, in most cases.

TRIFORCE89
July 5th, 2011, 06:34 PM
The only thing that makes me sort of waver on my position is the idea that someone who might have killed many people is taking up money because they need to be looked after, fed, etc. in jail and that doesn't seem fair.
That's my stance. I'm not really "an eye for an eye" person, I just think in dollars XD

And not in every situation either. Really just for absolutely horrific crimes that are 100% proven (like, if they're sick and taped themselves doing it).

I'm fine with life imprisonment, when it's actually life imprisonment. Not just in name only and then they're out in 25 years minus time already served :\

Althea
July 5th, 2011, 10:18 PM
I almost fully (I'll get to my reservations later) support the death penalty. I'll be using murder as an example crime to illustrate my opinion, since its the most serious. Obviously my opinion changes with crimes of a lesser magnitude, but then I'd have to be quite the extremist if I thought thieves deserved the death penalty...although I do think that rapists deserve it as well.

I don't believe that people will contemplate what they've done in prison. If they intentionally murdered someone, they obviously had no regrets at the time, and I think a small part of a person who commits a crime of that magnitude knows that they're eventually going to end up getting caught. If they were going to have regrets, they wouldn't have done it. Giving them a life sentence, to me, is essentially setting them up for life, it's almost a reward for committing a crime. Off our backs, they get to sit in prison for the rest of their lives. How is this fair? I don't think we should have to pay to keep people who we're never going to let back into society out of it. As far as I'm concerned, they forfeit their human rights when they take another's life.

Another thing is that a life sentence is rarely a life sentence. You have to do something that goes above and beyond murder - like, mass bombings or something - to earn a life sentence that actually remains a life sentence, and doesn't get reduced to a pitiful amount of time instead. The death penalty is no more or less than murderers deserve. What right do we have to decide who lives and who dies? Well, what right did they have to make that choice? Why should we treat them any differently? As far as I'm concerned, the moment they take another's life, they forfeit those human rights that they so cling to when trying to stop themselves from getting a life sentence. There are rules in society, and they chose not to follow them. Why should we treat them as a part of society if they're going to break the rules so severely?

The only problem with the death penalty is...well, what if they get it wrong, and execute an innocent person? Our system for administering justice is horribly flawed, and I would say it is incompetent enough to convinct an innocent of a crime they didn't commit, since it is incompetent enough to be lax upon it's sentences. Convict an innocent man of murder, give him the death sentence, then find out a few weeks/months/years later that he wasn't guilty after all...how are you going to break that news to the victim's family? What possible sort of explanation and compensation could you offer them?

Death isn't a punishment either, it's a release. I suppose this view depends entirely on what you think what happens after you die, but killing someone, to me, releases them of any guilty conscience they may have. But then, I don't honestly believe that anyone who commits murder intentionally HAS a guilty conscience, or any sort of conscience for that matter...but if we kill them immediately, how are we going to know whether or not they're suffering because of what they did? But if we imprison them for life, we're essentially setting them up for life. So really, neither solution is perfect.

TRIFORCE89
July 6th, 2011, 03:40 AM
Can you be let out of prison with good behavior on Life?
It depends on the country. I think here in Canada, if you're sentenced to life, there's usually a date set (between 7 and 25 years, iirc) where there's a possibility of parole following (and with continuing) good behaviour. I imagine it's similar in other countries.
I hate that. :|

If you killed someone, and get a life sentence, then you should stay there for life. Not get out after 10 years because you did some dishes

Gothitelle.
July 6th, 2011, 05:20 AM
Neather should exist in my opinion. Im for someone doing time for the crime but people can be rehabilitated. It's horrible to put someone away forever without them seeing their family etc. If that would be, I'd be miserable. (that goes for those stupid 120 year sentences)

I abhor the death penalty because it's inhumane to kill someone over killing someone. Two wrongs don't make a right and killing of a human being is wrong, no matter how it's done.

cazzler
July 6th, 2011, 05:48 AM
In my opinion, A person should get the death sentence for taking another life for sheer entertainment or own stupid purpose. Life sentence however, I believe should be on people like drug dealers/smugglers, etc.

But it's the other way round in real life so I've heard... :P

インフェルノの津波
July 6th, 2011, 06:12 AM
Well there's more to life than just washing dishes, Triforce. I've only went to jail once, so I don't know about prison. You have to ask someone else.

I don't like either. Both are just horrible. In Life, until you die the Gov. has to take care of your needs, since they can't starve you. You have clean clothes, pretty good food, hey wait a minute this sounds better than my current life!

And in Death, you're not given the option to live anymore. Excuse me, but how the hell do you decide someone just dies? Even if they're a murderer, there are plenty of reasons on why they killed that person, or they weren't in a correct state of mind. (Though that's the case for most crimes actually, so I can't use that.)

All in all, the Justice System still needs some work. If those are the only two options to the most severe crimes, then someone is not using their brain correctly. Maybe back then it worked, but right now, it's not.

I mean come on we used to chop people's heads of, if we didn't change from that there wouldn't be as many crimes, true, but instead we would be tiptoeing around the fringes of the law!

Asrossk
July 6th, 2011, 07:29 AM
Life Sentence. Economically it's a lot cheaper than the death sentence due to no legal issues. A life sentence also allows the criminal to suffer and live with the guilt of their actions for the rest of their life. Life means the criminal can also try and come to terms with what they have done.

A life sentence does what it says, it takes a person's life. When you leave prison 20 years later, you will have lost a huge amount of chances and experiences. Life also can provide reformation, and gives someone somewhat of another chance.

Death is the easy way out; the criminal will have no guilt to live with and will be given no second chance in any form.

Alinthea
July 7th, 2011, 10:32 AM
Not so different. You're going to die anyway.

Wut?
There is a difference between natural death and intentional death carried out by the law...

Personally, I am not a fan of the death sentence, mainly because I think the offender should have the rest of their life, if serious, to think it over and live with it instead of just getting 'the easy way out'.
You might think that is a strange term to use with the death sentence, maybe it isn't, we don't know what is after life for certain, but if someone killed a loved one of mine, I would want them to rot in jail for the rest of their life.

Alley Cat
July 7th, 2011, 10:46 AM
Both are extremes, and neither are good. The death sentence, though, is the one I have to disagree with. They wont get to realize what they did and/or feel guilt about it. They'll just die knowing they got caught. Easy way out.

A life sentence? They'll spend time thinking and considering about their actions, choices etc.

dante1w
July 7th, 2011, 11:13 AM
Personally, i'm against death sentance. People have to be trialed and punished in this world, but no one has the right (but god of course) to choose who dies and who doesn't !!! If these are the oly two choices, a life sentance makes a lot more sense, and that's for two reasons:

1- No one is god !
2- Like you said, a life sentance is harder, so why is a death sentance given to the worse crimes ? Better yet, why should it be given at all :(

The Nightmare
July 10th, 2011, 09:23 PM
I think death sentance and life sentance are the same but the difference with life sentace is that you stay in prison forever and death sentance is you get killed but I think llife sentance is worst.

Oryx
July 10th, 2011, 09:50 PM
I'm completely against the death sentence. :x There's been plenty of times where after someone was sentenced to life in prison, they ended up being released because there was new evidence that exonerated them. How many people died without even being guilty? You can't turn back on that. You can't just say "loljk, my bad" and revive them or something, and like someone else said above me, our justice system is far too flawed to say we're even close to 100% correct on all of our cases.

If the death sentence was removed, there is such a thing as life without parole. As far as I know, a life sentence isn't just "go away for life", it's a set of years that happens to be longer than a human lifespan. If the time is set long enough, then there is no chance of parole. Even if it didn't exist now, if they took the death sentence away they could easily implement that in its place.

There's also the question of who really deserves the death sentence. Murder, yes, of course people would agree, a life for a life. But is that all? What if someone tortures someone else, cuts off parts of their body, scars them mentally and physically for life but doesn't kill them? What about a man raping a woman, leaving her unable to have a normal relationship with a man for the rest of her life? What about a repeat child abuser/molester? Where's the line between "he deserves to live" and "she deserves to die"? I don't believe that that's a judgement we should be making, that one crime is worth a person's life but another isn't.

Gymnotide
July 10th, 2011, 10:40 PM
While life-for-a-life is immature at best, the death sentence is necessary to prevent severely dangerous individuals from harming others further. There's no use in trying to meditate the mentally unsound in a life sentence, even in asylum.

Patchisou Yutohru
July 11th, 2011, 07:13 AM
I disagree with the death sentence, but I understand its purpose. I don't believe that anyone should have the power to determine if someone should live or die. Life sentences, I believe, should be more forceful and should only be thrown out to those who damaged the life of another being beyond repair. Taking away their child, killing their spouse, raping them, etc. Rather than allowing people with good behavior to have parole, and allowing them to be bailed out with something as useless compared to life that is money, they should be confined to the cell for their life with no hope of regaining what they once had before they took the life of someone else. It's a life sentence for a reason.

Gymnotide
July 11th, 2011, 07:45 PM
I disagree with the death sentence, but I understand its purpose. I don't believe that anyone should have the power to determine if someone should live or die. Life sentences, I believe, should be more forceful and should only be thrown out to those who damaged the life of another being beyond repair. Taking away their child, killing their spouse, raping them, etc. Rather than allowing people with good behavior to have parole, and allowing them to be bailed out with something as useless compared to life that is money, they should be confined to the cell for their life with no hope of regaining what they once had before they took the life of someone else. It's a life sentence for a reason.

Devil's advocate: I know it's no excuse to kill, but I feel like a lot of life sentences are pretty futile because the people didn't have anything to begin with. It's not justification for the death sentence, but invalidates the life sentence as a "punishment" (as you describe) and merely makes it permanent lodging with free food and room & board.

groteske
July 11th, 2011, 11:57 PM
Agreed with whoever said the death sentence was the most efficient method of eliminating a problem - if only it was as efficient in practice as on paper, as death row inmates sit for years before execution. I gladly advocate the death penalty. This is why (emphasis mine):

Source (https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=78372)

The legal profession is bound by its ethics to offer the best defense for a defendant charged with mayhem, yet it is a perversion of forensic physicians' and psychiatrists' mission to focus on the patient only, especially when that patient threatens society through wanton destructiveness and violence. There are persons beyond the scope and reach of modern behavioral sciences' ability to rehabilitate, persons of twisted minds and deranged habits of gratification. Three Suffolk Court cases depict such individuals. Fred, convicted on two counts of rape and first degree murder, was put on work release and escaped from prison, committing a similar rape and murder within 1 year from his escape. Tests revealed him capable of responding without signs of schizophrenia and put to question why he was permitted to go on work release. Gunner, after spending 16 and 18 years, respectively, in prison for two grotesque murders, was charged with a similar murder 18 months after his second release. Finally, Buck committed a murder after a history of violent behavior. This case illustrates how determinants of mayhem can be in evidence through observable repeated acts and that a permissive approach can lead to homicidal acting out. Seven references are cited.Rehabilitation DOES - NOT - WORK, except in very unusual and sparse cases. There are exactly zero registered sex offenders that have been successfully rehabilitated. With few exceptions, prisoners in life or on death row are habitual offenders. They're not going to contribute meaningfully to society. With the improvement of society in mind, why let them drain our resources when there is very little chance they will reciprocate?

Lifers, well, they're just a waste of resources, particularly capital. Prisoners aren't going to "think about what they've done", are you serious? To whoever said that, that mindset should've stopped at f---ing grade school. If you're motivated to commit a violent act serious enough to be imprisoned for it, you've likely got a set of recurring psychological issues to boot.

Mentalii
July 12th, 2011, 04:50 AM
I'm in a country where there isn't the death sentence, and I it's unfortunate.
Criminals end up being released after a while, or even if they aren't, the jail is not as horrible as it seems. Ok, it isn't a fantastic place, but they have the TV, sometimes acces to hygien, bookcase... They just deserve the worst !

When I hear that all of those infamous killers will spend their lives there instead of dying, I think it disgusting !
Besides, they may be satisfied, to be just jailed despite their actions.
And, imagine yourself into the shoes of the family. For example, someone killed your brother, or sister. You... You just want the murdered to die ! Not to be just imprisoned, it's totally unfair after what he did, he deserves the worst, not being in a place where he can watch TV and playing video games !

Gymnotide
July 12th, 2011, 06:32 AM
I'm in a country where there isn't the death sentence, and I it's unfortunate.
Criminals end up being released after a while, or even if they aren't, the jail is not as horrible as it seems. Ok, it isn't a fantastic place, but they have the TV, sometimes acces to hygien, bookcase... They just deserve the worst !

When I hear that all of those infamous killers will spend their lives there instead of dying, I think it disgusting !
Besides, they may be satisfied, to be just jailed despite their actions.
And, imagine yourself into the shoes of the family. For example, someone killed your brother, or sister. You... You just want the murdered to die ! Not to be just imprisoned, it's totally unfair after what he did, he deserves the worst, not being in a place where he can watch TV and playing video games !

Again: Though punishment is supposed to "punish," it's a silly thought to actually employ legal mandates as a form of remediation. There's no solace in putting a murderer in jail or taking his / her life in exchange. While there's a part of everyone that wants a criminal to suffer for his / her crimes, that's not what punishment should aim to achieve at all; punishment should be there to protect the surviving population, not as a mechanism of vengeance.

Mr. X
July 12th, 2011, 08:21 PM
Personally, I think they are both a waste of resources and/or loss of resources.

Now, we have ourselves a criminal who kills someone. Death sentence. We kill him Hows about we sedate him and remove his organs for use in life saving transplants? Seems fair, he kills one person and now his parts will be used to save 5 or more people. After all usable organs are removed, he gets a massive overdose of sedative which will put him down painlessly.

Same thing for life. Person kills another person, he gets life. Lets turn all these life prisoners into blood supplies for the blood banks. Drain safe amount, drain safe amount again as soon as it is safe to. Again, seems fair. He kills a person and now he will be used, until the day he dies, to help save countless amounts of people.

lollypop1997
July 24th, 2011, 04:50 AM
Life sentence is worse...being with other criminals and getting sick and everything for the rest of their life,isn't death better?i mean its bettter to die then to be with a bunch of criminals for the rest of ur life.Whats the point of living if ur not free and u'll never be

twocows
July 24th, 2011, 10:15 AM
How about letting them choose? I would rather serve out a life sentence than get the death penalty, and would prefer if I was ever in that situation that I wasn't put to death because "Winter Wonderland" and "lollypop1997" thought that it was a fate worse than death. I'm sure others might disagree, so let them choose their fate.

Not to mention that there's an appeals process most people with life sentences can and do go through. I'd rather take my chances, thanks.

Mr. X
July 24th, 2011, 11:00 AM
How about letting them choose? I would rather serve out a life sentence than get the death penalty, and would prefer if I was ever in that situation that I wasn't put to death because "Winter Wonderland" and "lollypop1997" thought that it was a fate worse than death. I'm sure others might disagree, so let them choose their fate.


How about them not doing something that would warrent the death sentence in the first place?

Just don't murder/rape someone and you won't have to worry about Winter's and Lolly's opinions.

twocows
July 24th, 2011, 12:46 PM
How about them not doing something that would warrent the death sentence in the first place?

Just don't murder/rape someone and you won't have to worry about Winter's and Lolly's opinions.
If you think the only people that get the death sentence are people who have done a crime, you are incredibly naive (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/529).

Mr. X
July 24th, 2011, 01:30 PM
Not really useful since it is not using up to date information.

But still, as the article says, wrongful convictions are not as frequent as they were back when those people were orginally convicted due to more usage of DNA testing. As this article IS over 9 years old its a good assumpting that DNA testing is even more common place then it was back then.

Thanks for trying, but find a article that is more updated. Perhaps one that is about wrongfully convited criminals convicted by DNA tests within the last two or three years?

Livewire
July 24th, 2011, 01:37 PM
"Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living."

There are fates much, much worse than death. Rotting in prison until the end of time is a much more fitting punishment than a quick death.

2Cool4Mewtwo
July 24th, 2011, 01:45 PM
It's a bit off-topic, I know, but what decides whether a criminal serves a life sentence or death penalty?

twocows
July 24th, 2011, 06:01 PM
Not really useful since it is not using up to date information.

But still, as the article says, wrongful convictions are not as frequent as they were back when those people were orginally convicted due to more usage of DNA testing. As this article IS over 9 years old its a good assumpting that DNA testing is even more common place then it was back then.

Thanks for trying, but find a article that is more updated. Perhaps one that is about wrongfully convited criminals convicted by DNA tests within the last two or three years?
The article was meant to support a point, not to provide evidence of something that I thought was obvious. If you'd really like a more recent story, though, here's (http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110329/ARTICLE/110329381) one that's only a few months old. I recall hearing another case along these lines on NPR less than a month ago. I've heard stories like this every few months since early high school (which was when I started paying attention to the news). People get false convictions overturned all the time.

But the point was that people do get false convictions. The point wasn't that they're still getting them overturned (though they are). A conviction does not mean someone did something. Assuming that a conviction means someone actually did something is pretty short-sighted; even the most ultra-authoritarian person will admit there are false convictions (rather, they'll argue that it is an insignificant number and that they are sacrifices that must be made).

This is all irrelevant, though. People should be allowed to choose between a life conviction or the death penalty if they are sentenced to either, whether they did something wrong or not. The right to life is an inalienable human right that should only be infringed when no other course of action is viable or when the subject chooses to surrender it. This is especially in a system where there's never a 100% correlation between conviction and actual crime committed.

Should people not commit crimes to begin with? That would be nice. Should we try and work more on preventing crimes from occurring? Sure. Should we perhaps spend more time trying to reform people? Probably. But none of that matters. Crimes happen. And yet, even those who have definitively done the most horrific of acts should be allowed to choose between life imprisonment and the death penalty (and be allowed to change their mind at any point). This is something I will likely never change my mind on because it is derived directly from moral beliefs that I, at one time, believed to be self-evident.

Mr. X
July 24th, 2011, 06:52 PM
And my point is that with modern DNA testing wrongful convictions don't occur.

Hows that search for people who were wrongly convicted due to DNA evidence within the last three years coming along?

Also, that story is about a person convicted in 92, and as the article said, DNA testing wasn't as advanced as it is now.

twocows
July 25th, 2011, 01:36 PM
And my point is that with modern DNA testing wrongful convictions don't occur.

Hows that search for people who were wrongly convicted due to DNA evidence within the last three years coming along?

Also, that story is about a person convicted in 92, and as the article said, DNA testing wasn't as advanced as it is now.
Oh, I see, you're saying wrongful convictions haven't happened in the past few years. I was talking about convictions being overturned.

If you honestly believe wrongful convictions still don't occur, you understand very little about the criminal justice process. There are plenty of things that can go wrong with DNA testing. Of course I haven't found any wrongful convictions from the past year or two; it takes that long just to start the appeals process, let alone explain things like contaminated sources to a judge with no scientific background.

Mr. X
July 25th, 2011, 02:04 PM
Most of the issues you are refering to are NOT issues with DNA testing but rather issues with contaminated materials.

You know that saying rather let a hundred criminals go free then to convict a innocent man? I'd rather get the hundred criminals and let the innocent man go free on appeal. Much safer that way.

Guy
July 26th, 2011, 03:52 PM
How about letting them choose? I would rather serve out a life sentence than get the death penalty, and would prefer if I was ever in that situation that I wasn't put to death because "Winter Wonderland" and "lollypop1997" thought that it was a fate worse than death. I'm sure others might disagree, so let them choose their fate.
I disagree with this. Say they murdered or molested someone, why should they be given a choice of life and death when the victim itself was never given a choice to live at all?

twocows
July 26th, 2011, 05:49 PM
Most of the issues you are refering to are NOT issues with DNA testing but rather issues with contaminated materials.

You know that saying rather let a hundred criminals go free then to convict a innocent man? I'd rather get the hundred criminals and let the innocent man go free on appeal. Much safer that way.
I hope you don't live in America or you are breaking the spirit of the law (and the word of it if you ever rule that way on a jury). The standard in our country for guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt." America is founded on the believe that it is better to let a thousand criminals go free than to put a single innocent man behind bars.


I disagree with this. Say they murdered or molested someone, why should they be given a choice of life and death when the victim itself was never given a choice to live at all?
People should never be forced to surrender their right to life, no matter what their crimes. What you are advocating is revenge, plain and simple. Two wrongs do not make a right.

What we need to do is pay more attention to the circumstances that lead people to commit crimes like murder and work to prevent them in the future, and try to reform those who have already commit such crimes into productive, non-violent members of society (at least those who are receptive to reform). We should not base our criminal justice system on revenge, we should base it on prevention and reform.

I do not believe a man should be sentenced to death no matter his crimes unless he takes that sentence willingly. It is state-condoned murder and it is unacceptable.

Seki
July 27th, 2011, 12:24 AM
Death sentence is obviously better, why bother to suffer in jail for your rest of your life when you could end your misery in jail. Life sentence is just wasting your precious time, making you plotting to escape.

Guy
July 27th, 2011, 04:40 AM
People should never be forced to surrender their right to life, no matter what their crimes. What you are advocating is revenge, plain and simple. Two wrongs do not make a right.

What we need to do is pay more attention to the circumstances that lead people to commit crimes like murder and work to prevent them in the future, and try to reform those who have already commit such crimes into productive, non-violent members of society (at least those who are receptive to reform). We should not base our criminal justice system on revenge, we should base it on prevention and reform.

I do not believe a man should be sentenced to death no matter his crimes unless he takes that sentence willingly. It is state-condoned murder and it is unacceptable.I'm not advocating revenge at all. In no way was that my intention or initial thought on the issue. I'm saying it shouldn't be fair in the nature of life and death to give a murderer the choice of life and death when he or she themselves did not offer the same for their victim. Honestly, that's just being too kind to someone who committed such an ill action.

Please keep in mind though, that in the matter of the death penalty, my thought is it should only be used in the case of extreme criminal actions and that the proof is completely evident that this man or woman did indeed commit the crime. I don't believe it should just be used on the whim. That said, under normal circumstances when one is issued the death penalty ─ as far as I'm aware ─ it can usually take months or a couple of years in order for preparations to take place as well as given time in case new evidence is brought up to repeal the action.

Trust me, I'm all for putting more attention on the prevention of criminal acts and helping those who can be helped from committing any illegal actions in the future. But the point of fact is, no matter how much you teach and help others, there's always going to be those who still commit crimes. If you want that to change, you have to give them a good enough reason to think twice about it. You have to really put down the law on people and have it known, their offense will be taken seriously. Otherwise, people getting away with a slap on the wrist ─ for example: The Casey Anthony trial; not enough evidence, fine. However, little to no punishment after that or further looking into who really killed Caylee? There was no justice at all ─ will just have others believe, "Oh yeah, I can do that and get away with it too."

As far as the Life Sentence goes, then it should be just that. For life. I don't see the point in people getting off just because of good behavior, having a parole or what have you when they were sentenced to life in prison. I don't mind people looking into their case again for further evidence that can prove their innocence, but if they get life, then it shouldn't mean "10 years, you were a good mate; you're now free to go."

Kyoko
July 27th, 2011, 10:08 AM
I am all for the death penalty. Living is a privellage we get once (not to get religious, but what's proven thus far) and if someone takes that away from someone else by murdering them, they have absolutely no right to sit in prizon and "think about what they did" for the rest of their life. Because even if it is a mundane, horrible existence, it's more than their victim will ever get. In my opinion, a life sentence is a slap in the face to the loved ones of the victim. The person they love has been taken away and the person who did it gets to go on living.

Yes, I do have exceptions: I think it's okay if the person who killed did so in self defense if someone tried to harm them and people who wouldn't have killed if it weren't for their medical/mental condition. For example: A guy around here was extremely loving to his mother, so long as he was on his medication but if he forgot to take it he would turn violent. He forgot to take it one day and killed his mom. To me, those cases are different then someone who kills out of hatred or spite.

Someone brought up a good point (but I don't remember who since it was one of the other pages) by saying what about the criminals who don't necessarily kill but still damage someone else beyond repair by torture, repeated abuse, etc. I say save the life sentences for people like that and save the death penalty for the murderers.

twocows
July 28th, 2011, 03:18 PM
I'm not advocating revenge at all. In no way was that my intention or initial thought on the issue. I'm saying it shouldn't be fair in the nature of life and death to give a murderer the choice of life and death when he or she themselves did not offer the same for their victim. Honestly, that's just being too kind to someone who committed such an ill action.

Please keep in mind though, that in the matter of the death penalty, my thought is it should only be used in the case of extreme criminal actions and that the proof is completely evident that this man or woman did indeed commit the crime. I don't believe it should just be used on the whim. That said, under normal circumstances when one is issued the death penalty ─ as far as I'm aware ─ it can usually take months or a couple of years in order for preparations to take place as well as given time in case new evidence is brought up to repeal the action.

Trust me, I'm all for putting more attention on the prevention of criminal acts and helping those who can be helped from committing any illegal actions in the future. But the point of fact is, no matter how much you teach and help others, there's always going to be those who still commit crimes. If you want that to change, you have to give them a good enough reason to think twice about it. You have to really put down the law on people and have it known, their offense will be taken seriously. Otherwise, people getting away with a slap on the wrist ─ for example: The Casey Anthony trial; not enough evidence, fine. However, little to no punishment after that or further looking into who really killed Caylee? There was no justice at all ─ will just have others believe, "Oh yeah, I can do that and get away with it too."

As far as the Life Sentence goes, then it should be just that. For life. I don't see the point in people getting off just because of good behavior, having a parole or what have you when they were sentenced to life in prison. I don't mind people looking into their case again for further evidence that can prove their innocence, but if they get life, then it shouldn't mean "10 years, you were a good mate; you're now free to go."[/FONT]
When I refer to "life" I mean "life without parole." I should have specified.

I don't see it as unfair at all giving a convicted murderer a choice between life in prison or the death sentence (compared to the alternative of not offering a choice). Neither of those is a very good option, I just feel that people should always be allowed to decide when they live or die irrespective of their past actions.

ArcanineGaming
July 29th, 2011, 01:22 AM
It's not like it matters anyways, when your on death row you can be there for 20+ years, it should be instant. Thats my opinion i guess i have a No BS mentality.I think the American justice system is a joke.Take john wayne gacey the man confessed to 33 murders and took 14 years to kill him...Thats my two cents.