The death Penalty! Should it be banned?

[True Reign]

I would empty the gun in his face.
But that does not make it right because then I'm no better then him.

I hope you realize that you are contradicting yourself.

 

[ÇyänïdëÉX]

I am a cold person when it comes to this type of stuff. I think the death penalty should be applied to more people than it actually is. I mean theres so much garbage in jail and if they escape or do something worse. But theres so many complications too this that it would make no sense. Its pretty hard to apply this penalty as it is. Ughh

 

[rps96]

i think..... Yes it should be BANNED!!

 

[Ivysaur]

The death penalty is the ultimate choice, but it is an ideal choice. If you had this mass murderer around, and he gets a conviction, the only punishmest deemed fit would be death. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Only to those extremes the death penalty be used, whether it be lethal poison, hanging from a noose, or the electric chair.

Im gonna go back a few years right now. :P Remember Saddam Hussein? He was a horrible dictator, and what he did was downright wrong. He deserved to die, in response to the tremendous amount of lives he took.

Someone said that that law was the best way to turn the world blind.

And the Saddam thing... Remember Pinochet, a dictator who was allowed to live for years in his home in Chile despite having murdered thousand of people? Or Franco here in Spain, who was just one of Hitler allies before Eisenhower accpted him as an US ally? UNless there are good dictators and bad dictators, the US can't really talk about it. Unless mudering hundreds of Europeans/South Americans is better than mudering Eastern people.

I agree with all the people who say that death penalty is just a way to get revenge. Criminals should stay in jail for dozens of years, feeling the suffering for all they have done. And they still can do useful things for the rest of the community while imprisoned.

 

[Feign]

People put too much of their emotions into this topic... Why can't things like capital punishment be thought of in an objective manner. That quite simply - if someone commits a crime, that it would ideally be dictated by their penance of death.

In fact, I would go so far as to deter crime at its roots by enacting that any crime above x amount would constitute the death penalty. This not only deters crime, but saves on costs...

Because we are all human, I believe, in terms of a court of law that one should agree to the consequences regardless of this "human life of freedom" stuff.

Sure we sacrifice our freedom to some extent when we are born into the world, but it's not like we're trying to be bad...

 

[Neko-sama]

I agree with some of the people here although being in a country that doesn't have the death penalty I can understand the different views on it. I also understand that the Law system is never completely foolproof as sometimes people can be wrongly accused. I think concrete hard evidence should only lead to a death penalty of a terrible crime.

 

[Idiot!]

Life imprisonment has its on cons too. The government is spending money to keep these criminals alive.

If a murder is responded by a murder, there would be no end to it

 

[Jordan]

I'm divided but leaning towards "no" on banning capital punishment. The criminals (who, if put on the death row, would have already deemed themselves very unworthy of keeping alive in the first place) would be a burden of the state and the tax money their victims have to pay.

I agree with all the people who say that death penalty is just a way to get revenge. Criminals should stay in jail for dozens of years, feeling the suffering for all they have done. And they still can do useful things for the rest of the community while imprisoned.

But are not lifelong remorse and forced labor revenge as well, and even more long lasting and somewhat cost-ineffective? :/

 

[Ivysaur]

I'm divided but leaning towards "no" on banning capital punishment. The criminals (who, if put on the death row, would have already deemed themselves very unworthy of keeping alive in the first place) would be a burden of the state and the tax money their victims have to pay.


But are not lifelong remorse and forced labor revenge as well, and even more long lasting and somewhat cost-ineffective? :/

There is a difference: imprisonment can be overturned if the person truly feels remorse after a long time, death penalty can't. The concept of death penalty implies accepting the impossiblity of rehabilitation. If the person is crazy, they should be in a mental hospital, not in jail. If the person is sane, if there is a chance of remorse and rehabilitation, they should get it.

And... saying that killing people is better because that saves money... I don't really like how that sounds. At all. It can be (and has been) twisted in really creepy ways.

 

[Jordan]

There is a difference: imprisonment can be overturned if the person truly feels remorse after a long time, death penalty can't. The concept of death penalty implies accepting the impossiblity of rehabilitation. If the person is crazy, they should be in a mental hospital, not in jail. If the person is sane, if there is a chance of remorse and rehabilitation, they should get it.

I agree with the statement in bold. However, the death penalty in practice only applies to those who have consciously, and without duress, made the decision to disobey the law in the most vile of manners: genocide perpetrating, serial raping, serial murdering, slavery, et cetera. Even in the most forgiving minds, some crimes committed can't be atoned by a mere "I'm sorry." Chances are, if the criminal have earned death row, keeping them alive wouldn't do much for them or those around them.

And... saying that killing people is better because that saves money... I don't really like how that sounds. At all. It can be (and has been) twisted in really creepy ways.

This pathos would work very well if applied to ordinary innocent citizens, but we are dealing with death-row worthy criminals, not pickpockets. And I honestly find it wrong to have the family of victims (if the family is still alive) to support the criminals who have hurt their family members.

 

[Feign]

I remember a news clip, it was a trial and everyone was leaving, somehow or other, the victims family was near the defendants family (in this case the defendant a young black man, had killed an elderly white man). At one point I believe it was the defendant's sister who had mocked the other family by saying that he was old anyway, to which the sons of the victim's family might have attacked her...

Sorry for the lack of remembrance... I'm not sure what they guy got in terms of a sentence in the end... But that isn't the sort of mentality that should be promoted...

On a side note the ads here are now about "why should employers hire ex-cons? - Conshelpingcons.com." XD Just thought that was funny.

The weirdest thing is still the lenience of rape charges... (among other ones). Why should those guys deserve to be rehabilitated by our money with the kind of crime they have committed?

What's even worse, is when someone like that is released, a warning is sent out to the public that the guy is a serial rapist and they show a photo... I mean if it was that bad that they have to give a warning, why is he even out of jail? Sure he may have finished his sentence, but it seems a bit backwards.

 

[Red1530]

With forensic technology today, the chance for a wrongful conviction is very slim. The current system is currently moving too slow. I belive that the system should be reformed as follows. When convicted their is an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would be required to make a decision on the case within a month. If the appeal is denied, the condemned should be executed within 30 days.

 

[.little monster]

I'm going to say yes, but for not for humanitarian reasons.

I think people that normally would get the death sentence should be locked up, for life, in a cell with no human interaction. With a nice jacket and padded walls, just to stop the suicides. :3

That would be far worse.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

No, but I believe that the cases considered for it must be put under the most scrutiny to assure, 99 time over, that we're not putting down an innocent person.

Of course, lifetime imprisonment is a suitable punishment as well.

There is a difference: imprisonment can be overturned if the person truly feels remorse after a long time, death penalty can't. The concept of death penalty implies accepting the impossiblity of rehabilitation. If the person is crazy, they should be in a mental hospital, not in jail. If the person is sane, if there is a chance of remorse and rehabilitation, they should get it.

And... saying that killing people is better because that saves money... I don't really like how that sounds. At all. It can be (and has been) twisted in really creepy ways.

The alternative to the death penality is life imprisonment without parole... without the ability to be overturned...

 

[Captain Fabio]

I am for the Death Penalty, but only for serious crimes.
Mass murders for example.

I know some people say it isn't right to kill a murder, but if you were the friend of family of the killed person, then you would want some justice.

Anyway, jail is just a joke now-a-days, in most countries, mainly because 'life' doesn't mean life any more.

Meh, à mon avis.

 

[chikorita125]

the death penalty should go, why shed more blood on ones murder i say

 

[Esper]

Justice should be fair and impartial. It has to take into account the victim(s), but also the needs of society as a whole. There can be justice without death because another death doesn't necessarily benefit society. That's the point of a justice system, isn't? To do what is best for society. That's why we lock up rapists for the crimes they've committed and we take precautions when we let them out because it's in the best interest of society if we're protected, but also if everyone gets treated fairly and it isn't fair to punish someone for something they haven't yet done. We can take reasonable measures to prevent people who might commit crimes from committing them, but to say that someone who might or is likely to do something is the same as a person who has actually done it is wrong.

Even when we execute someone we don't execute a man who stabbed another man to death by stabbing him, too. That's because we as a society recognize that we have to hold ourselves above such cruelty. We already accept that responding in the same way to a vile act puts us on the same level. It is a great thing if a society can say "We are better than the people who flaunt our laws and debase human dignity." That's what murder is: a affront to human dignity. An institution of law and order should uphold human dignity. /soapbox

 

[Narodin]

No one has the right to take another's life. Sure they may have done some crazy things in life to have them wind up in the situation, but does killing them really end it? It's not going to bring anyone back, and is definitely not going to quell anger. It also lets them get away with their crime, they'd probably rather have death than life in jail.

Whoever thinks they have the right to take another life has another thing coming for them when it's their turn to leave earth...

 

[FreakyLocz14]

No, I do not think it should be banne; however, I think that the death penalty should only be applied in crimes where the defendant has intentionally taken another person's life.

As the abolistionists state, no one has the right to take another person's life. So when someone does take another person's life, they are in violation of that principle and undeserving of their own life.

Also the level of due process should be higher for defendants facing both death and life-in-prison sentences w/o possibility of parole than for other criminal defendants. Currently in U.S. states that give this "super" due process for death penalty defendants, they do not apply it for those facing life imprisonment.

Here in California, which has the death penalty though it is currently on hiatus, those sentenced to death get automatic appeal to the state Supreme Court and will most likely have appealed to several lower courts of appeal before reaching the Supremes. This means the Supreme Court in obligated by law to hear the person's appeal at least once.

Although I do not support to abolition of the death penatly, like I said, before it should only be allowed for first-degree murder. Also I belive that LWOP (life without parole) should only be allowed for murder although it doesn't have to be first degree; and should get other provisions like auto Supreme Court appeal, a bilatteral trial, etc.

 

[Spinor]

Person X commits the following crimes:

• 2 Capital Murders
• 5 Murders
• 10 Rapes
• 8 Arson Acts
• 13 Robberies

Wait, We are in Texas and this dude isn't getting executed? You've gotta be kidding if you want to get rid of the death penalty when people commit mass and sever crimes. Wouldn't you want dudes like this executed? They're gonna try to escape jail or kill someone anyways if they are not rid of.