The Death Penalty

[Nihilego]

Is it ever appropriate to punish an accused criminal with the death penalty? When and why? What if the criminal was innocent and falsely accused? Would it be better to keep the criminal in prison for the duration of their life, using up prison space, rather than using the death penalty? Could the death penalty be considered murder?

These are just some random discussion points. Please don't copy, paste, and answer them individually. That's not how discussion is made.

 

[EarthWolfblade]

[SIZE="a"]Yes I think there are appropriate times for a death penalty. 99% of the time though they don't do it without proof that the criminal commited the crime. No,I don't think one murder should earn someone a death penalty,but I do think a serial killer (4 or more victims) should be given a death penalty....then again,if it were me,I'd kinda rather be put to death than spend my life in prison[/SIZE]

 

[Rogue planet]

I've had a long internal debate about this issue, and right now I don't think the death penalty should be used. However, I do believe people should be given the option to choose for themselves whether they want the death penalty. After all, some people would rather die than be sentenced to life.

People should be granted control over their own life and death. Personally I think prison is a harsh enough sentence for the really terrible criminals. Prison itself is a harsh society, people who have committed terrible crimes will be treated accordingly by fellow inmates. Issuing the death penalty as a forced punishment only strengthens the roots of our violent and barbaric society. It would also result in the deaths of more innocents than those truly "deserving", there is a reason capital punishment has been outlawed now despite being common practice in the past.

The whole argument about prisons costing too much and being full is simply absurd. How many of you are surrounded by prisons? I know of ONE prison in the local area, and I live in a highly urbanised area. Prisons cost very little when compared to other things. What is being payed for? Basic necessary items for survival. All these rumours about murderers and rapists getting satellite TV and luxury lifestyles is complete and utter ********.

 

[Yoshikko]

Personally, I believe in eye for an eye. However I can see this rule being a bit too obscure and primitive to be applied, because the verdict depends on so many factors other than the crime itself, it's just not as simple as 'oh you killed someone, now we kill you back' because a lot of other things play a role too, not just the fact someone killed another person. I don't think anyone should decide over someone's life or death btw but themselves.

And I believe prison is harsh enough, and can actually serve as rehabilitation, instead of just getting rid of someone who we see as incurable. Heh, and on the other hand, a life sentence in prison seems worse to me than death, because what you are actually doing with giving death penalty over life sentence is shortening the time they have to sit, because they were gonna die there anyway, so it'd just be doing criminals a favour, it's not like you actually have a life in prison.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I'm okay with it in the most of extreme or horrendous of cases. If there isn't any doubt at all and/or they've admitted their guilt and/or there is a recording of them committing the crime.

I wouldn't say I'm for or against it. If someone were running for office, it's not really a voting issue for me. If you outlaw it, okay. If you allow it under extremely strict criteria, I'm okay with that too. Really doesn't concern me personally, so I don't care about it that much.

 

[Livewire]

Because the best way to teach society that killing is immoral is to kill others.

In the most heinous of crimes, yes, I think it's warranted. However, rotting in prison for the rest of your days is a far crueler punishment, and thus more fitting for the majority of cases.

 

[psyanic]

Should you kill people for terrible crimes? I'm quite mixed on this subject. It's such a gray area and it's hard, for me at least, to see what's right and wrong because I can agree on both sides of the argument. These people don't deserve to live because of what they did? Maybe, but I always believed in second chances and everyone has the right to live. There is the punishment of the prisoner knowing that their death is inevitable and not knowing what's going to happen afterwards is scary.

 

[Morkula]

I'm against the death penalty in all but the most extreme cases - people who are far beyond all hope of reform, who have committed unspeakably heinous crimes, and who would be a danger to society to be kept alive.

Ending someone's life gives them no chance for remorse or repentance for their deeds, and life in prison is usually far worse a punishment than a quick and painless death anyway. So in the majority of cases I'm anti-capital punishment.

 

[-Connor97-]

I seriously think tat this death penalty system should be REMOVEEEED! D:< its not fair to kill some1 just because they commited a serious crime!!!! :'(, though im not sure of any another solutions to the problem @_@

 

[Esper]

The whole argument about prisons costing too much and being full is simply absurd. How many of you are surrounded by prisons? I know of ONE prison in the local area, and I live in a highly urbanised area. Prisons cost very little when compared to other things. What is being payed for? Basic necessary items for survival. All these rumours about murderers and rapists getting satellite TV and luxury lifestyles is complete and utter ********.

In my state of California prisons (a.k.a. Corrections and Rehabilitation) makes up around 7-8% of the budget each year. That's billions of dollars. There are at least 3 dozen prisons in my state, too, and I know of a prison not too far from where I live. A friend of mine also grew up in a town with a prison in it.

I don't know about the quality of life inside them, but I do know a lot of them are being filled with people only guilty of minor drug offenses although that's a different topic altogether.

 

[Sydian]

Basically what Morkula said. Unless it was just THAT bad, I don't think killing someone is the answer. And I think prison is a far worse scenario anyway. I'd personally want them to just stay there, but idk, they might like it too much.

I seriously think tat this death penalty system should be REMOVEEEED! D:< its not fair to kill some1 just because they commited a serious crime!!!! :'(, though im not sure of any another solutions to the problem @_@

No one, I repeat no one, is going to take you seriously.

 

[Rogue planet]

In my state of California prisons (a.k.a. Corrections and Rehabilitation) makes up around 7-8% of the budget each year. That's billions of dollars. There are at least 3 dozen prisons in my state, too, and I know of a prison not too far from where I live. A friend of mine also grew up in a town with a prison in it.

I don't know about the quality of life inside them, but I do know a lot of them are being filled with people only guilty of minor drug offenses although that's a different topic altogether.

As per, America is a lot worse than a lot of European countries lol.

Introducing the death penalty for serious crimes won't solve any of that though. The prison system is ****ed up, but my point was more directed to people who think bringing back the death penalty is suddenly going to fix a lot of these problems (and there are a lot of people who do think that, trust me).

And as you sad, yes in some cases are getting over their capacity, but not because of real criminals. Certainly not because of anyone deserving the death penalty.

 

[CrypticTerror]

Because the best way to teach society that killing is immoral is to kill others.

In the most heinous of crimes, yes, I think it's warranted. However, rotting in prison for the rest of your days is a far crueler punishment, and thus more fitting for the majority of cases.

Do you know what institutionalized means? When someone spends a certain amount of time in prison they become use it it, it is no longer so bad. Trust me i know the prison system. Not saying that its a happy time its a ball of fun...but there comes a point where it doesn't matter anymore, if someone doesn't feel remorse then a life in a box won't fix that. And the death penalty though can seem fair at times, it has killed a lot of innocent people and honestly takes 20+ years to even be executed.

 

[Mr. X]

Imo, death sentence is a waste of resrouces.

If a person does something that would get a death sentence, instead put them in a medically induced coma and drain their blood (For blood transfusions) and remove the organs (For life saving organ transplants.)

I consdier it ironic justice. DP's are usually given to murders, so in this case a murderer, who takes the life of other people, will be 'used' to save the lives of other people.

And on the off chance that the person is actually innocent, at least his death has meaning. He died, and because of that he saved the lives of other people.

Also, as you should see I think the whole Organ Donor program is a load of crap. If your dead, you don't need the organs so why should they be destroyed when they can instead be used to save lives?

 

[Alec Empire]

I think that the death penalty isn't necessary. It's simply overused. I think it should only be used upon the special occasion that someone did something that has affected millions of people(which is rare).

 

[Yoshikko]

Imo, death sentence is a waste of resrouces.

If a person does something that would get a death sentence, instead put them in a medically induced coma and drain their blood (For blood transfusions) and remove the organs (For life saving organ transplants.)

I consdier it ironic justice. DP's are usually given to murders, so in this case a murderer, who takes the life of other people, will be 'used' to save the lives of other people.

And on the off chance that the person is actually innocent, at least his death has meaning. He died, and because of that he saved the lives of other people.

Also, as you should see I think the whole Organ Donor program is a load of crap. If your dead, you don't need the organs so why should they be destroyed when they can instead be used to save lives?

Um well this is of course a whole different story but they simply do not have the right to do that. You know a coma is still living right? You'd want their organs to be taken out while they are still alive? That is a bit strange tbh, there's still a thing as human rights. Oh and so if that person was innocent, naa who cares he saved other people's lives, right? I can't really even explain on how many levels this is wrong.

 

[Rogue planet]

And on the off chance that the person is actually innocent, at least his death has meaning. He died, and because of that he saved the lives of other people.

LOL

Okay I'm sure you will have no problems with sacrificing your life next time somebody is in need of an organ.

Wait? No? Okay then I'll accuse you of a crime you had no involvement of then it will be fine, you can die happy. I'll make sure it's put on your gravestone no need to thank me xoxoxo

 

[Overlord Drakow]

Um well this is of course a whole different story but they simply do not have the right to do that. You know a coma is still living right? You'd want their organs to be taken out while they are still alive? That is a bit strange tbh, there's still a thing as human rights. Oh and so if that person was innocent, naa who cares he saved other people's lives, right? I can't really even explain on how many levels this is wrong.

Do they have the right to kill someone in the first instance? Think of it this way;

A person has been sentenced to the death penalty. He/she will die. Might as well put the body to good use before discarding it. If society deems it ethical to kill someone for committing a crime, then I cannot see why society would have a problem with extracting organs etc from the body before discarding it.

Usually the administration of death is from a needle which basically "shuts down" the body with minimal pain. The procedure for extraction would be along the lines of administrating a substance to render the subject unconscious and then extracting whatever organs etc they wanted before administrating the death needle. It isn't that much different and it's not like the person in the coma would feel any pain, despite still being alive. You could remove the organs shortly after the person is killed off as well.

As far as your last two sentences are concerned, consider this;

A person gets the death penalty but later it is deemed he/she is innocent. Would you rather that life have been put to use by helping other people or would you prefer if the body was just discarded without helping anyone?

 

[Alec Empire]

Do they have the right to kill someone in the first instance? Think of it this way;

A person has been sentenced to the death penalty. He/she will die. Might as well put the body to good use before discarding it. If society deems it ethical to kill someone for committing a crime, then I cannot see why society would have a problem with extracting organs etc from the body before discarding it.

Usually the administration of death is from a needle which basically "shuts down" the body with minimal pain. The procedure for extraction would be along the lines of administrating a substance to render the subject unconscious and then extracting whatever organs etc they wanted before administrating the death needle. It isn't that much different and it's not like the person in the coma would feel any pain, despite still being alive. You could remove the organs shortly after the person is killed off as well.

As far as your last two sentences are concerned, consider this;

A person gets the death penalty but later it is deemed he/she is innocent. Would you rather that life have been put to use by helping other people or would you prefer if the body was just discarded without helping anyone?

I think that the idea behind the death penalty is that there are some people that are just so horrible, that they must die for their awful crimes.
If someone murders another person, how does the murderer deserve death?
The people that decided to kill him are technically murderers. So shouldn't they deserve death too, technically? After all, two, three, or four wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Yoshikko]

Do they have the right to kill someone in the first instance? Think of it this way;

something here

Whatever you are saying here might be true and all (or not) but I never said that I think society does have the right to just kill someone either. I agree with Morkula's post btw. Besides, if their organs are being used is not up to the government or whatever, but up to the person (if they ever signed earlier in their life that they would not want their organs to be used) and if not, the family.