Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All murders have the same result for the victim.....
If the victim died, you chose that decision for them by committing the murder then society chooses through the judge/jury for you to die as well. Game Over......
Well, the murderer could be a child, they could be mentally insane, there may be a semi-justifiable element of self defense, it may have not been wholly intentional. There's a lot of factors at play. If the murder was an accident the result would be the same as well, but I don't think very many people would say life in prison is a fair punishment for an accidental killing, even if it was a result of negligence.
That being said: what, then, is to be done with murderers and other offenders? Turning the other cheek just reinforces the message that there won't be any consequences for ruining others' lives. Victims-- direct and indirect-- don't get that sort of clemency; why let the offender walk away laughing and (very likely) do it again?
Also keep in mind the existence of a death penalty endangers others in the sense it gives the criminal an incentive to fight for their life with the cops once caught, or to eliminate the witnesses of a crime. I think the death penalty may possibly have some deterrent effect on minor crimes like robbery, but then again pickpockets actually robbed people during executions back in the old days...
People who commit murder lack self control in the first place and I don't think the fear of punishment has too much of an effect on them. Even if there was no punishment for murder, I doubt the murder rate would go THAT far up. Vigilantism of course would replace the law as well in such a case.
With that said, I think some murderers probably ought to be in prison for life.
The replies here make me sick. We shouldn't gloat about someone's suffering even if they caused others to suffer themselves. It's disgusting.
I find the death penalty an embarrassment.
Many of us find opinions like yours an embarrassment. It is almost comical that a few people can't understand reciprocal justice.
Hope you sleep well with your smug moral superiority. You have shown us all that you are better and more thoughtful than we, and that really is the point, isn't it?
For my part, I hope this pig is having a fine time in hell, and I give a damn what you think about it.
Many of us find opinions like yours an embarrassment. It is almost comical that a few people can't understand reciprocal justice.
Hope you sleep well with your smug moral superiority. You have shown us all that you are better and more thoughtful than we, and that really is the point, isn't it?
For my part, I hope this pig is having a fine time in hell, and I give a damn what you think about it.
And others of us find opinions like yours and the existence of the death penalty to be an "embarrassment."
You are what - the mind of God, now? You know that this individual in hell? Perhaps he was a Christian and he repented.
Those saying life without parole is too expensive have never looked at how much more it costs to execute a man. The cost is mind boggling. This is true, because we do it wrong. We don't trust our system enough to accept the outcome of one trial (what does that say about our system?) so we allow 10, 15, 20+ years of appeals and motions. Most of those have nothing to do with the guilt of the convicted. They're maneuvers to lengthen his/her life, but they are just as guilty. The system is very broken, especially with regards to the death penalty.
Those saying "He suffered? I have no sympathy". I agree. I have no sympathy for this particular guy either. On the other hand, I don't want us making these sorts of mistakes because we are better then this man. We execute people without causing unnecessary pain or suffering, and its what our constitution requires. This was bad.
4% of the people we execute are innocent. Not true at all. 4% of those convicted maybe not guilty. Big difference.
Am I against the death penalty? Well...no. I've testified for the prosecution in order to put someone to death. But I feel that we need to do it only when the evidence is beyond any doubt, not reasonable doubt-any doubt. That we should always do it in a humane manner to demonstrate that unlike the person deserving of execution we are better as a society. And importantly it needs to be only applied when the crime is so heinoius that we as a society say "hell no this ones got to die-despite the extra cost".
Quote:
Originally Posted by spicymeatball
Well, the murderer could be a child, they could be mentally insane, there may be a semi-justifiable element of self defense, it may have not been wholly intentional. There's a lot of factors at play. If the murder was an accident the result would be the same as well, but I don't think very many people would say life in prison is a fair punishment for an accidental killing, even if it was a result of negligence.
Why should it matter who is guilty?
Accidental deaths aren't murders.
Someone said that executing anyone is cruel. Consider this-if you tell your 10 year old son to not go into the neighbors yard or he will be grounded for a week, is grounding him for a week after he is caught in the neighbors yard cruel? If the law is to not exceed the speed limit or you will be written a ticket, is it cruel to write a ticket to a speeder? If the law is to not murder people, or the penalty of losing your own life will be enforced, is it cruel to execute someone when they murder another person?
It is literally just that simple in many murder cases.
Even in operation or treating person on scene they often dying from fighting the treatment. Maybe we should dart them with a needle gun if people want that not to be true as observation show he was fighting the procedures needed to do a humane procedure.Notice that other shave gone smoothly but even I surgery things can go wrong even with co-operation.
I was thinking about this the other day and I honestly think the most cost effective, humane yet terrifying enough to make criminals think twice way to execute criminals is to: Take them to the top of one of the worlds tallest structures, and toss them off of it. It would give them the entire way down to consider their actions. It also wouldnt cost anything at all.
Are you sick? Why would you want to terrify anyone? Does that thought make you happy?
Think about what you are saying. Because is sounds awful.
Most on death row have been sitting around and eating up tax dollars for years. Their sentence should be carried out in 30 days. Appeals? If not within 30 days, too bad. I wouldn't expect more if it were me and it was the law. How many people are executed in a decade as it is? Very few. Ramp it up and make them public.
Hanging is quick and efficient. A 10-15' drop would end all of the humane nonsense. How is killing someone humane anyway? Ask the murderer that question before you put the noose around his neck.
If the injection doesn't work fast enough, a bullet to the head would do it. Also cheaper than all those expensive drugs (so that the poor soul won't suffer ).
+1... Ya beat me to it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
