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.
I had the experience of being on a jury of a murderer in my home state, where capital punishment is not allowed. I won't go into details, but the defendant admitted the act but went to trial over degree of murder charge. He exacted his revenge and then tried to commit 'suicide by cop'.
My problem with the death penalty is that it simplistically sounds like it would make society safer, but instead offers a fantasy epic end for murderers, enticing certain types of emotional murderers. I believe (and statistics seem to agree) that capital punishment states are less safe for society in general, than prison for life states.
This is a hard question. Which is worse a quick death or a life behind bars with only some of the most violent dangerous members of society for company?
I can understand the family wanting the person dead. What I want to know is this can a person of this type ever be rehabilitated or are they just a dangerous lost cause? What is the best way to benefit society on this issue ? Is there a way they can be forced atone for their horrible mistake ? Can they still be useful to society in any way ? Does their life have any value to society anymore or is that value outweighed by the damage they have caused and would still cause to others if given a chance? If the answer is yes they can be of value make them live if the answer is no they are more trouble then they are worth as a human being then kill them.
Abolished? I think in cases where it's completely obvious that the person on trial committed the crime (DNA, admitted it, etc.), and the crime is punishable by death penalty, it should be expedited not abolished. If the punishment of death fits the crime committed, I think it's an absolute joke that we need to keep someone alive for longer than one day after they are found guilty without an inkling of doubt, let alone support them for 30+ years.
Obviously there are exclusions to this but once it reaches the point of absolute certainty, I'm all for killing them off.
I don't know, I go back and forth over this, but at the end of the day I don't feel it's any man's right to have a say on who should live and who shouldn't. Yeah even people who kill others, I personally could never sit on a death case for that very reason. For me I would like it if I knew the person who killed my loved one was in prison having a terrible life, that would help me moreso than putting them to sleep peacefully, I would just feel like that is the easy way out. Just my opinion
I believe in the death penalty only in cases of (1) horrific torture of anyone, (2) intentional child abuse resulting in death, or (3) serial/mass murder -- and ONLY if there is ZERO percent chance of innocence -- not 99.99999% -- ZERO.
My main reason for this view is that I just don't think that the worst scum of (supposed) humanity should be supported at a cost of about $30,000 per year (according to the on-line Law Dictionary) when they have shown that they have no regard for human life whatsoever. In my view, by paying for their food, shelter, clothing and medical care for the rest of their lives (hopefully), we are rewarding them for their extreme violence to others.
The argument, of course, is that with all the appeals and everything involved in obtaining and carrying out a death penalty, a life sentence is actually less expensive. Well, if there weren't so many appeals allowed to begin with (in my view, TWO is plenty), and if there was a time limit set for execution, that would not be true. (And, again, let me stress that I am only talking about those cases where there is ZERO chance of innocence!)
P.S. And please don't tell me that life imprisonment is not all that great. Don't many people who are against the death penalty say that prison is a more humane than death? Well, tell that to the murderers' victims. Oh, that's right -- they can't.
Last edited by katharsis; 03-18-2015 at 05:19 PM..
I believe in the death penalty only in cases of (1) horrific torture of anyone, (2) intentional child abuse resulting in death, or (3) serial/mass murder -- and ONLY if there is ZERO percent chance of innocence -- not 99.99999% -- ZERO.
ZERO % chance this cannot be obtained reality is humans make mistakes and while we strive not to there will be someone put on death row that was innocent. Not every case has DNA plus there is always a chance DNA can be placed on someone to set them up to take the fall a simple hair from a hair brush can make you 99.9999% guilty. I actually think a short appeals process and a quick death is far more humane then a life time in prison. What is life inside a prison some of these people are far to dangerous to let out. People who kidnap children and torture them the guy who kept 3 girls in his home for 10 years that was caught last year he did us a favor by hanging him self.
ZERO % chance this cannot be obtained reality is humans make mistakes and while we strive not to there will be someone put on death row that was innocent. Not every case has DNA plus there is always a chance DNA can be placed on someone to set them up to take the fall a simple hair from a hair brush can make you 99.9999% guilty. I actually think a short appeals process and a quick death is far more humane then a life time in prison. What is life inside a prison some of these people are far to dangerous to let out. People who kidnap children and torture them the guy who kept 3 girls in his home for 10 years that was caught last year he did us a favor by hanging him self.
Actually, it can. If they confess, that's as good as a 100% chance they did. They could lie, it's not likely. Or if we have video evidence that is very clear. OR if there is just too much evidence. Like Hitler. We know what he did, and I don't think he'd have much of an argument to prove his innocence.
And this is coming from someone who opposes the death penalty.
The point is - When a person commits a crime we as a society should set an example and punish them accordingly. What we are saying to that person in effect is " civilized people do not act like this and if you do we will deprive you of your liberty ( maybe for life) for the good of the public at large". That's it - period.
What we don't do is to COPY THAT PERSON. If we do we stand diminished as a society. We have allowed that person to dictate the level to which we are prepared to stoop. You cannot credibly say to a prisoner that murder is wrong when you are about to do just that to him !!
Make no mistake about it, Capital Punishment is murder however much the recipient may deserve it.
Quite apart from the moral argument, the very thought of an innocent person being executed is beyond imagination, is bound to happen and completely destroys any case for maintaining the death penalty.
Unsurprisingly every single country in the EU has abolished Capital Punishment.
In the UK we have certainly executed innocent people and for those injustices we should all hang our heads in shame.
The Death Penalty is basically "revenge" killing. What is the purpose of the death penalty? To deter horrific crimes? Obviously the concept of life is lost upon a murderer so that doesn't work as a deterent.
every time someone new is incarcerated, the worst inmate is executed to make room
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.
