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 was pro death penalty for a long time.
And then I got older and a lot wiser.
Court costs on appeals waste our time and $$ and occasionally the person is innocent, not that it matters much.
Until we raise the standard of proof for capital crimes and execute in a very timely manner - like days- I am and will remain against it.
For me, I am of the opinion that I don't care whether the horrible people live or die. As long as they cannot harm innocents. Thus life in prison vs.death is moot. Both result in a safer society.
However, I consider the death penalty to be a de facto admission of the justifiable validity of taking the life of an 'offender', and unfortunately there are far too many people in our society who think it is their prerogative to kill offenders.
tl;dr: I think the death penalty, instead of acting as a deterrent against crime, instills in people the idea that death is a suitable punishment that they themselves can justifiably, if not legally, pursue in lieu of state authority.
In other words, our sovereign state has decided that murder is a just punishment. Well we have a society in which there are a surplus of sovereign citizens. And I don't just mean cabin dwelling malcontented misanthropes, but every disenfranchised urban dweller as well. That is millions who can rationalize murder based on a state sponsored model.
I am not opposed to capital punishment, but I think sets a bad example for society.
Death Penalty is not for punishment or deterrence, it's for closure of the victims who are still living. The parents of that boy slept somewhat easier tonight. They do say an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but it also quiets your conscious as well. And there we have it.
I've heard that before and I simply do not understand how taking a human life gives anyone closure.
I hope none of you who answered in defense of executing criminals (proven to be guilty beyond a doubt) have guns in your house because of your "right to bear arms" for protection?
It is an oxymoron to say no one has the right to kill someone else, then arm yourself with a gun to be used for that very purpose.
Solitary confinement for life would obviously be a more severe punishment than capital punishment. But only for those who actually committed the crime. For those wrongly convicted, capital punishment would be the only way to make the punishment permanent.
Solitary confinement for life would probably cost the government less than capital punishment. Considering how much they pay for lawyers to go through all the appeals. And how little it should cost to keep someone confined in a small cage for life.
But if we did something so barbaric as to keep them confined for life, it might reduce the income of lawyers, because too many of their clients would be motivated to avoid such punishment by finding some other profession than criminal. In a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers, the income of lawyers is the number one consideration.
On the other hand, it would give news reporters more to report on. They could interview the confined criminals to show the world how barbaric we are. Teenagers might be so disgusted they would want to avoid anything even remotely related to a life of crime. Then how would lawyers earn money?
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.