Death Penalty

[Luminus]

Hey, I know exactly what you mean wesaynothin.

 

I to disagree with the death penalyt. This is an exert of an essay i wrote in grade ten. It explains my veiws of capital punishment.

 

 

It could be argued that the prospect of death would deter someone from committing a capital offence, and hence capital punishment is necessary to keep these offences down to a minimum. However, terrorist attacks such as September 11 have been clearly planned and thought out, and the offenders would know that death would face them if they were caught. Thus, it would seem that the knowledge of the death penalty did not deter these people. Indeed, some of these people were prepared to give up their lives for their cause. Moreover, the majority of murders occur in the heat of the moment with the offender not even thinking about what punishment he or she might receive. There is also evidence that states in America without capital punishment have the same homicide rate as states that endorse it. Thus, does the death penalty really deter an offender? The evidence does not support that view. Death may even be seen as an ‘easy way out’ when compared with a lifetime in prison.

 

Keeping someone in prison for a lifetime sentence is very costly. Some may say that this money could be spent on better things rather than looking after capital offenders. However, in the United States of America, the cost of keeping prisoners on death row, the provision and maintenance of the apparatus used for the execution and the endless legal procedures far outweighs the cost of life imprisonment. Being on death row, waiting to die can also be seen as a form of torture thus defying Article 5 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948) which states, ‘no one should be tortured, or punished in a cruel way’.

 

One of the strongest arguments against capital punishment is the fact that the justice system does not always produce the correct verdict. In the case of capital punishment, there would be no way to pardon an innocent person who has already been executed. If capital punishment is re-instated in Australia, it means that innocent Australians might die. The chances of an innocent person being executed may not be that great, however the potential of this happening would always be there.

 

In my view capital punishment is barbaric and a remnant of our uncivilised past. The arguments against capital punishment far outweigh those for it. If capital punishment were re-introduced into Australia, it would be a step backwards for our society. Capital punishment is unnecessary and morally wrong and should definitely not be re-introduced into Australia.

[Luminus]

The essay was about capital punishment being re-introduced into Australia. I forgot to delete the last paragraph...oops.

[DaCuda]

Until such time as a sentence of "life without possibility of parole" means exactly that I will be in favor of the death penalty.

[Indoril Nerevar]

I think it is humanitarian to put someone to capital punishment.

[Abramul]

No. For those who are truly barbaric, permit torture. For those who are simply vicious, the best solution is Exile. I'm sure we have some uninhabited island somewhere, we could assign one or two gunboats to make sure no one gets off. Heck of a lot cheaper than keeping them in prison, after all...

[ThetaOrionis01]

I think it is humanitarian to put someone to capital punishment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

If you really feel the need to revive topics that have been dormant for a year and a half, at least post something that will actually add to the discussion rather than a one-liner.

 

 

Please see here for our forum rules, including those on thread necromancy.

[Indoril Nerevar]

Okay I'll elaborate. I believe that capital punishment is humanitarian because with life inprisonment you torture the person little by littel unil they die by having them isoated. With capital punishment you relieve them of any long duration of pain. If you have ever read Anton Chekov's "The Bet" you will understand this.

 

Oh and theta: How is someone that just joined two days ago supposed to know about a thread that was gone about a year and a half ago.

[ThetaOrionis01]

There are two major flaws in that, though.

 

1. Miscarriages of justice

What happens if 10 years after the conviction new evidence comes to light which proves the prisoner's innocence? Such cases are not all that uncommon, either. You can release a prisoner, you can try to help them rebuild their lives, you can offer monetary compensation - although IMO it does not compensate for 10 years of your life lost -, but you can't resurrect someone you've executed.

 

2. Time spent on death row

Perhaps one of our US members could tell us what the average time spent on death row is, between initial conviction and actual execution?

Is it not cruel to keep people in a state of fear alternating with hope for many years and then executing them - which would negate the point of your argument?

 

 

Another thing which springs to mind, of course, is - what would a prisoner choose, given the choice between life imprisonment and execution? You compare imprisonment to torture and slow death - however, what if a prisoner does not agree with you and would prefer life imprisonment?

 

 

And, in reply to your query re. thread necromancy: all posts are dated. All you have to do to ascertain the age of a thread is look at the date of the last post.

[Indoril Nerevar]

To answere your question about twenty to forty years on death row is a person before they "get the axe." This should be sufficient time for new evidence to be found. That is why they have death row. i however hatethe length of time for death row. it needs to be shortened. And they don't treat the deathrow guys like crap either. They have rights. And even get a final meal of their choosing no matter what it is. I think that is pretty nice for a convict on death row. A little respect, and a nice meal at the end. and even a final message.

 

Also, i tried to look up past threads and found this one. I was going to start on similar to this, but found this.

[Guest]

Of course they treat these people with respect and with good reason. With our current Judicial system a conviction is no longer (and never was) an assurance of guilt. Any trial is subject to flaws. These deathrow inmates may not have commited their crime, they may be paying a price to society that they never owed. Would you have innocent men killed? Any trial by man is a trial subject to human error. I have never believed in a system that offers the possiblity for innocent men to be killed legally. It doesn't matter if only one innocent man has been killed because even one is too much.

 

Shortening the period before executions and tormenting the convicted is only serving to exacerbate the situation. Furthermore, I do not like the precendent of a government having the ability to legally kill its citizens. As happened in the past, this precendent tends to allow corrupted men to kill with immunity. Look at the Roman Civil War, the French Civil war, Soviet Russia, the examples are evident throughout history. Finally, as a last remark, there has been no indication from any psychological source that the threat of punishment is an impetus to preventing crime. Therefore, the death penalty does not stop the murderers, its only accomplishment is to stop a handful from repeating their crimes.