Does Law Have a Right to Put Someone to Death ?

[AncientSpaceAeon]

I say no.

 

A punishment shouldn't be like that, and if you want to stop someone to do that again, put him in maximum security.

[JimboUK]

No. The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent, there is the danger of killing an innocent person, the state can't say taking a life is wrong when it does so itself and it costs a fortune. There is something very wrong with a country that kills it own.

[bben46]

The death penalty does work as a deterrent - I guarantee the person put to death absolutely will not commit any more crimes.

 

Be careful how you phrase arguments, absolutes without support will always be picked apart. (note the absolute) :whistling:

A better example would be 'almost always'. So as to have a little wiggle room in your argument to prevent someone using an extreme example against you.

 

Note that in South Carolina we had an example - Pee Wee Gaskins was serving time for several murders. (They had originally asked for the death penalty, but he got prison instead on a technicality) He killed another inmate - a contract killing. To deter him from committing any more murders, he was executed. While on Death row waiting, he twice attempted to kill guards.

 

Google Pee Wee Gaskins for details. Even locking him up didn't keep him from killing again.

[AncientSpaceAeon]

Be careful how you phrase arguments, absolutes without support will always be picked apart. (note the absolute) :whistling:

A better example would be 'almost always'.

Well, I thought about that earlier, but the question is asking "Does the law have the right to put someone to death ?", instead of "Should the law put someone to death (because a reason) ?".

 

Hope you get it, my english just isn't very advance.

[Balagor]

I can not vote Yes, No or Maybe.

The convict can actually be innoncent. It HAS happend.

The convict can be menthally ill and need to be locked up and medicated.

I think we need i really mean, wicked, perverted ????????????? edit by the overseer????????? (i wrote something else

but it has changed) difficult to debate then.

that is NOT ill and IS guilty before we can put him/her to death.

And they are rare.

 

Yes, perhaps the law has the right, but the law itself is not perfect,

and the ones who executes the laws are not perfect.

So, Yes and No And Maybe

[Sarya]

An interesting situation we have here in my country. No terminal punisment currently, and as just an example, our elderly people receive little support and die of sickness or starvation, while people who cut throats of some of those elderly and shove them into trash containers for what little money they have still live somewhere in warm cameras and receive food regularly. And that DOES happen regularly, it's not theory. Also interestingly enough, money used by the country to support such prisoners could increase pensions for elderly significantly. Does country that allows that right and just? Also a needlessly emotional approach, just from a different angle.

 

So, what really is "just not right"?

[Retribution]

Yes. The death penalty is a great deterrent for crimes. If someone kills someone else, and they don't have any sort of valid reason that would at least somewhat justify the murder, they deserve to be put to death.

[JimboUK]

The death penalty does work as a deterrent - I guarantee the person put to death absolutely will not commit any more crimes.

 

Be careful how you phrase arguments, absolutes without support will always be picked apart. (note the absolute) :whistling:

A better example would be 'almost always'. So as to have a little wiggle room in your argument to prevent someone using an extreme example against you.

 

Note that in South Carolina we had an example - Pee Wee Gaskins was serving time for several murders. (They had originally asked for the death penalty, but he got prison instead on a technicality) He killed another inmate - a contract killing. To deter him from committing any more murders, he was executed. While on Death row waiting, he twice attempted to kill guards.

 

Google Pee Wee Gaskins for details. Even locking him up didn't keep him from killing again.

 

For someone to face the death penalty in the first place they must have already committed the crime, so as a deterrent it has already failed. Those locked up for life don't go around murdering people either, they can also be freed if it turns out they're innocent, better than putting someone to death then digging them up to say "sorry".

[Sarya]

For someone to face the death penalty in the first place they must have already committed the crime, so as a deterrent it has already failed. Those locked up for life don't go around murdering people either, they can also be freed if it turns out they're innocent, better than putting someone to death then digging them up to say "sorry".

That's it - if they commit it in such circumstances. I would not call potential criminals knowing that their actions might bring their deaths by law a useless factor in holding them back.

[Vagrant0]

I say yes, but death should not be sought out for every case.

 

Yes, there are people who are wrongfully imprisoned, but there are also people who have solid evidence linking them to the crime. Such as if the act is seen on video, or is witnessed directly by more than 3 people who do not have a personal stake in the case, or multiple pieces of evidence directly link the suspect with the act, or the suspect confesses to the act*, the death penalty should be used. In short, if there is absolutely no doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

 

I also think that it should be sought in the more extreme cases where people are sent to prison more than twice for violent crime, sexual assault, grand theft, or drug possession with intent to sell, transport, or manufacture. It might help to clean some of the real scumbags in society out of the system.