Does Law Have a Right to Put Someone to Death ?

[LHammonds]

If a burglar(s) comes into a home with weapons and the home owner protects himself and his family's survival using deadly force, did the home owner have the right to defend himself and take the life of another human being...even before said burglar(s) actually get to kill one of the family members? (Personal Protection)

 

If the answer is ever "yes" then the next logical extension to this would be the peace keepers (police) who might end up in a position to defend themselves or others using deadly force. Is there ever a justified situation where a police officer has the right to shoot / kill someone during a criminal activity? (Protection of others)

 

If the answer is ever "yes" then the next logical step (in America) is the government of "we the people" who as jury members would have to decide if a convicted criminal in whatever situation would also pose such a threat that the only alternative is death. (Protection of community)

 

For me, the answer is simple in regards to personal protection. It becomes much more complicated when a 3rd party comes onto the scene and has to make a judgment call as to who is the real threat (such as a home owner that gets the gun away from the burglar and keeps it pointed at him until the police arrive only to be shot by the police)

 

By the time it reaches the 4th party (jury), there is no longer a need for a snap decision which is where I think the point of this thread is at. If it can be justified at the personal level and the protection of others, it stands to reason that it should be carried over to the law (outside of the engagement). The law is in place to protect others just as the existence of the police carrying deadly weapons. If an individual will not change and continues to be a deadly threat to those around him, the death penalty seems to be the only logical choice...or ship them off to a remote location such as Mars...the beginning story to the Mars vs Earth conflict in the year 3056.

 

LHammonds

[bben46]

@Jim_Uk Did you read the info on Pee Wee Gaskins? He murdered 2 people while locked up. Then put out a contract on the prosecutor who put him in jail. He admitted to killing between 50 and 70 people, mostly young teen girls. He couldn't remember how many. They are still finding his victims over 20 years later. But he was an equal opportunity killer, men women, and one that was 12 years old - after raping her. He admitted to a reporter that he would have no compunction about killing a guard if there was the smallest possibility of escape. He made Charlie Manson look like an amateur.

 

Do you want this guy, or those like him, cluttering up the gene pool? In his case, I think they not only had the right to put him down, but the duty.

[roguim]

Yes.

The LHammonds post has the same thoughts i have in this subject. An further more there is case,like the Pee Wee Gaskins, in wich a criminal not only doesn't have any regrets but also continues to commite crimes inside jail (here in Brazil happens a lot drug dealers command their gangs from jail, criminal demmands money from perons thought fake-kidnnapping, or made /orderin contract killer...).

So in case like this, no regreats and case of a hideous crime like raping following by death, torture following death etc i am a favor os death penalty.

[AncientSpaceAeon]

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.

Think about this.

 

Even the murderer put to death by the law, it's not going to bring back the one he/she killed. Death penalty on situation like these more like revenge. You said they deserved to be put to death.

 

"An Eye for an Eye" it's just wrong.

 

Punishment makes people who break the law don't dangers everyone else, and also try to make the law-breaker into a good person, by regretting his mistakes. Humans cannot judge life.

 

The Pee Wee Gaskins case however, makes me think twice.

[dezdimona]

yes.You take a life,you forfeit yours.Those that say no have been had their lives affected by that crime and so they think to allow a criminal to live of tax dollars is better than saving us all millions in upkeep.The first to cry no,cry yes when it directly affects them.An eye for an eye,a tooth for a tooth. And I'd gladly throw the switch,push in the plunger or open the trap door for a hanging!

[roguim]

Even the murderer put to death by the law, it's not going to bring back the one he/she killed. Death penalty on situation like these more like revenge. You said they deserved to be put to death.

Nor anything , but it isnt because that we don't try to punish the crimes (only put a very radical view of your opinion, please don't take me wrong).

The idea of the death penalty it's that to avoid that one who have comitted a horrid crime and did not regreats to commit such act again.

and it's not eye for eye, most of the death methods use for execute criminal are more merciful than the methods of the criminal used in their victimis

 

@dezdimona

Your post recall me the situation here in Brazil, where there is lots of "human rights " NGO thats only protects criminals never the victims.

example: some years ago a buglar invide a house and raped a woman and her 12 y.o daughter during hours after that thei satbed their faces dozens of times, the woman dies the child survive with horrible scars.

The criminal was arrasted and in the next morning it's found dead, hanged.

Who you thins the human rigths NGOs defend the litle girl or the raper... yeah the raper... and some of them says the woman provokes the attack.... :wallbash:

Not need to say this group is against death penalty too....

[AncientSpaceAeon]

Even the murderer put to death by the law, it's not going to bring back the one he/she killed. Death penalty on situation like these more like revenge. You said they deserved to be put to death.

The idea of the death penalty it's that to avoid that one who have comitted a horrid crime and did not regreats to commit such act again.

Put a radio inside his/her cell that's filled with inspirational words to regret those crimes.

 

That's silly but the point is there must be another way to "punish" him. (besides death)

[roguim]

Even the murderer put to death by the law, it's not going to bring back the one he/she killed. Death penalty on situation like these more like revenge. You said they deserved to be put to death.

The idea of the death penalty it's that to avoid that one who have comitted a horrid crime and did not regreats to commit such act again.

Put a radio inside his/her cell that's filled with inspirational words to regret those crimes.

 

That's silly but the point is there must be another way to "punish" him. (besides death)

In some cases maybe, but there is lot of case in wich death is the best way.

 

what to say to a men that tortures and rape a woman for 3 days and mudered her in the end ,and his only regrets is have killed her before could mad her a angel?

yes thats happened here and as the criminal is a minor he only gets 3 year of "social reeducation" (minors here don't get any penalty more than 3 years...)

 

Only an example of an case that's not only show no-regrets but also a softlaw...

[DeathWarrior]

I put maybe since this seems like a difficult subject to decide on for me. If yes, they should get it over with quickly and not have the person convicted waiting in "death row". It would be one solution the the skyrocketing prison population in the US, but it probably wouldn't do so well as the only solution. Prison conditions in my opinion should be lowered to just be survivable, not comfortable like they are now to some inmates. Some inmates in American prisons get TV, internet access, full meals, and many other things that the homeless don't get, all for free, creating an incentive to commit crimes. Prisons also have huge gang problems and cost money in taxes to build. Unfortunately you can't stop all innocents from getting imprisoned or executed, but you can take steps to reduce how many of them are.

[Balagor]

I put maybe since this seems like a difficult subject to decide on for me. If yes, they should get it over with quickly and not have the person convicted waiting in "death row". It would be one solution the the skyrocketing prison population in the US, but it probably wouldn't do so well as the only solution. Prison conditions in my opinion should be lowered to just be survivable, not comfortable like they are now to some inmates. Some inmates in American prisons get TV, internet access, full meals, and many other things that the homeless don't get, all for free, creating an incentive to commit crimes. Prisons also have huge gang problems and cost money in taxes to build. Unfortunately you can't stop all innocents from getting imprisoned or executed, but you can take steps to reduce how many of them are.

 

That´s true.

In Denmark inmates even have a union, just like skillworkers.

Last year they had a strike because they did not like the food. DID NOT LIKE THE FOOD!!!

I say, no matter with the death penalthy, but make secure prisons.

They can be made and run very cheaply IF they do not need to be 2 or 3 stars hotels.

Then they should work, doing somthing for a company. No work no food. Simple. The same rule goes for all.

This should be for the killers, rapers, molesters.

Light criminals like thiefes, light violence etc. could work more, and even have cigarettes, magazines, and so on.

But the rule should be working, so they still produce something for the society.