Is it wrong to issue a death penalty?

[Vindekarr]

I think that the "law" has become soft, corrupt, and incompetant.

 

I think that the punishments for truly evil crimes-rape, murder, barbarism, enslavement, human trafficking-should be far harsher.

 

Almost every day I wake up to front page news about a man simply buying his way out of a rape case, or being released after five years for murder.

 

For the love of everything that is holy, the idea of letting a man who murdered and raped five children go free after three years sickens me far more than the thought of that son of a ***** getting a bullet in the head.

 

Some things are unforgiveable, crimes that forfeit the criminal's very humanity. It is a mercy to execute such scum-a mercy they barely deserve.

 

Because the western "justice" system is weak and corrupt. Over and over it proves itself too weak hearted to administer the retribution earned. Just this year a man got off with a two year sentance, bail after one, for kidnapping three women, raping them dozens of times, and then burning them alive. He is free now-he simply purchased freedom.

 

Were it my decision, he would have suffured the same fate as his victims.

 

The punishment must fit the crime. For the most barbaric, most unashamed, most unspeakably evil criminals, simple deprivation of liberty for a short period of 1-10 years is not enough. They deprived innocent, often defencless people of a lot more than their liberty-it would be a crime to release such inhuman scum free to allow them to sin again. They deserve to die-it is a merciful punishment compared to the retribution they have earned.

[Surenas]

True. But in the US the mob doesn't usually actually ACT upon it all. They are just loud. This is also why there are so many levels of appeals for capital punishment cases. So mob rule isn't the rule.

 

... till election day. In between the voice of the public might cause trends and shifts in the politics that are not to be underestimated... or one is former president on the day after. Anyway, for me capital punishment, a circumlocution for sanctioned murder, is an uncivilized anachronism good for nothing.

Don't judge, lest you be judged, Vindekarr. There is absolutely no place left in the West for a shariah of men in black, in who's name soever! Wrong age....

[AliasTheory]

The death penalty...

 

Are any of us really in the position to decide if one person lives and if another dies? That's not our call; that's the person's call. But at the same time, the death penalty can prevent what we consider far worse situations. There are the people that escape the death penalty and then go out and kill a bunch of others. Drawing this line won't be easy, and perhaps impossible.

 

I did a paper about 10 years ago that found that to put a person on death row in Florida it took over 14 Million dollars. It was half that for a life imprisonment.

 

Really? I thought it would take a lot more money to sustain a life in prison, having to provide things such as meals. I'll take your word for it. Didn't know. :)

 

to kill is to give up your right to life, since you do not respect life

to prevent a person from doing more of murder, we must remove them

though death is merciful, life is risky

 

As Quetzlsacatanango said, you might wanna rethink that. Your logic is that if one kills, he/she does not respect lives, therefore he/she should die. Non sequitur. What about people who fight in wars? I don't think we want to go out there and shoot up some people who may just be feeling the same way. Was a murder due to just taking orders, against one's will? Or was there some malicious intent involved?

[Keanumoreira]

After some 4.000 years of death penalty without any influence on the serious crime rate the biblical idea of an eye for an eye has failed, no more no less. The uncivilized public murder of the convict has absolutely nothing to do with mercy or we're really living upside down, folks, but with the macabre revenge show the nasty mob hungers for since the days of Assur and Babel and with the power demonstration of the rulers. This fact and an ethical understanding of the Hebrew commandment "You shall not murder" (something a soldier does not in the killing at war, the old Hebrews were everything but quixotic fools) has resulted in a preference of a sentence for life in most modern, civilized states.

 

But humans have been given 10,000 years to resolve this matter, since the very days civilization began. Over that brief time in human history, we have built unbelievable monuments, reformed society again and again, and even destroyed and raised powerfully nations with our bare hands and minds. We should have, by now, learned that such cruelty should be outlawed. People gawked at the guillotine and the hanging of people, even crustification, a holy sacrifice for those who believe in God and his savior son, was used. Especially these last 100 years, where society has transformed in such a remarkable way, should have given us a good insight on what's right and what's wrong. I don't care what anyone saids, killing another human being, no matter how you put it, is murder, and when people think of murder and execution, which is still murder, they get different ideas, but both are equal. Simply put, it is wrong, and it will always be wrong.

[AliasTheory]

 

But at the same time, the death penalty can prevent what we consider far worse situations. There are the people that escape the death penalty and then go out and kill a bunch of others.

 

What do you think about that, out of curiosity? Would you consider taking the life of one to possibly prevent the death of many other human beings? And what if you knew for a fact this person would do so?

[Jagermh]

The problem with the death penalty is that it is permenant and if someone is wrongly acused then theyre already dead and we can't bring them back.

Other than that there is no problem with removing a criminal from society to protect the citizens permenantly, putting criminals in jail costs taxpayers money whereas killing them doesn't cost much at all.

[McclaudEagle]

I believe it is wrong to put someone on death row for numerous reasons. One of the main problems with the death penalty is that sometimes, innocent people end up there due to false evidence, or lack of it. I also believe that forcing someone to live is worse than death. The reason for that being is that death is a quick escape, but living means they have to live with what they've done for the rest of their lives. That alone is more punishing than the death sentence.

[Keanumoreira]

 

But at the same time, the death penalty can prevent what we consider far worse situations. There are the people that escape the death penalty and then go out and kill a bunch of others.

 

What do you think about that, out of curiosity? Would you consider taking the life of one to possibly prevent the death of many other human beings? And what if you knew for a fact this person would do so?

 

Both are irrelevant as long as the goverment had the responsibility of locking them up in a life sentence. That is what they deserve, not taking their lives away which has repeated so many times...

 

Now, if death was the only choice (if prisons were to up and vanish) then that's another story entirely in order to save the country/world. This case can be as equal as the worlds soldiers who fight to protect people in self defense, which is in no way wrong cause it's what else? Self defense.

 

As long as there is an oppertunity to lock them up, executing criminals is wrong.

[AliasTheory]

If you're going to lock up every person that commits such crimes, you're going to need a lot of space and lots of extra money to maintain whatever you have to. Some people might just prefer a life sentence to death, actually. Living in prison is not so bad if you think about it. You live around and can interact with other people to some degree, you get a roof above your head and you get food at none of your expense. Unfortunately not everyone has all of that...so it might actually be desirable to commit a crime to get those benefits. For some, they might be better off.

 

Putting someone in prison also does not guarantee they will stay. People can break out of prison. And prison may not help overall to decrease crime rates, as people seem to fear death much more than being imprisoned.

 

On the flipside though, killing someone does not allow for rehabilitation. Then again, one might say those who deserve it are incorrigible.

 

You might be thinking I'm totally pro-death right now, but that isn't really my belief. I'm just playing the opposite side for fun.

[JimboUK]

I think that the "law" has become soft, corrupt, and incompetant.

 

I think that the punishments for truly evil crimes-rape, murder, barbarism, enslavement, human trafficking-should be far harsher.

 

Almost every day I wake up to front page news about a man simply buying his way out of a rape case, or being released after five years for murder.

 

For the love of everything that is holy, the idea of letting a man who murdered and raped five children go free after three years sickens me far more than the thought of that son of a ***** getting a bullet in the head.

 

Some things are unforgiveable, crimes that forfeit the criminal's very humanity. It is a mercy to execute such scum-a mercy they barely deserve.

 

Because the western "justice" system is weak and corrupt. Over and over it proves itself too weak hearted to administer the retribution earned. Just this year a man got off with a two year sentance, bail after one, for kidnapping three women, raping them dozens of times, and then burning them alive. He is free now-he simply purchased freedom.

 

Were it my decision, he would have suffured the same fate as his victims.

 

The punishment must fit the crime. For the most barbaric, most unashamed, most unspeakably evil criminals, simple deprivation of liberty for a short period of 1-10 years is not enough. They deprived innocent, often defencless people of a lot more than their liberty-it would be a crime to release such inhuman scum free to allow them to sin again. They deserve to die-it is a merciful punishment compared to the retribution they have earned.

 

I agree sentences in some western countries are too lenient, we have the same problem in the UK. The answer to that is sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crime, life should mean life and not 10-15 years before being released on licence. We don't have to go as far as sanctioning murder by the state.