Is it wrong to issue a death penalty?

[Keanumoreira]

In my opinion, yes, I believe it is very immoral to execute human beings based on their actions. Many countries, if not the majority, do issue death penalties, but is there really any point in doing this? Not matter how much you try to cover it up- with painless posion or whatever method they do - it's still killing a living, breathing entity that has loved, cried, and suffered itself. A human is still a human, so why kill one that has done the same injustice (or something just as bad) and just lock them up like everyone else? Why be considered a crimminal yourself when life in prison or a long sentence can equal the deed, and as a result, apply IMO, the real, appropiate punishment?

Just because someone is of the human race does not mean they are not inhuman in terms of conduct and morality. Would you try to suggest that a father who willingly beats his wife to death and burns his children while they sleep (by dumping gasoline on them and lighting a match) is someone who is "human"? If so, what does that say about the whole of humanity? The death penalty exists to separate those cases of individuals who are beyond living redemption from those who are not guilty of horrible and mortal crimes. If anything, I believe the death penalty should be expanded to include proven rapists (no prior contact, signs of forced sex), convicted child molesters (ones who cause actual harm to a real child), and those who are convicted of a violent crime involving "hard" (any of the stuff that will really f*** you up) narcotics. Essentially, any of those guilty without a doubt of serious crimes against others, who pose no benefit to society, and are involved with conditions which cannot be treated or cured.

 

No V, it is wrong. It is not in our hands to kill another human being no matter what they have done. The only reason why people voutch for it is because they are caught up in the moment; I was too and still do, but I certainly don't mean it. What if it were you in that room, having to kill this criminal, who, mind you, could actually be innocent and just falsely accused? Either way, would you have the strength and moral standing to take that life away? Everyone makes mistakes V, and everyone gets punished over it, but death is not the answer and it never will be. It is a barbaric, ignorant, and stupid measure to carry out that society still hasn't managed to learn yet. "No, lets form a good society based on murder." If that's your way of an Idyllic future, then you have a funny way at looking at it my friend....

[Keanumoreira]

I'll finish this in just a paragraph then be on my way. I don't believe in the death penalty, I don't believe that our laws are too "soft", I don't believe that revenge will solve anything, I don't believe that we should sentence someone to death just because they broke the law. Granted that they are people who should have been killed but what does this make us? Why should we kill the culprit just because they must? I feel that it sets double standards and not to mention cause more tension in delicate cases. Besides killing them is the cheaters way out, I would rather have them suffer in prisons for the rest of their lives than to kill them. So in the end, I might be idealistic in some of my views but I won't let my morals falter just because someone did something wrong and they die for it. We should all take the high road rather than yell for death, after all we are the ones who say that murder is wrong. What's the difference from killing a man or sentencing a man to death? Revenge should never take over as justice.

 

Exactly, and that's what fuels people to execute these people. Most of us don't know it, but when we think of revenege, we think we need it, we think we want it. The sad truth is...once someone carries it out, it almost always comes back to bite them in the butt. But by then, it will be too late.

[Vagrant0]

No V, it is wrong. It is not in our hands to kill another human being no matter what they have done. The only reason why people voutch for it is because they are caught up in the moment; I was too and still do, but I certainly don't mean it. What if it were you in that room, having to kill this criminal, who, mind you, could actually be innocent and just falsely accused? Either way, would you have the strength and moral standing to take that life away? Everyone makes mistakes V, and everyone gets punished over it, but death is not the answer and it never will be. It is a barbaric, ignorant, and stupid measure to carry out that society still hasn't managed to learn yet. "No, lets form a good society based on murder." If that's your way of an Idyllic future, then you have a funny way at looking at it my friend....

It wasn't wrong for the thousands of years before the era of modern law... It's more wrong to allow persons who pose a threat to society to go on living, breathing, watching cable TV, having 3 meals a day, and have conjugal visits at the cost of the rest of society. Prisoners in modern countries live better than 70% of the world population. How is THAT not wrong? How is it wrong to end the life of something which only serves to drag down the rest of society?

 

Yes, there are legal oversights, but it is more of something which is touted by lawyers and those against the death penalty than it is a common occurrence. Any legal problems are not the fault of the death penalty but are the fault of the legal system in general. One should not infer that one is directly related with the other. The legal systems in most countries are little more than mockeries where people are guilty until proven so, but nobody is complaining about those.

 

As for if I would kill a prisoner, even if there was some remote chance of them being innocent... Yes, as a matter of civil duty, and would do it proudly without regret.

[JimboUK]

No V, it is wrong. It is not in our hands to kill another human being no matter what they have done. The only reason why people voutch for it is because they are caught up in the moment; I was too and still do, but I certainly don't mean it. What if it were you in that room, having to kill this criminal, who, mind you, could actually be innocent and just falsely accused? Either way, would you have the strength and moral standing to take that life away? Everyone makes mistakes V, and everyone gets punished over it, but death is not the answer and it never will be. It is a barbaric, ignorant, and stupid measure to carry out that society still hasn't managed to learn yet. "No, lets form a good society based on murder." If that's your way of an Idyllic future, then you have a funny way at looking at it my friend....

It wasn't wrong for the thousands of years before the era of modern law... It's more wrong to allow persons who pose a threat to society to go on living, breathing, watching cable TV, having 3 meals a day, and have conjugal visits at the cost of the rest of society. Prisoners in modern countries live better than 70% of the world population. How is THAT not wrong? How is it wrong to end the life of something which only serves to drag down the rest of society?

 

Yes, there are legal oversights, but it is more of something which is touted by lawyers and those against the death penalty than it is a common occurrence. Any legal problems are not the fault of the death penalty but are the fault of the legal system in general. One should not infer that one is directly related with the other. The legal systems in most countries are little more than mockeries where people are guilty until proven so, but nobody is complaining about those.

 

As for if I would kill a prisoner, even if there was some remote chance of them being innocent... Yes, as a matter of civil duty, and would do it proudly without regret.

 

People locked away in jail are not a threat to society, also if it turns out they were innocent they can be compensated and freed, much better than digging them up and saying "sorry".

[LadyMilla]

Yes, there are legal oversights, but it is more of something which is touted by lawyers and those against the death penalty than it is a common occurrence.

 

Since the death penalty was reinstated in the US in 1976, about 1500 people were executed. Since 1973, 130 people were released, which means about 1 out of 12 people who are sentenced to death are victims of miscarriage of justice. 1 out 12 does not seem so uncommon to me.

 

Also this uncommon occurrence usually doesn't bother those who are not affected by it directly. Probably, your opinion would radically change about the issue if it were you or one of your relatives who have been condemned to death due to a 'legal oversight'. Medicines that have a much lower chance to produce a negative effect, not even death, maybe 'just' some sort of permanent disability, or just increased likelihood of stroke or infarction get withdrawn from the market. Obviously, death penalty that fails to hit the right target on 1 out of 12 occasions is considered safe. Hypocrisy much?

 

Even politicians are not content with the efficiency of the legal system:

""I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate." Governor George Ryan of Illinois, January 2000

 

 

[Surenas]

I have to agree to Jim and others.

And it's doubtlessly better to fade out of a macabre thread that even makes some people proud of their bold contempt for mankind. No thanks!

I feel :sick:

Edited November 20, 2010 by Surenas

[Keanumoreira]

No V, it is wrong. It is not in our hands to kill another human being no matter what they have done. The only reason why people voutch for it is because they are caught up in the moment; I was too and still do, but I certainly don't mean it. What if it were you in that room, having to kill this criminal, who, mind you, could actually be innocent and just falsely accused? Either way, would you have the strength and moral standing to take that life away? Everyone makes mistakes V, and everyone gets punished over it, but death is not the answer and it never will be. It is a barbaric, ignorant, and stupid measure to carry out that society still hasn't managed to learn yet. "No, lets form a good society based on murder." If that's your way of an Idyllic future, then you have a funny way at looking at it my friend....

It wasn't wrong for the thousands of years before the era of modern law... It's more wrong to allow persons who pose a threat to society to go on living, breathing, watching cable TV, having 3 meals a day, and have conjugal visits at the cost of the rest of society. Prisoners in modern countries live better than 70% of the world population. How is THAT not wrong? How is it wrong to end the life of something which only serves to drag down the rest of society?

 

Yes, there are legal oversights, but it is more of something which is touted by lawyers and those against the death penalty than it is a common occurrence. Any legal problems are not the fault of the death penalty but are the fault of the legal system in general. One should not infer that one is directly related with the other. The legal systems in most countries are little more than mockeries where people are guilty until proven so, but nobody is complaining about those.

 

As for if I would kill a prisoner, even if there was some remote chance of them being innocent... Yes, as a matter of civil duty, and would do it proudly without regret.

 

Then it's the fault of those countries for instating such comfortable imprisionments. They certainly shouldn't be tortured or anything but they could at least not give them any kind of luxury.

[Vagrant0]

Even politicians are not content with the efficiency of the legal system:

""I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate." Governor George Ryan of Illinois, January 2000

A politician whom, I would point out is well known for his corrupt policies, back-room dealing, and dragging the whole state in the mud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ryan#Scandals.2C_trial.2C_and_conviction

 

The problem here is how you define death. Why is it perfectly OK to kill someone who is personally threatening you or others with harm, is stealing your property, or who died as a result of an accident you had no control over; but it's somehow wrong to kill someone who strains society, indoctrinates other lesser criminals, and is allowed to continue to live better than most people? Why is it OK to kill another person in battle, even if that person happens to be a 12 year old who was forced into fighting, but not OK to kill someone who walks into a mall with an automatic weapon and opens fire on innocent civilians? With such a person, it would be fine to kill them, or beat them during the act, as part of civil duty, but after that person has been tried and convicted, they are somehow more deserving of civility.

 

The death penalty doesn't exist as a means of punishment, it is a means of action to cleanse the population of those who are beyond reformation. Afterall, the prison system is SUPPOSED to help reform criminals... There must exist a means of removing those who have no interest in reform from the population of those who are capable of it. As it stands, murders and rapists are allowed to intermingle with petty thieves, indoctrinate them into a prison based micro-society of drugs, violence, and extortion and worse. In terms of punishment, prison is BETTER than death since it's a long, drawn out act forcing someone to live in a hostile environment. The death penalty is not punishment, it is solution.

 

Then it's the fault of those countries for instating such comfortable imprisionments. They certainly shouldn't be tortured or anything but they could at least not give them any kind of luxury.

 

But that's the thing... The prisoners have those privileges of being fed, clothed, entertained, and even paid at the cost of taxpayers because of laws against "strange and unusual punishment" or laws against torture and the ambiguities that go along with them. These laws exist because without them, prisoners (even petty criminals) often died because of disease, and malnourishment, or were driven insane... Even when they weren't regularly beaten. How can you say that it's wrong to kill someone quickly and painlessly, but is right to leave someone to starve in their own filth, or be driven insane by isolation, lack of stimulation, or mistreatment? Sure, it may be more "humane" to pay for the livelyhood of someone who has wronged you or other members of society, but it is not justice. It is estimated that currently about 0.1% of the entire population of the US is in prison, and in total among the whole population, about 1 in 500 has at one time been incarcerated by the justice system with more than half being related to violent crime. When you have more prisons than you have schools, it is not the sign of a working system. Obviously being "humane" is not a solution to the problem.

 

As for that whole family shtick... If a family member were convicted of a crime which they were not guilty of, I would work tirelessly to appeal their case, and review the evidence which was levied against them. And that is what people should do. If they were killed before I could prove their case, it would be because either the case was not one which could be proven at that time, or because the evidence was clearly against them. I might still work to try and clear their name, but would accept the results. Afterall, the best way to avoid conviction of a crime is to just not be suspect and to cooperate with all investigations. Most of those who are wrongfully convicted either had motive, did not cooperate with authority, or were linked to the crime through evidence that they could not otherwise explain. And for that the answer is simple... Life sucks, and such things are no more preventable than dying as a result of a medical screwup, being the victim of a hit-and-run, having building debris/ice fall on you, or other things which you have little control over. If I were convicted of such a crime, I would appeal my case, but accept the result willingly.

[LadyMilla]

Even politicians are not content with the efficiency of the legal system:

""I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate." Governor George Ryan of Illinois, January 2000

A politician whom, I would point out is well known for his corrupt policies, back-room dealing, and dragging the whole state in the mud. http://en.wikipedia...._and_conviction

 

 

It is strange that even a corrupt politician recognized how futile it is to speak about justice when the administration of justice is marred by human weakness, error, corruption and ambition. Those who are against the death penalty, are not against punishing the guilty, rather against the possibility of committing an irreversible and irredeemable crime against innocents. If the judicial system is a imperfect monster, the least you can do is to take away the only thing it can use to inflict irreparable damage. No, I don't want to see murderers outside the prison. But I don't want to see anybody deprived of his right to defend his innocence and to have a chance of clearing his name before the natural end of his life. The money spent on building prisons and feeding human monsters seems to be wasted, but no money on Earth is able to restore a life that was unjustly taken... not matter who is the killer: a man or the state. In my country, there is no death penalty, and I'm willing to accept that a portion of my tax payments is spent on the food of criminals, knowing that out of the murderous injustice of my fellow humans and the murderous injustice of the state, at least the latter has been eliminated.

 

Life sucks, and such things are no more preventable than dying as a result of a medical screwup,[/Quote]

 

Unlike medical screw-ups, the fatal result of a miscarriage of justice can be eliminated by abolishing a human invention - death penalty. It has been proved many times over that death penalty does not reduce crime rates and fails miserably as a deterrent, it is extremely prone to abuse by politicians, governors or whoever wants to parade himself as the tough guy upholding the law. Lifers should be separated from the rest of the inmates or even moved to a different penitentiary and completely isolated from the population, but not from the option to appeal for retrial if new evidence is obtained.

 

It is estimated that currently about 0.1% of the entire population of the US is in prison, and in total among the whole population, about 1 in 500 has at one time been incarcerated by the justice system with more than half being related to violent crime. When you have more prisons than you have schools, it is not the sign of a working system.

 

Maybe it's time to look for answers outside the justice system?

[RobCoPublicReassurance]

In my opinion, the death penalty is not wrong. Someone who has willfully and knowingly committed murder without proper motive (Proper motive being self-defense and all that), should die. Otherwise, they are getting a life sentence, and therefore are a drain on society. A person trapped away in a prison for their entire natural life is only going to take resources from society, without giving any back.