Is it wrong to issue a death penalty?

[Lisnpuppy]

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.

 

I have to disagree, it cost far more for capital punishment as it commands SO many more resources for the levels of appeals and such. So in a way the people are paying twice. Here is one of many links I have found regarding the cost of capital punishment.

 

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

[Vagrant0]

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.

 

I have to disagree, it cost far more for capital punishment as it commands SO many more resources for the levels of appeals and such. So in a way the people are paying twice. Here is one of many links I have found regarding the cost of capital punishment.

 

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

And if the legal system worked the first time there wouldn't have need for the appeals process... And if people didn't have so many moral hang-ups over killing another human, they wouldn't need to use expensive means to kill people. A couple bullets and some CCTV coverage for witnesses is all that is needed.

[Surenas]

And if the legal system worked the first time there wouldn't have need for the appeals process... And if people didn't have so many moral hang-ups over killing another human, they wouldn't need to use expensive means to kill people. A couple bullets and some CCTV coverage for witnesses is all that is needed.

 

I can't believe what you write here, must be a nightmare. Unbelievable.

[Chaosblade02]

To have a system of law in place that serves real justice, the punishment must fit the crime, anything else that does not grant this doesn't have the right to call itself a justice system. People that murder with intent, deserve to be executed.

 

The evidence required to grant a death penalty must also be very hard tangible evidence, defendants finger prints on the murder weapon, someone seeing the murder take place, victims blood on the defendants clothing, admission to the murder, or even a prior history of violence or threats concerning the defendant and the victim would be taken into consideration.

 

The idea of being innocent until proven guilty is a lie, it is in fact the other way around if you are being charged with a crime in a court of law.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Chaosblade02

[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.

 

I have to disagree, it cost far more for capital punishment as it commands SO many more resources for the levels of appeals and such. So in a way the people are paying twice. Here is one of many links I have found regarding the cost of capital punishment.

 

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

And if the legal system worked the first time there wouldn't have need for the appeals process... And if people didn't have so many moral hang-ups over killing another human, they wouldn't need to use expensive means to kill people. A couple bullets and some CCTV coverage for witnesses is all that is needed.

 

Or perhaps a guillotine? Seems cruel and "primitive", but it is cheap, quick, and (mostly) painless.

[Harbringe]

The taking of any life is a very serious matter and given that no justice system is perfect its incumbent upon us to have safeguards ,that said in today's world we have individuals committing acts of such heinous extreme that when it comes to the justice system they don't even fear it ,it just simply doesn't enter into their minds as a consequence they need concern themselves with and given the advances in forensic's in many of these cases its not even a case of beyond reasonable doubt ,its with absolute certainty that we know their guilty.Yet these people will freely admit their crime ,even giving us details on how they raped and mutilated and murdered some poor woman or girl or boy or whatever and we're supposed to pause at the idea of putting someone like that to death.Until we make the consequences for such crimes something to be truly feared we will continue to be victimized.As far as Vagranto's idea of a couple of bullets and a TV crew ,he is being too kind.

[Chaosblade02]

Other crimes like rape deserve harsh punishments. If it was up to me, rapists and child molesters would be put in a gorilla suit, sprayed with female gorilla pheromone and put in a cage with an 850 pound male silverback doped up on viagra for a day. Then chemically castrated. Talk about being violated lol, like I said, the punishment should fit the crime. Edited November 21, 2010 by Chaosblade02

[Balagor]

I promised myself to stay off this topic, since we allready had it excactly 1 year ago, and some of the posts was just as hatefull back then. Some will remember I even made a special siggy for the occasion. (perhaps I find it again)

 

Never the less, the post from Vagrant that the cheapest way is a couple of bullets and a tv cam, got me in. Is´nt this like they do in some far east countries (no names), countries we do not want to compare ourselves with.

Countries that the WHO Human Rights section has banned for still executing people (amongs other). An organisation that counts members from this very discusion panel.

 

Why I call it "hate posts", is when I see posts with "an eye for eye" or "these beast deserve death", you speak only about revenge, Revenge is hate, and it changes nothing, except for bringing more hate into society. Revenge does not undo what was done.

 

I will not defend the so called brutal serial killer, but I will remind everybody that we are all partly a product of, our parents, the society and ourself.

However the first part of our life we can not be held responsible for.

Nobody kill for fun, on less they are psycopaths. To create a psycopath is easy. If you fail to get physical care, body contact during the early stage of your babyhood (0-3 months), you become emotional numb, later on. The risk that you will actually become a psycopath is now very high. This is typical with enviroments like drug addict(leaving the baby when "working" in the street").

 

So now we got ourself a psycopath. What we need now is a situation to trigger him/her to twist the brain to commit some murders. That could easyly be a situation where the psycopath (though social disturbed) actually have an emotionel affair with another being, and get burned, get dissapointed. We might have a killer now, since one of the characteristicas of the psycopath, is a low aggresive treshold.

 

How did all this happend? The psycopath was a offspring from a neglected baby, that was a offspring from a poor woman who had to sell her body to old piggy men, so she could get drugs, because the world was to harsh on her, because she gave up highscool, because she got mocked, because her parents worked all the time and did not had time for her, because her parents got her by accident, and never wanted her, because her parents just meat in the backseat of a car, because.............................

 

The whole damn society is running the wrong way. If you just keep on removing the symptoms, you gotta buy a lotta bullets mr. Vagrant.

[ginnyfizz]

To have a system of law in place that serves real justice, the punishment must fit the crime, anything else that does not grant this doesn't have the right to call itself a justice system. People that murder with intent, deserve to be executed.

 

The evidence required to grant a death penalty must also be very hard tangible evidence, defendants finger prints on the murder weapon, someone seeing the murder take place, victims blood on the defendants clothing, admission to the murder, or even a prior history of violence or threats concerning the defendant and the victim would be taken into consideration.

 

The idea of being innocent until proven guilty is a lie, it is in fact the other way around if you are being charged with a crime in a court of law.

 

Well, you could have fooled me. I am a lawyer, although not a practicing one at present, and I cannot tell you the number of times that I have sat in an English (I use the term English advisedly for reasons I am about to explain) court of law and heard the judge direct the jury before they retire to consider their verdict;-

 

"It is up to the prosecution to prove their case. Therefore, members of the jury, unless you are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt,that the defendant is guilty as charged on the indictment, then you MUSTfind them Not Guilty."

 

It is a little different in Scotland where there is also the option of Not Proven. But the presumption of innocence still holds true there too, as in most jurisdictions, despite the efforts of certain governments to erode it (yes Tony Blahblah I'm talking about you.) It is enshrined in the European Convention On Human Rights, in the French, Brazilian, Canadian and nowadays the Russian Constitutions, as well as following implicitly from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution.

 

There are always cases where the wrong person has been executed on spurious evidence, but with how advanced forensics are these days, that is less likely to happen. What will always be a concern is where a defendant faces execution not because of the evidence or lack thereof, so much as not having a fair trial. For example, in a case where there has been a huge media hoolie beforehand. In England there always was, and still is, an option to have cases transferred to the Old Bailey (Central Criminal Court) rather than the local Crown Court (or Assizes as they used to be known), where there is a lot of public agitation in the area where the offence took place. Nevertheless, to take just one example, it is widely acknowledged that, back in 1923, Edith Thompson was hanged not because of irrefutable evidence (there was, shall we say, very considerable doubt) that she conspired to murder her husband, but because the judge delivered a very biased summing up based on the fact that she was an adulteress. It did not matter that the boyfriend, Freddie Bywaters, who actually stabbed Percy Thompson, stated explicitly that she was innocent and had nothing to do with it, and coninued to protest her innocence even as the judge sentenced them both to death.

[Keanumoreira]

I promised myself to stay off this topic, since we allready had it excactly 1 year ago, and some of the posts was just as hatefull back then. Some will remember I even made a special siggy for the occasion. (perhaps I find it again)

 

Never the less, the post from Vagrant that the cheapest way is a couple of bullets and a tv cam, got me in. Is´nt this like they do in some far east countries (no names), countries we do not want to compare ourselves with.

Countries that the WHO Human Rights section has banned for still executing people (amongs other). An organisation that counts members from this very discusion panel.

 

Why I call it "hate posts", is when I see posts with "an eye for eye" or "these beast deserve death", you speak only about revenge, Revenge is hate, and it changes nothing, except for bringing more hate into society. Revenge does not undo what was done.

 

I will not defend the so called brutal serial killer, but I will remind everybody that we are all partly a product of, our parents, the society and ourself.

However the first part of our life we can not be held responsible for.

Nobody kill for fun, on less they are psycopaths. To create a psycopath is easy. If you fail to get physical care, body contact during the early stage of your babyhood (0-3 months), you become emotional numb, later on. The risk that you will actually become a psycopath is now very high. This is typical with enviroments like drug addict(leaving the baby when "working" in the street").

 

So now we got ourself a psycopath. What we need now is a situation to trigger him/her to twist the brain to commit some murders. That could easyly be a situation where the psycopath (though social disturbed) actually have an emotionel affair with another being, and get burned, get dissapointed. We might have a killer now, since one of the characteristicas of the psycopath, is a low aggresive treshold.

 

How did all this happend? The psycopath was a offspring from a neglected baby, that was a offspring from a poor woman who had to sell her body to old piggy men, so she could get drugs, because the world was to harsh on her, because she gave up highscool, because she got mocked, because her parents worked all the time and did not had time for her, because her parents got her by accident, and never wanted her, because her parents just meat in the backseat of a car, because.............................

 

The whole damn society is running the wrong way. If you just keep on removing the symptoms, you gotta buy a lotta bullets mr. Vagrant.

 

Thank you B, and you make a very good point.

 

We were just learning about this history class just last week come to think of it. From the teachings of John Locke, and his theory that everyone is born with a blank slate, "The enviorment shapes you". It hasn't been proven yet, that if you are a physcopath, it may not be your fault, it may be the fault of the world around you that you weren't born with this thing, but you were taught to follow it. Has anyone put this idea into consideration?