The Death Penalty

[FritzDerochebrune]

I live in the Netherlands, so there is no death penalty. I am 60% pro and 40 % contra, though. I think dangerous killers who will certainly kill again if they get free, should get death penalty. Because no matter how well defended a prison is, escapes happen...

 

But still, it is inreversable. If someone has been executed, and later is proven to be unguilty...

 

So, actually I'm happy to live in a country without death penalty. I wouldn't want to have it reactivated again.

 

cya

 

Fritz

[HellKnightX88]

Damn it! I didn't misread the question and I voted "yes". So the nober of the "yes" votes should be smaller and the "No" larger! Sorry!

Why I wanted to vote no?

Because you don't have the right execute (self-defence is OK; although I'm against guns) someone nomatter what the circumstances are! Period!

[Jonlissla]

Damn it! I didn't misread the question and I voted "yes". So the nober of the "yes" votes should be smaller and the "No" larger! Sorry!

Why I wanted to vote no?

Because you don't have the right execute (self-defence is OK; although I'm against guns) someone nomatter what the circumstances are! Period!

 

Kinda funny you say that when you got this as a signature: "Death is only a new beginning, embrace it!" :rolleyes:

 

Just kidding!

 

I vote "Both".

When you see a guy get murdered on the News, you think: "Poor fellow, hope the murderer rots in jail."

When your relative is murdered, you think: "I hope that motherF@€K&r dies horribly!"

That's what some people think, nowadays.

[hoots7]

I am using Landsknecht’s points only because they were so well organized.

 

“1. Technology may make us pay later. With the advent of forensics, a good number of people on death row were found innocent, so what will happen with the next advance in forensics?”

This is a good point you make, I think if a person a falsely put to death their family or whomever their state should get a million dollars, this would be a deterrent to falsely killing people.

“2. Statistically, it does not act as a deterrent. Therefore, it becomes a form of legal revenge.”

This is not true statistically or in realistically (if the criminal gets executed they are not going to kill again) and it is legal retribution, not revenge.

“3. It is more expensive to put someone to death and give them their right to due process than it is to just keep them in prison for life.”

They should get due process if they are put to death or not so the cost you have left is the execution or the living cost of the prisoner, which lethal injection is cheaper.

“4. There is a subtle bit of racism in the death penalty. For example: A black person is more likely to receive the death penalty if they kill a white person than if they kill another black person.”

This may be true; if it is it needs to be fixed, but is a separate issue then believing in the death penalty.

“5. I simply do not trust the government to decide who lives and who dies and how it is done.”

Again if the system is broken, fix it, but is a separate issue then believing in the death penalty.

 

One of the government’s jobs is to protect us & carry out justice, if a criminal lives after killing someone you are in essence saying that the criminal’s life is worth more than the victom’s.

 

Damn it! I didn't misread the question and I voted "yes". So the nober of the "yes" votes should be smaller and the "No" larger! Sorry!

Why I wanted to vote no?

Because you don't have the right execute (self-defence is OK; although I'm against guns) someone nomatter what the circumstances are! Period!

 

Kinda funny you say that when you got this as a signature: "Death is only a new beginning, embrace it!" :rolleyes:

 

Just kidding!

 

I vote "Both".

When you see a guy get murdered on the News, you think: "Poor fellow, hope the murderer rots in jail."

When your relative is murdered, you think: "I hope that motherF@€K&r dies horribly!"

That's what some people think, nowadays.

& against guns also look @ the avatar.

Ban all the guns so only criminals have them, good idea.

 

EDIT: Merged your posts. Unnecessary double post. Please just use the edit button if you want to add more to your post. Thanks.

 

- Switch

[Peregrine]

“1. Technology may make us pay later. With the advent of forensics, a good number of people on death row were found innocent, so what will happen with the next advance in forensics?”

This is a good point you make, I think if a person a falsely put to death their family or whomever their state should get a million dollars, this would be a deterrent to falsely killing people.

 

*laughs*

 

Right, the same government that drops million dollar bombs all over Iraq is going to care about that fine... if you want a deterent, execute the judges and jury who convicted the innocent person. Or better yet, don't allow the death penalty.

 

“2. Statistically, it does not act as a deterrent. Therefore, it becomes a form of legal revenge.”

This is not true statistically or in realistically (if the criminal gets executed they are not going to kill again) and it is legal retribution, not revenge.

 

True, but if you keep them in prison for life, they aren't going to kill anyone either. And you still have the option to free them and let them salvage some part of their life if mistakes are made.

 

And I suggest you learn English 101: "retribution" and "revenge" mean the same thing.

 

 

“3. It is more expensive to put someone to death and give them their right to due process than it is to just keep them in prison for life.”

They should get due process if they are put to death or not so the cost you have left is the execution or the living cost of the prisoner, which lethal injection is cheaper.

 

Please, read the thread before posting. The cost doesn't come from the actual execution (and if that was the only cost, a bullet in the head is cheap and painless), it comes from the endless appeals filed in death penalty cases, and from keeping the prisoner on death row for decades while they try every possible appeal and pardon. In cases where the only sentence is prison time, it is more likely for the defense to drop their appeal (especially in the case of plea bargains and other deals). But if the sentence is death, you pretty much guarantee that the defense is going to use every legal trick in the book to postpone or cancel the execution.

 

“5. I simply do not trust the government to decide who lives and who dies and how it is done.”

Again if the system is broken, fix it, but is a separate issue then believing in the death penalty.

 

No, the issue is exactly the same. I can't think of any government in all of human history that I would trust with that power. The system is broken because governments are inherently broken. Since the system will never be fixed, the death penalty can never be justified.

 

One of the government’s jobs is to protect us & carry out justice, if a criminal lives after killing someone you are in essence saying that the criminal’s life is worth more than the victom’s.

 

Ever hear of the concept of "two wrongs don't make a right"? And it's not the criminal's life that has worth, it's the lives of the potential innocents who WILL be executed if the death penalty is allowed. You might have heard of the idea of "better to let a hundred guilty men free than to execute a single innocent". The death penalty accomplishes absolutely nothing that life in prison can't, in exchange for significant moral and practical issues.

[Malchik]

Not strictly relevent but the words 'retribution' and 'revenge' are subtly different. Whilst it IS true that revenge is retributive, retibution does not necessarily imply revenge. It is a repayment or balancing from whatever source and for whatever reason. Generally these days it is used when referring to balancing an evil act but that is not its sole usage. Where revenge implies intended pain and harm to the recipient, retribution intends to bring balance. Also where revenge is carried out by whoever believes themselves harmed by the 'guilty party', retribution may be sought by anybody. Indeed the guilty party may make an act 'in retribution' themselves without being prompted.

 

That having been said I agree that it is almost impossible to tell in many court cases whether a sentence reflects one or the other.

[Peregrine]

Not strictly relevent but the words 'retribution' and 'revenge' are subtly different. Whilst it IS true that revenge is retributive, retibution does not necessarily imply revenge. It is a repayment or balancing from whatever source and for whatever reason. Generally these days it is used when referring to balancing an evil act but that is not its sole usage. Where revenge implies intended pain and harm to the recipient, retribution intends to bring balance. Also where revenge is carried out by whoever believes themselves harmed by the 'guilty party', retribution may be sought by anybody. Indeed the guilty party may make an act 'in retribution' themselves without being prompted.

 

That having been said I agree that it is almost impossible to tell in many court cases whether a sentence reflects one or the other.

 

True, but in context, it's essentially the same thing. It doesn't matter if you kill someone "to balance their evil" or "to make them pay", the intent of "give them what they deserve" is exactly the same. The fact that he uses it to justify the death penalty, a case of punishment where the only thing given to the victim's side is the satisfaction of pain and harm, proves that he's talking about this sense of the word. There definitely isn't enough of a difference to change the moral status of the act, just by changing what you call it.

 

If it was a case of balance and correcting harm done, not punishment, it would be restitution, not retribution.

[Malchik]

Retribution can mean rewarding in a positive sense too. However in the context used above I agree it is specifically a punishment. There could be a whole debate - not only re the death penalty - as to the extent to which juries (and judges) make their suggestions based on the concept of (fair) retribution or (by definition almost certainly unfair) revenge! Indeed the whole litigious process seems to be to extract penalties rather than, as you say, seek restitution.

[Kragnor]

Malchik, Peregrine. Good to see you again. (at least you replies)

 

The reason the judicial system exists is to maintain peace. If I steal something, I am punished to try and make me a productive citizen of these united states, but when heinous crimes such as murder happen, what then? Should we allow someone who has deliberately murdered someone to have the luxury of a prison cell ( because you do know that they get free food, shelter, television, and other services paid by the American Taxpayer). only to live the rest of their life. The purpose is not to make him a productive citizen, but to keep him from society (to maintain peace). So, why torture him with life of prison like that (although they do live in some luxury) ? Would the humanitarian thing to do be to end his life? I believe so. It is unfair to him and to the world to let a murderer stay for free in a taxpayer funded facility.

 

This only applies to the "sure-fire" convictions meaning that those people have been proved beyond degree that they committed murder.

[mudkip]

I'm strongly against the death penalty because I'm paranoid. I am totally afraid of the government abusing its power and murdering innocent people under some pretense of criminal behavior simply because the person poses a threat to the government. You know, like someone disrupting the system, radical thinkers, what have you.