Death Penalty

[Aajj333]

Should we have the death penalty? What is the extent that we should use it?

In my opinion it should only be used for people who are too dangerous to be kept alive like the Ct. School Killer or someone who has escaped out of jail a number of times.

[CharlieHorse]

In my opinion it should only be used for people who are too dangerous to be kept alive like the Ct. School Killer or someone who has escaped out of jail a number of times.

Yarr

[ReginaGeorge]

I'm conflicted about the death penalty. While yes, there are people that pose such a huge threat on other people that there is nothing to do but kill them, and yes, it would help the whole of society if we did, and save the government money from not having an extra head in prison, but who are we to play god like that? How does taking the rights away from a person who took rights away from another person make us any better than he is? While others might see justification in that, I don't. I don't think that murder is ever justified, and it shouldn't be just because it's the government. The government is always doing or saying something wrong, and it shouldn't be right just because they're them. Also, if you think about it, death is easier than life that we could be potentially giving them. Locking them away in a prison of super high security, in isolation with only the most basic resources to keep them alive is a hard life and that's what we should be giving them. Not death.

I should probably add I live in Australia, and we haven't had the death penalty for a long time. :P

[Sugaree]

Should we have the death penalty? What is the extent that we should use it?

In my opinion it should only be used for people who are too dangerous to be kept alive like the Ct. School Killer or someone who has escaped out of jail a number of times.

The death penalty shouldn't be used in any case. No matter how atrocious an individual's actions were, being condemned to death is just so inhumane. Giving them a life sentence is basically the same as giving them the death sentence, except the state isn't actually killing them through lethal injection.

[TheSocialInspector]

The death penalty shouldn't be used in any case. No matter how atrocious an individual's actions were, being condemned to death is just so inhumane. Giving them a life sentence is basically the same as giving them the death sentence, except the state isn't actually killing them through lethal injection.

Exactly. However, such men cannot escape into society, simply serving about 40 years of prison. They deserve judgement and the right punishment as classified to them. The death sentence is inhumane, no doubt but not as inhumane as having a man put into a cell, where everyday, when he looks up, all he sees is plain walls and ceilings. This is mental torture, and will break them up into death. I suggest we keep the death sentence, but only reserve it for serial killers.

[Professional Russian]

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I think you can figure it out from that

[Lost in the Echo]

Should we have the death penalty? What is the extent that we should use it?

In my opinion it should only be used for people who are too dangerous to be kept alive like the Ct. School Killer or someone who has escaped out of jail a number of times.

Yeah, I agree with that.

If someone commits a seriously heinous crime, like that Connecticut school shooting, then we should use the death penalty on that person.

[Taryn98]

I think anyone convicted of murder (excluding manslaughter) or rape should be put to death. Leaving them in prison for life is a waste of time and money. If you had no concern for someone else's life, why should society have any concern for yours.
I think our justice system is too lenient in a lot of cases.
And for those who say the death penalty costs too much money, it's because of the endless appeals. If you're convicted, you get one appeal and that's it. Then it's game over.
I formed this opinion because a close friend's sister was gang raped a few years ago. Nobody was ever caught or convicted, but she has been through endless therapy, medication, and depression. She's afraid to go out in public because of this, still years later. She may never be the same again. I hope one day someone will find them and they all rot in hell for what they did!

[Cicero]

I think it's good cause it eliminates the risk of them escaping, but I also think its bad, cause for those type of monsters, that could be an easy way out. Sending them to life in prison would really make them suffer.

[TheBigUnit]

it does waste money keeping people who done major crimes like rape and murders, i feel death penatly should be implemented but not at all used often,

[Inventor2]

I think it's good cause it eliminates the risk of them escaping, but I also think its bad, cause for those type of monsters, that could be an easy way out. Sending them to life in prison would really make them suffer.

I agree here, i think it can be good and bad. But to me the connecticut killer should be torchured. Have his knuckels crushed. But im not gunna go there:D anyways i pretty much go by the bible like Pro Russian said, an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.

[ProudConservative]

The US spends a lot of money on convicted felons and the prison system. About 25,000$ per year. That's per inmate, imagine how else we could spend that money. Also, the more atrocious the act, the more painfully they die. Torture them with a circular saw. Di this after its made positive this person did the crime, and isn't innocent. It makes sense, the more atrocious the crime, the more inhumanly your killed. Torture them with a circular saw during the course of a 20-day period, cutting the skin open, tearing the bones, with no antiseptic, and just a stitch to close the wound. Yes, it's gruesome, but they committed an even more gruesome crime.

[Manjusri]

The death penalty shouldn't be used in any case. No matter how atrocious an individual's actions were, being condemned to death is just so inhumane. Giving them a life sentence is basically the same as giving them the death sentence, except the state isn't actually killing them through lethal injection.

Have you ever heard of, "let the dead bury the dead"? If someone takes the lives of multiple other individuals, why should his own not be taken?

Even though the person may be confined to a prison cell block, they're still capable of enjoying life - or at least what would be left of it. They can talk, and laugh, and enjoy all of the things in which the lives of the individual(s) they've taken cannot.

In my opinion the death penalty should be available for certain cases. Ie:
A) The individual who has committed the crime request the death penalty.
B) The individual has taken the lives of two or more victims.
C) The individual has escaped from a prison, and in the process killed an individual.

[Sugaree]

Exactly. However, such men cannot escape into society, simply serving about 40 years of prison. They deserve judgement and the right punishment as classified to them. The death sentence is inhumane, no doubt but not as inhumane as having a man put into a cell, where everyday, when he looks up, all he sees is plain walls and ceilings. This is mental torture, and will break them up into death. I suggest we keep the death sentence, but only reserve it for serial killers.

For serial killers, I suppose I could understand reserving the death penalty for them. But still, I'm uncomfortable knowing that the state has the power to put people to death. It frightens me to no end.

I think it's good cause it eliminates the risk of them escaping, but I also think its bad, cause for those type of monsters, that could be an easy way out. Sending them to life in prison would really make them suffer.

Tell me, how does one escape a high security section of a prison? Even if they got out of their confined quarters, they wouldn't get very far.

Have you ever heard of, "let the dead bury the dead"? If someone takes the lives of multiple other individuals, why should his own not be taken?

So if I kill you, someone else has the right to kill me automatically? That makes no sense. People kill for multiple reasons, like jealousy, rage, or what have you. For people who only murder once, why can't they just receive life in prison? If someone kills multiple people JUST to kill them, I would take the death penalty into consideration. But that's assuming that everyone arrested for murder has killed more than once.

The reason I'm against the death penalty is because it gives the state the right to play God. No one deserves such a right, and why people do not recognize that this is the death penalty in a nutshell, I don't understand. Perhaps you've never heard of the right to life (which isn't to be confused with the Pro-life movement), but every human being, despite how atrocious their actions may be, deserves to be allowed to live. Some people are so mindlessly cruel that it is hard to consider them humans, but they are in the sense of what a human being IS (and not what MAKES a human being). The death penalty should be a last resort and never be brought up unless the state feels that a life sentence would not suffice.

The US spends a lot of money on convicted felons and the prison system. About 25,000$ per year. That's per inmate, imagine how else we could spend that money. Also, the more atrocious the act, the more painfully they die. Torture them with a circular saw. Di this after its made positive this person did the crime, and isn't innocent. It makes sense, the more atrocious the crime, the more inhumanly your killed. Torture them with a circular saw during the course of a 20-day period, cutting the skin open, tearing the bones, with no antiseptic, and just a stitch to close the wound. Yes, it's gruesome, but they committed an even more gruesome crime.

Perhaps you're forgetting what the US Constitution says about cruel and unusual punishment. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This is what the eighth amendment states. Now cruel and unusual punishment can be a subjective thing, but if we were to torture people that we THINK might have committed a crime, where does that put our justice system above other countries? Our justice system can be just as cruel as the ones in Africa and other rural nations, but that doesn't mean we HAVE to be like that. It's a savage thing to torture people, no matter what they've done, and I think it can be generally agreed upon that torture is a cruel and unusual punishment.

[ProudConservative]

For serial killers, I suppose I could understand reserving the death penalty for them. But still, I'm uncomfortable knowing that the state has the power to put people to death. It frightens me to no end.



Tell me, how does one escape a high security section of a prison? Even if they got out of their confined quarters, they wouldn't get very far.



So if I kill you, someone else has the right to kill me automatically? That makes no sense. People kill for multiple reasons, like jealousy, rage, or what have you. For people who only murder once, why can't they just receive life in prison? If someone kills multiple people JUST to kill them, I would take the death penalty into consideration. But that's assuming that everyone arrested for murder has killed more than once.

The reason I'm against the death penalty is because it gives the state the right to play God. No one deserves such a right, and why people do not recognize that this is the death penalty in a nutshell, I don't understand. Perhaps you've never heard of the right to life (which isn't to be confused with the Pro-life movement), but every human being, despite how atrocious their actions may be, deserves to be allowed to live. Some people are so mindlessly cruel that it is hard to consider them humans, but they are in the sense of what a human being IS (and not what MAKES a human being). The death penalty should be a last resort and never be brought up unless the state feels that a life sentence would not suffice.



Perhaps you're forgetting what the US Constitution says about cruel and unusual punishment. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This is what the eighth amendment states. Now cruel and unusual punishment can be a subjective thing, but if we were to torture people that we THINK might have committed a crime, where does that put our justice system above other countries? Our justice system can be just as cruel as the ones in Africa and other rural nations, but that doesn't mean we HAVE to be like that. It's a savage thing to torture people, no matter what they've done, and I think it can be generally agreed upon that torture is a cruel and unusual punishment.

I know that the 8th Amendment wouldn't allow it, but it's the way I feel. Torture is cruel and unusual, and I were in charge, it would be this way. I didn't say torture people we think committed the crime, but the people we know committed the crime. Also, again, why do we the taxpayers pay over 25,000$ a year per prisoner, where that money could be put towards education? Use this as a threat, and people won't be inclined to commit the most gruesome acts of all time, which are rape, murder, and those similar crimes.

[Jean Poutine]

The US spends a lot of money on convicted felons and the prison system. About 25,000$ per year. That's per inmate, imagine how else we could spend that money. Also, the more atrocious the act, the more painfully they die. Torture them with a circular saw. Di this after its made positive this person did the crime, and isn't innocent. It makes sense, the more atrocious the crime, the more inhumanly your killed. Torture them with a circular saw during the course of a 20-day period, cutting the skin open, tearing the bones, with no antiseptic, and just a stitch to close the wound. Yes, it's gruesome, but they committed an even more gruesome crime.

So basically our elected officials should stoop down to the same level as murdering trash, rapist scum and other douchebags?

And what happens with false convictions? You do know a jury has the sovereign power to judge the facts of a lawsuit and that these "false positives" happen much more often than one thinks? Think about every conviction overturned on appeal. We're just going to hack some dude's leg off and when it turns out he didn't do it, we'll be stuck giving him a huge, fat cash payment?

Just think about all the judiciary oversight we'd need over such a system. Think about the current judiciary oversight for capital punishment. Even with appellate courts in Canada there still are false convictions, even if criminals go up to the SCC. In some states with capital punishment, death row inmates have de jure appeal rights before every court, with two government-funded attorneys at his side. Why do you think people spend 20+ years in the death row? Why is it so expensive? Because there is this whole thing to prevent people from dying for nothing, it's called justice.

Your proposition would fix nothing. We'd still need judiciary oversight, we'd still need huge amounts of money, with the added caveat that the State is now a bloodthirsty butcher.

For serial killers, I suppose I could understand reserving the death penalty for them. But still, I'm uncomfortable knowing that the state has the power to put people to death. It frightens me to no end.

Serial killers shouldn't be killed. They are of too much value to psychologists and psychiatrist to just dispose of them.

While they are irredeemable and thus there is no hope of rehabilitation, scientists should at least be able to probe around their mind, for the betterment of humankind. Just killing them outright is a waste.

I know that the 8th Amendment wouldn't allow it, but it's the way I feel. Torture is cruel and unusual, and I were in charge, it would be this way. I didn't say torture people we think committed the crime, but the people we know committed the crime. Also, again, why do we the taxpayers pay over 25,000$ a year per prisoner, where that money could be put towards education? Use this as a threat, and people won't be inclined to commit the most gruesome acts of all time, which are rape, murder, and those similar crimes.

Capital punishment is even more expensive than life in prison because of all the oversight required. Torture would be as expensive than capital punishment, if not much more, for a fair system (well, as fair as deliberately causing pain to an individual can be).

[Aajj333]

I know that the 8th Amendment wouldn't allow it, but it's the way I feel. Torture is cruel and unusual, and I were in charge, it would be this way. I didn't say torture people we think committed the crime, but the people we know committed the crime. Also, again, why do we the taxpayers pay over 25,000$ a year per prisoner, where that money could be put towards education? Use this as a threat, and people won't be inclined to commit the most gruesome acts of all time, which are rape, murder, and those similar crimes.

Dude, communist countries torture people. It has been proven to be ineffective in the past. The notion of a life for a life makes you NO better than that person. The only time the death penalty should be used is if they are too dangerous to be kept alive

[nick]

The death penalty has no place in civilised society. It degrades everyone involved in the process and degrades any country that keeps it on their statute books. How can you possibly demonstrate that killing is wrong by more killing, it's a nonsense. Two wrongs never make a right.

[Human]

I don't like the idea of the death sentence. I think it should just be a complete life sentence. I don't think that two wrongs make a right.

[ProudConservative]

So you all think its ok for a murderer to live out the rest of their lives when they took another? A rapist to live not regretting their actions and leaving the person they raped on edge? It's not matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of sense of security. Governments all over the world spend millions of dollars on their prisoners. That money could be used well if spent in other places.

[dingo006]

For those of you who want to kill rapists and murderers, What about people like the West Memphis 3 or the 100s of people that have been exonerated by DNA evidence after being convicted and serving YEARS in jail but were completely innocent. Should those people who were convicted been put to death?

I believe that there are only 2 situations where the Death Penalty should be allowed. 1. Treason. 2. solders convicted of capital crimes in war time.

[ProudConservative]

For those of you who want to kill rapists and murderers, What about people like the West Memphis 3 or the 100s of people that have been exonerated by DNA evidence after being convicted and serving YEARS in jail but were completely innocent. Should those people who were convicted been put to death?

I believe that there are only 2 situations where the Death Penalty should be allowed. 1. Treason. 2. solders convicted of capital crimes in war time.

I'm saying the people where there is solid proof of the crime. Also, what about rape kits? Granted, it has to be done within 72 hours of the rape. Also, what about ex post facto, that would make anyone convicted AFTER the passed law have to serve that punishment.

[Manjusri]

So if I kill you, someone else has the right to kill me automatically? That makes no sense. People kill for multiple reasons, like jealousy, rage, or what have you. For people who only murder once, why can't they just receive life in prison? If someone kills multiple people JUST to kill them, I would take the death penalty into consideration. But that's assuming that everyone arrested for murder has killed more than once.

In the singular, no. If however one person takes the lives of multiple people, why should they be deserving of continuing their life, regardless of whether or not they are in a prison center?

Although this is more of a moral topic and not one of economics; if we continued to throw everyone in prison without the death sentence then the prisons would over flow. We would have to create more and more room for the incarcerated.

Yes, i'm also aware that the ratio of sentencing to actual punishment is incredibly low compared to the amount of inmates currently in prison.

(There were 37 executions in the United States in 2008, the lowest number since 1994 ((largely due to lethal injection litigation)). In 2011, 13 states executed 43 inmates; in 2010, 46 people were executed. In 2012, nine states executed 43 inmates) article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States)

The reason I'm against the death penalty is because it gives the state the right to play God. No one deserves such a right, and why people do not recognize that this is the death penalty in a nutshell, I don't understand. Perhaps you've never heard of the right to life (which isn't to be confused with the Pro-life movement), but every human being, despite how atrocious their actions may be, deserves to be allowed to live. Some people are so mindlessly cruel that it is hard to consider them humans, but they are in the sense of what a human being IS (and not what MAKES a human being). The death penalty should be a last resort and never be brought up unless the state feels that a life sentence would not suffice.

"God" has multiple meanings to different people depending upon their religion. Religion shouldn't be playing a part in the justice system. -but that's merely my opinion.

I believe everyone does have the right to live, yes. However when you commit heinous crimes that are bad enough to even consider the death penalty, your right has been taken from you, by you. Life is a privilege, when you deny that privilege to others, it should also be denied to you.

For those of you who want to kill rapists and murderers, What about people like the West Memphis 3 or the 100s of people that have been exonerated by DNA evidence after being convicted and serving YEARS in jail but were completely innocent. Should those people who were convicted been put to death?

You kind of answered that question your own. There was no significant forensic evidence to convict them, therefore there should not be an option of death without a substantial amount of evidence.

[TheSocialInspector]

In the singular, no. If however one person takes the lives of multiple people, why should they be deserving of continuing their life, regardless of whether or not they are in a prison center?

Although this is more of a moral topic and not one of economics; if we continued to throw everyone in prison without the death sentence then the prisons would over flow. We would have to create more and more room for the incarcerated.

Yes, i'm also aware that the ratio of sentencing to actual punishment is incredibly low compared to the amount of inmates currently in prison.

(There were 37 executions in the United States in 2008, the lowest number since 1994 ((largely due to lethal injection litigation)). In 2011, 13 states executed 43 inmates; in 2010, 46 people were executed. In 2012, nine states executed 43 inmates) article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States)



"God" has multiple meanings to different people depending upon their religion. Religion shouldn't be playing a part in the justice system. -but that's merely my opinion.

I believe everyone does have the right to live, yes. However when you commit heinous crimes that are bad enough to even consider the death penalty, your right has been taken from you, by you. Life is a privilege, when you deny that privilege to others, it should also be denied to you.



You kind of answered that question your own. There was no significant forensic evidence to convict them, therefore there should not be an option of death without a substantial amount of evidence.


Firstly, denying such a privilege from others, will also mean the privilege of yours being denied from you. My opinion is not entirely dissimilar from yours. However, remember that such an act can be simply called "revenge" and this is a right that even the law has kept in mind. If such an act should be carried out upon murders, then the sole act of "revenge" is still present. Over the years, history has presented our corrections and means of law. Long ago, in the Roman times, if you were to gouge out one's eyes deliberately, your own eye would be ripped out.

If you were to injure someone deliberately, you would be injured the same way with the exact same method you have acted out upon that very same victim. Such a code of law has been dismissed, but it has been dismissed for a reason. Of all acts of "revenge" dismissed from the law, the "death penalty" still remains a great deal in several Countries.

From the arguments, I have considered carefully.

[dingo006]

I'm saying the people where there is solid proof of the crime. Also, what about rape kits? Granted, it has to be done within 72 hours of the rape. Also, what about ex post facto, that would make anyone convicted AFTER the passed law have to serve that punishment.


Rape kits have given false positives, human error in labs have been proven in the past leading to the release of 100s of previously convicted people. My dad says false-positive matches happen rarely but they do happen/ (My dad is a lawyer)

People get convicted without evidence all the time. I mean shoot right now there is a double murder trial without a single body and they are attempting to put a dude on death row. No body. No cause of death, no autopsy, very little physical evidence on one of the victims and yet they are still trying to put a guy on death row.



You kind of answered that question your own. There was no significant forensic evidence to convict them, therefore there should not be an option of death without a substantial amount of evidence.

The West Memphis 3 had one of their members CONFESS and they were still innocent.

Things happen after conviction which sometimes vindicate a prisoner. recantation of eyewitness testimony and proof of evidence tampering. Dont forget police or lawyer misconduct! My dad says that there is data out there that says as much as 5% of all criminals currently serving jail time are probably completely factually innocent.

[Skyline]

I myself think that when a life sentence (with no chance of paroll) or a death sentence iis carried out I think the prisoner should have to choose... end their life right then and there or spend the rest of their lives staring at blank walls.

[nick]

The death penalty has no place in civilised society. It degrades everyone involved in the process and degrades any country that keeps it on their statute books. How can you possibly demonstrate that killing is wrong by more killing, it's a nonsense. Two wrongs never make a right.
To whoever gave me -rep for this with the comment:-
Obviously you're an idealist and not a realist
I'm completely a realist. Vengance is not the right way forward. Capital punishment does nothing to reduce crime rates, it just reinforces the idea that killing is acceptable.

Next time sign your rep, coward.

[TheSocialInspector]

Ah, but what do we do then? Let the murderers roam free? Or trapping them into a cell for their life, which is basically the death penalty anyway, but even more torturous. The prisoner will break down in the cell, by emotional and mental torture. This is even worse than the death penalty.

The death penalty is not meant to reinforce the idea of killing. It is law's ultimate method of revenge towards the people who take the lives of people away, and their lives shall be taken away too from them. Not that I support it's use for all the prisoners they sentenced to death row.

My major criticism is that they are using the death penalty too frequently. I say they should just reserve it for people who have murdered more than once or twice.

[Greg1994]

I know this is really cruel and I'll probably catch hell for saying this, but I think people should die the way they killed the other person, if they in fact murdered somebody.