Death Penalty: What should fall under it?

[Dante]

Currently the death penalty is only limited to murderers. I was just in the Vt daily Chronicle and one of the posts was about this Louisiana man getting death for raping his 8 yr old step daughter.

Should the Death Penalty only be for someone who takes anothers life or should it in encompass more things?


Discuss

[Everglow]

death penalty is pathetic :neutral:

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

I think It should encompass any crime that seriously affects another individuals life adversely.

[Octo22]

I think it should be outlawed.

Why give the WORST criminals an easy way out? When someone else for something slightly less worse has to rot away his years?

[Patchy]

I reckon it should only be done for mass murderers and the electric chair should be abolished since aparently it is extremely painful unlike what the us prison board say. all executions should be lethal injection.

[Underground_Network]

I think it should be outlawed.

Why give the WORST criminals an easy way out? When someone else for something slightly less worse has to rot away his years?

Yeah, but for some of those horrible criminals, prison isn't that bad. They still have the oppurtunity to kill if that is what they enjoy doing, they can still obtain things like drugs and weapons behind bars, etc. So why not just kill them, it gets rid of them forever. If you put them behind bars, there is still that slight chance the prisoner could escape. If you kill the prisoner, there's no way in hell their gonna come back from the dead and be back on the streets. As for whether people other than killers should face the death penalty.. I think that someone who ruins a child's life, or especially someone who ruins MORE THAN ONE child's life by raping them should be able to face the death penalty. Raping a child, it just seems so horrific to me... :/ And possibly someone who gets convicted of torturing or something like that, b/c even if say, they didn't kill the victims, if you look at what they probably did to the victim, they were probably unspeakable acts/horrific deeds. Sending a prisoner to prison for life doesn't always mean anything. Rapists can still rape, murderers can still, torturers can still torture people, etc. If they face the death penalty, they can't hurt anyone any more.

[Camazotz]

I agree with Underground, jail isnt that bad. You watch shows, they have gangs and drugs in jail. If they ever get out, theyre stronger and have more allies. I think the death penalty should be used on anyone who murders.

[Hyper]

I agree with Underground, jail isnt that bad. You watch shows, they have gangs and drugs in jail. If they ever get out, theyre stronger and have more allies. I think the death penalty should be used on anyone who murders.

''Shows''

And sure they can do stuff in jail, but the old moral comes to play you are just as bad as they are if you kill them.

Murder is murder and I don't think the death ''penalty'' should be used for anything.

[Serenity]

Murder is murder and I don't think the death ''penalty'' should be used for anything.

QFT. How does the government have the right to take away someone's life? If someone were to hypothetically kill everyone in my family, I would still face charges for killing that person. Why is it ok for a judge to choose that fate for anyone, regardless of what they've done? Stick the asshole in a windowless cement cell and leave them there for the rest of their life for all I care, but NO ONE has ANY excuse to take someone's life. Period.

[Underground_Network]

^^ He's not referring to shows like Law and Order and that crap, he's referring to documentaries. So basically, you're saying that if some homeless guy wants shelter and food, he could just murder someone (seriously, homeless people actually often commit crimes and intentionally try to get caught, b/c prison is better than the streets in their opinions). So if prison is better than the streets, than we might as well leave prisoners on the streets. Sounds good to me. And again, if you put a killer behind bars, there is still that slight chance he could escape. He can't escape and hurt anyone any more if he's dead, can he? Prison is only bad for those who can't handle it, in most cases, killers enjoy prison. Rapists on the other hand don't always have it good. If anyone finds out what they were sentenced for they are often "punished", either by being raped by another prisoner or being killed/tortured. So yeah, I don't recommend the death penalty for rapists, because if their sent to a max security prison, they'll probably end up dead anyways. Now this isn't 100% all the time, but this is how it often works, especially in max security prisons where prisoners know that they're not gonna escape, and aren't getting out for quite awhile. And what do guys with life sentences have to lose? Seriously, think about, guys with life sentences don't give a fuck, they just continue their life behind bars. If their in a state with no death penalty, they can just kill and kill and kill and kill to no avail.

[Serenity]

So put them in a cell alone. A bed and a toilet, and someone to bring them food when they need to eat.

[Underground_Network]

They do that often, but they don't always keep them in there forever. Solitary confinement is usually just temporary. The only way they would stay there basically forever is if they continued to "be bad" in solitary confinement (in other words be violent toward the guards, trash the room, etc.).. I don't really think they ever keep a prisoner in solitary confinement permanently (though I could be wrong). And if they do, its not very often.

[Sapphire]

The death penalty is inexcusable. We should (as Valerie said) just accommodate to their basic needs - food, water, excretion. The rest is just creature comforts and can be ignored.
Man can survive miserably without sky tv.

[Underground_Network]

Yeah, but still, you don't get it, because you don't think like a killer, on occassion, I'll admit, I think like a killer. I've studied all sorts of stuff about murder, solving crimes, etc. You've got to realize, that most killers don't care about not having TV in prison, in fact, most of them don't care, in prison, especially maximum security prison, if you're new, and you're in there for something "petty" compared to the other people there, its survival that you're worried about. Prison riots happen, prison escapes happen, people die in prison. If you eliminated the killers by way of the death penalty, less people would die. By putting killers in maximum security prisons (more or less sociopaths/psychopaths), you're basically guaranteeing that people that committed crimes not punishable by death the death penalty anyway. Because people get killed in prison all the time, and half the people who are murdered in prison are those who didn't commit horrendous crimes. If you eliminate the threat, no more people will die, and those who really deserve a second chance will have the oppurtunity to have that second chance. Now I get what you're saying about putting them away and tossing the key, just giving them basic needs, but there are too many killers out there to do that. They can't just put every single one of them in solitary confinement, and its just not gonna happen.

[Sapphire]

I hear what you are saying but it's not the right way to go about it. A number of people are released from prision - sometimes after having served the majority of their sentence - because new evidence arises that clears their name. They can build a life again. If you execute someone they can't do that.

John Christie was a serial murderer in London in the 40's and 50's. He and his wife rented the top couple of floors of their house out and one of the floors was occupied by a family of three. A man, his wife and their little baby girl. I forget their names tho. ANyway, she got pregnant but they couldn't afford to have another baby so Christie convinced them that he could abort it. He then killed her and told the husband that the abortion had gone wrong. he freaked out and went to stay with family for a few days - while he was gone Christie murdered the baby too. Christie lied in court and the husband got executed for the murder of hie wife and little girl. Christie's wife realised what had happened and left. Years later bodies of some of Christies other victims were found in the walls and the garden of his house. He was then executed.

What part of this is fair? What part is just?
Is it just that the husband lost his life after his family were murdered by someone else?

[Octo22]

I'd like to start out by apologizing to everyone for being a dick when it comes to debates.
Especially for what I'm about to do.


They still have the oppurtunity to kill if that is what they enjoy doing, they can still obtain things like drugs and weapons behind bars, etc. So why not just kill them, it gets rid of them forever.

Solitary confinement for life.


If you put them behind bars, there is still that slight chance the prisoner could escape.

Prison escape rates are so ridiculously low. It's minimum security that people break out of during riots.

I agree with Underground, jail isnt that bad. You watch shows, they have gangs and drugs in jail. If they ever get out, theyre stronger and have more allies. I think the death penalty should be used on anyone who murders.

Stop basing your argument on Prison Break.

(seriously, homeless people actually often commit crimes and intentionally try to get caught, b/c prison is better than the streets in their opinions).

One of the biggest / most common rumours about homeless people. Got any stats to back it up? No. Shelters exist for a reason.

in most cases, killers enjoy prison.

Give quotes or it's just bull.

If anyone finds out what they were sentenced for they are often "punished", either by being raped by another prisoner or being killed/tortured.

Agreed. So? Jeffrey Dahmer spent I believe 24 hours in a cell with 3 cellmates. He was drowned the day he was put there in the toilet.

For those not familiar with him, Jeffrey killed people, put them in his fridge and then ate them later. I don't feel terrible for him, but I'm glad the government didn't decide to kill him.

Seriously, think about, guys with life sentences don't give a fuck, they just continue their life behind bars. If their in a state with no death penalty, they can just kill and kill and kill and kill to no avail.

I completely agree...when they kill people we definitely DON'T beat the shit out of them before putting them back in their cell [/sarcasm] also that would lead to permenant solitary confinement.

They do that often, but they don't always keep them in there forever. Solitary confinement is usually just temporary. The only way they would stay there basically forever is if they continued to "be bad" in solitary confinement (in other words be violent toward the guards, trash the room, etc.).. I don't really think they ever keep a prisoner in solitary confinement permanently (though I could be wrong). And if they do, its not very often.

This is the worst WORST of your quotes.
Solitary confinement is usually only 'temporary' for fooling around / mild rioting.

There are HUNDREDS of people in permenant solitary confinement. Hmm.. Charles Manson ring a bell? And he never even killed anyone. There's one man..can't recall the name (will recall later) he's been alone in jail for 33 years. He gets to go outside 1 hour A WEEK, just to walk around with one guard. Then he goes back to a pitch black cell. I'd rather die.


The problem is modern television and movies. They never show "permanent solitary confinement" because guess what! That completely removes the character and makes it boring.

[Underground_Network]

I don't watch prison break, haven't watched it for at least a year. I watch documentaries on CourtTV and several other channels. I'm sorry that they misportray the facts, but I do not watch fictional TV shows. I watch real TV shows. I was bringing up some points, and I don't remember the names of the people, but I believe it was on AMW (America's Most Wanted) where they brought up that someone who had been put away for murder had escaped from a maximum security prison. And then maybe a week later some other major criminals escaped from prison (I don't believe they were murderers, and I think it was minimum security, but I believe they killed someone during or after their attempt to escape). But anyways, I think, based on your argument, even if I saw things from your point of view, that if there was outstanding evidence that someone was a serial murderer that they should suffer the death penalty. Lethal injection is not painless, so those who think giving them the death penalty is an easy way out, its not. And for those who think giving them the death penalty is cruel, how is it cruel if the person is definitely guilty (I'm talking outstanding evidence here) and they killed say hundreds of people like Andrei Chikatilo. Putting him behind bars and watching him rot isn't half bad, but if you just kill him, its over, and in my opinion its justice, its the only form of an eye for an eye that makes sense to me. Deaths for a death. You kill people, you're found guilty, there's outstanding proof that you committed these crimes, you deserve to die. And yes, I know about Charles Manson, I know about Albert Fish, Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrei Chikatilo, The Mad Butcher of Kingsbury Ran, both Zodiac killers. I've read like three books on serial killers, and I seriously believe that if it is proven that they killed these people, many, many innocent people, they deserve to die. And even people like Andrew Cunanan possibly deserve to face the death penalty.

[Sapphire]

I'm sorry but I find that way of thinking to be rather ignorant. By having capital punishment you are standing by the view that some human lives are less valuable than others and that as long as "justice" is on your side the snuffing out of a live is justified. It is never justifiable. It is never right.

[Octo22]

Just explain to me, why you see so fit, as to kill them?

Why?

I find it ridiculous that the 'government' sees it fit that because they have "the law" they can kill killers. Well since the government has killed can we not kill them?
Oh wait, they had "good reason".

You keep going on and on about how it's to be "100% safe" that they don't escape / kill again.

Is Canada safe?

[Underground_Network]

Who are you talking to? I never said its 100% safe, so I have no clue who that comment is directed at, I said the exact opposite of that. And say someone goes on a killing spree, killing anyone they saw that was black. Then say they get arrested and sentenced to death. Which killing is more justifiable (now I'm not saying either is completely justifiable), but I mean, he or she killed people because of their race, the "gov't." killed the person because they killed. There's a big difference there, a very big difference. The only thing that I sort of agree with is something that Carole says. She said that occassionally someone is wrongfully executed, which is why I think they should extend death row. They should give someone literally at least ten years or so in prison before executing them, thus giving them time to investigate the case and make sure that the person convicted was definitely guilty (only when there are questions raised; in other words the case wasn't clean cut (the person didn't have motive, their fingerprints on the murder weapon/finger prints/DNA at the crime scene [at least one of these things missing]).

[serial-thrilla]

murder, rape, and treason.

[Whisper]

murder, rape, and treason.
Pedophiles

[Octo22]

Which killing is more justifiable

Why create a killing that needs justified?


Also ironically (just throwing this out there because most people aren't aware)

Police very rarely, besides for filing reports, care what the motive is. Motive isn't required in a court of law by any means.

[Underground_Network]

Yes, but without motive, a lot of the time, a case isn't that successful, and some juries may not find a defendant guilty if there is no motive (because trust me, the defense attorney [if he has more than five brain cells] will emphasize the fact that there is no motive) And I'm referring mainly to murder cases in terms of motive. I mean motive isn't that important in most other crimes.

[Octo22]

In murder crimes it's not all that important. If you can prove he was there and did it, it doesn't matter why.
Usually it's obvious, other times they just claim he's 'a sick and twisted individual'. That term pops up a lot in murder cases.

[Hyper]

So if prison is better than the streets, than we might as well leave prisoners on the streets. Sounds good to me. And again, if you put a killer behind bars, there is still that slight chance he could escape. He can't escape and hurt anyone any more if he's dead, can he?

Prison is only bad for those who can't handle it, in most cases, killers enjoy prison. Rapists on the other hand don't always have it good. If anyone finds out what they were sentenced for they are often "punished", either by being raped by another prisoner or being killed/tortured. So yeah, I don't recommend the death penalty for rapists, because if their sent to a max security prison, they'll probably end up dead anyways.

So as I see it by your logic its best if they all just die. Do you happen to have the same logic for the homeless ( just curious )

Now this isn't 100% all the time, but this is how it often works, especially in max security prisons where prisoners know that they're not gonna escape, and aren't getting out for quite awhile.

And what do guys with life sentences have to lose? Seriously, think about, guys with life sentences don't give a fuck, they just continue their life behind bars. If their in a state with no death penalty, they can just kill and kill and kill and kill to no avail.

I thought you'd have no problems with that.

I was bringing up some points, and I don't remember the names of the people, but I believe it was on AMW (America's Most Wanted) where they brought up that someone who had been put away for murder had escaped from a maximum security prison.

Hmm intresting..

But anyways, I think, based on your argument, even if I saw things from your point of view, that if there was outstanding evidence that someone was a serial murderer that they should suffer the death penalty.

I am having difficulties understanding that part..

Lethal injection is not painless, so those who think giving them the death penalty is an easy way out, its not. And for those who think giving them the death penalty is cruel, how is it cruel if the person is definitely guilty (I'm talking outstanding evidence here) and they killed say hundreds of people like Andrei Chikatilo.

Well first Chikatilo didn't kill hundreds of people.. And I think its a bit more painful being in jail for say 50 years than feeling some pain for 5 minutes.

Putting him behind bars and watching him rot isn't half bad, but if you just kill him, its over, and in my opinion its justice, its the only form of an eye for an eye that makes sense to me. Deaths for a death. You kill people, you're found guilty, there's outstanding proof that you committed these crimes, you deserve to die.

Lol an eye for an eye and the world goes blind :lol:

[0=]

Eye for an eye is irrelevant. Any true Christian would go by the New Testament, which teaches love, mercy, and forgiveness.

[Underground_Network]

I give in, you guys win the "debate". Though the debate was not on how justifiable the death penalty was.. It was what should fall under the death penalty. I still think the death penalty is just. So yeah, you technically won, but you didn't persuade me to join the "light side". As long as the dark side still has cookies, I'm not going to leave it. :)

[Sapphire]

Can we give life to those who deserve it, yet have it snatched away from them?
No.

Should we be able to take life from those we deem not to deserve it because we can and we believe it to be right?
No.

Just because one is physically possible does not make it right.

[Atonement]

I believe that the death penalty should only be used in serious cases such as rape, murder, or anything else that could cause distress or disruption in that manner. Though, I also believe Texas over uses the death penalty. TX has more people on death row than the entire US combined and most nations. I find it hard to believe that that many criminals live solely in Texas.

[The Batman]

I don't think that we should even have the death penalty because nobody in the world deserves to die and i wouldn't wish death on anyone instead they should just give them life in prison

[Doc.]

I have a radical and strict view on how it should be. I believe that in order to really leave an impact on the gangsters and criminals in the U.S. we should instate the death penalty in every state and make it so it is one man one bullet as I like to call it. One shot to the head, this, in my mind would leave an impact on all criminals and on our youth.

The youth is where I am really aiming at with this, if they grow up knowing what could be the consequence of their own misdeeds they would be less likely to commit such brutal acts such as murder and rape. This would hopefully relive the all ready congested American prison system. Right now we have more prisoners than any other country, I personally would like to see that changed and I think this would at least put a dent in the numbers of prisoners in the U.S.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

I highly doubt that would be effective, other countries with much less crime/congested prisons haven't used such barbaric methods. There are other ways

[Doc.]

The morality is different though, those methods have been used for hundreds of years in other countries. Here in America, we have a high morale fiber. That is seen to us as too harsh, in other countries its acceptable and sometimes considered to be a lighter sentence. So here in America I believe it would have a high effect.

[Underground_Network]

^^ As much as I hate to disagree with you, that might not be as effective as you think. Some killers kill b/c they don't care if they die, and others kill for the thrill, even if they know the punishment is death. Then there are those with mental illnesses that impedes their ability to differentiate between right and wrong. They kill someone either accidentally, or do it without realizing it. If you've read Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, you would know an example of what I am talking about (when Lennie [a mentally challenged but very strong person who doesn't realize his own strength] accidentally kills Curley's wife). Thus killings would still continue...

[Doc.]

I agree with that but we have asylums and therapy for things like that and if it's accidental then a different sentance can be granted. I still say that the mentality of this kind of execution would affect the youth and criminals.

[Sapphire]

The only reason the other methods of execution don't instill the same fear/trepidation as things like being shot in the head is because the public doesn't know much about them. People have almost been decapitated from being hung. Lethal injection is made up of three injections and the second is known to cause a huge amount of pain. Inhaling toxic gas is painful too.

I doubt knowledge of this would make any change whatsoever.
People kill for reasons of unsound mind, in moments of intense emotion (crimes of passion), crimes which were premeditated and some of them kill for more biologically based reasons. You cannot come up with a deterrant for all of these.

[Activate]

Any murderer who will never recover, and will always want to kill again.
IMO

[Sapphire]

Any murderer who will never recover, and will always want to kill again.
IMO

How do you decide whether they will "always want to kill again"? How can you distinguish between someone who is too beyond help and someone who can be helped?

[Doc.]

The only reason the other methods of execution don't instill the same fear/trepidation as things like being shot in the head is because the public doesn't know much about them. People have almost been decapitated from being hung. Lethal injection is made up of three injections and the second is known to cause a huge amount of pain. Inhaling toxic gas is painful too.

I doubt knowledge of this would make any change whatsoever.
People kill for reasons of unsound mind, in moments of intense emotion (crimes of passion), crimes which were premeditated and some of them kill for more biologically based reasons. You cannot come up with a deterrant for all of these.

You can't help the helpless, all you can do is put them in their place. If they're so messed up that they can't control themselves then they shouldn't live or be in the eye of the public. Hell, deport them to the Antarctic territory for all I care. Torture even, that would definitely leave an impact regardless of how you look at it. If you've ever seen how sadistic some torture methods are, then it is clear to you why the UN forbids it. Though if we where to re-instate it as a punishment, then I would have no doubt that crime rates would decrease. Go all Auschwitz on their asses for all I care, if they can't depict the real world from their own world then perhaps that is necessary.

[dodgeman09]

RAPE! b/c if u are raped you never feel the same NEVER!

[Activate]

How do you decide whether they will "always want to kill again"? How can you distinguish between someone who is too beyond help and someone who can be helped?
A psychologist can tell between those people.

[Sapphire]

You can't help the helpless, all you can do is put them in their place. If they're so messed up that they can't control themselves then they shouldn't live or be in the eye of the public. Hell, deport them to the Antarctic territory for all I care. Torture even, that would definitely leave an impact regardless of how you look at it. If you've ever seen how sadistic some torture methods are, then it is clear to you why the UN forbids it. Though if we where to re-instate it as a punishment, then I would have no doubt that crime rates would decrease. Go all Auschwitz on their asses for all I care, if they can't depict the real world from their own world then perhaps that is necessary.

What is your opinion on the Nazi officers and the punishments they got? I am interested because they got punished for doing what you are suggesting.

What gives us the right to kill other people? If we do then we are lowering ourselves to their level - if not then lower. The actual act of executing is a cold and calculating one. The people doing it know what they are going to do and how and when. With crimes of passion it is in the heat of the moment. No calculation. No serious thought. Just intense emotion.

A psychologist can tell between those people.

A psychologists job and way of thinking is that no one is beyond help. If they didn't believe this then do you really think they would spend their time with people with personality disorders or other really serious disorders?

[Doc.]

That was different, the Jews where mostly innocent, as where the other minorities. As for the political officials I cannot say, they may or may not have committed crimes. They got what was coming to them, and really, it depended upon what judge they got at the Nurnburg trials. However, this is cold blooded killing we're talking about here. Emotions aside, if they killed some one then they deserve to be killed themselves. If we went by what you're saying every single one of them could plea insanity and get off with a light sentence and be back on the streets in a matter of years. Justice gives us the right kill them if they take a life of another. An eye for an eye, and what about the serial killers? Do you think they should be given just a life sentence? If they take the life of 3-5 people? Is a life sentence enough? If I killed you, your family and all of your friends would a life sentence really be enough? What about Columbine? Lets say the didn't kill themselves and they where tried, is a life sentence enough for you? I say no.

[Sapphire]

We give multiple life sentences in situations when only one is inadequate.

If you are going to throw the Old Testament in to this topic, let us not forget that Jesus taught forgiveness and love. Love thy neighbour. If someone were to slap you on one cheek then you should turn the other cheek.

[Doc.]

I don't believe in any such deity, I do believe that he existed and that he was a good philosopher but he was no son of any deity such as god. Also, multiple life sentences? It only takes one, it's a LIFE sentence. People only live once, then they die, decompose, and then they're just fertilizer for the grass.

[Sapphire]

If you aren't religious then why on earth are you throwing an "out dated" Bible quote at me as part of your argument?
It makes no sense whatsoever and only highlights your limited knowledge.

You don't have to be religious to be forgiving.

And yes, multiple life sentence are given to people who kill more than once.

[Doc.]

Eye for an eye? I had no idea that was a bible quote, also, it is not outdated. It is a quote to live by, I know I do. Also, there should be no forgiveness for those who kill and as I said multiple life sentences are pointless. You only live once and then die.

[Sapphire]

Eye for an eye? I had no idea that was a bible quote, also, it is not outdated. It is a quote to live by, I know I do. Also, there should be no forgiveness for those who kill and as I said multiple life sentences are pointless. You only live once and then die.

The New Testament teaches love, forgiveness and harmony. The Old Testament teaches "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". One is older than the other - take a guess at which.

If you do not learn to at least accept that things like this happen (more often than not) in the heat of the moment then you are extremely blind and narrow minded.

No one is infallible.
You could have an argument with someone tomorrow and lose your temper. You reach for the nearest thing. You aren't thinking straight. The intense hurt and anger are clouding things. You hit them with the object. They stop moving. You are scared. You never meant to hurt them. You were just too angry.
This can happen to anyone. With the presence of guns in the house it is even easier to do.

A life sentence is not for the length of a persons life - I know they are quite commonly 25 years each, I think sometimes up to 50 years (though of that I am not quite sure). The sentencing of multiple life sentences make it harder for the convict to get parole and hence do actually serve the purpose of keeping them inside.

[Graceland]

I like the old testament. It teaches us many important things such as:

Menstruation is a sin.
Teenagers should be stoned to death.
Incest is forbidden. Not because it's not good for the child, but because it would disgrace the rapist.
Speaking of raping, a woman must marry a man who rapes her.
Egyptians have the biggest penises (22'').
Mass murder is cool.
Gandhi have Hitler as neighbor, when they both went to hell.

[Doc.]

That's foolish, a life sentence should be for your life. If you get a life sentence you should be in prison until the day you die. Otherwise, the name makes no sense and is quite stupid to have. Also, I couldn't care less about your book filled with vagueness, false hopes and lies. Unless you have some way to prove to me that there is some omnipotent all knowing being then keep that out of this. Murder is murder. If you kill a man justice needs to be served, your argument can be turned any way depending on what the hypothetical argument is. So don't start that up, besides that, I have a hell of a lot of experience with those kind of arguments. I can easily post evidence that can support your argument and mine at the same time, it all depends on what the subject is. Different things lead to different outcomes.

[Sapphire]

That's foolish, a life sentence should be for your life. If you get a life sentence you should be in prison until the day you die. Otherwise, the name makes no sense and is quite stupid to have. Also, I couldn't care less about your book filled with vagueness, false hopes and lies. Unless you have some way to prove to me that there is some omnipotent all knowing being then keep that out of this. Murder is murder. If you kill a man justice needs to be served, your argument can be turned any way depending on what the hypothetical argument is. So don't start that up, besides that, I have a hell of a lot of experience with those kind of arguments. I can easily post evidence that can support your argument and mine at the same time, it all depends on what the subject is. Different things lead to different outcomes.

You are the one that brought religion in to this with your Old Testament quote so don't give me that crap!

As I have said before, you do not have to be religious to be forgiving. At least accept that these things are real and not as clear cut as you would like to believe.

I like the old testament. It teaches us many important things such as:

Menstruation is a sin.
Teenagers should be stoned to death.
Incest is forbidden. Not because it's not good for the child, but because it would disgrace the rapist.
Speaking of raping, a woman must marry a man who rapes her.
Egyptians have the biggest penises (22'').
Mass murder is cool.
Gandhi have Hitler as neighbor, when they both went to hell.

You cannot be serious.

[Doc.]

I see things as they really are, over the past three years of my life I've seen and experienced many things that allowed me to come to where I am at today. Just three months ago if you where to have talked with me you would have called me insane. Also, I did not mean to quote that ignorant book. I had no idea that that was a quote from the bible, so no good sir, you don't bring it up.

[Sapphire]

As they really are? You must be deluded.
You have had a tough few years and I sympathise, but that doesn't mean that your opinion is of any greater value than anyone else's. Or that your view is the right view.

As for your ignorance as to where that quote came from - it only serves to highlight your limited knowledge.

[Doc.]

Indeed, well then I suppose I owe you an apology. I am sorry for my arrogance and the bashing of your faith. I also believe that we will not come to a resolve on this topic, so I am through here.

[Graceland]

You cannot be serious.
No, those certainly aren't my opinions (well, maybe except for... nevermind). On the other hand, most of them are literally in the old testament (go read it), and a few of them are over-interpretation. Also, sorry, but I couldn't resist an opportunity to attack Christianity.

[Sapphire]

By referring to the Old Testament you are attacking Judaism, not Christianity.

[Serenity]

And if you're going to post simply to attack religions, I suggest you leave this debate immediately.

[Hyper]

As I have noticed most of us here who are against the death penalty are religious :P

But not everyone obviously

[The Batman]

My religious values have nothing to do with why i oppose the death penalty because i believe that if you do give someone the death penalty then they win because they simply escape the life long torment of prison its like cop suicide (if you don't know it means someone who commits a crime so they can die like a person killing a woman then shooting at the cops so the police can kill them)

[Octo22]

As I have noticed most of us here who are against the death penalty are religious :P

But not everyone obviously

I was fighting against it, I'm agnostic :P

[GasGallery]

My opinion on the law system (bear in mind I'm in the UK). Death penalty should be in place anyway, however there are other punishments that are a lot more suitable that should be there instead. People who've done crimes that would have got them the death penalty should be used to test cosmetic products on, as opposed to testing them on animals. Why let murderers die? Make the punishment go on I say. That'll put potential criminals off doing anything in the first place. We're too soft on crime.

[Whisper]

My opinion on the law system (bear in mind I'm in the UK). Death penalty should be in place anyway, however there are other punishments that are a lot more suitable that should be there instead. People who've done crimes that would have got them the death penalty should be used to test cosmetic products on, as opposed to testing them on animals. Why let murderers die? Make the punishment go on I say. That'll put potential criminals off doing anything in the first place. We're too soft on crime.

Piece of advice
every time you go to post
step back for a minute and think for a sec
go hmmmm

[Emryl]

I would rather rot in jail than get a quick death penalty.

[theOperaGhost]

I think it depends on the crime. So people should rot in jail and others should rot in hell. I think the penalty for rape should be much worse than it is for murder. When you rape someone, they have to live with that FOREVER, FOREVER. All in all, life in prison without the possibility of getting out, would probably be worse than death. They will have to live with their guilt.

[The Entertainer]

Im gonna give you a little scenario, which isnt necessarily my stance on the death penalty, but its something that I thought of a few months ago when thinking of the death penalty:

February 2008:

Somewhere in Alabama, (as usually happens these sort of movies) an alien lands. Anyway, its a friendly thing, coming from a world where technology is advanced, a few centuries ahead of us, perhaps.
Anyway, one day it is talking to a scientist at a research lab. This scientist is telling him all about the latest technology that has been discovered, and is really trying his best to make Earth look pretty good.
The alien is impressed with this, and asks his about various things, medicine advances, phyics, chemistry, and finally, judicial processes.The alien is impressed with the technology on earth up to this point.
The alien asks the scientist "so, what do you do with the people in society who have done wrong". The scientist returns the question, and the alien says "well, we put them through advanced brain surgery, where they are "re-wired" and wake up and never commit a crime again. In other areas of my world, we put them through extensive re-habilitiation programs, to make them see right from wrong, and to educate them. The programs are so good that they always come out perfect". The alien asks the earth scientist "What do you do?"
"Well," says the scientist, looking shifty "we put everyone through a system where they are tried, and if they are found guilty, in some countries, they get put in a small cell for years as a punishment. In other countries, they are put in prison and then we kill them"
The alien is horrified at this "But, your country is a democracy, you preach in your churches not to kill, your law says that you shouldnt kill, and yet this happens? Surely these countries that use the death penalty arent quite as developed perhaps?"
The scientist truthfully tells him that a great many nations, including the most developed nations, use this method. The alien is again shocked
"We outlawed this centuries ago! Its brutal, and it achieves nothing! Well, I suppose its not all that bad, you have the technology, I suppose, to make sure that these people die swiftly. You are, after all, ending their lives, and that is the greatest punishment there is, as you are sending them into the unknown. Even we in our alien world dont know what happens after death. So how do you kill your wrongdoers in this world?"
"Well, it varies", says the scientist "in some countries, they are stoned to death"
"Thats awful!" says the alien, "what about in this country?"
"We can paralyse and inject them. It is very painful however, and they do die in agony. We can electrocute them, the system is over 100 years old, but its said that it isnt too painful, even though it really is. We can shoot them, or we can hang them. These methods are several hundred years old too."
"But your technology is so advanced!" says the alien "why dont you kill them peacefully with modern methods?!"
"Well, I dont know" says the scientist "Talk to the billions of people who support this system"

[A.J.]

Id rather be killed than rot in prison, on the other hand, those people who deserve what they get should have to rot in prison.

[Zephyr]

If the crime is murder or anything equal to that calliber, I believe that they should be put to death. I like the law that they have in Texas where if three people or mroe see you committing the crime, then you are placed at the front of death row. You have to enstill that fear in some people to keep them from comitting the crime in the first place.

Life in prison is too costly:

To keep one prisoner in jail for one day, it costs $62 (US), and that's coming out of the tax-payer's wallet. It costs even less then that to kill them, a one-time fee.

[Serenity]

Would you take that point of view if it was a family member or your best friend? "You cost too much, so we're just gonna off you to save money."

[goin to work]

If the crime is murder or anything equal to that calliber, I believe that they should be put to death. I like the law that they have in Texas where if three people or mroe see you committing the crime, then you are placed at the front of death row. You have to enstill that fear in some people to keep them from comitting the crime in the first place.

Life in prison is too costly:

To keep one prisoner in jail for one day, it costs $62 (US), and that's coming out of the tax-payer's wallet. It costs even less then that to kill them, a one-time fee.

yess this is a good law and if u kill some one u should die sry but its lik the arm for an arm deal

[Zephyr]

Would you take that point of view if it was a family member or your best friend? "You cost too much, so we're just gonna off you to save money."

I would. Sure, I love them, but they did what they did and they need to be treated equal. If that means the death penatly, then so be it. They did something to earn it, so they have to face the consequences.

[The Entertainer]

The death penalty is utterly barbaric. What exactly is the point of killing them? If its as punishment, then great, a 30 second punishment and then nothing (well, death, but that is nothingness).
If its to deter people, then that doesnt work either, as there are still the same number of crimes being committed by people. It doesnt put people off.
Not forgetting the 1 in 7 people in Illinois that were executed when they were fact entirely innocent of all charges.
In 200 years, people will look at this as a horrid aspect of our society, that we kill our wrongdoers. Of course, imprisonment is necessary for most, but to kill?
To put the legal practice of killing convicts in law represents something that is completely wrong with our society.

(btw, if you ever have the chance, watch "Dead Man Walking")

[serial-thrilla]

although i do agree that the death penealty is the "easy way out" for the criminals. Its also the right way. Why should we waste tax dollars keeping those pieces of shit alive? just kill em all is what i say.

[The Entertainer]

well, some of those "pieces of shit" may be innocent, which a great many people are, though normally they arent found to be innocent until after they have been executed.
Second, its a painful death, and its inhumane. If we are seen to be above these people, we therefore HAVE to execute them painlessly, no matter what our inner self might think.
Third, though they have done bad, should they be killed by the state? If you agree, then you are effectively allowing the state to kill people under their legistature. To abolish the death penalty would represent a triumph of human intellect.

[serial-thrilla]

well, some of those "pieces of shit" may be innocent, which a great many people are, though normally they arent found to be innocent until after they have been executed.
Second, its a painful death, and its inhumane. If we are seen to be above these people, we therefore HAVE to execute them painlessly, no matter what our inner self might think.
Third, though they have done bad, should they be killed by the state? If you agree, then you are effectively allowing the state to kill people under their legistature. To abolish the death penalty would represent a triumph of human intellect. If they are innocent then someone made a terrible mistake and im sure that those people would rather die then rot in jail for a crime they didnt commit. and i do believe that lethal injection is quite painless, if it isent however just have them shot in the head, you wouldnt feel a thing.

[Serenity]

So we're allowed to make the assumption that if people are innocent they'd choose to die? How do you know what people would want? I mean, it's rather a bit of a big deal- you know LIFE. You can't just rashly throw away a person's life because it's what you think they would want.

[The Batman]

No one deserves to die no matter what. Death is just a way out of it let them suffer if they did something bad enough

[serial-thrilla]

So we're allowed to make the assumption that if people are innocent they'd choose to die? How do you know what people would want? I mean, it's rather a bit of a big deal- you know LIFE. You can't just rashly throw away a person's life because it's what you think they would want. you think living a life in jail is much of a life?

[Serenity]

Well that's just it, it's not about what I think. Why should we have the jurisdiction to make that decision?

[Zephyr]

Would you rather a serial killer be released back into society to potentially kill more people or cost the tax payers just because they felt like killing somebody? By keeping them alive, it's like punishing society because we either let them out to potentially kill again or we're spending our hard earned money to keep them alive in jail.

This isn't about their feelings, it's about the wellfare of society.

[Serenity]

So basically you're saying that we should kill everyone who is deemed a threat to society?

And if later they're found innocent, what then? "Oops, sorry, what a shame that is."

[Zephyr]

Justice is blind, not perfect.

[The Entertainer]

if its blind, then to have the death penalty would be flipping risky "hey, this system is blind, but we'll still kill you even if we've got it wrong! Dont worry, its not all that bad, because Im SURE that youd prefer to be fried to death rather than spend a life in prison!"
A serial killer would NEVER be released, at least not intentionally. Arthur John Shawcross was released, but Im 99.9% certain that the courts werent aware he'd killed more than one person.
There has to be a punishment system in place for people who have done un-civilised things (Im not necessarily saying its UN-NATURAL to kill, but that will have to be a separate debate) but to kill these people? Arent people who support the death penalty simply lowering themselves to the level of the people they are prosecuting?
We can argue about that, but if we take it down to its roots, we are still killing an individual, like that person has done. May I ask, what good will it do to society to have one dangerous individual killed when they are safely locked away in prison?
As for the debate over money (it costs less to kill then rather than keep them in prison) what sort of people are you? Money money and more money....why not value life more than you value a few dollars?

[Zephyr]

Is it humane to society to let a killer loose?

When 20% of your hard earned cash goes to the federal governemnt every month and you can hardly pay your bills, then yes, it matters because it effects your survival while they're getting a free ride in prison.

Let me flip this around...

If somebody killed a loved one of yours, would you want them dead, or get 20 years and released to potentially go after more people?

[Serenity]

I'm not saying by any means that they should be let loose. I'm saying it is not right for us to make the decision who lives and who dies. That's why they were jailed in the first place. Hyppocritical much? I think so.

And no, I would never sentence anyone to death. No matter what they did, period, case closed. Give them life in jail. But I would never wish death upon another human being. Ever.

[The Entertainer]

Is it humane to society to let a killer loose?

When 20% of your hard earned cash goes to the federal governemnt every month and you can hardly pay your bills, then yes, it matters because it effects your survival while they're getting a free ride in prison.

Let me flip this around...

If somebody killed a loved one of yours, would you want them dead, or get 20 years and released to potentially go after more people?

Is it humane to let them release a killer?

Yes and no, but life generally means about 20 years before they can be CONSIDERED for parole. That means normally they dont get it. It is humane because it shows forgiveness. Obviously the killer has to be remorseful for this to happen, but some of them are. Ive not got enough time to sorta go into the detail that it want on this point, but Ill continue.

You mentioned problems with paying for criminals:

If we take it to its horrid extremes, then I invite you therefore to go to the next execution and personally throttle the inmate. Alternativly you could just pay your taxes and remain ignorant.
Why are you so concerned about your 2 cents that goes towards inmates who have killed? Its not your entire taxes that are going towards these inmates, in fact, its a tiny tiny portion. The federal govt have every right to use the money as they wish, they have been elected by the people, after all. Id be more worried about the billions and billions the govt spends on defence, rather than the couple of dollars or so that go towards your inmates.

If somebody killed a loved one mine:

Surely two deaths is worse than one? What would I personally feel if the inmate that killed a relative was executed? I would probably have a feeling of emptiness, and, to be quite honest, let the condemned live his life out with a guilty conscience. Of course, i dont know what my true reaction would be, but my gut instinct would not be to fry him on an electric chair or inject poison into his body or to let him dangle from a rope. It would be one of anger, but I wouldnt want someone to die over something that I feel is personal, the loss of a relative.

[Φρανκομβριτ]

if you commit a horrible crime, then why should we spend tax dollars feeding you, giving you medical attention, etc. Fuck em, thats what I say! If you want to commit a crime, be prepared to pay the price

[The Entertainer]

GREAT IDEA! Why not just shoot petty criminals too?! Those are the ones that cost the taxpayer most, going in and out of court all the time!

[Hyper]

If you want a murderor to receive the death penalty because he/she killed you're loved one you are just acting on hate. And there is nothing humane about hate.

And as I've said before, let the bastards work in prison make it mandatory.

[Zephyr]

Hate is human nature. Why else do you think we have war?

[Whisper]

If you want a murderor to receive the death penalty because he/she killed you're loved one you are just acting on hate. And there is nothing humane about hate.

And as I've said before, let the bastards work in prison make it mandatory.

Thats not hate its revenge
Revenge is human nature

And its a sheer numbers game do you want to pay for a murders, rapists, pedophiles, traitors, etc... lodging and food? or would you rather poor that money into schools for your children aka your countries future

I'm not saying that a ton of people would be killed
If we start cracking down on what they do throughout the whole spectrum then less people will step out of line

[serial-thrilla]

yeah one bullet is a hell of alot cheaper then having to feed them for 50 years. I definatly wouldnt want and i believe most others will agree my tax dollars going to some serial killer's next meal.

[The Entertainer]

war is race related, almost no doubt about it. Every war I can think of had a racial motive, not hate

[The Batman]

Why should we have to pay for any prisoners why don't they just start making their own payments in jail and if they don't work start taking stuff away the only thing that we should pay for is the wages of the guards and thats it

[Hyper]

Thats not hate its revenge
Revenge is human nature

And its a sheer numbers game do you want to pay for a murders, rapists, pedophiles, traitors, etc... lodging and food? or would you rather poor that money into schools for your children aka your countries future

I'm not saying that a ton of people would be killed
If we start cracking down on what they do throughout the whole spectrum then less people will step out of line

Revenge is not human nature, go ahead and belive that, but the only reason people excercise revenge is because they are full of hate and anger towards the person who hurt them in some way. It's something thats easy to fall for..

Like I said have them work..

And its not like all of the money in the world is sucked up into feeding prisoners, if you'd actually remove corruption from the government.....

[*Dissident*]

Yeah, but for some of those horrible criminals, prison isn't that bad. They still have the oppurtunity to kill if that is what they enjoy doing, they can still obtain things like drugs and weapons behind bars, etc. So why not just kill them, it gets rid of them forever. If you put them behind bars, there is still that slight chance the prisoner could escape. If you kill the prisoner, there's no way in hell their gonna come back from the dead and be back on the streets. As for whether people other than killers should face the death penalty.. I think that someone who ruins a child's life, or especially someone who ruins MORE THAN ONE child's life by raping them should be able to face the death penalty. Raping a child, it just seems so horrific to me... :/ And possibly someone who gets convicted of torturing or something like that, b/c even if say, they didn't kill the victims, if you look at what they probably did to the victim, they were probably unspeakable acts/horrific deeds. Sending a prisoner to prison for life doesn't always mean anything. Rapists can still rape, murderers can still, torturers can still torture people, etc. If they face the death penalty, they can't hurt anyone any more.


What you are describing is not a problem of death penalty vs. life sentence, it is a problem with the prison system. Killing someone would not solve the general problem of lax prisons that allow such behavior to happen. In addition, solitary confinement would solve most if not all of the problems which you have mentioned.

My stance: Do serial rapists and murders and the like deserve death? in most cases, that fucker deserves the needle. In a lot of cases, the objectivity and labels we apply betray the actual truth: some people, while having killed (and in less cases, raped), do NOT deserve to die. there was a case of a young man involved in a gang shooting in LA or Oakland or something. he was caught and convicted. he appologized to the family, found god, and went around the country into inner city schools preaching non violence and gang resistance. he was still electrocuted.

What I am saying is, that, as humans, we must not be so egocentric as give ourselves the power to take another's life that we ourselves did not give. We do have an obligation to separate those that are dangerous from the rest of society, and to have a justice and punitive system which prohibits and gives negative incentive for crimes defined by society, and having such an obligation, a life sentence in a federal penitentiary is insofar the best we can do for those most heinous of crimes. Even if it was especially sick.

[Whisper]

And its not like all of the money in the world is sucked up into feeding prisoners, if you'd actually remove corruption from the government.....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

good luck
You will NEVER remove corruption from the government
There are some countries that are worse than others but all have it

Power and money do things to people

again
human nature

[*Dissident*]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Power and money do things to people


My solution would to be to get rid of power and money, but thats for a different thread.

Make the prisoners grow there own damn food and work in their own fields and work on their own damn windmills and solar pannels. that way, if they refuse to work, they wont eat, or get their clothes washed. No need to spend so much money on prisoners. just pay the people who guard them.

[Mannequin]

My solution would to be to get rid of power and money, but thats for a different thread.

Make the prisoners grow there own damn food and work in their own fields and work on their own damn windmills and solar pannels. that way, if they refuse to work, they wont eat, or get their clothes washed. No need to spend so much money on prisoners. just pay the people who guard them.


You're crazy and far extremist. prisoners have it bad enough as it is. why do you think so many come out with a different sexuality and personality disorders? prison is horrible.

that whole plan of yours sounds like some weird communist boot camp.

---
anyways,
if you take a life you should be dead. unless it was an accident. it doesnt matter how, when, where. you killed someone and you dont deserve to live yourself.

[Nelson]

Both sides of this argument are valid points but i cant decide. although the chair causes the perpetratior massive pain, it cant comprehend what they done to the victim

[Gumleaf]

old

locking