The Death Penalty

[Reality]

The to-be-debate is pretty much a simple one. Do you agree with capital punishment aka the death penalty? Why/why not?

Personally, I don't really agree with it. I think it's wrong in so many ways for so many reasons, and I'm really glad it's done away with here in the UK.

I think it's very hypocritical in some ways, because the law is supposed to be saying that murder is wrong, but as a punishment you can be murdered by the state. This is basically saying "We are going to kill Joe for killing Jim, to tell you that killing is wrong".

Another thing is, there's always a chance the person that gets executed is innocent, and DNA is NOT a miracle crime case solver. No matter how advanced DNA knowledge gets, there's always at least 1% chance it's wrong, and there's been many examples in the past where DNA evidence has either been wrong or messed with. At least with LWOP (life without parole) or other alternative punishments, the person will be released with due compensation - but you can never bring an executed person back to life.

Now, some pro-death penalty people would ask me "Well if someone killed your family or friends, wouldn't you want him/her killed too?", and to be honest, if it did happen; yes, I would feel obliged to want the person killed. But revenge is NOT justice, no matter how you put it.

Some people may think it's easier on the taxes to just execute instead of keep them in prison for life. Well, this is not actually true (contrary to popular belief). I've heard that many death penalty cases in the U.S. have cost at least $2 million, whereas LWOP cases cost $1 million. You must also consider that some people spend as long as 10-20 years on death row (thanks to appealing which also costs money), so it actually adds up in the long run.

[Oblivion]

No, simply because I believe it doesn't solve anything, and it is completely stooping to their level.

It just give petty revenge to the victim (or victim family), when instead, the person should really be paying off their debt to society, by working for little/no cost for life. Then at least he/she can give back to the community somewhat, and attempt to pay pack their huge debt.

[Sage]

An eye for an eye leaves us all blind. That's all I'll say for now.

[theOperaGhost]

I'm quite mixed on this issue. I say yes and no. Both (capital punishment and life without the possibility of parole) are quite expensive, so that is a disadvantage either way. The way I see it is this...sort of the "eye for an eye" thing, but slightly different; the punishment is supposed to fit the crime, so say for example you steal $1 million dollars from someone...you should have to pay that back right? Well, if you murder someone (steal their life), the only way you can even come close to paying that back is by giving your life.

Now that comes to two ways of actually giving your life...death penalty or life without the possibility of parole. It's late and I'm too lazy to look up estimated expenses for each now, so I won't compare that. However, life without the possibility of parole causes the already overcrowded prisons to become even more crowded, which would increase prison violence endangering the lives of both prisoners and corrections officers. Not to mention the cost of building new prisons to compensate for the extreme overcrowding.

As for innocent people getting the death penalty...it doesn't happen as often as people think it has. However, a way to prevent that would be to only give the death penalty to people who plead guilty for first degree murder (which probably wouldn't be that many, but I don't know).

I can't give a definite answer for which side of this debate I'm on, because I really see the advantages and disadvantages of both and they seem rather comparable to me. I'm going to conclude by saying that I quite likely lean more toward the death penalty though.

[nick]

I'm totally opposed to the death penalty. Like others have said you cant demonstrate that its wrong to kill by killing someone, that just doen't make sense, so you're stooping to their level. And the whole mechanics, whatever method you use, of carrying out the penalty is so cold blooded its just horrible. I don't think there's any place for it in a civilised society.

[INFERNO]

Many of the infamous killers (serial, mass murderer), serial rapists and such get executed, and it's a pity. We're in an era of trying to unravel the brain and psychology, yet the executed individuals can be prime candidates, yet instead of seeing their use in society (as they once saw in society), we instead just end them.

That being said, I feel that for many criminals that get the death penalty, that the death penalty is far too light. Take for example someone who tortures, rapes, and kills 400 people. All of those individuals suffered immensely, as did their families, friends and relatives, yet the only thing that the killer gets is a little injection or electric chair. In comparison to the deeds that they did, the death penalty is more or less an easier way out, somewhat of a slap on the wrist and a mockery to the families going as "ooo, look he killed 400 people, tortured and raped them, so he'll only suffer for less than a minute".

But seeing as how the death penalty currently, at least in North America, is not like that, then I have to say I'm opposed.

[Perseus]

See, say a killer didn't get lwop, but could get the death penatly(hypothetical speaking, Idon't think this can happen). The person will choose jail, and when he comes out, he will most likely kill more people because most of the time the serial kilelrs enjoy killing, that's why some people doing it. Most serial killers cannot contribute to soceity once they're out of jail because they most likely will kill again, but not always.
So yes, I believe in it, and I honestly think they should bring back firing squads because I think someone who kills people should be shot to death.
Saying someone who kills a bunch of people doesn't deserve death just doesn't make any since.
I also believe an "eye for eye" is the right way to do things. If someone stabs youyr eye out, they should lose their eye to see what it feels like to lose an eye.

[Strength]

I agree with the death penalty. Rapist cold blooded murderers should be executed. And keeping them alive in prison is a waste of tax payers money.

[MysticalBurrito]

I agree completly with the death penalty.
Like Jake said serial killers will keep killing and have gotten out and killed more before.
So its a eye for a eye they deserve to be do for just like the people they killed for no reason

[Reality]

See, say a killer didn't get lwop, but could get the death penatly(hypothetical speaking, Idon't think this can happen). The person will choose jail, and when he comes out, he will most likely kill more people because most of the time the serial kilelrs enjoy killing, that's why some people doing it. Most serial killers cannot contribute to soceity once they're out of jail because they most likely will kill again, but not always.
So yes, I believe in it, and I honestly think they should bring back firing squads because I think someone who kills people should be shot to death.
Saying someone who kills a bunch of people doesn't deserve death just doesn't make any since.
With LWOP, nobody comes out of jail. For murder, even if there is parole, they'll be out within 50 years at least, and by that time they'll be fragile and 80.
I also believe an "eye for eye" is the right way to do things. If someone stabs youyr eye out, they should lose their eye to see what it feels like to lose an eye.
Justice is not revenge. There could be ways these murderers pay back what they owe to society. A good punishment would be a life of hard labour, where their wages go to the family of the victim.

I agree with the death penalty. Rapist cold blooded murderers should be executed. And keeping them alive in prison is a waste of tax payers money.
Did you read what I said in my first post? In the long term, executing them actually costs more in a lot of cases. You have to consider they spend 10-20 years on death row, then the costs of court, the cost of appeals and other legal procedures, then of course the execution itself.

So its a eye for a eye they deserve to be do for just like the people they killed for no reason
Nobody kills for "no reason". People are killed for either profit, passion, and compulsion. None of these can be deterred.

[Sapphire]

I'm against it.
We mustn't forget the case of Reginald Christie in the 40's. He killed many people and buried them in the garden. When he ran out of room there, he buried them in the walls of his house. Two of his victims were a mother and her baby while he framed the father. The father was hung after Christie gave false evidence against him. A few years later, the police came across some of the rotting bodies in the wall cavities and arrested, tried and executed Christie. The father was cleared of the murders he'd been hung for.
By allowing the death sentence to be used, we are lowering ourselves to their level and taking life away from someone who may be perfectly innocent as in the above case.

[theOperaGhost]

With LWOP, nobody comes out of jail. For murder, even if there is parole, they'll be out within 50 years at least, and by that time they'll be fragile and 80.

Not really true. First of all, 50 years was just a made up number, and second of all, why do only 30 year olds murder? Also, you don't think an 80 year old can fire a gun?

Justice is not revenge. There could be ways these murderers pay back what they owe to society. A good punishment would be a life of hard labour, where their wages go to the family of the victim.

You can argue it that way, but I don't agree. Hard labor is in no way a "fair" punishment for killing people.


Did you read what I said in my first post? In the long term, executing them actually costs more in a lot of cases. You have to consider they spend 10-20 years on death row, then the costs of court, the cost of appeals and other legal procedures, then of course the execution itself.

Once again, not necessarily true. You have to take into account the long term effect of life incarceration for all people who could be executed. The already overcrowded prisons would just be more crowded. More prison violence would occur risking the lives of other prisoners and corrections officers (I already said that in my previous post). There would also need to be more money put into hiring more corrections officers AND building new prisons. So, no, financially, there isn't really that much of a difference.




And to the person that said they should bring back firing squads...they still do have firing squad executions as an option for the death row inmate in some states. I believe most death row inmates get to choose how they are executed (not positive).

[vito22andolini]

yea , totally . Those who killed ppl deserve to be killed , same for rapists...especialy those priests who rape kids . Death sentence is just a result of your own actions ...why shouldn't you pay for them ... die XD

[Reality]

Not really true. First of all, 50 years was just a made up number, and second of all, why do only 30 year olds murder? Also, you don't think an 80 year old can fire a gun?
I was using the average. Most murderers (or at least the ones I be hearing about) are in their 30's, give or take. Don't take me literally on that one. And yeah, but if you murder loads of people, you don't get out for 30-50 years if there is parole, that's even if you get it, too.

You can argue it that way, but I don't agree. Hard labor is in no way a "fair" punishment for killing people.
There is no fair punishment for some crimes. If you were to punish a serial killer or terrorist who killed 30+ people, you can only kill that person once.

A life of hard labour is definitely a fitting punishment in my opinion. No prison comforts, and no protection or anything like that. I'd personally rather get the electric chair than that myself.

Once again, not necessarily true. You have to take into account the long term effect of life incarceration for all people who could be executed. The already overcrowded prisons would just be more crowded. More prison violence would occur risking the lives of other prisoners and corrections officers (I already said that in my previous post). There would also need to be more money put into hiring more corrections officers AND building new prisons. So, no, financially, there isn't really that much of a difference.
Mhm.

Prison over-crowding is not much to do with people in for serious crimes like murder and rape, though. Prison over-crowding is caused by people in for petty (in comparison that is) crimes. I don't see where you get the prison violence from, though. That happens anyway.

And to the person that said they should bring back firing squads...they still do have firing squad executions as an option for the death row inmate in some states. I believe most death row inmates get to choose how they are executed (not positive).
I was researching it a few weeks ago, I think Idaho, Oklahoma and Utah are the only States in the US that has the firing squad.

yea , totally . Those who killed ppl deserve to be killed , same for rapists...especialy those priests who rape kids . Death sentence is just a result of your own actions ...why shouldn't you pay for them ... die XD
As much as I don't condone rape or those "priests who rape kids" (nice job stereotyping, by the way), killing them is not actually the fitting crime for them. Killing them, is actually worse.

I'm probably gonna get mouthed at for this, but when a man rapes a woman, he doesn't kill her. She's still living and breathing. Yes, she's traumatized, but the point is, she's not dead. Same with kids, although kids will be traumatized a lot worse.

But using that logic, I suppose we should execute all bullies, because they ruin lives and traumatize people too. Right? No.

I still think rape should get a serious punishment, but definitely not the death penalty.

[Sapphire]

There is no fair punishment for some crimes. If you were to punish a serial killer or terrorist who killed 30+ people, you can only kill that person once.

[...]

Prison over-crowding is not much to do with people in for serious crimes like murder and rape, though. Prison over-crowding is caused by people in for petty (in comparison that is) crimes.
QFT.
I can see how the death penalty can be seen as paying for killing one person, but if someone kills a number of people you can't kill them a respective number of times.
If people weren't being sent to prisons for the pettier crimes (failure to pay fines etc) then there wouldn't be a problem with prison over-crowding.

[Mzor203]

WARNING: Harsh views below.

My view, in a nutshell, is that you should be smart enough to know that if you kill somebody, that it's wrong. If you're completely insane to the point that you're going around murdering people, then sorry, you're just going to be a problem to society and you need to go, because you're completely useless in this world, except as a lab rat to psychologists.

When you take someone's life, that is something you cannot pay off. Some cases, you shouldn't be executed for a first time murder, but once you've gone and killed two people, THEN you know that there's something wrong, and it's time for your head to go off. Putting someone in a life sentence isn't going to help, because all that is going to do is provoke more anger, which will lead to MORE people getting hurt/killed.

I know it's harsh to end someone's life, but really, after taking a life or two, knowingly, then you don't deserve to live.

My view.

[Reality]

I know it's harsh to end someone's life, but really, after taking a life or two, knowingly, then you don't deserve to live.

My view.
I respect your opinion. But I'll catch you on that last bit. Who are we to decide who deserves lives or dies or not, either?

There's definitely more use to a murderer in society than you might think, nowadays prisons believe in reforming and rehabilitating criminals back into society. Hard labour, and stuff like that would provide good construction work and such, which is beneficial to society.

I also find it kind of stupid that criminals on death row aren't allowed to donate their organs once they're killed either. If they were, it might give me more reason to support capital punishment. If they give an organ, they're saving another life, so it pays society back in a way.

[Sapphire]

Who are we to decide who deserves lives or dies or not, either?That's true.
There's a quote that I am particularly fond of and it's really quite apt for this discussion.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

[theOperaGhost]

WARNING: Harsh views below.

My view, in a nutshell, is that you should be smart enough to know that if you kill somebody, that it's wrong. If you're completely insane to the point that you're going around murdering people, then sorry, you're just going to be a problem to society and you need to go, because you're completely useless in this world, except as a lab rat to psychologists.

When you take someone's life, that is something you cannot pay off. Some cases, you shouldn't be executed for a first time murder, but once you've gone and killed two people, THEN you know that there's something wrong, and it's time for your head to go off. Putting someone in a life sentence isn't going to help, because all that is going to do is provoke more anger, which will lead to MORE people getting hurt/killed.

I know it's harsh to end someone's life, but really, after taking a life or two, knowingly, then you don't deserve to live.

My view.

I completely agree.

As for increased prison violence...if the population goes up, the living conditions go down. People are in closer contact and like I said, are in worse living conditions, which put already violent people past their breaking point. I really think the problem with prison violence today is because of the current overcrowding. Murderers do not have any place in society. In my opinion, once a killer, always a killer. You can try rehabilitate, but I really don't think it works. Putting them back into society after a few years in prison is just a threat to society.

[nick]

I have no problem with the concept of locking some people up and throwing away the key, but killing is wrong. The executioner is guilty of the same crime as the person he's killing, and so is everyone that has empowered the executioner to carry out that task.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The US claims to be a Christian country, there's nothing Christian about capital punishment, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Koman]

Yes i agree with it. An eye for an eye. All the way back to the hamurabi code.

If someone murders someone else and then is let go after their sentence or whatever, they are most likely going to kill again.

I think some of those hamurabi codes are quite nice. Such as if you build someones house and it falls in and kills them, you are killed. Sound good to me. Your fault, youe punishment.

If you kill someone you should be killed aswell, it solves the problem. Noone cares about 2 wrongs not making a right anymore. Anyways lethal injection is painless.

[Sapphire]

Noone cares about 2 wrongs not making a right anymore.I care so that blows that theory of yours out of the window.

The death penalty may seem to solve the problem, but it brings up a number of other problems, the most obvious of which is the ethical issue of when is it right to kill another human.

[Koman]

I care so that blows that theory of yours out of the window.

The death penalty may seem to solve the problem, but it brings up a number of other problems, the most obvious of which is the ethical issue of when is it right to kill another human.
If they kill someone else then ethics = out the window.

[Sapphire]

If they kill someone else then ethics = out the window.
Why?
Why should we lower ourselves to their level because they've behaved appallingly?

[Koman]

Why?
Why should we lower ourselves to their level because they've behaved appallingly?


Because they behaved appallingly.

[Sapphire]

Because they behaved appallingly.
That's an appalling answer.
By doing that then we are as bad as them and the whole system falls apart because nothing separates the people who commit murder and those who enforce the law.

[Reality]

Yes i agree with it. An eye for an eye. All the way back to the hamurabi code.

If someone murders someone else and then is let go after their sentence or whatever, they are most likely going to kill again.
How do you know if they're most likely to kill again? Are you a super psychologist that can read the minds of people? No. Now, serial killers are another issue, true, but LWOP means these people won't be let back out into society.

I think some of those hamurabi codes are quite nice. Such as if you build someones house and it falls in and kills them, you are killed. Sound good to me. Your fault, youe punishment.
That is actually very, very unjust. Everyone suffers from the human error, even the engineers and builders that designed and made that (hypothetical?) house. They didn't have any intent of killing the person. We know they're not bad people, and they're obviously contributing to society.

Why.. on Earth.. would you want them killed? You have to remember that justice is not about revenge.

I can't believe you're using such an old and out-dated philosophy on the issue, to begin with.

If you kill someone you should be killed aswell, it solves the problem. Noone cares about 2 wrongs not making a right anymore. Anyways lethal injection is painless.
I care. Lots of other people care. So that makes your comment on that rather irrelevant.

[Camazotz]

I agree with the death penalty. Rapist cold blooded murderers should be executed. And keeping them alive in prison is a waste of tax payers money.

After some research, I have found that it is more expensive to keep felons on death row than it is to keep them in jail for life.

I agree completly with the death penalty.
Like Jake said serial killers will keep killing and have gotten out and killed more before.
So its a eye for a eye they deserve to be do for just like the people they killed for no reason

I remember reading in an old thread about the death penalty that they murdered a "guilty" man for killing people. Years later, they discovered evidence proving the "guilty" man was innocent. Now we killed an innocent man. Therefore, we must kill the executioner who killed the innocent man. Now someone must kill the person who killed the executioner. This is called a paradox. If we followed "an eye for an eye", everyone would be dead.

yea , totally . Those who killed ppl deserve to be killed , same for rapists...especialy those priests who rape kids . Death sentence is just a result of your own actions ...why shouldn't you pay for them ... die XD

Two things wrong here. One is the "deserving to be killed" part. No one, and I mean no one, deserves to be killed. Not Osama Bin Laden, not criminals. If you think killing is wrong and support the death penalty, you are a hypocrite. Secondly, dying isn't a punishment, simply because they cannot learn anything from the crime. Once your dead, you're dead forever. If you are put into life-imprisonment, you will remember for the rest of your life what you truly deserve.

Yes i agree with it. An eye for an eye. All the way back to the hamurabi code.

If someone murders someone else and then is let go after their sentence or whatever, they are most likely going to kill again.

I think some of those hamurabi codes are quite nice. Such as if you build someones house and it falls in and kills them, you are killed. Sound good to me. Your fault, youe punishment.

If you kill someone you should be killed aswell, it solves the problem. Noone cares about 2 wrongs not making a right anymore. Anyways lethal injection is painless.

Several things here that are way off. One was the paradox I mentioned earlier. The next thing is the building the house. Here's a scenario, and using your logic, the correct punishment.

You, Koman, are helping the homeless build a house so they can stay warm for the upcoming winter. You spend your entire summer vacation working on this house and it gets built. You are proud of yourself. One wintry night, a blizzard hits, ruins the house, kills all the people in the house. Using your logic, you deserve to die for helping build a house for the poor. Maybe people should stop helping each other out of fear of getting capital punishment. In my opinion, poor logic.

My next problem is that you state that nobody cares about two wrongs not making a right. I have no idea what you are talking about. Since when have people not cared about people killing other people?

And my last problem is that you state lethal injection is painless. That is what we are led to believe. However, there is no standard measurement of the doses. In fact, it is likely that the injection paralyzes the victim, and the victim can still feel the painful injection.

A show I think that can add much to the debate is Penn and Teller's: Bullshit. I cannot seem to find it right now, but if someone manages to find a working video, feel free to post it.

[Koman]

After some research, I have found that it is more expensive to keep felons on death row than it is to keep them in jail for life.



I remember reading in an old thread about the death penalty that they murdered a "guilty" man for killing people. Years later, they discovered evidence proving the "guilty" man was innocent. Now we killed an innocent man. Therefore, we must kill the executioner who killed the innocent man. Now someone must kill the person who killed the executioner. This is called a paradox. If we followed "an eye for an eye", everyone would be dead.



Two things wrong here. One is the "deserving to be killed" part. No one, and I mean no one, deserves to be killed. Not Osama Bin Laden, not criminals. If you think killing is wrong and support the death penalty, you are a hypocrite. Secondly, dying isn't a punishment, simply because they cannot learn anything from the crime. Once your dead, you're dead forever. If you are put into life-imprisonment, you will remember for the rest of your life what you truly deserve.



Several things here that are way off. One was the paradox I mentioned earlier. The next thing is the building the house. Here's a scenario, and using your logic, the correct punishment.

You, Koman, are helping the homeless build a house so they can stay warm for the upcoming winter. You spend your entire summer vacation working on this house and it gets built. You are proud of yourself. One wintry night, a blizzard hits, ruins the house, kills all the people in the house. Using your logic, you deserve to die for helping build a house for the poor. Maybe people should stop helping each other out of fear of getting capital punishment. In my opinion, poor logic.

My next problem is that you state that nobody cares about two wrongs not making a right. I have no idea what you are talking about. Since when have people not cared about people killing other people?

And my last problem is that you state lethal injection is painless. That is what we are led to believe. However, there is no standard measurement of the doses. In fact, it is likely that the injection paralyzes the victim, and the victim can still feel the painful injection.

A show I think that can add much to the debate is Penn and Teller's: Bullshit. I cannot seem to find it right now, but if someone manages to find a working video, feel free to post it.

Well first off we have a problem here. You obviously fsioed geography and world history. First of all we are in 1600 b.c. In ancient babylon (middle east). They werent making any huge victorian houses. Second(directed at the other guy) there was 1 guy buildin the house. There were no enineers or anyhing. This was a 1 man show. Third, this is in the middle east. This isnt the arctic tundra of siberia. Last time i checked, there was no snow in babylon.

[Perseus]

He was doing a scenario.
And honestly, its not the guys fault for the house breaking. They could be doing things for it to come tumbling down.
Yes, he should inspect more carefully, but killing him isn't right. If you are someone with a conscience and accidently kill someone, just that you killed a person is enough for the person to feel miserable.

[Koman]

He was doing a scenario.
And honestly, its not the guys fault for the house breaking. They could be doing things for it to come tumbling down.
Yes, he should inspect more carefully, but killing him isn't right. If you
Iare someone with a conscience and accidently kill someone, just that you killed a person is enough for the person to feel miserable.
It was an eye for an eye. Not puppy dogs and rainbows.

[Perseus]

But its not the guy's intention to kill the person. Intentional killing yes, unintentional killing, no. That is not civilized because the person had no intention on killing the person.

[lamboman43]

He was doing a scenario.
And honestly, its not the guys fault for the house breaking. They could be doing things for it to come tumbling down.
Yes, he should inspect more carefully, but killing him isn't right. If you are someone with a conscience and accidently kill someone, just that you killed a person is enough for the person to feel miserable.

Yes if you accidently killed someone you would feel bad, but most people that kill have no concience and kill more than once.

[Reality]

Well first off we have a problem here. You obviously fsioed geography and world history.
Don't make personal attacks on people, please, especially if they're irrelevant.
I could make a brash personal attack on your spelling skills, but I won't.

First of all we are in 1600 b.c. In ancient babylon (middle east). They werent making any huge victorian houses. Second(directed at the other guy) there was 1 guy buildin the house. There were no enineers or anyhing. This was a 1 man show. Third, this is in the middle east. This isnt the arctic tundra of siberia. Last time i checked, there was no snow in babylon.
.. What does that have to do with anything?
You gave the example "if someone builds a house and it falls down and kills the person living in it, then the person who built it should die"

A hypothetical situation of what someone should be killed for, right? Or what someone could be killed for.
Whatever you're trying to say, human error still exists. And he (Camarotz) was giving a scenario.. you took it literally.

It was an eye for an eye. Not puppy dogs and rainbows.
I don't actually know what you're talking about here. Elaborate the part on "puppy dogs and rainbows".

[Koman]

Don't make personal attacks on people, please, especially if they're irrelevant.
I could make a brash personal attack on your spelling skills, but I won't.


.. What does that have to do with anything?
You gave the example "if someone builds a house and it falls down and kills the person living in it, then the person who built it should die"

A hypothetical situation of what someone should be killed for, right? Or what someone could be killed for.
Whatever you're trying to say, human error still exists. And he (Camarotz) was giving a scenario.. you took it literally.


I don't actually know what you're talking about here. Elaborate the part on "puppy dogs and rainbows".

Well first im typing on an ipod, so...

Second, i dont care.

Third, puppy dogs = happy , rainbows = happy, puppy dogs + rainbows = happy. So if i say it isnt just puppy dogs and rainbows, it means it isnt a happy place. Sometimes i just wonder if people try and not understand things.

[theOperaGhost]

Koman...people who kill without any intent shouldn't get the death penalty. The only crime that is capital is first degree murder, which leave 3 other degrees of homicide: second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. The worst that poor carpentry would get in my opinion is voluntary manslaughter, and that would be a long shot.

Even if you get into a car accident and kill someone, you are guilty of homicide and get charged with it and pay fines. However, it is involuntary manslaughter...nowhere near a capital crime.

[Reality]

Well first im typing on an ipod, so...

Second, i dont care.
If you're going to be willingly ignorant, there's no point being in a debate with you.

Third, puppy dogs = happy , rainbows = happy, puppy dogs + rainbows = happy. So if i say it isnt just puppy dogs and rainbows, it means it isnt a happy place. Sometimes i just wonder if people try and not understand things.
Yeah, and just what exactly do they have to do with my topic? You're being very irrelevant.

[Perseus]

He was saying the rainbow thing about me saying about my post of where he shouldn't be killed and about the conscience and all that.

[Koman]

If you're going to be willingly ignorant, there's no point being in a debate with you.


Yeah, and just what exactly do they have to do with my topic? You're being very irrelevant.


As in the world isnt just happiness. Life isnt fair. That was my point.

[Perseus]

So, if you accidently killed someone Koman, you think you deserve to die, even though you didn't do it on purpose?

[Viral Death]

I think people should get the penalty if the crime is over rape with murder!

[Reality]

As in the world isnt just happiness. Life isnt fair. That was my point.
You've just basically contradicted the biggest point you're trying to make. By your logic, which is an eye-for-an-eye. Which is supposed to be "fair" game.

I think people should get the penalty if the crime is over rape with murder!
Eh?

[Koman]

You've just basically contradicted the biggest point you're trying to make. By your logic, which is an eye-for-an-eye. Which is supposed to be "fair" game.
Its fair in the unfair sort of way.

[Reality]

Its fair in the unfair sort of way.
You're not really explaining how or why (again).
Unfair on who? The person who would be executed?

[Koman]

You're not really explaining how or why (again).
Unfair on who? The person who would be executed?


True.

[Reality]

You're not really making any sense. But OK.

[INFERNO]

I think people should get the penalty if the crime is over rape with murder!

And how do you propose the justice system determines what is over this arbitrary benchmark that has been somehow set? Do they rank the crimes on a scale and see "Oops, it's over that benchmark, off to death row"? Moreover, why exactly did you choose that arbitrary benchmark? Why not choose five grand theft autos or three arsons? How did you reach that benchmark?

Its fair in the unfair sort of way.

I'm not following this one bit. How can it be fair yet be unfair? Who is getting the "fair" or "unfair"?

[Sapphire]

Yes if you accidently killed someone you would feel bad, but most people that kill have no concience and kill more than once.
How do you know that the majority of murderers do kill more than once?

[nick]

I find this the most depressing thread on vt. Glad there are a least a few more civilised humans around even if we seem to be in a minority!

[NightFighter]

Omg! I had to do an english essay on this.
Basically, Yes, capital punishment is a good idea.

[Sapphire]

I find this the most depressing thread on vt. Glad there are a least a few more civilised humans around even if we seem to be in a minority!Woo!! Go civilised humans!!!

[INFERNO]

Omg! I had to do an english essay on this.
Basically, Yes, capital punishment is a good idea.

Why is it a good idea? Who would or would not get the capital punishment?

[NightFighter]

Why is it a good idea? Who would or would not get the capital punishment?

Well in my opinion capital punishment is beneficial because
- Before capital punishment there were FAR fewer murders
- Murderers should not be given the right to live if they have denied another person of that right
- The number of murderers who kill again is high, whether it be a member of the public or a fellow prisoner
- It gives closure of families or victims. The offender is not alive to haunt them anymore
- In countries such as Singapore, where they still carry out the death penalty, there is less crime and therefore is a successful punishment
- The prisons are pretty packed as they are.
- A life sentence is not long enough for some of the callous people.
- The chances of killing the wrong person are very slim due to scientific development and trials.
- I think it would deter people from killing.
- The country would be a lot safer place to live.

It think murderers, pedophiles, rapists, people who harm children and maybe animals too. Just any serious, callous crime really.

:) Thats my opinion anyway.

[Sapphire]

Well in my opinion capital punishment is beneficial because
- Before capital punishment there were FAR fewer murders
- Murderers should not be given the right to live if they have denied another person of that right
- The number of murderers who kill again is high, whether it be a member of the public or a fellow prisoner
- It gives closure of families or victims. The offender is not alive to haunt them anymore
- In countries such as Singapore, where they still carry out the death penalty, there is less crime and therefore is a successful punishment
- The prisons are pretty packed as they are.
- A life sentence is not long enough for some of the callous people.
- The chances of killing the wrong person are very slim due to scientific development and trials.
- I think it would deter people from killing.
- The country would be a lot safer place to live.

It think murderers, pedophiles, rapists, people who harm children and maybe animals too. Just any serious, callous crime really.

:) Thats my opinion anyway.
"Before capital punishment there were FAR fewer murders"
How can that be an advantage for having capital punishment?

What gives us the right to take their life from them?
If they didn't have the right to kill someone else then why do we have the right to kill them?

Ok, so the offender isn't alive to haunt them further, but that does not mean that as soon as the offender dies they are free of the torment he/she has caused them. They will be haunted for many, many years regardless of whether the murderer is alive or dead.

Singapore carry out capital punishment for a number of crimes (not only murder, rape and other crimes of a similar nature) including kidnapping and drug trafficking, in which case the individual has to prove themselves to be innocent. Indeed, a German woman was to face the gallows about 7 years ago for possessing a little over 500g of cannabis. Amnesty International have been noted saying that the death penalty isn't the cause of the lower crime rate.
Also, states in the US have the death penalty but still have high rates of crimes which are punishable with death. If it was such a good deterrent then the US would have lower crime rates than they do.

The government should stop locking people up for petty things like failure to pay fines. That would immediately thin out the prison population.

People get wrongly imprisoned quite frequently actually, even in this day and age.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2262/do-the-wrongfully-imprisoned-get-compensation <This page gives some examples of how people get wrongfully imprisoned and later cleared of the crime(s).
http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/man-wrongfully-imprisoned-for-12-years/article28504.html
What's there to stop this from happening with people awaiting the death penalty?

[Reality]

- Before capital punishment there were FAR fewer murders
Capital Punishment is thousands of years old. Do you have any proof or source of information for this?

- Murderers should not be given the right to live if they have denied another person of that right
Fair enough point, but I've already written about this whole "eye for an eye" thing, and that revenge is not justice.

- The number of murderers who kill again is high, whether it be a member of the public or a fellow prisoner
There's no proof murderers kill other prisoners, but LWOP will stop murderers getting out of prison agains, meaning they can't kill another member of the public.
- It gives closure of families or victims. The offender is not alive to haunt them anymore
Again. Justice is not about revenge. One could argue wanting the blood of the offender is pretty much hypocritical.
- In countries such as Singapore, where they still carry out the death penalty, there is less crime and therefore is a successful punishment
How are you sure this is because of Capital Punishment?
- The prisons are pretty packed as they are.
Most prisoners are in there for far more petty crimes, such as not paying taxes, shoplifting, etc.
- A life sentence is not long enough for some of the callous people.
I don't exactly know what you mean by this. Elaborate, please.
- The chances of killing the wrong person are very slim due to scientific development and trials.
But is it anywhere near perfect? No. There are still a few people in modern day getting executed because DNA evidence has been messed up (and even deliberately planted on them), and whatnot. You know that once you kill someone, they're forever gone.
- I think it would deter people from killing.
- The country would be a lot safer place to live.
That's actually a myth that it deters people from killing, it makes no difference, actually. Look at the United States, for example. They still have Capital Punishment, but the murder rates and proportion is a lot higher than that of Western Europe, the UK, Canada and Australia (none of which have Capital Punishment)

A murderer does not think "Shit, I'm not gonna kill John Smith, because I might get killed for this", because if they did, there would be far less murders in places like USA. Is USA any safer to live in because it Capital Punishment?

It think murderers, pedophiles, rapists, people who harm children and maybe animals too. Just any serious, callous crime really.
I don't condone pedophiles, rapists or any of what you just mentioned. But to say that these people should get the death penalty is definitely a harsh and also very backwards way of dealing with them.

You do know that if we put everyone who was a pedophile, rapist, harmed children, and especially people who harmed/killed animals on death row, it would cost the country billions in courts, appeals, executions, investigations, etc etc etc.

That would be perhaps nearly a million people (in the UK) on death row from what you've mentioned. Not a financially smart idea, either.

:) Thats my opinion anyway.
Thanks for joining my debate! :)

[NightFighter]

Hmmm ok i've thinking and maybe killing all the perdophiles, rapists, murderers etc isnt a good idea. Maybe just extreme cases such as Josef Fritzl or reoffenders of crimes like murder, rape, abduction or cruelty. People who dont change.

Good idea? or do you just think capital punishment should not be used at all?

[Reality]

Hmmm ok i've thinking and maybe killing all the perdophiles, rapists, murderers etc isnt a good idea. Maybe just extreme cases such as Josef Fritzl or reoffenders of crimes like murder, rape, abduction or cruelty. People who dont change.

Good idea? or do you just think capital punishment should not be used at all?
I'm against Capital Punishment myself. But for some crimes, I can see why it's hard to not want the death penalty, but I suggest alternative punishments, myself.

Especially seeing as most death penalty-worthy crimes have flaws in the evidence and proof, and if you mess it up, you'll end up sending the wrong man to death row. As rare as it is, it still happens.

Another thing to consider, is the fact the people that get executed have families and friends. Executing someone will leave them with grief for pretty much the rest of their lives, and they themselves have done no crimes. Not saying they have any priority over the victims families and friends, but killing a death row inmate doesn't bring their loved ones back to life, nor end their suffering either.

[Sapphire]

Hmmm ok i've thinking and maybe killing all the perdophiles, rapists, murderers etc isnt a good idea. Maybe just extreme cases such as Josef Fritzl or reoffenders of crimes like murder, rape, abduction or cruelty. People who dont change.

Good idea? or do you just think capital punishment should not be used at all?You are entitled to your view. Stick by it if it is what you honestly believe.

I could never support the death penalty as I don't believe that killing a criminal solves the problem.
Society breeds murderers. And as such we should work on finding a way to solve the problem.