Death Sentence

[Donkey]

Should we have a death sentence?

We kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong.

I don't think we should.

1. It's just stupid. We're being hypocritical and breaking our own laws.
2. No one deserves to have their life taken from them.
3. What if they didn't do whatever they're being blamed for.

I feel the same way about life sentences.

[Reality]

I had a topic on this a few months ago, and I agree. I'm against it for pretty much the same reasons.

Revenge is not justice. Sure, I'd feel angst if somebody killed my parents/children but having the guy who did it wouldn't even help to get rid of the pain.

The death penalty is actually the easy way out for the murderer. Once you're dead you're just dead. The victims family, however, will be feeling emotional pain for the rest of their lives.

Life of hard labour is a much worse punishment than the death penalty, and at that, it also helps the criminal repay it's debt to society. The death penalty has no place in modern society.

[Sage]

I agree with all the points made above, though I would also like to add that the idea of state-sanctioned killing is disturbing to me, regardless of justifications.

[nick]

Agree with everything above. Its repulsive, and its society lowering itself to the level of the killer. Personally I dont believe any country that implements capital punishment can be regarded as civilised.

[Sapphire]

I'm against it.

There is actually a quote that sums up my views on this rather completely.
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. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

[JackOfClubs]

No, I don't think that we should have a death sentence. If someone kills some other innocent person, the murderer should rot in prison for the rest of his life. The death sentence is the easy way out.

[Θάνατος]

An eye for an eye.

Yes prison is a punishment but some prisoners live better than the regular population of people. They get a warm bed 3 square meals a day. Don't have to work unless they want to. I mean look at it they basically do nothing all day long and are just free loading on our taxes dollars.

I believe a person should be killed if they are found guilty of first degree murder and so no remorse for their crime. Did the person they killed have a choice. No and neither should that person.

[Reality]

An eye for an eye.

Yes prison is a punishment but some prisoners live better than the regular population of people. They get a warm bed 3 square meals a day. Don't have to work unless they want to. I mean look at it they basically do nothing all day long and are just free loading on our taxes dollars.

I believe a person should be killed if they are found guilty of first degree murder and so no remorse for their crime. Did the person they killed have a choice. No and neither should that person.
Yes, that is right. But when you're dead... you're dead. You don't care. I don't care about people when they're dead anymore, because there's no point. They have no feelings. However, all my sympathy goes towards the family. A murderer that is killed by the death penalty has more relief than the victims family.

I don't agree with keeping them in a comfortable prison, either, though. A military type prison, where they HAVE to work.. for the rest of their lives, no parole, and very low chance of escape.

You also don't seem to realise, that the death penalty isn't "cheap" on taxes either. Those court cases, lawyers, appeals, executions, etc. are far from cheap, it really doesn't work out that much less than life imprisonment, not that I'd like murderers to get the general life-in-prison, anyway.

By the way, an eye-for-an-eye would make the world blind. Kill a person? Kill him, but the person that killed the murderer killed a person too, so "eye for an eye", lets kill him too... chain reaction.

[Sapphire]

An eye for an eye.

Yes prison is a punishment but some prisoners live better than the regular population of people. They get a warm bed 3 square meals a day. Don't have to work unless they want to. I mean look at it they basically do nothing all day long and are just free loading on our taxes dollars.

I believe a person should be killed if they are found guilty of first degree murder and so no remorse for their crime. Did the person they killed have a choice. No and neither should that person.
We can't give life to those who deserve it so, is it really our place to take it from those who deserve death?

Prison isn't just about punishing offenders. They are there to aid the rehabilitation of these convicted criminals as well as to make them pay their debt to society.

And these people aren't all freeloading. Unicor were the largest employer of convicts in 2005 with 18,000 convicts employed to produce items like safety goggles - when combined with other employers that figure reaches 72,00 employed convicts in the USA that year.

[The Batman]

The death penalty use to be all about letting god judge them for their sins or whatever. We have grown as a society where we don't need religious reasoning behind punishments. Also, who are we to say who lives and who dies, if murder is against the law what justification do we have to kill someone who kills?

[Θάνατος]

We can't give life to those who deserve it so, is it really our place to take it from those who deserve death?

Prison isn't just about punishing offenders. They are there to aid the rehabilitation of these convicted criminals as well as to make them pay their debt to society.

And these people aren't all freeloading. Unicor were the largest employer of convicts in 2005 with 18,000 convicts employed to produce items like safety goggles - when combined with other employers that figure reaches 72,00 employed convicts in the USA that year.

I agree with what you said. Prisons do employ a lot of prisoners and even have some farms in which they grow crops.

The point I was making in the prisoners still have the choice to rehabilitate and get a job.

People who are serving life sentences or on death row do not get the same privileges as other prisoners and wont get the same rehabilitation experiences.

The problem with the prison and justice system is the prisoners have more rights than the normal law abiding citizens.

You mentioned legal fees with the courts and the appeals process who do you think pays for that. It is the average Joe taxpayer. The prisoners don't pay anything for their appeals process.

The legal system is backed up waiting to hear these appeals when instead they could be hearing cases that affects law abiding citizens.

[Sapphire]

Θάνατος, which rights do convicts have that normal people don't?
If anything they have less - which is as it should be.

Therapies with the aim of rehabilitating offenders are offered to the higher risk offenders and not really the medium and low risk offenders. So where did you get the impression that they are in fact offered less opportunities to rehabilitate themselves?

[Camazotz]

An eye for an eye.

Yes prison is a punishment but some prisoners live better than the regular population of people. They get a warm bed 3 square meals a day. Don't have to work unless they want to. I mean look at it they basically do nothing all day long and are just free loading on our taxes dollars.

I believe a person should be killed if they are found guilty of first degree murder and so no remorse for their crime. Did the person they killed have a choice. No and neither should that person.

A quote that Deschain has used many times sums up my feelings about revenge. "An eye for an eye leaves us all blind." All killing is wrong. Why should we kill someone because they were found guilty of murder? The fact is, sometimes people found guilty are actually innocent. They've spent years on death row for something they did not do and eventually let out. If we were to have killed them, we would all be guilty of their death. That's not something I want to be a part of.

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=50

[Donkey]

We don't have the right to decide whether someone's life should end. Everyone was put into this world, but as humans sometimes we are so arrogant that we think we have rights above others and that we can choose if others should die.

And by those rules, we should kill all the judges who sentence anyone to the death penalty, because it is murder.

[Sage]

A quote that Deschain has used many times sums up my feelings about revenge. "An eye for an eye leaves us all blind." All killing is wrong.

I was just about to say that again, but reading your post has given me an equally satisfying, warm, fuzzy feeling inside.

[nick]

We don't have the right to decide whether someone's life should end. Everyone was put into this world, but as humans sometimes we are so arrogant that we think we have rights above others and that we can choose if others should die.

And by those rules, we should kill all the judges who sentence anyone to the death penalty, because it is murder.
Totally agree. And back to your first point (I think), how can we show that killing is wrong by killing someone?

[Church]

I saw a thread similar to this before and my out look is still the same, they way you killed people is the way you should be killed, shoved someone into a wood chipper? Looks like your gonna die a messy death.

[Camazotz]

I saw a thread similar to this before and my out look is still the same, they way you killed people is the way you should be killed, shoved someone into a wood chipper? Looks like your gonna die a messy death.

What would that solve?

[Church]

Doesn't need to solve anything.

[Reality]

I saw a thread similar to this before and my out look is still the same, they way you killed people is the way you should be killed, shoved someone into a wood chipper? Looks like your gonna die a messy death.
Are you the one that said in my thread a few months ago that if you build a house or whatever and it collapses, you should get killed?

(Sorry kinda offtopic)

[Church]

No? Don't even know what your talking about.

[Reality]

No? Don't even know what your talking about.
Nah, nevermind. I think it was Kaman or whatever his name is. I thought you seemed familiar. Sorry.

[Camazotz]

Doesn't need to solve anything.

So meaningless killing is okay?

[Church]

It's not meaningless, let's say someone broke into your house at night, kidnapped your parents, tortured them, then killed them. Would you be ok with them just being in prison for a life sentence?

[Reality]

It's not meaningless, let's say someone broke into your house at night, kidnapped your parents, tortured them, then killed them. Would you be ok with them just being in prison for a life sentence?
I'd hope the law got to that "someone" before I did. I assume Cama would too. :D

But I would be okay with them being locked up for the rest of their life, being forced to do work, and eventually feeling remorseful.

It'd be much better than giving him a ticket out a life, and having me upset for the rest of my life. Meh.

[Sage]

Doesn't need to solve anything.

Yeah, let's run society with that mindset.

[James18]

I'm opposed to the death penalty for one reason: It's too lenient.

The monsters that our justice system puts to death don't deserve to get off so easily. Unfortunately, our Constitution bans cruel and unusual punishment, so the next best alternative is sending them to a federal work camp like the one they've got up in Alaska, and just work them to death over the course of 30-40 years.

[tripolar]

I'm opposed to the death penalty for one reason: It's too lenient.

The monsters that our justice system puts to death don't deserve to get off so easily. Unfortunately, our Constitution bans cruel and unusual punishment, so the next best alternative is sending them to a federal work camp like the one they've got up in Alaska, and just work them to death over the course of 30-40 years.

It would be a great punishment, i would support that, but to some people working people to death would be seen as to "extreme". It works in Russia you commit serious crimes and go to a labor camp in Siberia.

[Hyper]

It's not meaningless, let's say someone broke into your house at night, kidnapped your parents, tortured them, then killed them. Would you be ok with them just being in prison for a life sentence?

Lololol and how would you exactly replicate that?

Torture his parents to death?

[Camazotz]

It's not meaningless, let's say someone broke into your house at night, kidnapped your parents, tortured them, then killed them. Would you be ok with them just being in prison for a life sentence?

Actually, yes. I don't want to be responsible for the death of another human being, regardless of who they killed. I love my family, but they'd want me to live above revenge.

[tbboltz92]

I feel that mass murders should be put to death.

however just one murder isnt enough. And the stater of this thread is right people should have the chance to appeal thier case.

Life sentences should stay though sry

[Sapphire]

And the stater of this thread is right people should have the chance to appeal thier case.
They do have that right.

[quartermaster]

What would that solve?
I guess the question we need to ask ourselves when dealing with murderers is: what are we trying to achieve? We must first have a goal in mind before we ask your question. Are we trying to rehabilitate these murderers, or are we trying to punish them? I would argue punishment; however, it then goes down to how do we go about with said punishment?

I believe many good points have been brought up on both sides of this argument, and interestingly enough, this is one of the few issues I have no opinion on.

[Sapphire]

I guess the question we need to ask ourselves when dealing with murderers is: what are we trying to achieve? We must first have a goal in mind before we ask your question. Are we trying to rehabilitate these murderers, or are we trying to punish them? I would argue punishment; however, it then goes down to how do we go about with said punishment?

I believe many good points have been brought up on both sides of this argument, and interestingly enough, this is one of the few issues I have no opinion on.
What advantages does punishment have over rehabilitation?
I ask because offenders are more likely to re-offend if their imprisonment is solely a form of punishment as opposed to punishment and rehabilitation combined. In my book that is a large disadvantage for punishment over rehabilitation.

[quartermaster]

What advantages does punishment have over rehabilitation?
I ask because offenders are more likely to re-offend if their imprisonment is solely a form of punishment as opposed to punishment and rehabilitation combined. In my book that is a large disadvantage for punishment over rehabilitation.

I'd argue that the jail's main goal should be rehabilitation, make no mistake about that, however, for extreme crimes such as murder, I believe the individuals should be punished for their heinous crimes, in such, I believe the jail’s role should, in turn, change from rehabilitation to punishment in order to "accommodate" the murderers.

[Sapphire]

I'd argue that the jail's main goal should be rehabilitation, make no mistake about that, however, for extreme crimes such as murder, I believe the individuals should be punished for their heinous crimes, in such, I believe the jail’s role should, in turn, change from rehabilitation to punishment in order to "accommodate" the murderers.
Yes, I get that. But what advantage would punishing them have over rehabilitating them?
Surely the need to rehabilitate criminals is more urgent and pressing if they commit a crime like rape and murder when compared to robbery. These people won't be in prison forever and so we need to rehabilitate.

[quartermaster]

Yes, I get that. But what advantage would punishing them have over rehabilitating them?
Surely the need to rehabilitate criminals is more urgent and pressing if they commit a crime like rape and murder when compared to robbery. These people won't be in prison forever and so we need to rehabilitate.

No doubt, but that is assuming that I agree they should be let out of jail. I believe murder to be such a heinous crime that those criminals who commit it willingly, should be in jail for the rest of their lives (cases varying, of course), I do not believe people like that should be released on our streets, as they have already proven themselves to be willing to murder. In such, they should not be rehabilitated, but punished; suffering the rest of their lives, for the life that they took. I believe that is only fair, to the victims, and the families of the victims. I believe there should always be exceptions, but on-balance, I favor punishment for murderers.

[INFERNO]

I'm a bit uncertain on it. The main reason is, it's rather pointless to toss the person into prison/jail to get rehabilitated and then kill them. It's self-defeating really.

The times when I do support it is if the person does not get rehabilitated. If the person has a diagnosis of a certain disorder that inhibited them from acting more rationally then that is an exception. So, when I do support it, I would say construct torture houses for humans. The reason for this is simple, if the person is to get the death sentence (without rehabilitation), then to me, it's rather unfair that the person, suppose they've killed many in painful ways or raped them just gets a few minutes of pain. I'd say let the person feel the same punishment that they gave their victims. The way it'd work for multiple victims is simple, do the same type of punishment and give the criminal the sum of all the pain and the durations the victims suffered. Afterwards, the criminal is given the choice, die slowly in what probably is an agonizing death or be killed via axe, gun or chair.

I do want to clarify though that this isn't exactly the idea of "an eye for an eye". I wouldn't apply this to other crimes where the victims were not badly harmed. I also wouldn't apply it to accidental killings, such as drunk driving, etc... .

For rape, I'd only allow it if the victims also died after the rape at the hands of the killer. If they died later, then that's their problem and nothing to do with the killer. If they died due to internal injuries from the rape, well that's what the killer is getting.

I wouldn't want to apply this to things other than killings (excluding accidental ones and such). For example, if someone got beaten to a pulp but still was living afterward then I wouldn't say that the criminal(s) go to the torture houses.

In these houses, the victim's family, friends, etc... wouldn't do any of the torture. They'll have an option to watch, much like how people can watch a surgery. The people giving the torture would be people who are neutral to the criminal (ideally but perhaps this isn't always possible) but they would be trained in sadism and methods of torture, etc... . If the criminal fainted part-way through, then that's one of the only times the torture should stop. Revive the criminal, perhaps give them some juice, let them rest for a few minutes then resume. Anyone who interferes (i.e. family of the victim or of the criminal) would be thrown out of the torture house. The only other time to stop the torture is if the criminal dies part-way through or if by the odd chance, the criminal is found innocent in time. If they're found innocent during the torture, then the criminal should be given immediate medical care and possibly some money for compensation.

[Reality]

Inferno... that would NEVER pass in any Western country. It's forbidden by the UN, the US Constitution, Canadian laws, EU laws, etc.

It'd be a "cruel and unusual punishment"...

[Sage]

I'm a bit uncertain on it. The main reason is, it's rather pointless to toss the person into prison/jail to get rehabilitated and then kill them. It's self-defeating really.

The times when I do support it is if the person does not get rehabilitated. If the person has a diagnosis of a certain disorder that inhibited them from acting more rationally then that is an exception. So, when I do support it, I would say construct torture houses for humans. The reason for this is simple, if the person is to get the death sentence (without rehabilitation), then to me, it's rather unfair that the person, suppose they've killed many in painful ways or raped them just gets a few minutes of pain. I'd say let the person feel the same punishment that they gave their victims. The way it'd work for multiple victims is simple, do the same type of punishment and give the criminal the sum of all the pain and the durations the victims suffered. Afterwards, the criminal is given the choice, die slowly in what probably is an agonizing death or be killed via axe, gun or chair.

I do want to clarify though that this isn't exactly the idea of "an eye for an eye". I wouldn't apply this to other crimes where the victims were not badly harmed. I also wouldn't apply it to accidental killings, such as drunk driving, etc... .

For rape, I'd only allow it if the victims also died after the rape at the hands of the killer. If they died later, then that's their problem and nothing to do with the killer. If they died due to internal injuries from the rape, well that's what the killer is getting.

I wouldn't want to apply this to things other than killings (excluding accidental ones and such). For example, if someone got beaten to a pulp but still was living afterward then I wouldn't say that the criminal(s) go to the torture houses.

In these houses, the victim's family, friends, etc... wouldn't do any of the torture. They'll have an option to watch, much like how people can watch a surgery. The people giving the torture would be people who are neutral to the criminal (ideally but perhaps this isn't always possible) but they would be trained in sadism and methods of torture, etc... . If the criminal fainted part-way through, then that's one of the only times the torture should stop. Revive the criminal, perhaps give them some juice, let them rest for a few minutes then resume. Anyone who interferes (i.e. family of the victim or of the criminal) would be thrown out of the torture house. The only other time to stop the torture is if the criminal dies part-way through or if by the odd chance, the criminal is found innocent in time. If they're found innocent during the torture, then the criminal should be given immediate medical care and possibly some money for compensation.

I won't go on a rant about my feelings on torture, as that is another debate altogether, but here's the major flaw in your thinking-

Physical pain is not in the same playing field as emotional pain.

[YourFriend]

I think death sentance should not exist, and that's one of the reasosn why i dislike US.

[Reality]

I think death sentance should not exist, and that's one of the reasosn why i dislike US.
I don't see why you singled out the US, seeing as many countries in the world still have it. China, Russia, many parts of Africa, etc.

[MykeSoBe]

Yeah this is similar to suicide. Capital punishment should not be forced upon someone, but I guess it only helps the criminal when he's dead. Plus I think everyone has the right to live. But I think even the worst of criminals should decide if they want to live a life of labor, pain, and suffering, or if they want to just die and go straight to Hell.

[marty]

here is my opinion:
killing people is bad.

and that is my opinion.

[The Joker]

Doesn't need to solve anything.

Doesn't need to solve anything?

Why not?

Isn't punishment something that solves what to do with a criminal?

So, under that logic, we could let them out onto the streets with machine guns. What the hell would that solve? Apparently, it doesn't need to solve anything. Now, how about we let a pedophile work as a daycare worker? What would that solve? Once again, apparently, it doesn't need to solve anything.

That logic is fucked.

I don't believe in an eye for an eye, but I do believe in an eye for several eyes. Mass/serial killers are the only ones who deserve the death penalty. Robert Pickton, a criminal here in BC, will die in prison. He has several life sentences already. He basically killed a bunch of hookers (some of whom I believe were forced into prostitution), and to dispose of them he fed their remains to the pigs on his farm. That man is insane, and if he ever managed to escape prison I guarantee he'd do it again.