The Death Penalty

[Aquitaine]

on a principle level all laws are to protect the innocent.

Of course, but say an innocent man gets sentenced, then that is a mis-fire of such Law. It doesn't mean the Law itself is wrong, we just need to work on convicting the right people.

Let's say if the convicted was 100% guilty, would you still reject Capital Punishment?

 

[monta]

on a principle level all laws are to protect the innocent.

I don't think this is accurate, I think laws are designed to protect the society that creates them. Laws can and do curb individual rights and freedoms in order to respond either to a societal need for order or just for funding.

Capital punishment by it's very existence harms the society that uses it. It fosters rage and hatred, which I don't think is conduicive to a healthy recovery from a violent crime. I honestly don't understand how a society can hold the two seemingly diametrically opposite positions of killing people is wrong, so if you kill someone we will kill you.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Is it ever okay to kill another person?

 

[Storm]

Is it ever okay to kill another person?

Yes..

 

[Enoch07]

Is it ever okay to kill another person?

On a personal bases...yes.... but only in self defense.

Though it is lawful for the government to execute convicted murderers.

 

[England my lionheart]

Personally, I haven't made up my mind about the death penalty.

What do various religions say about the death penalty? I know Catholicism is definitely against it.

What do you guys think (forgive the term "guys" I know many of you are ladies)?

Its a tough one,getting your head around sending a Human being to a pre determined death goes against what many people feel is sacred,for my pennies worth,if a murderer is caught where there is no doubt of his guilt then i agree with the death penalty providing it was pre meditated and not a crime of passion.

 

[Valjean]

Several people have mentioned "punishment," as if the concept were clear and understood by all, and as if its application and propriety following some offense were a given.

I don't see it as that clear. Is it retributive -- serving mainly to assuage our own ire by hurtimg him who annoys us?
Is it corrective -- serving to correct the mental defect that led the perpetrator to commit his particular crime?
Is it deterrant -- serving to frighten others so they won't dare commit a crime themselves?

The whole "punishment" thing seems a little primitive and juvenile to me, something you'd do to a wayward toddler. Shouldn't a mature, organized society be able to come up with some better principle to deal with offenders?

First, we should ask ourselves what we're trying to achieve when we're dealing with a criminal. This question never seems to come up. Some would see it as an odd question, so thoroughly has the 'crime = punish' algorithm been incorporated into our psyches. Ask a dozen people what our disposition of a criminal should achieve and you'd likely get a half-dozen different answers -- with the remaining six scratching their heads as they wrestled with the novel concept of engineering a desired outcome in such a situation.

Our criminal justice system seems to have been originally cobbled together by some torch and pitchfork wielding mob -- and never substantially changed.
Let's grow up. What do we want to achieve with the criminal justice system, and what would be the most efficient, cost-effective and humane way to achieve it?

 

[Storm]

First, we should ask ourselves what we're trying to achieve when we're dealing with a criminal.

Depends on the crime, on whether there's a hope of turning the criminal into a functioning citizen. That should be the primary goal of our justice system. However, we also need to acknowledge that it's not always possible.

 

[logician]

Several people have mentioned "punishment," as if the concept were clear and understood by all, and as if its application and propriety following some offense were a given.

I don't see it as that clear. Is it retributive -- serving mainly to assuage our own ire by hurtimg him who annoys us?
Is it corrective -- serving to correct the mental defect that led the perpetrator to commit his particular crime?
Is it deterrant -- serving to frighten others so they won't dare commit a crime themselves?

The whole "punishment" thing seems a little primitive and juvenile to me, something you'd do to a wayward toddler. Shouldn't a mature, organized society be able to come up with some better principle to deal with offenders?

First, we should ask ourselves what we're trying to achieve when we're dealing with a criminal. This question never seems to come up. Some would see it as an odd question, so thoroughly has the 'crime = punish' algorithm been incorporated into our psyches. Ask a dozen people what our disposition of a criminal should achieve and you'd likely get a half-dozen different answers -- with the remaining six scratching their heads as they wrestled with the novel concept of engineering a desired outcome in such a situation.

Our criminal justice system seems to have been originally cobbled together by some torch and pitchfork wielding mob -- and never substantially changed.
Let's grow up. What do we want to achieve with the criminal justice system, and what would be the most efficient, cost-effective and humane way to achieve it?

One problem in the U.S. is that we essentially have the same punishment for all crimes - prison, the lenght of time in it just varies. The problems come in when you mix violent offenders with non-violemt, and also with the haphazard and unjust sentencing from one state to the next, or even one county to the next. Our prison system is grossly corrupt, along with our justice system. We don't rehabilitate anyone, we just make individuals worse than when they went in.

 

[Enoch07]

We don't rehabilitate anyone, we just make individuals worse than when they went in.

You can not rehabilitate a person that is unwilling to change. Considering half of all ex-convicts commit the same crime they were originally convicted of over and over again, I would say the repeat offenders have no desire to rehabilitate themselves at all.

 

[kai]

Of course, but say an innocent man gets sentenced, then that is a mis-fire of such Law. It doesn't mean the Law itself is wrong, we just need to work on convicting the right people.

In my view the application of the law is wrong and if an innocent man is killed by such , then their should be an outcry, not an attempt to excuse his death.

Let's say if the convicted was 100% guilty, would you still reject Capital Punishment?

and also in my view capital punishment is wrong. it has no place in a modern society.

 

[kai]

Is it ever okay to kill another person?

Okay is not the word i would use , all sorts of people and all sorts of states use all sorts of justification for killing someone.

 

[kai]

You can not rehabilitate a person that is unwilling to change. Considering half of all ex-convicts commit the same crime they were originally convicted of over and over again, I would say the repeat offenders have no desire to rehabilitate themselves at all.

its true change must come from the individual, its also true that sometimes people need a little insight into how life could be different.

 

[Poisonshady313]

its true change must come from the individual, its also true that sometimes people need a little insight into how life could be different.

A guy who stabs his wife in the neck 37 times doesn't need a pep talk.

Probably could have used the pep talk BEFORE he stabbed his wife in the neck 37 times...

but at some point, violating the law must carry consequences. I couldn't imagine imposing a fine for murder... just how much is a person's life worth?

Murderers need to both suffer for their crime, along with being kept away from society so they can't do more harm.

Death might not include more suffering.... but again, this murderer doesn't need a pep talk, and I certainly don't want him rejoining society, because he apparently has no concern for law and for human life.

Besides. Most people would rather not die.

For those like timothy mcveigh, who sought to be put to death... they're welcome to it.


Rehab is for druggies. You might make a case that thieves can be rehabilitated.

But when a bad person does bad things, there are and should be negative consequences.

I would hate to think we live in a world where murder is so casual that all murderers need is a good talking to before we give them another chance at being good citizens.

 

[England my lionheart]

I agree Shady,the way i see it a person who commits a pre meditated murder can never be trusted to reform and the benefits to society of the death penalty far outweigh the life of a murderer,first there is the cost of keeping him/her in prison which just for a year could finance some Nurses for example.
Then of course there is protecting society,a dead murderer cannot kill again,i'm not sure of the statistics but if only one repeats the crime on release its too many so the death penalty makes sense in more ways than one.

 

[kai]

A guy who stabs his wife in the neck 37 times doesn't need a pep talk.
Agreed
Probably could have used the pep talk BEFORE he stabbed his wife in the neck 37 times...
Agreed
but at some point, violating the law must carry consequences. I couldn't imagine imposing a fine for murder... just how much is a person's life worth?
Its priceless
Murderers need to both suffer for their crime, along with being kept away from society so they can't do more harm.
Ok
Death might not include more suffering.... but again, this murderer doesn't need a pep talk, and I certainly don't want him rejoining society, because he apparently has no concern for law and for human life.
Agreed
Besides. Most people would rather not die.
Agreed
For those like timothy mcveigh, who sought to be put to death... they're welcome to it.
he obviously didnt relish a life behind bars, To me such a life is a fate worse than death

Rehab is for druggies. You might make a case that thieves can be rehabilitated.
OK
But when a bad person does bad things, there are and should be negative consequences.
Agreed
I would hate to think we live in a world where murder is so casual that all murderers need is a good talking to before we give them another chance at being good citizens.

Oh come on Shady! thats being silly, no one is advocating such a thing

 

[kai]

I agree Shady,the way i see it a person who commits a pre meditated murder can never be trusted to reform and the benefits to society of the death penalty far outweigh the life of a murderer,first there is the cost of keeping him/her in prison which just for a year could finance some Nurses for example.

So its a financial thing?
Then of course there is protecting society,a dead murderer cannot kill again,i'm not sure of the statistics but if only one repeats the crime on release its too many so the death penalty makes sense in more ways than one.

and a dead prisoner cannot be released, how about if only one is killed by mistake? how do we decide who is more important out of the two very different innocent victims.are they not just as equal? inst the risk to great? or are we being flippant with other peoples lives by saying "Oh it was a mistake" You know as well as i do England that over the years lots of people have been released later on. in this country that would have been executed.

1989: The Guildford Four are released by the Court of Appeal. The detectives at the centre of the case are later cleared of fabricating evidence.
1991: The Birmingham Six are freed. Prosecutions against officers accused of tampering with evidence are halted because of "adverse publicity".
1997: The Bridgwater Four - minus Patrick Molloy, who died in jail - are released after 17 years in prison.
2000: The M25 Three are freed by three Court of Appeal judges who say there had been a "conspiracy" to give perjured evidence.


Derek Bentley: Executed in 1953 - his conviction was overturned in 1999

Judith Ward: Served 18 years for a multiple murder caused by an IRA bombing in 1973.

Sally Clarke was released in 2003 having been wrongfully imprisoned for more than 3 years, falsely accused of the murder of her two sons

Stefan Kiszko served 16 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of the 1975 murder of the schoolgirl Lesley Molseed in West Yorkshire

Stephen Downing was jailed for 27 years for beating to death the typist Wendy Sewell in Bakewell.

Barry George endured two trials for the murder of the TV presenter Jill Dando and was eventually acquitted of the charge in August, eight years after he was jailed.

Suzanne Holdsworth spent three years in prison for murdering Kyle Fisher, a neighbour's two-year-old son, before she was cleared in a retrial


Angela Cannings was jailed for life in 2002 for murdering her two baby sons, but freed the following year after her conviction was overturned on appeal.

 

[England my lionheart]

and a dead prisoner cannot be released, how about if only one is killed by mistake? how do we decide who is more important out of the two very different innocent victims.are they not just as equal? inst the risk to great? or are we being flippant with other peoples lives by saying "Oh it was a mistake" You know as well as i do England that over the years lots of people have been released later on. in this country that would have been executed.

1989: The Guildford Four are released by the Court of Appeal. The detectives at the centre of the case are later cleared of fabricating evidence.
1991: The Birmingham Six are freed. Prosecutions against officers accused of tampering with evidence are halted because of "adverse publicity".
1997: The Bridgwater Four - minus Patrick Molloy, who died in jail - are released after 17 years in prison.
2000: The M25 Three are freed by three Court of Appeal judges who say there had been a "conspiracy" to give perjured evidence.


Derek Bentley: Executed in 1953 - his conviction was overturned in 1999

Judith Ward: Served 18 years for a multiple murder caused by an IRA bombing in 1973.

Sally Clarke was released in 2003 having been wrongfully imprisoned for more than 3 years, falsely accused of the murder of her two sons

Stefan Kiszko served 16 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of the 1975 murder of the schoolgirl Lesley Molseed in West Yorkshire

Stephen Downing was jailed for 27 years for beating to death the typist Wendy Sewell in Bakewell.

Barry George endured two trials for the murder of the TV presenter Jill Dando and was eventually acquitted of the charge in August, eight years after he was jailed.

Suzanne Holdsworth spent three years in prison for murdering Kyle Fisher, a neighbour's two-year-old son, before she was cleared in a retrial


Angela Cannings was jailed for life in 2002 for murdering her two baby sons, but freed the following year after her conviction was overturned on appeal.

I agree there have been mistakes and if there is the smallest amount of doubt there should be no execution but there are murderers who have been caught who have 100% commited the crime so they should pay the ultimate penalty.
I don't think the death penalty is appropriate for crimes of passion but for pre meditated murder IMO it is.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I can accept revenge or its the cheaper option argument but i don't think it actually deters.

One may never know, because it isn't used often enough to have an impact one way or another. An estimated number of murderers over the past 33 years... compared to the actual number of people executed in the last 33 years.... less than 1% of murderers in this country have been put to death.

Statistically, it's as if the death penalty doesn't even exist.

Thats just my opinion.I would rather lock up thousands of murderers for life no matter how much it costs, than kill one innocent man.and it looks like the state of Texas has killed many more innocents than San Miguel, just in a different manner.

Which means you'd also rather lock up thousands of innocent people for life, no matter how much it costs, than kill one innocent man. And so what if he dies in prison? You can feel better about yourself knowing he COULD have been released.


If life behind bars is a fate worse than death... and you're so hung up over the death of even one innocent person... why be more willing to subject them to something worse than death?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Oh come on Shady! thats being silly, no one is advocating such a thing

That's what it sounds like when people push for rehabilitating murderers.