The Death Penalty

[Aquitaine]

I think more people should get the death penalty.

If you molest children, or really if you commit any violent crime against children, or if you are a rapist or if you kill someone just to be mean when they've done nothing wrong, you should be shot in the face once and then have your neck broken an hour later if you're not dead yet. I think if rapists and child molestors knew that would be their penalty, they would be less likely to rape people or kill them. I mean, I like to steal things sometimes, because I know the worst that will happen isn't really bad, but if I knew that there was a possibility of me being shot in the face and having my neck broken, I wouldn't steal anything anymore.

Think of it this way: Does this world need rapists and child molestors in it? Would the world be a better place if people who rape and murder children (and adults) weren't alive anymore? I certainly think so. It's not like nice people are getting the death penalty. I think it should be reserved for the really bad people who actually hurt other people, so I see it as a completely positive thing.

+People might be more scared to commit violent crimes if they know they'll be killed as punishment
+People who do commit these crimes will get punished for what they did
+We won't have as many sexual perverts and murderers in our world if we execute them.

That's the way I see it.

Another thing to consider is the unfortunate reality that Human life is very expensive, and drains up more resources than we can maintain. Our infrastructures are so wastefull that we're overpopulated, with our resources slowing drying up too.
Unfortunately, most of the victims of this are the poor people, mainly in places like Africa etc.

Our population needs to be reduced as it is, rather than killing off poor innocents, why not just kill off the prison population?

It's sad though, but Human life is a very costly thing, and we simply cannot afford it for a lot of our population, so let's just rid the scum from our societies that we don't need anyways: child molesters, Rapists, Murderers etc - take a moment to think whether or not the food & shelter being given to them could be given to someone more worthy?

 

[Sunstone]

I believe the number of people who have been rightly executed in the last 5,500 years is a lot lower than the number of people who should have been executed in the last 5,500 years. Which means its effectiveness cannot rightly be measured

If you think you can prove me wrong, I'd love to see what you have to offer.

The fact you may very well be right demonstrates that support for the death penalty is based on pure idealism, and has little or nothing to do with reality. If the death penalty has not been perfected in 5,500 years, you have little reason to believe it ever will.

 

[fantome profane]

And the death penalty has never been effectively put to use.

I'd like to see it given the chance to work the way it's supposed to. In more states, publicly, with more than half the population of death row being executed during any given year.
​

I believe the number of people who have been rightly executed in the last 5,500 years is a lot lower than the number of people who should have been executed in the last 5,500 years.

I think more people should get the death penalty.

Our population needs to be reduced as it is, rather than killing off poor innocents, why not just kill off the prison population?

Why pussyfoot around? Why not just take it all the way?

 

[England my lionheart]

actually in the UKthe convicted man gets a "Tariff" which is decided by the judge on the facts of the case. if the Tarrif is say 15 years then thats his first chance of parole not when he is released, a "lifer " is always on licence even if he should get his first parole which is rare.

The families of the victim get life with no chance of remission.

If a judge feels that this person should not be released at all then he can say so. or give him a Tarrif of say 25 to 30 years where he is obviously going to die in prison due to his age.

This is what riles me,as far as i'm concerned murder should be dealt with by one punishment unless its a crime of passion which should incur a different punishment to the death penalty,if a murderer will die in prison what is the benefit of keeping him alive to rot in prison,IMO the victims family needs closure and if that murderer is paroled which some are how must that family feel that there is no Justice.


If a judge were to give a tarrif of say 10 to 15 years he would be unlikely to feel that this offence carries the death penalty don't you think.

This is from the BBC
Some murderers could serve less than 10 years in prison under guidelines unveiled by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Woolf.

But it would only be in extraordinary circumstances - for example, if they had given themselves up before their crime had even been detected, he said.
People admitting serious offences at the first opportunity could be entitled to a 33% cut in their minimum sentence. The Tories have attacked the plans as a severe blow for relatives of victims.

Everybody seems to care more about the perpetrators of the crime than the victims or their Families and thats why i agree with the death penalty because i see justice in that and although its not a deterent as such but a consequence.

Last Updated: Monday, 20 September, 2004, 16:11 GMT 17:11 UK

E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Murder sentence changes unveiled

Lord Woolf has endured a torrid time in the press

Some murderers could serve less than 10 years in prison under guidelines unveiled by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Woolf.
But it would only be in extraordinary circumstances - for example, if they had given themselves up before their crime had even been detected, he said. People admitting serious offences at the first opportunity could be entitled to a 33% cut in their minimum sentence. The Tories have attacked the plans as a severe blow for relatives of victims.

 

[kai]

This is from the BBC
Some murderers could serve less than 10 years in prison under guidelines unveiled by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Woolf.

But it would only be in extraordinary circumstances - for example, if they had given themselves up before their crime had even been detected, he said.
People admitting serious offences at the first opportunity could be entitled to a 33% cut in their minimum sentence. The Tories have attacked the plans as a severe blow for relatives of victims.

Everybody seems to care more about the perpetrators of the crime than the victims or their Families and thats why i agree with the death penalty because i see justice in that and although its not a deterent as such but a consequence.

Last Updated: Monday, 20 September, 2004, 16:11 GMT 17:11 UK

E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Murder sentence changes unveiled

Lord Woolf has endured a torrid time in the press

Some murderers could serve less than 10 years in prison under guidelines unveiled by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Woolf.
But it would only be in extraordinary circumstances - for example, if they had given themselves up before their crime had even been detected, he said. People admitting serious offences at the first opportunity could be entitled to a 33% cut in their minimum sentence. The Tories have attacked the plans as a severe blow for relatives of victims.

Ok but are you advocating death for all cases of murder or do you agree that all cases should be sentenced on the circumstances?

People admitting their guilt at the first opportunity have always got lower sentences, they have pleaded guilty and havnt had a trial by jury. so in effect to be found guilty by a jury means that you have lied and tried to get out of it. so you get a longer Tarrif.

 

[kai]

Another thing to consider is the unfortunate reality that Human life is very expensive, and drains up more resources than we can maintain. Our infrastructures are so wastefull that we're overpopulated, with our resources slowing drying up too.
Unfortunately, most of the victims of this are the poor people, mainly in places like Africa etc.

Our population needs to be reduced as it is, rather than killing off poor innocents, why not just kill off the prison population?

It's sad though, but Human life is a very costly thing, and we simply cannot afford it for a lot of our population, so let's just rid the scum from our societies that we don't need anyways: child molesters, Rapists, Murderers etc - take a moment to think whether or not the food & shelter being given to them could be given to someone more worthy?

yeah! lets kill them all and let god sort them out.

 

[England my lionheart]

Kai,i agree that sentencing should be on circumstance and a crime of passion should incur a prison term only but pre meditated murder should incur the death penalty IMO

 

[kai]

why dont we have public executions ? that should deter people, shouldnt it? we could have pay per view.

 

[kai]

Kai,i agree that sentencing should be on circumstance and a crime of passion should incur a prison term only but pre meditated murder should incur the death penalty IMO

Ok we can agree to disagree here, i believe that in some circumstances life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment.

 

[McBell]

we could have pay per view.

I have said that they should be on Pay-Per-View for years now.

 

[monta]

Kai,i agree that sentencing should be on circumstance and a crime of passion should incur a prison term only but pre meditated murder should incur the death penalty IMO

In general I find the ambiguity of intent in sentencing difficult to navigate, especially in violent crime, no one comes to an act of violence with a clear mind unless they are sociopaths, and remember a crime of passion can become premeditated murder in the second it takes to stick the knife in again.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent or justice it is a failed act of terrorism.

 

[Enoch07]

In general I find the ambiguity of intent in sentencing difficult to navigate, especially in violent crime, no one comes to an act of violence with a clear mind unless they are sociopaths, and remember a crime of passion can become premeditated murder in the second it takes to stick the knife in again.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent or justice it is a failed act of terrorism.

Are you kidding. This guy was had a PhD from Harvard in mathematics. Theodore Kaczynski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Would also would like to point this out, exert from the same wikipedia article: To avoid the death penalty, Kaczynski's lawyers entered into a plea agreement, under which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. I would say that is proof he feared the death penalty. Which gives reason to believe if the death penalty was enforced the way it should, it would have deterred him and it would have saved 3 innocent lives and 23 people from injury. It is a shame you value the life of cowardly scum, who are not even willing to die for their beliefs, more than innocent lives. Instead he knew he could get out of execution with a plea agreement. It would be a deterrent if the death penalty was actually enforced, and stop giving monsters the chance to get out of it.

 

[monta]

Are you kidding. This guy was had a PhD from Harvard in mathematics. Theodore Kaczynski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Would also would like to point this out, exert from the same wikipedia article: To avoid the death penalty, Kaczynski's lawyers entered into a plea agreement, under which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. I would say that is proof he feared the death penalty. Which gives reason to believe if the death penalty was enforced the way it should, it would have deterred him and it would have saved 3 innocent lives and 23 people from injury. It is a shame you value the life of cowardly scum, who are not even willing to die for their beliefs, more than innocent lives. Instead he knew he could get out of execution with a plea agreement. It would be a deterrent if the death penalty was actually enforced, and stop giving monsters the chance to get out of it.

Unless he didn't know about the death penalty before he started killing people, the death penalty as a detterant failed miserably.If it worked then every state with the death penalty would have lower murder rates.

 

[kai]

Are you kidding. This guy was had a PhD from Harvard in mathematics. Theodore Kaczynski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Would also would like to point this out, exert from the same wikipedia article: To avoid the death penalty, Kaczynski's lawyers entered into a plea agreement, under which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. I would say that is proof he feared the death penalty. Which gives reason to believe if the death penalty was enforced the way it should, it would have deterred him and it would have saved 3 innocent lives and 23 people from injury. It is a shame you value the life of cowardly scum, who are not even willing to die for their beliefs, more than innocent lives. Instead he knew he could get out of execution with a plea agreement. It would be a deterrent if the death penalty was actually enforced, and stop giving monsters the chance to get out of it.

it wont deter someone who believes they are not going to get caught. and you missed this bit.

On January 7, 1998, Kaczynski attempted to hang himself.

 

[Enoch07]

it wont deter someone who believes they are not going to get caught. and you missed this bit.

On January 7, 1998, Kaczynski attempted to hang himself.

And why did he try to hang himself? So that the govt would not catch him and hang him. Because executions are not about the actual death or revenge, it is about sending a message that murder will not be tolerated. Too bad he failed, I could live with no death penalty if murderers actually had the cajones to commit suicide after their crime. I must say he killed other people with no problems, but when it came to his own death he did not have what it takes to get the job done. Which is more proof he fears death.

 

[Nepenthe]

Let's have some numbers.

What does it cost to keep someone in prison for life, in any given state(with a death penalty statute), for 60 years?

In that same state, what does it cost to put him through the process of capital punishment?

It is more expensive to execute rather keep the convicted locked away for life. Eight states in the U.S. are considering abolishing the death penalty because in this recession it would help alleviate huge state deficits. The Urban Institute did a study this year for Maryland that looked at taxpayer's contributions to the death penalty vs. life in prison 'tween '78 and '99. They found the death penalty cost about 2 million more: The death penalty: Saving lives and money | The Economist

But those who support capital punishment will simply respond (accurately) that the cost is not only not too high, but that it's incurred due to aggressive and lengthy appeals (which life terms get as well but not to the same degree); they will also point out that some of the costs are often paid by death penalty opposition special interest groups so the taxpayers aren't unduly affected. Then I'd respond that abolishing victimless drug crimes would free up the prison population and legalizing drugs would create tax funds that could be applied to keeping life-term violent offenders in prison in the absence of the death penalty. Death penalty advocates will then say faster trials and focusing efforts on correcting the conviction stage would alleviate the costs in the long run, while I'd argue that this would increase the likelihood of innocent people being convicted. Then the supporters of capital punishment would say a murderers life isn't worth the effort and I would say that state executions are barbaric and then the issue comes to loggerheads yet again.

Every murderer who has been put to death has never murdered another person.

And the death penalty has never been effectively put to use.

I'd like to see it given the chance to work the way it's supposed to. In more states, publicly, with more than half the population of death row being executed during any given year.

You've brought this up a few times but any data that's been presented you shrug off and insist that the penalty has never been effectively used. What numbers or studies do you have to support your contention? The fact is that some countries that have banned the death penalty have high murder rates for a variety of reasons not necessarily connected to deterrence (or the lack of deterrence): South Africa and Mexico are top contenders when it comes to the world's murder rates, likely due to poverty and the illegal drug trades. It's hard to see how the lack of capital punishment is a deterrence factor in either.

Some non-death penalty countries like Sweden have extremely low murder rates. Japan had the death penalty up until last week, but only executed 82 murderers since 1993 as opposed to the U.S. which has executed 957 in the same time period. Japan only implements the death penalty for treason and murder; the punishment is not applicable to those under 18 (unlike the U.S. which only prohibited the execution of 16 and 17 year olds since 2005- a total of 22 juveniles had been executed between 1976 and 2005). How does the lesser execution rate in Japan result in such low violent crime in contrast to the U.S.? How does deterrence factor in for here? It's hard to see a deterrence pattern when comparing different countries particularly when violent crime is usually a reflection of poverty which is tied to the illegal drug trade.

 

[Storm]

Then I'd respond that abolishing victimless drug crimes would free up the prison population and legalizing drugs would create tax funds that could be applied to keeping life-term violent offenders in prison in the absence of the death penalty.

I agree that victimless crimes should not result in prison time.

Death penalty advocates will then say faster trials and focusing efforts on correcting the conviction stage would alleviate the costs in the long run, while I'd argue that this would increase the likelihood of innocent people being convicted.

No, I agree with this.

Then the supporters of capital punishment would say a murderers life isn't worth the effort and I would say that state executions are barbaric and then the issue comes to loggerheads yet again.

No again. While a murderer's life isn't worth it, making sure the person in question actually is a murderer is.

Since it's been a while, I'll reiterate my stance: I'm ambivalent. I believe in the death penalty on principle, but cannot support it in good conscience due to our faulty system. I believe reform is needed, not just to justify capital punishment, but to correct rampant injustice. Morally, it's just as bad for an innocent to spend a year in prison as to be executed, in my book. It's also counterproductive, as the system we have now seems to create more criminals than it rehabilitates.

 

[Storm]

Missed this.

Some non-death penalty countries like Sweden have extremely low murder rates. [snip] How does the lesser execution rate in Japan result in such low violent crime in contrast to the U.S.? How does deterrence factor in for here? It's hard to see a deterrence pattern when comparing different countries particularly when violent crime is usually a reflection of poverty which is tied to the illegal drug trade.

I think the difference is mainly due to culture and economics, honestly.

 

[Enoch07]

It is more expensive to execute rather keep the convicted locked away for life. Eight states in the U.S. are considering abolishing the death penalty because in this recession it would help alleviate huge state deficits. The Urban Institute did a study this year for Maryland that looked at taxpayer's contributions to the death penalty vs. life in prison 'tween '78 and '99. They found the death penalty cost about 2 million more: The death penalty: Saving lives and money | The Economist

BULL CRAPPOLA haha. Executions can be performed for less than $1 per execution. The cost of a single bullet. Quick, painless, and humane. That is alot cheaper than the $25,000+ per year, per prisoner, with price increasing per year and inmates increasing per year. The prisoners live almost as well as I do even though they are incarcerated? AT NO COST TO THEM. How is this fair? Prison sounds like a vacation home where taxpayers pay for the vacation if you ask me. Murder all day long, get arrested kick back and have life served to on a silver platter, because you know the state does not have the guts do execute you. Yes that is going to deter someone.

 

[Storm]

BULL CRAPPOLA haha. Executions can be performed for less than $1 per execution. The cost of a single bullet. Quick, painless, and humane. That is alot cheaper than the $25,000+ per year with price increasing per year and inmates increasing per year. The prisoners live almost as well as I do even though they are incarcerated? AT NO COST TO THEM. How is this fair? Prison sounds like a vacation home where taxpayers pay for the vacation if you ask me. Murder all day long, get arrested kick back and have life served to on a silver platter, because you know the state does not have the guts do execute you. Yes that is going to deter someone.

There's more to it than the cost of the execution itself, Enoch. Appeals, etc..