Death Penalty

[Wantdew]

^^^

Yes!

 

And imprisoning children for their intire life is worse than putting them to death.

[Iza111]

But how do we know that person isn't willing to change? We are taking away life. I am not extremely religious, but I know it is not our place. This is like Euthansia, and Assisted Suicide. We, as humans, are playing with a fire unknown before, and it may not end well.

[sparkle10184]

Some people who killed someone might rather die themselves than get locked up for 50+ years. If a person murdered someone and now the killer is put in jail for a life sentence but the killer is begging to be put to death quickly and painlessly, why deny them that right? They should be allowed to pick death over suffering.

[Sir Barton]

But how do we know that person isn't willing to change? We are taking away life. I am not extremely religious, but I know it is not our place. This is like Euthansia, and Assisted Suicide. We, as humans, are playing with a fire unknown before, and it may not end well.

"Do onto others as you would have done to you." The murderer gave up his or her right to life when they decided to take a life. "God helps those who help themselves." Even religion grants us the right to protect ourselves. In religious text that are set punishments for various crimes and being put to death is among those; hence, why stoning still exists.

 

I'm not religious, but I believe God grants clemency for taking a life if the goal of that act is to protect others. ....and of course, religion in and of itself is a poor platform against the death penalty when you look back at all the atrocities that have been committed in the name of the various religions. This is not a new fire; it's something that we are extremely familiar with since we were first created.

 

And, for the record, I don't take issue with assisted suicide. If someone wants to end their life, I believe they should be able to do so. The reasoning against the practice is the morality of the sanctity of life; God's greatest gift to us. God also gives us free will. If someone wants to willing end their life....

 

...just my thoughts. Sorry if they offend.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Sir Barton

[Iza111]

No offense tken. I love debates

[Syaoransbear]

If they are inclined to seek revenge, they would be seeking revenge against the state so I don't see how that is dangerous towards the general public. Also, can they be completely certain that their loved one was innocent?

 

I think the family would be more apt to grieve given the circumstance than they would be to violently seek revenge. At most they would continue to pursue the issue and try to clear their loved one's name. If they do I'm sure they will seek restitution and will also reopen the case which will hopefully lead to the arrest of the real criminal.

 

While the loss of an innocent life is regrettable, it's not overly dangerous like leaving a murder, serial killer or rapist open to possible escape can be.

Totally disagree. You have no idea if the murderer is actually going to do it again and kill another innocent. When you kill an innocent, they are for sure dead. It's a guaranteed dead person vs a possible dead person. That's not safer or better, that's just monstrous. And what if they kill many innocent people for the same crime? Is it right to just keep plowing down the population to find one criminal? Why don't we just kill everyone on the planet so justice is for sure served.

 

And I can't think of a better way of turning into a criminal than by having your innocent loved one failed by the system and brutally murdered while letting the real criminal walk the streets. That's way more likely than a criminal having 'fanboys' that try to imitate their crimes. Those fanboys are already criminals and were probably already going to do something heinous without the help of their criminal idol.

 

I cannot fathom how you think it's okay to kill an innocent person while the criminal walks free. How is that safer when you can hold the innocent person for several years while still investigating the case? If they wrongfully kill someone, they probably aren't going to WANT to find the real murderer due to public outcry. They aren't going to put as much effort into it. That seems much more unsafe to me than the possibility of a serial killer getting loose from prison.

[Sir Barton]

Totally disagree. You have no idea if the murderer is actually going to do it again and kill another innocent. When you kill an innocent, they are for sure dead. It's a guaranteed dead person vs a possible dead person. That's not safer or better, that's just monstrous. And what if they kill many innocent people for the same crime? Is it right to just keep plowing down the population to find one criminal? Why don't we just kill everyone on the planet so justice is for sure served.

 

And I can't think of a better way of turning into a criminal than by having your innocent loved one failed by the system and brutally murdered while letting the real criminal walk the streets. That's way more likely than a criminal having 'fanboys' that try to imitate their crimes. Those fanboys are already criminals and were probably already going to do something heinous without the help of their criminal idol.

 

I cannot fathom how you think it's okay to kill an innocent person while the criminal walks free. How is that safer when you can hold the innocent person for several years while still investigating the case? If they wrongfully kill someone, they probably aren't going to WANT to find the real murderer due to public outcry. They aren't going to put as much effort into it. That seems much more unsafe to me than the possibility of a serial killer getting loose from prison.

Again, the goal is not to kill the innocent. It's to eliminate the violent criminal from society. I just look at it realistically and know that mistakes will happen and you are bound to have a few innocent people caught up in it. The scientific advancements that are continually being made in criminology will hopefully being about fewer and fewer cases of wrongful detainment and wrongful deaths as a result of capital punishment.

 

Until psychology finds a way to "cure" the criminal mind by eliminating a person's desire for power, very often the cause of murder and rape, we will continue to have problems with violent crime; "mad dogs", sociopaths who refuse to function within the rules of society. I suppose we could return to simply lobotomizing our violent criminals, but you will still have innocents suffering that fate. They would still be alive though I'm not sure how fulfilling that life would be.

 

You have much less faith in general human behavior then I do. I don't see a family who is not predisposed toward violence suddenly turning towards criminal ways to avenge their loved one who was put to death. I've already addressed that.

 

You act as if death is dealt out as soon as a guilty verdict is returned. The average time an inmate sits on death row is 14 years. I don't think it's unreasonable to drop that down to something more in line of 5. That gives time to reprocess evidence to try to over turn the verdict and prove innocence.

[Kestra15]

And, for the record, I don't take issue with assisted suicide. If someone wants to end their life, I believe they should be able to do so. The reasoning against the practice is the morality of the sanctity of life; God's greatest gift to us. God also gives us free will. If someone wants to willing end their life....

The main reason why assisted suicide is banned here in the UK is more to do with legally protecting doctors and patients from improper practice, as much as it is the sanctity of life.

When we kill, as a society, it is for protection; something that benefits all of society.

As I said earlier, who gets to decide if it 'safer' for that person to live or die? Who gets to be the moral measuring stick? It certainly isn't 'society;' all 311,000,000+ Americans don't get a say in every death penalty issued or suggested.

Some people who killed someone might rather die themselves than get locked up for 50+ years. If a person murdered someone and now the killer is put in jail for a life sentence but the killer is begging to be put to death quickly and painlessly, why deny them that right? They should be allowed to pick death over suffering.

Because the incarceration is the punishment for their crime - why offer them relief for the crimes they committed? Isn't the idea for locking someone up for 50yrs+ to be so that they are punished for whatever terrible deed(s) put them there?

 

Again, I will not argue the logic that an execution is not only cheaper than 50yrs of bed and board for that person, and that by letting them take that way out frees up space in prisons that are already at breaking point; that is taken as a given. It's the morality behind that decision that is, to me, the debate.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Kestra15

[Wantdew]

Because the incarceration is the punishment for their crime - why offer them relief for the crimes they committed? Isn't the idea for locking someone up for 50yrs+ to be so that they are punished for whatever terrible deed(s) put them there?

 

Nope. We don't nessecarily care about punishing them as much as keeping the rest of the population safe.

[Kestra15]

Nope. We don't nessecarily care about punishing them as much as keeping the rest of the population safe.

Behind bars for 50yrs and more is protection though - although I will accept that there is always that very small chance said person can escape.

[sparkle10184]

Because the incarceration is the punishment for their crime - why offer them relief for the crimes they committed? Isn't the idea for locking someone up for 50yrs+ to be so that they are punished for whatever terrible deed(s) put them there?

 

Again, I will not argue the logic that an execution is not only cheaper than 50yrs of bed and board for that person, and that by letting them take that way out frees up space in prisons that are already at breaking point; that is taken as a given. It's the morality behind that decision that is, to me, the debate.

But in my opinion the point of locking someone up or killing them is for the safety of society.

[Alpha1]

Put a rope in every cell.

[Sir Barton]

Behind bars for 50yrs and more is protection though - although I will accept that there is always that very small chance said person can escape.

Ted Bundy escaped twice. Once he literally walked out of his hearing when the judge took a recess. This is a man who abducted then brutally raped and strangled at least 30 known young women, the youngest I believe was 8 years old.

 

*goes on a hunt for info*

 

After more than a decade of denials, he confessed shortly before his execution to 30 homicides committed in seven states between 1974 and 1978; the true total remains unknown, and could be much higher.

 

The police seem to think he is responsible for closer to 40.

 

I'm sorry. I don't see where keeping someone like this alive is a benefit to himself or society, and this is coming from a "fan." I would have loved to have had a chance to pick his brain, but trust that Dobson and others got what they could from him, leaving me to go through video and transcripts. We still have more then enough criminals around to study. Hell, we still have Manson though I think society would have benefited from his execution a long time ago. Charles Manson was the cause of people in Louisiana to start locking their doors. Creating that amount of fear is just sad in my opinion. What use has he served by being kept alive? He still regularly comes up for parole hearings that the families of his victims attend to make sure he doesn't get out. I find that cruel to those individuals who have to relive their pain to make sure that he stays behind bars; not that I would expect anyone to be stupid enough to ever release him, but stranger this have happened.

 

Who gets to pass the moral judgement? Well just like with everything else, the general populace places representatives in place to speak for them. Corruption within the system will always make that questionable, but currently it's the best system that we have. We attempt to elect judges who we believe speak for us and then we give them the power to make these moral decisions. Ideally, they are the voice of the majority and make their decisions based on their constituents' opinions.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Sir Barton

[High Lord November]

This has probably been answered before, but how do you intend to define when to use the death penalty? I assume most of you are referring to first-degree. After all, death punishment for second degree wouldn't be just, in my opinion. Neither would first-time offenders, whether it be first or second.

Are those in support of the death penalty taking into account mental illnesses? How would you draw the line there? Just curious.

 

Personally, I'm not a fan of it, although I could see reasons why people would want it implemented.

Edited September 8, 2012 by High Lord November

[Sir Barton]

This has probably been answered before, but how do you intend to define when to use the death penalty? I assume most of you are referring to first-degree. After all, death punishment for second degree wouldn't be just, in my opinion. Neither would first-time offenders, whether it be first or second.

Are those in support of the death penalty taking into account mental illnesses? How would you draw the line there? Just curious.

 

Personally, I'm not a fan of it, although I could see reasons why people would want it implemented.

I don't think the number of offenses figures in at all. A first time offenders can commit crimes so heinous that they do deserve capital punishment. Walking into a movie theater with a gun and going on a rampage; first time offense yet in my eyes deserving of capital punishment.

 

Brenda Spencer went on a shooting spree; killed two people and injured nine others at Cleveland Elementary School and showed no remorse. When asked why she did it her response was "I don't like Mondays."and "I had no reason for it, and it was just a lot of fun." She said that the school children were "like shooting ducks on a pond", that they were easy targets. Spencer was 16 at the time but because the crime was so heinous she tried as an adult and plead guilty. She is in California so no death penalty; sentence to 25 years to life. Luckily her parole has been denied 4 times, but from what I can tell she is very manipulative in trying to get out and still shows zero remorse. This is someone who poses a serious threat and will never be a productive member of society. Why incur the cost of keeping her alive?

 

 

Crimes fitting capital punishment: premeditated murder and rape, particularly the rape of a child or a challenged or elderly adult incapable of defending themselves. A psychopath and a sociopath technically have mental illnesses, so I don't see the blanket of "mental illness"as something that should shield them from being put to death for their crimes. ADD is considered a mental illness. .... yeah, no. The ability to distinguish right from wrong is the main factor. If you are mentally coherent enough to understand that your actions are wrong and understand the consequences of those actions but still decide to act on them... well, I have more sympathy for the victim and their family then I do the criminal and his or her family.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Sir Barton

[Walker]

I don't think the number of offenses figures in at all. A first time offenders can commit crimes so heinous that they do deserve capital punishment. Walking into a movie theater with a gun and going on a rampage; first time offense yet in my eyes deserving of capital punishment.

 

Brenda Spencer went on a shooting spree; killed two people and injured nine others at Cleveland Elementary School and showed no remorse. When asked why she did it her response was "I don't like Mondays."and "I had no reason for it, and it was just a lot of fun." She said that the school children were "like shooting ducks on a pond", that they were easy targets. Spencer was 16 at the time but because the crime was so heinous she tried as an adult and plead guilty. She is in California so no death penalty; sentence to 25 years to life. Luckily her parole has been denied 4 times, but from what I can tell she is very manipulative in trying to get out and still shows zero remorse. This is someone who poses a serious threat and will never be a productive member of society. Why incur the cost of keeping her alive?

 

 

Crimes fitting capital punishment: premeditated murder and rape, particularly the rape of a child or a challenged or elderly adult incapable of defending themselves. A psychopath and a sociopath technically have mental illnesses, so I don't see the blanket of "mental illness"as something that should shield them from being put to death for their crimes. ADD is considered a mental illness. .... yeah, no. The ability to distinguish right from wrong is the main factor. If you are mentally coherent enough to understand that your actions are wrong and understand the consequences of those actions but still decide to act on them... well, I have more sympathy for the victim and their family then I do the criminal and his or her family.

If we take that as referring to money...

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

 

Death penalty is actually quite expensive because of all the legal processes they have to go through. It's not cheap, at all.

 

That being said if you mean outside the realm of money, if the benefits of getting them off the streets outweighs the monetary investment, then it's worth considering.

 

By the by, I'm not really pro or against the death penalty. I don't mind it, but I'm far more concerned with punishments being more equally distributed than whether they get put to death. It irks me that someone, like you said, can go on a shooting spree and only get 25 years whereas someone who only shot one person can get life/death. I don't care how they're punished in the long run (whether life or the death penalty); I just want to see more equality in how they do it.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

If we take that as referring to money...

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

 

Death penalty is actually quite expensive because of all the legal processes they have to go through. It's not cheap, at all.

This is why I feel our system is broken. Again, take the movie theater shooter guy. Guilty. Absolutely undeniably guilty. Snagged in riot gear with his weapons at the scene, had his apartment booby-trapped to kill everyone in the building, had sent journals out mentioning he wanted to kill people.

 

...And yet thousands will be spent and years will be wasted before he gets a sentence, which might not even be a death sentence. That is... absurd.

 

If the case is confusing, of course spend the time and money delving deep. But there is no reason cases like THAT should cost nearly so much. It should not be economically impractical to put to death someone who is 100% proven guilty of shooting numerous people to death.

 

Lock him in a theater and let the relatives of those he killed shoot at him from the balconies with his own weapons. Shouldn't cost more than some seat repairs and stain removal. l(

[Sir Barton]

If we take that as referring to money...

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

 

Death penalty is actually quite expensive because of all the legal processes they have to go through. It's not cheap, at all.

 

That being said if you mean outside the realm of money, if the benefits of getting them off the streets outweighs the monetary investment, then it's worth considering.

 

By the by, I'm not really pro or against the death penalty. I don't mind it, but I'm far more concerned with punishments being more equally distributed than whether they get put to death. It irks me that someone, like you said, can go on a shooting spree and only get 25 years whereas someone who only shot one person can get life/death. I don't care how they're punished in the long run (whether life or the death penalty); I just want to see more equality in how they do it.

Fast tracking by cutting down on appeals would drop cost significantly. It shouldn't cost more to put someone to death then it does to keep someone like Brenda Spencer who has been incarcerated since she was sixteen in prison for the rest of her natural life. Give them five years to appeal and then put them down.

[futuregohangurl]

i say no to death penalty. its up to god when people die not us. if we kill them we are doing the same thing they did to other people only to them.i used to think it was a good thing but now i dont. i think they should just be locked up for life with no parole or bail

[Wantdew]

i say no to death penalty. its up to god when people die not us. if we kill them we are doing the same thing they did to other people only to them.i used to think it was a good thing but now i dont. i think they should just be locked up for life with no parole or bail

Which is more torturous and mean.

[pinkieseb]

Which is more torturous and mean.

I agree with that

[Fuzzbucket]

I am an anti. Killing a killer (or whatever) brings us, their killers, down to the level of those we decide to kill. More cold blooded than what they did, mostly.

 

Also and MUCH less significantly, I am aware of far too many cases where the person who received the penalty was dead and then their innocence was absolutely proved. Miscarriages of justice are ALWAYS possible.

[Tazzay]

Its...not really up to god when we die or not, it more up to luck/ lifestyle/ diet and such. And locking someone up for the rest of their life is almost cruel. If I had to go to jail with no parole or bail, I'd rather just grab the nearest gun and put a bullet through my head. Quickest way to the next life.

[sparkle10184]

I thought I'd remake this since the other one appears dead and hasn't been posted in since September.

 

So, what are your views on the death penalty? Right or wrong? I'll step in a little later to share my opinions...

[Total Reverse]

I think that if the crime is severe enough, the death penalty is required. But I think it should only be used for the most heinous of crimes.

Basically, in my opinion, they have to commit enough crimes to be sentenced for a lifetime before they deserve the death penalty.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Total Reverse