0

Can you please give me one con and two pros on your opinion about death penalty?

I say it's not right! I mean, come on! They are going to die a "peaceful" death while the person they killed was violently treated!!! I think they should give them all jail for life and make them work for the government doing jobs that other people don't like. For example, sewer clean up... or something like that.

Please leave feedback on what you think about capital punishment!!! PLEASE!
and don't forget to leave one pro and two cons!!!!

Thanks
:confused:

For rape, murder, armed robbery, treachery. I think death penalty is the most appropriate and before a person is being killed he should be treated be like a mad animal.

0

Can you please give me one con and two pros on your opinion about death penalty?

I say it's not right! I mean, come on! They are going to die a "peaceful" death while the person they killed was violently treated!!! I think they should give them all jail for life and make them work for the government doing jobs that other people don't like. For example, sewer clean up... or something like that.

Please leave feedback on what you think about capital punishment!!! PLEASE!
and don't forget to leave one pro and two cons!!!!

Thanks
:confused:

I strongly believe in the death penalty, especially in cases where people are given a life sentence without parole. My reason being is that we (as society) spend a great deal of money on their daily needs and support. In a country that is constantly cutting back schools funding, homelessness is a major issue, and too many are going without proper health care; I would think that there are better ways to spend tax money. If someone has committed a crime that grotesque that they are given life in prison, then they knew the consequences before they DECIDED to proceed with their actions. I don't think that it is fair to make many suffer to support them after they chose their fate. Besides, one can get accommodated to living in jail, there are a lot of luxuries that can be earned through time and good behavior. One could even argue that it would be preferable to be in jail than out in society where they have to work to find means to support themselves. In jail you don't have to think about how you are going to get your next meal, nor the next safe place you can lay your head at night. These are just my views.

0

before a person is being killed he should be treated be like a mad animal.

you sound crueler that the person who committed the crime !

0

I strongly believe in the death penalty, especially in cases where people are given a life sentence without parole. My reason being is that we (as society) spend a great deal of money on their daily needs and support. In a country that is constantly cutting back schools funding, homelessness is a major issue, and too many are going without proper health care; I would think that there are better ways to spend tax money. If someone has committed a crime that grotesque that they are given life in prison, then they knew the consequences before they DECIDED to proceed with their actions. I don't think that it is fair to make many suffer to support them after they chose their fate. Besides, one can get accommodated to living in jail, there are a lot of luxuries that can be earned through time and good behavior. One could even argue that it would be preferable to be in jail than out in society where they have to work to find means to support themselves. In jail you don't have to think about how you are going to get your next meal, nor the next safe place you can lay your head at night. These are just my views.

This is a stupid, thoughtless post. There is nothing in the post that shows any knowledge how the expenses of life in prison w/o parole vs death penalty. You have no grasp of either side of the argument and are just spouting nonsense w/o any support. At least google something before posting.

1

Ok. Valid point made GrimJack. Here is a website that provides stats for anyone who cares.

I still think that money spent toward criminals is ridiculous when the country as a whole is struggling to help those who live by the law and are struggling, which was the point I was trying to make.

0

Kill to reduce the costs?
How much is life worth, then? $100.000? $1.000.000?
Who has a right to put a price on human life anyway?

0

Killing someone is difficult. You have no way to compensate a person if he/she turns out to be innocent. On the other hand, a quick flick of the switch/pull of the trigger etc is too quick for monsters.

I would like to see a halfway house - regulated torture should be used. If at some point in the future a prisoner was found to be innocent, he could be released, his fingers sewn back on and his testicles re-inserted. A few bucks in his pocket too.

Relatives should have the opportunity for revenge. Tighten the thumbscrews, apply the prostaglandin before sticking the monster with a needle. All manner of nasty little things.

Before anybody gets on their high horse and says revenge serves no purpose - rubbish. It serves to satisfy the living. There are so many words we are now scared to use and defend, because the self-appointed moralists have had a few generations to insidiously influence society. Hate, revenge, retribution, etc. They have a place - they want out. Religion just muddies the waters - keep it out of legislation - primitive superstitions - even the big JC one - just want more political leverage.

If somebody did something bad to one of my loved ones, I'd want the right to make their lives a living nightmare for eternity (or until they were found innocent). Surely that's fair?

Edited by diafol: n/a

0

On the one hand, there are:
John Wayne Gacey - he raped and killed children
Jeffrey Dahmer - he raped, killed, and ate young gay men
Ted Bundy - he raped and killed women, got caught, escaped and raped and killed more women. He tried to buy his life by saying he would tell where he buried the bodies.

Then there is the innocence project that has exonerated over 250 people since inception.

For anyone thinking that the DP is cheaper - no chance. It can take from 10 to 25 years to execute someone and during that time they are locked up on 'death row' which is about 2 times more expensive to operate AND then you have to add in the court costs.

I snapped at someone up-thread a bit for not doing research; I want to thank them looking around. This is not a simple, one-sentence subject and requires some thought no matter on which side of the issue you fall on. I personally can't make up my mind or my heart. One says kill them and the other says don't.

0

It's certainly a difficult topic with legitimate arguments from both sides. I'd say I'm more against it than I am for it. Simply because false convictions can and do happen. In an ideal world where there are no false convictions then I'd say for the most terrible crimes it should be an option. But in an ideal world nobody would commit them in the first place.

-1

A deeply divisive problem in the United States is the use of the capital punishment, as few countries in the industrial world not counting the United States really allows the capital punishment. The debate still rages over whether the death penalty should even still be used in the U.S. The states that have it on the books are forced to pay a very heavy price in order to use it. I read this here: Taxpayers foot hefty bill to have the death penalty

Votes + Comments
I'm all in favor for it, for link spammers jumping on the end of dead threads just so they can get hits on their backwater site
0

Because of the exhaustive legal appeals necessary for death penalty cases, the state has to pay $300,000 for defense attorneys for indigent prisoners per case.

See -- that's the whole problem with our legal system. The death penalty is not the problem, our legal system is. People in the old West days (18th and 19th centuries) were hanged or shot by firing squad immediately after the first conviction; there were no appeals. Maybe we should return to those days.

Edited by Ancient Dragon: n/a

0

>> Maybe we should return to those days.

I believe the whole appeals process was created to correct for all the abuses of that era. Hell, you don't even need to go back that far. Look at Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. We're STILL arguing about whether they were both guilty. There is such a thing as a legitimate appeal. I suggest instead that we take the time and spend the money to ensure that people get adequate representation and due process at the FIRST trial so we don't have to argue about it twenty frigging years later. There are too many "drunk lawyer" stories for them all to be B.S. At the same time, there are too many cases out there where people are guilty as sin, had completely fair trials, and are kept alive for decades afterwards for no good reason. We need to either fix the whole damn process, give the most heinous perpetrators a fair trial and a few appeals, then kill them within a few years. or get rid of it altogether. I'm from Sonoma County, California and remember the Salcido and Polly Klaas murders like they were yesterday. If there are two dirtbags worthy of the needle, it's those two and they're not even close to being killed. Frankly if my relative was murdered, I'd rather the perp receive life without parole so I could get on with life and not be interviewed forty years later on CNN when the latest appeal was being deliberated.

0

In a perfect world where you can always know with 100% certainty who is guilty of the most heinous crimes and cannot be successfully rehabilitated at reasonable cost, then the death penalty is ok.

The problem is the real world is not and cannot be this perfect world.

We don't know of anyway to know for sure who is guilty and our best tool (trials before peers) can still be corrupted and still find the wrong answer which are being overturned years later (even a "fair trial" can be wrong because juries are made of people who make mistakes). The more appeals you allow to ensure you have the right person in each case, the higher the cost to execute until you reach the present state of affair where it is more expensive to kill someone than it is to put them in prison for life (thus defeating the whole point).

I can't see this situation changing for a very long time -> we'd need some sort of mind reading device that could actually identify the memories of committing the crime with very high accuracy.

0

Hmmm, I have been against the death penalty until Ted Bundy who was jailed and escaped 3 times and in each instance he killed again. But since he is now dead - I think life w/o parole is fine because it costs about $50 million and 20 years to finally execute someone and then they often turn out to be innocent.

So, I would have to say that I am against capitol punishment. It is just to damned expensive to make sure that we do not execute an innocent person.

0

If you're actually innocent, I reckon you should WANT the death penalty. You're much more likely to get your due process and have the light shined on whatever wrongly got you there in the first place. With regular old life in prison, your appeal will likely never see the light of day. If you're about to get executed, suddenly your case gets bumped up in the priority list and you might get some big-name attorney to adopt your case for reasons of principle. Much less likely with a plain old murder. When was the last time you heard about the Innocence Project springing a burglar? It's just not high profile and important enough for them to invest the time. The second you get commuted from death to life, you'll never see the inside of a courtroom again.

Surely Ted Bundy isn't unique. The guy who stabbed Tookie Williams in prison and a couple of buddies "escaped" from one part of San Quentin to another part of San Quentin. They were all on Death Row, but still came pretty close to pulling it off. They had no designs on escaping from the entire prison. They just wanted to take a few people hostage, preferably guards, and release some pent up aggression. Some of them have been on Death Row for close to thirty years and they're STILL causing problems. And they're nowhere near close to being executed. Why bother having a death penalty if you'e not going to execute people?

$50 million and 20 years

Not that I don't believe you (though I sure HOPE you're wrong), but do you have a reference? That's $2.5 million a year for some pretty lousy accommodations.

0

of course it is right... one that takes the life of another deserves the same punishment

0

If the convicted had anything to do with death of someone, then it is well deserved and should be well served to such individual

0

If the convicted had anything to do with death of someone, then it is well deserved and should be well served to such individual

What if a doctor falls asleep at the wheel after a 24 hour shift and hits some one and they die?
What if a welder punches someone not knowing the other person has a brain aneurysm and kills them?

Are we going to throw away potentially productive people because they make one bad decision and kill someone without any malicious intent?

0

Why would a welder or anyone punch someone in the face at first and why would a doctor fall asleep when on duty. I know shit happens but at the same time, we should be responsible for whatever errors we commit and not shy away form them.

Its like saying i stab someone with a knife because we were fighting and he dies. As far as law and order is concerned, that's murder and that was the intent of the murderer

0

I think it is wrong.

We haven't had death penalty (hanging) here since the 60s/70s sometime, although it remained on the books until the mid/late 1990s for:

* treason
* espionage
* piracy
* mutiny
* setting fire to naval yards

It was repealed back in the day as it was found not to deter criminals and there was too many miscarriages of justice.

Edited by jbennet: n/a

1

You need to weigh up the advantages of saving money / exacting public revenge / satisfying public bloodlust / deterrence VS miscarriages of justice

I would think that possible miscarriages of justice should obviate the ultimate sanction.

If we value life as highly as we claim and demand the death penalty for the taking of a life, how can this be consolidated with the chance of killing an innocent person?

I find the death penalty morally abhorrent. Individuals have been killed in the name of political expediency, questionable religious laws, etc etc. Are we to believe that our law enforcement agencies and judicial systems are infallible? Some may think so. I'm afraid that they would be terribly mistaken.

When it comes to international law - the people who are hanged as war criminals are almost always on the losing side. We get sanitised information, as the truth would make extremely uncomfortable reading. Politics, equality and justice. Horrible.

Edited by diafol: n/a

Votes + Comments
Agreed :)
1

The death penalty may not deter criminals, but it sure does give some relief and closure for the loved ones of the victims.

That may be so, but what if the the person is later found to be innocent?
How many more lives are then destroyed?

I'm no bleeding heart limp-wristed liberal, but I couldn't live with that.

0

The question is: why would someone deem it fit to take one's life and feel his should be protected by law?

0

"The question is: why would someone deem it fit to take one's life and feel his should be protected by law?"

Incarcerated people get no say in whether their lives are protected by law or not because they cannot vote/run for office.

Society deems that a person convicted of taking another's life should have his life protected because we acknowledge that the judicial system (which we set up and support) is not perfect and to kill an innocent person by mistake is worse than allowing a true killer to live in prison for the rest of their life. Eliminating the death penalty is an admission of fallibility not a respect for killers.

0

to kill an innocent person by mistake

Did you say mistake, How many deaths worldwide occurred on error? Yes, we agree there are such cases but don't use the word 'mistake' to generalize all murder cases.

Edited by Netcode: n/a

0

I was not generalizing all murder cases, (hence the "true killer to live in prison for the rest of their life").

It is very difficult to know the exact figure for wrongful convictions/executions since if we don't find out they are actually innocent (can't afford lawyers, evidence doesn't come forward, etc...) we don't know they were wrongfully killed. Its indistinguishable from the true killers. Also since very few places have both the death penalty and an open respectable legal system any statistic will be skewed but here are some estimates I've found:

Estimates on wrongful convictions:

In the USA since 1973: 138 people on death row were released after evidence was found proving their innocence ~ 3.6/year
source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

9 people excecuted but new evidence puts their guilt in serious question
+ 4 people who were pardoned after execution
source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

Illinois:
18 prisoners sentenced to death were later exonerated (> 6% of those sentenced to death)

source: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/deathpenalty/

Since 1984, USA :
18 people executed who were most likely innocent (at a minimum guilt is not beyond a reasonable doubt)
source: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/wrongfulexecutions/

capital rape-murder between 1982-1989 :
estimate of between 3.3-5% wrongful-conviction rate
source: http://law.shu.edu/publications/FacultyPublications/upload/Risinger_M_2006_InnocentsConvicted.pdf

US Criminal Justice Professionals as of 2007:
estimate wrongful felony convictions to be 1-3% (higher than their 'acceptable' level of 0.5%)
source: http://ucpi.digissance.com/system/files/file/Members%20Articles/wrongful%20conviction.pdf

Illinois, 2000:
13 exonerated vs 12 executed
source: http://ucpi.digissance.com/system/files/file/Members%20Articles/wrongful%20conviction.pdf

0

And those are just for the USA, which has modern, accountable law enforcement and judicial systems compared to most countries. It begs the question, how many are executed in error, world-wide?

0

Good research. Did it occur to you that if the number of victims under death penalty is high, that means the number of people murdered by these victims is higher?

0

just because they were pardoned before execution doesn't make them any less guilty.
And that's the majority of those cases, they're pardoned after some crystory about "loved ones needing them" and stuff like that, or because it was politically expedient for an incumbent governor to do so in order to generate votes in time for an upcoming election.

The main problem with the death sentence as currently in place in the US is that the enormous length of time between conviction and execution not only costs tons of money just to keep the convicts in prison (in 5* hotel accommodations more often than not) but the interminable legal wrangling surrounding each and every case, with constant appeals, reopening cases, new "evidence" being fabricated by unscrupulous activist lawyers and sometimes judges, more fake "witnesses" being "discovered" by lawyers years or decades after the fact to "exonerate" the perp, etc. etc.

Used to be so simple. Arrest them at dawn, convict them at noon, hang them at dusk.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.