[X] My Assistant

[Lord Raven]

It's even worse because they have to live through it. Death takes all the pain away.
The main reason I'm for the death penalty is the for the insurance -- I'd rather the guy be dead than tortured, regardless of what he had done. It's easier for both sides; he won't have to be supported and it's guaranteed that he'd be off the streets.

[Big the Cat]

But should they really be allowed the peace of death?

[Lord Raven]

If we're doing this in select cases (like mass murderers/rapists/etc) then yes. If you word it like "peace of death" of course it sounds good -- but then again, by doing that you're accomplishing the same basic task. Only cheaper and far more guaranteed.


You want them to be away from society? Check.
You want them to stop killing? Check.


So by applying the death penalty to cases where you'd put them in extreme solitary confinement anyway is definitely a much more rational move.

[Kaname Madoka]

I have no problem with the death penalty, though the human compassion in me often allows me to feel a little bad for those on death row. Once I remember what kinds of crimes they're probably on death row for, however, I don't feel quite as much remorse.

[Big the Cat]

Well, death would be more humane than extreme madness from solitary confinement. But, I just don't believe in death as a punishment. I really think that they should suffer for their crime. And in many cases I mean truly SUFFER!

[Failure]

Well, my opinion stems from three very major and key points.

1) I think criminals (based on the severity of their crime(s)) should rot in jail for whatever time is deemed necessary for them to atone from said crime(s).

2) The U.S. Penal system is extremely overstressed and swamped with court cases, which through due process and "innocent before proven guilty" are being pushed back further and further. How can a system function properly and deal with the legal process quickly and efficiently when they have to deal with "X" amount of cases before they can handle said case?

3) The U.S. Prison system is bloated to the point where states are vastly exceeding their budgets (California is a fine example of this) and have to make budget cuts, many of which endanger the prisoners and could potentially jeopardize their lives. With collateral damage, the family of the prisoners could sue the institution which the prisoner died in due to one of these budget cuts and be awarded huge punitive sums of money and further bog down the correctional facilities. It is essentially a lose-lose situation.

With those three points working on me, I feel that if more life sentences were converted to death sentences it could potentially help the Penal and Correctional systems. As horrible as that may seem for someone to say, from a financial standpoint it seems sound.

[Mimiqui]

Yes, lets lower ourselves to the levels of the monsters who murder, because two wrongs make a right.
Lets torture some lower being, because we see it as a justified means of revenge for murder. Because everyone wants a little bloodshed every once in a while, why not reverse the penalty system entirely, make the conscience for even minor crimes death.
If someone were brutally shot on site on the street for shop lifting, would you do it?
Who are we to decide who has the ‘right’ to live, and who doesn’t? Who are we to decide what crime is punishable by death, really, are we gods?

[Lord Raven]

Yes, lets lower ourselves to the levels of the monsters who murder, because two wrongs make a right.

Except the second one isn't a wrong if you considering how
A) the prisoner has a chance to get out/escape from jail
B) why give them life sentences when it's easier and more affordable and pleasurable to both parties to have them killed?

Lets torture some lower being, because we see it as a justified means of revenge for murder. Because everyone wants a little bloodshed every once in a while, why not reverse the penalty system entirely, make the conscience for even minor crimes death.

Minor crimes = death? What a shit death penalty.

Who are we to decide who has the ‘right’ to live, and who doesn’t? Who are we to decide what crime is punishable by death, really, are we gods?

"Playing God" is bullshit considering there are many of us without a God in their life; if people are going to "play God" then that's fine by me.
Who are we to decide who has the 'right' to live? Everyone has a right to live. There are those of us that abuve that right and need to have it taken away so they can be removed as a threat.

[Mimiqui]

Yes, lets lower ourselves to the levels of the monsters who murder, because two wrongs make a right.

Except the second one isn't a wrong if you considering how
A) the prisoner has a chance to get out/escape from jail
B) why give them life sentences when it's easier and more affordable and pleasurable to both parties to have them killed?

Lets torture some lower being, because we see it as a justified means of revenge for murder. Because everyone wants a little bloodshed every once in a while, why not reverse the penalty system entirely, make the conscience for even minor crimes death.

Minor crimes = death? What a shit death penalty.

Who are we to decide who has the ‘right’ to live, and who doesn’t? Who are we to decide what crime is punishable by death, really, are we gods?

"Playing God" is bullshit considering there are many of us without a God in their life; if people are going to "play God" then that's fine by me.
Who are we to decide who has the 'right' to live? Everyone has a right to live. There are those of us that abuve that right and need to have it taken away so they can be removed as a threat.

Please learn how to recognize sarcasm, raven.
Prisoners just getting out of a high security prison doesn’t happen that much, and if someone kills someone else, I don’t think they should have the chance to be bailed out. That’d be pretty damned stupid if you asked me.
Well, if torturing is apparently going to teach people a lesson, why not have a public torture of a shop lifter? With our economy as it is, it’d help would it not? If I saw someone being tortured in public for shop lifting I’d never do it, would you? . _ .;
I lol’d at that last part, really.
So, everyone has the right to live, but we have the right to decide to take that 'right' away? Isn't that just as bad as what the murder did? Again, two wrongs don't make a right..>..>

[Lord Raven]

Prisoners just getting out of a high security prison doesn’t happen that much, and if someone kills someone else, I don’t think they should have the chance to be bailed out. That’d be pretty damned stupid if you asked me.

I think they should be given a chance if it was just one person or something, and jail is fine. Anything more can be a possible death penalty thing.
And why keep them in a high security prison for a while when killing them is just easier?

Well, if torturing is apparently going to teach people a lesson, why not have a public torture of a shop lifter? With our economy as it is, it’d help would it not? If I saw someone being tortured in public for shop lifting I’d never do it, would you? . _ .;

No, I would not. There's more ways to punish an offense like shoplifting than torture, too. Jail time is too much, having that said; if our economy is terrible then a fine would pretty much teach the rest of us a lesson at the same time, provided there's enough overall security.

So, everyone has the right to live, but we have the right to decide to take that 'right' away? Isn't that just as bad as what the murder did? Again, two wrongs don't make a right..>..>

I'd call it a privilege, but that would seem too restricting.

Everyone has a right to live, indeed. A murderer has no right to take away that right, and yet he does so anyway and he's bound to take others under little or no justification other than a personal vendetta. Why should he be now subject to the same right to live when he takes that right away from others?

[Yzarc Drowsnam]

There are many reasons for punishing somebody, be it death, imprisonment or whatever else you could think of.

Retribution or Revenge - The person deserves to be punished
Rehabilitation - The person needs to be punished, as it is the only way s/he will learn to become a "better" member of society
Deterrence - Keeping others from committing the crime in the future
Safety - Keeping the criminal from committing that crime again

As for death vs prison

Retribution: I suppose this is the Death penalty's only merit. It is much harsher and so we often feel better when we see people like child murderers and evil dictators put to death, whereas life in prison just doesn't sit well with us.

Rehabilitation: Death doesn't even come close. Our current prison system doesn't do too great either, as recidivism is pretty high, but it's a hell of a lot better than the death penalty, which makes rehabilitation impossible.

Deterrence: The connection between violent crimes and the death penalty is still being debated, and it's quite ambiguous. In other words, we don't actually know if the death penalty deters people from committing violent crimes any more than a prison sentence.

Safety: Generally speaking, both prison and death keep a person from society and, thus, keep society safe from their criminal acts. Yes, there are escapees, but that happens more in the movies and shows and whatnot than in real life. It's almost a moot point.

So Deterrence and Safety aren't really debatable, as Deterrence is ambiguous and Safety is attained both ways. So really, it's a debate between what's more important between retribution and rehabilitation and if neither of those are important, or if both are equally important, then it's a debate about which is better from an economic standpoint: Which is cheaper.

Retribution is, in my opinion, completely worthless. It goes under the assumption that every person is completely responsible for their actions and, moreover, it is morally biased. No one deserves death, because, in my opinion, no one deserves anything. I believe in philosophical determinism, meaning nobody has the freedom of will. Our actions are determined by a causal chain of events that happened before and during our lives up to the point of our decisions, none of which we have any control over. Perhaps worthy of an entirely different debate topic, but this is my view, and I'd be more than happy to debate it separately.

Rehabilitation is iffy as well. I think we owe it to the members of society of whom we have failed, however, to try to help them. People who are "evil" are evil for a reason, and I, being a social constructivist (meaning I believe a person's personality is almost entirely based upon his or her socialization) believe that if we have a high number of violent criminals, it is our fault. We have failed members of our own society and simply cutting them off, killing them, does not solve the problem. Rehabilitation is tough though. Once a person reaches a certain age, it becomes incredibly difficult to change who they are mostly because they probably don't want to change.

Which comes back to the economic argument. It depends on the age of the person, but usually it is cheaper to give someone a life sentence in prison than it is to give them the death penalty. This is because of the crazy amounts of lawyer mumbo-jumbo, red tape, and multiple trials, plus years on death row. Unless the person is like 17, it'll be cheaper to just put 'em in prison. And if the person is 17, s/he is much more easily manipulated into being an upstanding member of society, meaning rehabilitation is still possible.

I'm against the death penalty, but just barely. If it could be proven that it is an active deterrent, then I'd be all for it. But until I get that solid evidence, it seems like a waste of money and a waste of emotion.

[Mimiqui]

Because it is ‘easier’ doesn’t mean it should be done, waiting on death row must be a hellish long time, that person is going to be in prison for a while anyway so what does it matter?

There are other ways of punishing a murder too, but we would rather see that person suffering before a blood thirsty crowd for means of revenge. We do not truly worry for our safety if a criminal is in jail, because like I said, its not every day a dangerous criminal breaks out. We want to see the blood shed of someone who did something as wrong as killing a other being, it makes us feel safer knowing that there is ‘one less murder’, but I guess the person who switched the electric chair on doesn’t count, now do they?

Its only human to want someone to suffer if they did something wrong to you, everyone feels that need to get revenge on someone every once in a while, and you’d be lying if you said you have never felt that way. Once the blood has been shed, what else is there too prove? The murders victims are not going to magically come back, and that pain on the family of the victim isn’t going to be lifted, we are only satisfied for a while.

[chariot]

Do you have any idea how much it costs to keep up a prisoner on death row? It costs as much to execute one prisoner as it does to keep them in jail for life.

you seem a bit confused. death row is for people who have been sentenced to death; non-barbaric countries that do not indulge in capital punishment do not have a "death row". but yes, death row is extremely expensive- it costs almsot $100k more to house someone on death row than it does in a regular prison. but if the entire capital punishment system was abolished, it would save the american taxpayers about a quarter of a billion dollars PER EXECUTION.

sources:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/de...e.do?id=1101084

"In California the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty."

the more you know, eh?

[Lord Raven]

Yeah that's basically what's convinced me against death penalty. The fact that it isn't the easier way out.
chariot you should post a lot more since I'm pretty much ignorant to the practical matters rather than the ideal matter.

I think that jail should have more suffering in my opinion to compensate, but... that's just me. How much does a life sentence cost in comparison to death row? I might've missed it before, but I'm curious.

[StarShinePachiri...]

I feel that the death penalty should only be used for cases of murder, where it is proven with beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed murder intentionally. This means DNA evidence, A witness to the crime, and/or expert testimony, that presented evidence proves without a doubt, that the accused has indeed committed the crime.

Anything else, should be 20 years in prison, no exceptions, no bail, no parole, no probation, no way out of prison until you've served all 20 years of your sentence. You take a life in any non-accidental way, you do hard time.

In the case of an accident, 5-10 years in prison, if and only if it's proven that you were intentionally neglecting the safety of others. (These type cases should only be decided by specially trained judges, and a jury)


As for Death Row, they should only be allowed to be on death row for a maximum of one year. If a judge does not rule to stay the execution by then, they should be put to death.

[PeachyMomo]

I am against the death penalty. I believe strongly in Ghandi's words, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind." As you say, we are punishing murderers. But how is it okay to murder in the name of murder? What is the point of terminating two lives? Also, a true punishment really would be allowing a person to spend the rest of their life in jail or solitary confinement; it is a waste of their life, it is much longer than simply murdering them vengefully, and it is a worthy punishment for stealing someone's right to life selfishly. Naturally, I don't support torture as a punishment either, even if it would be "worse" it's still on the same line as murdering a person for committing a murder to me and entirely inhumane.

Not to mention that there are cases where innocent people have been put on death row and murdered for something they never did.

Of course, it depends on the person; some may rather die, some may rather rot away in prison, but when it comes to murder or rape specifically it is usually an act of power and violence. Or superiority. Taking away their power and their feeling of control will make them miserable; it will be a true punishment. They will have the rest of their lives in jail or confinement to think about it. Comparing a murderer to the homeless that refuse to pay taxes to get thrown in prison for the shelter, water, and food is illogical; the homeless already have nowhere to go or they refuse to/cannot find a job. With most murderers this is not the case, they are doing it for selfish reasons, usually for personal gain, money or goods, revenge/anger/emotional reasons, or satisfaction. Most people do not kill to get into jail for food. Serial killers, especially, do it for power and to fuel a sadistic God Complex. The power factor has been researched over and over in psychology.

It's even more thoughtless to say that life in prison does not frighten the average person. If it didn't, crime would be rampant. I have personally heard a man talk about his experience in prison after killing a girl in a drunk driving accident and he hated himself, he hated his life, and he knew he would never be able to get out of the rut he got himself into and put his life back together the way it was. It will be a permanent scar on your life.

Besides, people are actually more prone to wanting to see a person die for a crime because they are emotional, I'd say. A person who is more logical and level-headed would probably prefer banning Capital Punishment, so I don't think saying the anti-Capital Punishment people here are only attempting to be humane. This is why the family of the victim is not the one who decides the culprit's sentence, a judicial system does. Sure, it is more humane to keep them alive by definition, but it's still a more worthy punishment in my eyes, personally. Murder is something people want to see happen to a criminal because it makes them feel better and somehow makes them feel more important, superior [not all that different from the criminals themselves] when an "evil" person is killed. It's revenge, it's blood lust, and it's the easy, emotional way out. I mean, just looking at horror movies as an example; not only do people see gorefest horror movies to satiate their blood lust, there are also "happy" endings incorporated in which involves the "hero" killing the "murderer" at the end and getting a sick satisfaction out of it, like they've "won" or something - in hopes to make the viewers feel better, more complete after it's over.

Sure, it unfortunately costs a lot of money to keep them alive in prison. But considering it probably costs more to keep them on "Death Row" and for all the execution supplies, it's likely win-win to ban "Capital Punishment."

This post has been edited by PeachyMomo: May 5 2009, 02:36 AM

[Doommagic]

I'm for the death penalty. But only in the most serious of cases. Like, we're talking about a mass murderer or someone who kills a child. And it has to be proven without a doubt that these people really did the crime. Otherwise, I'm fine with just having the sorry bastard rot in prison for the rest of his life. It is cheaper that way, though I do agree that they should make prison sentences harsher. This day and age, a lot of people aren't really afraid of being in jail anymore. I think they should be. If they are, then there would be a greater chance of the crimes not being committed in the first place.

[Maikeru]

Im conservitave but im against it. No one has the right to take the life of another human thats god's role not ours. In war times and such when your in combat quick and painless.

[PsygnosDoraemon]

I've always been with the use of Capital Punishment. One time my study skills teacher once responded to the use of death penalty that "it should be used only if the criminal does an heinous crime, like raping a woman and killing her after." With a statement like that, I would agree. I mean if the man killed just one person, he needs to just be in bars for maybe as long as he lives, but if he killed at least 12 or more people in his history, then it's the injection or whatever method still legal for him.