Category: Let's talk
What do you guys think aboat it eh? For me its hard to say. I believe it is sad for the families of the loved ones being put to death, but good for the victum's families. I totally disagree with the way that it is done in the States though. If they are sure the person committed the crime, then maybe they should be killed, but I think it is harder to live in prison than to just be put to sleep. Its an easy way out in my view.
This is one thing, I believe, that America actually does right. I'm so sick of these harsh serial killers simply getting to spend their lives in prison. Why should anyone, especially the victim's family/s, have to pay for them to stay alive? If anything, I think the real gladiators should be brought back. Let them fight for the right to live and let the government take money from the tickets to lighten the load of taxes. I think that if the murder was on purpose and it should be proven that this is the person who did it, that he/she should be executed immediately. The exceptions are accidental killings, i.e. someone got into a car accident because the roads were slippery, and just ones, i.e. someone killed the person who raped her daughter etc. I think those should be let go entirely, and if necessary, be made to seek profesional help. Some might say it starts a cycle but I don't agree. You do this to me/my family or loved one, I do it to you and we're done. I don't believe in dragging the children and family of the guilty party into any of this. But back to the main point, I think America has become soft on how they administer the death penalty. What is this putting to sleep bullshit? This person went out and viciously murdered someone. Why is he allowed to simply go to sleep? I believe in hanging, the electric chair and the firijng squad.
Now here's an interesting twist, harvesting the organs of death row inmates so that others could live. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONsEpfeZ3nI The results can be quite dramatic when it's thought abut like that. I love the idea.
evident from extentsive research done in america show that, it is more expendsive to put someone to sleep, than having them imprison for he lifetime. it cost $100000 for the execution to take place, refer summarry article as below...
In 2003, the state of Florida paid $150 to the executioner:
$20 for the last meal, $150 for a new suit for the inmate's burial, and $525 for the undertaker's services and a coffin.
The total direct cost is less than $1,000. While the execution of an inmate is quick and simple; the capital punishment system is far more complex. To resolve issues of unconstitutionality that the Supreme Court found in Furman, the US states introduced a complex appeals process that guarantees the rights of death row inmates. Capital trials are much more expensive to carry out than non capital trials.
Evidence gathering is also more expensive: evidence must be collected to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused but also to support or contradict a sentence of death.All sentences of death face a mandatory review by the state supreme court, at a cost of at least $70,000-$100,000. Elf a case advances further in the state or federal appeals process, the costs are likely to jump to $275,000-$300,000 or more for each appeal. Appeals of a death sentence mean great expense to the taxpayer, as the state pays to defend and to prosecute death row inmates. Public defenders in these appeals admit that their goal is delay. Prosecutors and state attorneys slow the process by fighting access to public records and allowing death row defendants to sweat out their cases until the last minute. Cases usually require expensive appeals, retrials, new witnesses, extra security for inmate, etc. Also a 15-20 year appeal process Estimated that Florida pays $51million more to execute people than imprison them without parole. North Carolina put 43 people to death 1976-2008 at a cost of $2.16 million per execution
California executed 13 people since 1976 for a total of about $250 million per execution
California's death row system costs $137 million per year to run
Source: Death Penalty Information Centre, reported in the New York Times 29/9/2009
The government should not have to pay for any funeral expenses or for appeals. That should all be the inmate's problem, or at best, done by a nongovernmental charity. If firing squads and hangings were used, then the executions shouldn't cost that much.
I have to agree with Tiffanitsa on this. I know it sounds harsh, but being put to sleep is too soft. If there is no doubt that the person in question committed the murder, I definitely believe in a slow and painful death, and I think the victim's family should be allowed to watch the execution if they want to. Sometimes the old fashion way of justice is the way to go. I think the justice system is too soft on criminals these days. In prison, you get three meals a day, shelter, and a bed to sleep on for free. How is that worse than a painful death? Of course, it is probably worse than the lethal injection used these days.
So glad to see that I'm not the only one who feels this way. And when you think about it, soeone could, in theory, kill just to get those three meals a day, that roof and that bed. I wouldn't be surprised if it's happened, someone who feels that they're an utter failure at life, who can't find a job etc, just deciding that they'd be better in there than out here with the rest of the world.
its absolutely against the human rights to use firing squads and hangings regardless of what. every human have a life, therefore they have the right to live. of course, this is pretty much debatable, considering what kind of chrime they commited in order for them to recieve death panelty.
the whole idea of put them in to sleep instead of using all these crual methods such as firing squads and hangings is to reduce the suffering time to the least.
also, don't forget, there're people that recieve death panelty who's absolute innocent with whatever they acuse of. in fact, there're a large number of cases in death row USA who's waiting for the death panelty to take place are innocent. and that could be one of the reason why it is a dratful process. going thru all the appeals and those.
Yeah, but think aboat it eh? If they are proven guilty, for murder by strangling someone, in my view they should have the same done to them right? An eye for an eye? Just my view though. I do not like those who hurt others much less kill unless it is neccisary for self defense.
Well, this is why I only think the execution should be carried out if there is no doubt whatsoever that the person committed this crime. As much as the criminal has rights, so does the victim, and his or her family. If someone murders someone, they are violating his or her right to life. Is it fair that the criminal should be able to have their right respected when they took another's right away from them?
I'm not sure if this is already the case, because I don't really know the death penalty laws, but I only think it should be used in cases of first degree murder, and no others.
I think there are many things that I don't like about the death penalty. Such as the fact that the considerable majority of people put to death are black, or the fact that in spite of what many people think, it is not a cost effective way of administering justice but in the end the question for me is far more simple than that. I don't understand how we as human beings can justify killing other human beings. Because like the fact or not, that is what you guy's are doing.
Now I accept that if one person has murdered another person then clearly they need to be punished for that crime. However, I absolutely don't agree that that punishment should be state sanctioned murder. That actually makes no sense to me morally or intellectually. I suppose what I really don't understand is how you believing that killing somebody for the crime of murder makes you any better than the person committing the original offense. Taking a life is taking a life and state permission would seem to me to be completely besides the point. You can't have conditional murder. Murder doesn't suddenly become less of a murder just because you've committed murder, have been found guilty of it and sentenced to death so the state says it's alright. If you put that person to death, you've killed them. Committed exactly the same crime as they did.
Killing is either wrong or it isn't. If you do consider it wrong then surely you shouldn't do it. If you don't consider it wrong then how can you punish people for it?
Dan.
You have a great point there. It does sort of seem silly to commit the same crime as the criminal. I've never thought of it like that before. THanks for bringing that into this.
oh god, once again, I can see both sides of this issue. Criminals who have been proven without a shadow of a doubt that they did the dirty deed should be killed. If I'd been the doctor who had to treat the man who murdered all those service personnel in Texas, sorry, but an unfortunate accident would have happened. "Oh gosh amighty did I knock that plug to the respirator out of the wall? shame shame on clumsy ol;' me."
since DNA has been refined, it has come out that some surprising number of criminals have been wrongfully incarcerated. I mean like over five percent or something. So, before the death penalty is enacted, we'd better be darned sure that the persona is the right guy.
To those who wish to return to electric chair or firing squad:
First I do support the death penalty, and that also means for people who frame innocent people ... now that might be a good safeguard.
However, you all forget there are real human beings who have to carry out this process. Using a more humane method is far more considerate to the penal staff and executioner than some of the more barbaric means mentioned. Plus, the goal is termination, aka snuffing it. It isn't really justice, because these crimes are often so heinous they literally cannot be paid for. There is no real capacity for "eye for eye" retribution, as this person has not only injured or killed the victim, but instilled fear and torment into the victim's family. And now said family is dragged around by alleged victims' rights groups, from court date to court date, sometimes put up on TV as crusaders, and dropped like a hot rock once the ultimate act is carried out, or the sentence is commuted.
When prosecutors and police are careless and frame the wrong guy, not only are they getting an innocent man killed, but they are ensuring the guilty may continue his activities. Society ought to be paying attention to this. How would you feel if your house were ablaze, and the firetrucks came only to start spraying the house across the street? That is how we ought to be thinking when they profile or frame the wrong person.
Profiling generally is a lazy effort anyway, little more than masked incompetence.
However, I wouldn't ask that penal staff make it harder on themselves than is necessary to extinguish life on the subject / condemned. Besides, crueler methods usually mean more time in courts, more justifications needed. I do think executioners need to be compensated more. They, like forensics people, or homicide detectives, have particular job hazards associated with their employment related to post-traumatic stress, I think it's called.
The needle is the safest mechanism, and least ghoulish for the penal staff required to carry it out and clean up afterwards. There are a lot more people here to consider than just the perp.
I think it's far worse to allow this person to live when they've taken the life of another than to simply kill them. I can't possibly understand, except in the case where there's some doubt involved, how it would be better to let them live and drain the tax payers money. And think about it. If someone killed your child, your lover etc. how would you feel knowing that your money is going to keep the killer of your loved-one alive? Executions wouldn't cost so much if they stuck to the basics and stopped being so "humane" to people who don't deserve it. If you think of them purely as murderers, as subhumans, as people who deserve to die because of their horrible actions, it shouldn't be that difficult to do. And if we're really worried about that, then we should do as they used to, stick them in dungeons, or their modern equivalants, and simply let them starve to death, particularly if the murder that they committed was grusome. That way, you didn't directly kill them, the elements did and you're only dealing with a body and not someone fighting for life. Sadly, this is how they euthanise people and get away with saying it wasn't euthanasia. Now in those cases, I do feel that an active part should be taken to insure that the person suffering has the most humane death possible. After all, they're sick and didn't harm anyone. They just want to be out of pain, vegitative state etc. But back to the death penalty, I still like my original idea of gladiators. *smile* Good all around. Let the survivers clean up after the dead.
agree with poster 11 totally. in fact, if you look at the evidents, the best way for the victoms' family and love one to move on is not because their love on got kill, they expect the killer got kill too.
the whole expect of death panelty is against the human rights. yes, we can't deny that people who kill others shall be punish, but isn't it better to have a lifetime punish/struggle for them than a breave struggle who perhaps less than 10minutes, and that breave moment could involve no pain.
So put them in work camps or make them indentured servants i.e. with no pay or with only enough to survive hand to mouth. If they absolutely must live, then let them work and suffer.
I agree. I don't even think it should be called the death penalty. We're all gonna die sooner or later, so it ought to be called the Early Death Penalty. And I support it wholeheartedly. If you kill someone knowingly and deliberately you die, the exception of course being if it's proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was only in self-defense. And I agree. Bring out the firing squad or stuff the son of a bitch in the chair and hit the switch. And I don't even think only murderers should get the death penalty. Certainly the man who kidnapped, tortured and brainwashed Jaycee Dugard should get it, him and his wife as well since I have no doubt she was a willing party or she would have done something to set things right while he was away sometime. But I agree. None of this humane bullshit, especially for shall we say, the more grizzly murders. I mean if there's doubt that a particular person committed a particular crime then yes, hold them until an investigation either exonerates them or proves beyond all doubt that they were responsible. And if they were than as they used to say, roll on two.
I'm definitely in agreement with those who're for the death penalty. as a victim of a heinous crime, I don't want the person who committed it to live. I'm also in agreement that putting the criminals to sleep is way too soft. they're there for a reason, why the hell should we treat them nicely after what they've done?
I agree, but if we went back to the old ways and brought back the Gladiators, which I must say is a very intriguing notion, Human RIghts activists and religious fanatics would be up in arms. And it seems to me that people like that have enormous power in politics these days. Craposition eight anyone?
this is truly wonderful. Glad there are people who feel so strongly about this and who haven't been tainted by this rights crap that, while true for almost all people, isn't once you commit a crime like that. True that the human rights and religious fanatics will go nuts, but they go nuts anyway. *smile* To fighter of love and life, I pray that whomever committed that crime against you gets his/her just punishment. First time I've heard from an actual victim on this issue and glad that you support us. I also agree that there are instances which don't involve murder in which the death penalty should be used.
Yeah. Philip what's-his-face who kidnapped Jaycee Dugard. As I said in the associated topic I think the prison officials should hand him and his wife over to their fellow inmates so they can deal with them for us and save us all money that would otherwise be wasted giving them life they don't deserve.
Ooh! I like that idea!
V
Tiffanitsa,
I agree with you all the way!
Good posts!
BryanP22,
Amen on that one!
Well thankyou. Thankyouverymuch. LOL. Seriously though, I'm all for being absolutely sure you've got the right person when it comes to crime, but I don't agree with all this human rights crap. I mean if someone kills someone accidentally or in self-defense that's one thing. Sometimes that happens. But when you kill someone knowingly and deliberately just for the fun of it, or even if you don't kill them but torture them in any way, particularly like what Jaycee Dugard went through, as far as I'm concerned you forfeit any rights you might have claimed up to then. It's like I said before. If you're not 100% sure you've got your man or woman, wait until an investigation either exonerates them or proves their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And if they're guilty, then roll on two I say. None of this burocratic bullshit. Personally I feel that if you torture and kill someone with a chainsaw or a power drill you should get the same, for as long as you gave it to them, and that goes for any crime of that nature. You can spend your last moments, hours or days of life feeling what you did to your last victim.
Amen to that!
I do see both sides of the argument, the other side being the the death penalty makes the person who carried it out a killer too, but think of the motive. I don't think people would work as an executioner if they couldn't handle killing someone, and not an innocent person either. The criminal is not being killed because of the thoughtless actions of another criminal to an innocent victim, but that he or she is being killed because of his or her own intentionally murderous actions against an innocent victim. This is why I strongly believe that the death penalty should only be considered in a case of first degree murder. It should not even be voiced as a possibility in cases of second degree murder, and manslaughter, and should only be given if there is no shadow of a doubt that the criminal is guilty of the crime. If one jurrer is swayed in the other direction, No go.
I wonder what all those who've posted on here would think if it were one of their own loved ones with the death sentence hanging over their head.
For those of you who aren't mothers or fathers but will be in the future, what if the criminal were your own son? Or what if the criminal were your own brother? Your own husband? Your father? Would your opinion still be the same? What if it were the state that was against your loved one, saying kill the bastard, fry him, hang him, his life is worthless he deserves to die?
How would you feel?
It's so easy to say kill, an eye for an eye, as long as it's not touching you personally.
If televised or publicized executions were allowed I wonder if any of you on here would have the stomach to watch.
I love the way that you guy's qualify your statements by saying that capital punishment is perfectly justified so long as the accused has definitely committed the crime. However, in English law, and I'm presuming that American law works on a similar bases, a jury only has to be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and not of absolute guilt. Semantics for sure but actually it is an important distinction because it is the difference between being sure of something, and knowing for absolute certain. So already your blase desire for unrestricted blood letting is on shaky ground and that's just based on the things you're saying because in law, there is no absolutes, there is only reasonable doubt. So be very clear on this point. The law of the land doesn't impose the qualifiers that you all do. Juries only have to be sure somebody has committed a crime, they don't have to know it for certain. It doesn't matter what you believe should happen, that's fantasy, this is what does happen. This is how the law works.
So I'm curious to know with all that taken into account how you lot feel about miss carriages of justice? What happens when a person is wrongly found guilty of a crime in a case where capital punishment is the ultimate sentence? How do you feel in those cases where a human being has been put to death, and then later has been exonerated of his or her crimes? Don't say that it doesn't happen, or can't happen, because it has happened. You needn't take my word for it either, feel free to look up the cases of "Timothy Evans", "Mahmood Hussein Mattan" and "Derek Bentley". All three men were posthumously granted pardons having already been executed. Those examples are all from the United Kingdom where we no longer have the death penalty. I'm sure there are many more examples should you care to start digging into American history.
Of course had these men been found guilty and imprisoned they still would have spent a considerable length of time behind bars unjustly, but of course the big difference between life imprisonment and death, is that you can give a person their life back with the former. Not so with the latter. In fact, all you can do when somebody has been wrongly put to death is say, "Oops sorry. We got that one wrong didn't we?" Some comfort to the families I'm sure.
Still, what's a few accidental state sanctioned murders when measured against all that good feeling derived from injecting a total bastard with a deadly concoction, or the exhilarating thrill of watching somebody bouncing around like an out-of-control puppet as they're toasted in an electric chair. Yep, it is definitely something to feel proud of when we, as human beings in the 21st century of enlightenment, still aren't able to look beyond our own primal need for vengeance.
Dan.
If it was a loved one I'd be devistated to find someone so cruel within my personal circle. If it were proven that he/she did these things, I'd side with the family of the victim, unless, as I said, it was for a good reason like revenge over rape or personal injury etc. As for watching it on tv in general I might. Not sure, but knowing who these people are, I could probably remain emotionally detatched.
Okay I can't pass this topic by any longer.
I think if someone kills others and you have the killer put to death, you are no better than that killer. Your not punishing anyone...you're making yourself feel better. And if giving someone the death penalty makes you feel better then you are sick.
It seems that most people don't know how to separate justice from revenge.
Justice should be given in equal measure. Simply putting a killer in prison isn't equal to what they've done at all. At least, with executing, he/she and his/her victims are no longer living. Why should he/she be able to enjoy any pleasure in life after committing such horrible crimes? And even if it were revenge, it's just, so what's wrong with that?
We've answered that question twice already Tiffanitsa. Your belief that a killer should be killed means that you're driven by the same base instinct as the killer. In essence we're asking how you feel that you can be considered a better human being than this person if you're governed by exactly the same desires. You apparently believe on some level that killing is right. From the things you've written thus far in this thread it is hard not to come away with the impression that you would in fact derive pleasure from the taking of another human beings life. Sure you place conditions on those statements to validate those beliefs, which is actually ironic when you think about it because you only do that knowing that killing is wrong in the first place, but you do it never the less. The question we're posing really isn't a difficult one. You acknowledge that killing is wrong, so how can you justify killing.
How can you sit at your keyboard and tell us that people who murder other people are subhuman, but then in the next sentence declare that it is absolutely right that those people should be put to death. It is a fundamentally flawed argument.
As I wrote as early as post 11 in this thread, "Killing is either wrong or it isn't. If you do consider it wrong then surely you shouldn't do it. If you don't consider it wrong then how can you punish
people for it?"
Dan.
There is a difference between killing someone innocent and killing someone guilty. the first is a crime and the second is a punishment. It would certainly be wrong if I were to just walk down the street and randomly kill someone. But if I were executing a guilty person, who, as we've already said, has forphitted their rights as human beings, it is not wrong. Look at it this way. If someone kills a dog out of meanness, he/she will mostly likely go to prison or pay a very huge fine. But if a dog attacks a human being or is rendered completely unfit to work either as a pet or as a service animal, he/she's put down. If you agree that all killing is wrong, then what is your opinion on this? If one is okay but the other isn't, then why? Granted, the dog didn't necessarily know what he/she was doing, and in humans, we must draw a line there. But the question still stands. Also, if we didn't humanely euthanise these animals, the pounds would overflow with them to the point where they would be unmanageable. The same thing could very well happen in human prisons. And think about the money that's used to try and reform these killers, child rapists etc. that could be used to help other less serious offenders, not to mention the money it takes to feed and house them that could be put to far better use, particularly if they receive life in prison sentences. If they did get out on parole, who's to say that they couldn't do these things again, thereby hurting another innocent family?
Well put Dan. Tif, forgive me, but your logic is wildly flawed. It is ignorant to say an eye for an eye if you don't wish to loose an eye in the first place.
If killing is wrong, then exicution is as well.
Okay, then. If we can't kill them, they should at least be put away somewhere very uncomfortable, where he or she doesn't have the pleasure of free, somewhat comfortable shelter, brought to so willingly by tax payers' money. What if someone who is seriously impoverished kills an innocent person just because they have nothing to lose, and will therefore be gaining something by living the rest of their lives behind bars, but nevertheless cared for.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for bringing that up. Okay, I could go with you. Banish them to an island, where the only company they'd have is themselves and the guards. If anyone's seen I, Claudius, you'll know what I mean. The trouble there is that there are only so many islands in the world like that and too many murderers who'd need them. You could also subject them to extremely harsh work conditions with long hours. that should help to deter future killers. There are at least one or two prisons in the U.S. that are still this way and I commend them for it.
So what do you propose we do? I hate to say it...because it's the truth...and we hate the truth today. It is riddled with political incorrectatude, but criminals are also members of the human race. Isn't that shocking. You grew up thinking that there is some sort of food chain and you were higher up on it. Now I'm telling you that you'r not. Well bring out the tissues cause I've got more truth on the way!
We actually do not have the right to decide another person's fate. Well now you are thinking "Say now...what sort of thinking is that?" This is the real world boys and girls and we need to be mindful of that.
They gave that all up when they chose to, as you said, choose someone else's fate. Actually, we do have the right to do that in appropriate circumstances. this has been demonstrated again and again throughout history. Most cultures have or have had some form of the death penalty in them. Also, most have war. Surely, war chooses people's fait, and yet, it can't be denied that there are some cases in which it's very necessary. If someone comes and invades your country or your city, you're not going to invite them to tea or throw all of them in prison. They've got weapons and are ready to kill you. So you must kill them. Well, here, this person has chosen to kill someone innocent, just as your city or country would be in this situation, and the victim had no means of defence. So what makes war right and this wrong? We're merely doing what the victim couldn't.
I suppose that's where we're always just going to disagree Tiffanitsa because I don't discern a difference. I don't agree with the attitude that we can justify the taking of a life based on innocence or guilt. To me killing is killing, no matter who is doing the killing or for what reason.
Incidentally I notice that you have completely neglected to comment on any of the other points raised against capital punishment. The racial bi as for example. In the United States approximately 41% of all death row inmates are African American of which about 34% of those will go on to be executed. Yet they only make up 12% of the over all population. Even more worrying is that of all people that have ever been executed, a completely disproportionate 80% have been given the ultimate punishment for crimes against white victims. Is it right that being black makes you far more likely to end up on death row than a white person for exactly the same crime? Is it right that killing a non white is far more likely to get you prison time than it is to land you on death row? It's no good simply saying this shouldn't happen, the fact is this is what does happen. You've completely disregarded the question raised in post 29 where I asked how you'd feel about people wrongly being put to death. Do you feel that these are just things that will happen from time to time and that a few innocent executees among the bunch is an acceptable loss? You haven't answered the question of cost effectiveness other than to say that this is how things should be done. However, what you think should be done hardly deals with the issue of how things are being done. Fact of the matter is, like it or not, putting somebody to death is an extremely costly exorcise. You haven't yet told me whether or not you're completely happy with the fact that proof of guilt only has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Again you have said how you feel things should be done, but again I reiterate, what you feel should happen isn't really relevant it's what does happen that matters. Are you comfortable with a system that executes people based not on whether or not they did commit a murder, but on whether or not it is most likely that they did?
They're all valid points and I haven't yet heard any of you come up with good answers to them. Instead we get some nonsense about death row inmates battling it out like gladiators. I mean really.
Dan.
I can't answer the question on race without the proper knowledge. If blacks are more likely to kill, then despite them being only 12% of the population, then it makes sense that so many of them are on death row. However, if, as you said, white people get away with the same crimes without being put there, this is wrong as is the killing of only whites being punished. For me, I don't care if you're black, white or even Greek. You deserve the same punishment. The fact that it doesn't happen that way is no reason to abandon it but it should make people think and examine the situation a bit more closely. As for those who have been wrongly accused, like several others have said, I strongly believe that there needs to be a very serious case against the individual. If there's anything that brings up reasonable doubt (and I mean real doubt, not money being stuffed into someone's pocket or celebrity status being used as a shield, both as in the case of OJ Simpson) then the execution should not take place. It truly upsets me when innocent people are executed, of course, but if, based on all the evidence, the jury and judge honestly did believe that they were guilty, I can't really say anything, nor do I think this is justification to abandon the practice. as for the cost, I've already stated that the government shouldn't pay for funeral expenses etc. While the electric chair is indeed expensive, some of the other methods listed shouldn't cause as much of a monitory hardship.
So Tiff, you are operating under the philosophy that the system works. Yes, I know others like that. We're just going to go around in a big circle because we are at totally separate ends of the spectrum. I still maintain that the death penalty is wrong.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I firmly support the death penalty under certain circumstances, murder being one of them. A person who just kidnaps and murders someone out of the blue, that's an unprovoked incident. When you cimmit that sort of crime as far as I'm concerned you forfeit your rights. Put them in the chair or in front of the firing squad.
Well we all have our opinions.
I don't think so many people would be so gung-ho about the death penalty if they felt prisoners were actually paying for the crimes they committed. On today's prisons, as others have said here, you get everything you need, and counseling. Counseling? What about psychopaths, who will never feel remorse anyway? What about people with an extreme ability to fake remorse just so their sentence will be lighter? If the person is really mentally unbalanced, and this has been proven, then they should not be in prison but in some kind of high security hospital or treatment center. After they complete their treatment they should still be put on parole for awhile depending on the nature of their crime. But to let prisoners have all these luxuries they may not have had before they were arrested is bullshit. If people are going to go to prison, they need to feel like they're being punished. The thing about a person who's in prison for a long time is that, even if they do get out, they may not remember how to inteegrate into normal society again. If any of you guys have seen the movie Sling Blade, you'll know that the main character, who's mentall challenged, spends most of his life in a mental institution, then is released for awhile but when pressures get to be too much for him he kills someone so he can go back. Granted this is fiction, and if you've seen the movie you'll know that the person he killed definitely deserved it, but still, I'm sure there are more situations like that in real life than we care to think about. That's what makes people so angry to the point where they feel the death penalty should be used, at least it's the reason for me and a few others I know. So do I believe in the death penalty? In our current justice system, yes. I believe murderers sitting around in a cell, but being relatively safe, while having 3 meals and a place to sleep, their only worry being dropping the soap, is just not enough. If the prison system was reformed, I would say sure, eliminate the death penalty, but until that day I'll support it because it's the only punishment that's harsh enough for murderers. Like someone else said, I only think it should be used for first-degree murderers, and you know what? As much as some of you are saying putting an innocent person to death is wrong (which it most certainly is), it's even more wrong to subject them to 60 years in prison and then say, "oh, our bad, we were wrong. You're free now." This goes back to the devastating psychological effect an experience like this would have. There's NO WAY a person who is probably convinced of guilt they really don't own at that point is going to be able to live a normal and productive life after they get out. And what about the effect it would have on their families? Having to go see them, knowing that person is innocent but being helpless to change a flawed system? having their children ask "Why is Daddy in prison?" And what would a parent say? It's a fucked up situation any way you slice it.
What utter utter rubbish. I can think of several high profile cases down the years where people have been wrongly convicted of things and as a result have spent considerable chunks of their lives in prison. I've listened to television and radio interviews with these people too in some instances and do you know the one thing I've never heard any one of them say, not a single one? I've never heard them say "damn though, I really wish they'd just put me to death instead of locking me up for all those years". Come to think of it, I've never heard a single one of them say that they wish that they'd never had their sentences repealed and that they'd rather have just spent the rest of their lives rotting in a prison sell instead of being given their freedom back. What complete tosh.
You honestly think that any human being would rather be put to death than spend time behind bars and have a chance of exoneration and a life later on? I have to say that sounds like one of the most delusional things I've ever heard. I mean if that's what you have to tell yourself in order to justify unjust killing then so be it I suppose. But don't try and peddle it as fact, because honestly, it isn't.
Dan.
I love your thoughts on this screaming_turtle. Most of them have never occurred to me but you're right. How can you take decades of a person's life away from them and then expect them to rejoin society and simply pick up where they left off? Okay, they might have some kind of life but I could easily see how someone who was originally innocent could commit a crime to return to what's been there home for 30 years or more. Depending on the age of the person, he/she may be too old to work, so how would he/she even live? What about minors who go to prison? They've never really had a chance to start their life so prison is about all they know. Sure, they have time ahead of them, but don't you think that something this traumatic and horrible has scarred them?
As far as finding a person guilty when they were, in fact, innocent is a flaw of something that went wrong in the trial, not with death row. I really respect Screaming Turtle's argument in this topic. Yes, I won't deny that it is a horrible tragedy to put an innocent person to death while the real criminal is living freely somewhere, but it is also horrible to keep an innocent person in prison. Even if they are later found innocent, part of that history will stay with them forever. Is this better than dying? Well, that is one question that will never produce a unified answer.
totally agree with Dan.
for those that is interested, please kindly look at some of the vedeo on youtube, that have useful information, instead of believe blindly on what they believe without evidents... some of the useful vedeo as follow... and there're more vedeos that have good information/evidents.
we're living in a scientific world, show some useful solert evident to support your arguement, not only with what you blindly believe because what, he, or she said or suggeest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5bO7CQqD9w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CE8O7ALe60
note: both provide some background of the death row, and chrime that they don't commit.
Many people tend to state personal convictions rather than actual facts. What a shame that is.
In reguards to video 1:
I'm not sure how this video is possibly against the death penalty. Fifteen years on death row is a little much, I will admit, but is theis a flaw of the death penalty? No. It is yet another flaw with the trial. Apparently the DNA wasn't a match? Well, in that case, the detectives and the district attorney are to blame for this. Besides, there is no proof in that video that this man deserved to be free. The only evidence was his word against other people's, apart from the DNA mismatch.
What you fail to include in your arguments is how this is a flaw of the death penalty itself. I will say this for you: Fifteen years or sometimes more on death row is not a fun time to go through, and perhaps there needs to be a change here. I will also say that later finding previously guilty criminals innocent many hears down the road is also a serious flaw with the justice system, but I would still like to see some solid, persuasive arguments against the following two points:
1. Wrongly accused victims being imprisoned for years longer than they should have is not a direct flaw of the death penalty, but of the part of the district attorney during the trial.
2. Although it is clear that it is a human right to be able to live, a murderer takes this right away from someone else. How is it fair that he or she should be able to maintain this right when it was their actions that caused another person to lose that?
Huge hugs to you for this. Very good thinking. I'd be interested to see what those against it have to say. *smile*
I still maintain that such a basic human right cannot be waved or taken away reguardless of the actions of the indevidual.
The problems involved in Capital punishment is too serious and complex a subject that I doubt it can be summed up in those two points you bring up. You left out the jury, eye witness testimony, along with a list of so many other factors nobody here can name.
My opinion on the death penalty changes with each case I become familiar with; for me there's really no way of conscientiously deciding the fate of someone's life - it would have to be done in a blind rage or in the heat of the moment.
It sometimes seems to me that long ago society learned to overlook or became so desensitized to killing innocent men by capital punishment that they forgot how to distinguish between the life value of victims of this system and the guilty. Let's keep the bastards coming into death row, keep killing them and if a few innocent fools get killed too bad, we're appeasing society's bloodthirst. I guess somewhere along the way we stopped telling ourselves life is precious, we shouldn't allow a system to kill people as punishment, we need to think about the life of those who will accidentally be killed in the process. We stopped telling ourselves this and replaced it with the words that killer is worthless, I'm better than him, he deserves to die because he killed someone. Maybe once we reach this point we can overlook death in all its forms because we no longer see ourselves as equal with anybody.
Let's keep our death chambers open, 9 or 10 unfortunate victims we kill accidentally aren't worth banning the punishment we're meting out to these worthless animals.
Another thing is that capital punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, but come on be honest with yourselves, monsters who eat humans and commit other such savagery won't be deterred by a punishment that's far off and delayed; for them it's the thrill of the chase that keeps them going.
Again, people seem to think some higharchy exists...some food chain. Is this not laughable? I say "yes, it is laughable!"
OceanDream, you're confusing issues now. At no point did any of us say that the problem didn't lie with the trial. The point that I did make with regard to miscarriages of justice was simply that if you put somebody to death, you can't retract that. If you wrongly imprison somebody, you can at least partially right the wrong by returning the freedom that you took away.
The system of trial by jury isn't the debate here. We're asking humans to judge the actions of other humans by reviewing evidence submitted by yet more humans. Unfortunately some times that system is going to fail people. I'm really not sure that anything else can be done about that but as I say, that isn't the point anyway. My question is that if you accept that mistakes are going to be made, and surely you do accept that? Then how is it right to put people to death?
Around the world hundreds of people have been wrongly executed down the years and I hardly think you can justify that by saying, "Well it is not the system of capital punishment that is at fault but the trial that put those people in that terrible position". The simple fact is you've killed them, and that cannot be undone. You have killed somebody unjustly, and really, believing at the time that you were in the right doesn't actually make that any less of a murder. I'm sure most if not all murderers believed themselves to be in the right when they committed their crimes. That doesn't mean that they were right does it.
Dan.
Harp, I will admit, you do have a point there, and at this point, I can't come up with a valid argument for that. The fact of the matter is that like many other debated issues, there are facts and evidence to support either side of the argument, and the opinions can be just as extreme on either end.
While I personally do believe in the death penalty, I can't argue that there are definitely instances where it does seem unjust. However, as a general statement, I still believe that it is fair in extreme cases only.
As far as the issue about maintaining someone's right reguardless of what they did, I disagree, but I will admit that this is based only on my opinion.
OceanDream, the purpose to put up these vedeos simply let you see the side to another coint, not asking you to make matter complecated. from the very beginning till now, i dont think i say anything about agreeing or against death panerty. as an accademic, i simply put up the sources for you to make up your mind.
there's lots more to consider, before you can say "hey, i agree because that bastard kill someone therefore he should pay back by giving the life away". yes, this is very arguable, as with so many other points. but, look at country that doesn't have capital punnishment like Britain for example, do people commit more murder crimes because now they dont have capital punnishment? similarly, do united states crimers stop commiting murder crimes because capital punnishment around? the answer is no. they do what they do, and part of is we can draw by the psychology of crime, and part of it, well, there're so many internal and external factors contribute towards this.
and for those who agree blindly on others just because they look good, their arguement look great, think of your own point of view.
ps: the vedeo shows some expect to the death row and also trials as in general, how an so call "innocent man" can end up in dealth row, or in jaile, for crime that they claimed they didn't commit. for those who's interested, one of the vedeo was one of the study matirial for one of the very first year law subject
to answer a question previously posed by someone as to how I'd feel if it were a family member of mine, I'd be completely devistated to have some such person in my family.
Dan, although I support capital punishment, I have to give you plenty credit because you pose many great arguments, and do very well supporting them. You've given me a clear view of the other side of the argument, so thanks.
So yes, I support capital punishment because I think that anyone who can go as low as killing or excessively abusing people needs to be removed. If you're not gonna act like you have even a trace of a heart, then yours should no longer beat. Simple as that.
Now concerning killing people who did not commit the crime, I think that poligraph tests should be used more. No, they may not be as reliable as a condom, but at least it's another thing to help the case along, besides evidence, DNA, and opinion. I'd really like to see and hear about these used more often. Of course, these will not be pure evidence all of the time because, as Dan said, any system constructed by humans has flaws.
If I had a relative put on deathrow, I would be devastated. Not because the person is in my family, but because they are going to die sooner than they could have, and because of their supposed decision to hurt people. If I truly believed that they committed no crime, I'd be even more distraught.
I'll never agree with capital punishment for 3 reasons.
1. A state, government or country should never be able to commit legal murder. To me, and the rest of the western world who saw the light about the Death Penalty and got rid of it, it's purely obvious to me that killing the killer doesn't make murder wrong, it just supports it. Not only that, but the fact of the matter is, that killing the killer does not deter people from committing murders in the first place because if you ask anyone who has killed or tried to, they didn't think they'd ever get caught. To me, america and their death penalty policies are no better than thee third world and islamic countries that practice it still.
2. The death penalty is a hugely unfair system that discriminates against those who do not have money for good defense. If you have money and you brutally murder someone, and you have nothing and you commit the same brutal murder, the one with the money can afford a better lawyer, hell, a team of them to defend him and save him from the death penalty. However the one who has no money is given a public defender who isn't getting paid a lot for this case from the government, so feels he/she maybe doesn't have to work so hard on this case, especially since the guy is probably guilty anyway. There have been public defenders who have turned up to capital trials drunk or have slept through them, who have failed to raise objections when relevant, and just don't have the experience to defend a person who is facing the death penalty. Very few rich people have been executed in history.
Add to this the fact that no legal system is perfect, that corruption exists in the legal system and the police force, that police brutality is a fact, as we've all read about it in the news, makes me distrust this system completely with the lives of potentially innosent people.
In the state of Illinois, the governor stayed the execution of every death row inmate because of the number of people who had been found innocent of their crimes while they were awaiting execution. Most of these people weren't defended by lawyers, but by law students and journalists.
when that's happening, your legal system has a big problem and should in no way be put in charge of life and death.
3. A lot of southerners justify it with the old testimant and the ten commandments but religion shouldn't entre into it at all. No state should be run by it, and it should have nothing to do with the life or death of another, and those states are often the most corrupt of all, so a rich man definitely won't be sent to die, making them hypocritical.
Not only that, but if you want to justify your barbaric system with the bible, then you're totally ignoring what Jesus said in the New testimant about not taking an eye for an eye and not exchanging evil for evil.
If I was religiously inclined, I'd think the words of Jesus, the son of god, more important.
My feeling about death row is completely different from my feelings about capital punishment itself. Like everything else in the justice system, there should be a time limit. Leaving someone on death row for fifteen or twenty years is probably devastating. I think that if a convicted criminal is on death row for longer than a month, the sentence of death should be dropped, and the criminal should return to regular prison.
Speaking of prison, I don't know for certain whether this point is significant or not, but I will bring it up anyway: Many convicted criminals end up being murdered in prison by fellow inmates. Why? Well, I suppose only the inmates who did it can answer that, but if the justice system decides that life in prison is better than execution, shouldn't the activity of the inmates be more tightly controlled so behavior such as this doesn't happen?
OceanDream, again, we are not talking about the system put in place by the courts, we are talking about the moral issue...the idea of capital punishment. Death roe itself is a whole other matter.
For those of you who support it:
What if it were you? If you murdered someone would you say "okay, I deserve this." I doubt it.
I totally agree that religion should play no part in the court's decision, no matter whose religion it is. the idea of separation of church and state is one thing that I actually love about America, and one on which Greece seriously needs to work. I think it's also important to discuss the system when discussing the death penalty, at least a bit. You can have the most just law in te world, but if the people who are made to carry it out are unjust or corrupt, than justice will never be served. If it were me, it really depends on why I killed someone. If it was for a very good reason, then I would definitely appeal it. As I've said in previous posts, I do believe that just killings should not be punished with the death penalty, so this is a universal idea, not one that would simply apply to me. If I committed murder for a bad reason, with no good outcome or intention, then I'd have no choice but to submit to my fate. How could I say it's good for everyone else but not for me?
It's really difficult to say what I would do in that situation, because I've never been there. I could sit here now and say that I would accept my death, but if it happened, who's to say that I might not think differently.
For those of you who are against it, if a loved one was murdered, and you saw it happen, or knew someone who did, and this loved one was completely innocent, how would you want the murderer to be treated?
ah, but that means you have to justify what makes a just murder.
and who would do that?
the courts, obviously.
the fundimental fact about it is, is that rich people get a fairer deal than the poor, because they can hire the best lawyers.
that is what makes the legal system in the USA discriminatory. not just capital punishment, but the entire legal system.
if you're rich, you generally get away with crime, and if you do go to jail, you get pretty good treatment. but if you're poor, it's a totally different game.
Money talks, as they say.
Tiff, so you think if you kill for a "good reason" it's okay? What is a good reason to kill? I believe we've gone full circle.
as for your question Tiff, I'd want justice to be done, but I think my conviction is strong enough that I wouldn't start the cry for hanging, like so many people do, because I firmly do not believe it solves anything.
I would however want them to be imprisoned.
I would want that as well. People don't want to pay to keep someone in jaul...I have one thing to say:
You have a choice, pay your taxes or get locked up yourself.
this is what taxes should go to though.
I myself am in favour of a fair tax rate, but people who earn more should pay more, because they can afford it and the poorer people cannot.
taxes should be spent on things like jails, schools, hospitals, roads and defense.
not on anything stupid, as often is the case.
So that's what you'd tell someone who just lost a parent or a child? Sorry, either pay your taxes so that your mother's murderer could live or get locked up? How nice. To me, a just killing is one in response to a terrible crime. for example, if someone raped me or one of my dearest loved ones (castration could also work there if I didn't want to go into full murder), killing or severely harming one of my loved ones or endangering the wellfare of my country. By that, I don't mean simply saying that it sucks or is stupid, that you hate the politics etc. but having real power behind you and a true intent to harm the Hellenic Republic. I'd also have to have very little time in which to make the decision. Otherwise, I'd go to the proper authorities and inform them instead. While I could see how some might consider this unjust, I'd rather go to prison, or even get the death penalty for it than to have millions of people at risk, particularly when I could've prevented it and when the threat is either against the country I love or directed at her people in the diaspora. As for the people I love, I consider a threat to them a direct threat to me and would, as with the above situation, I'd do anything in order to keep them out of harm's way. This is especially true for my parents, my grandmother, my boyfriend and my brother.
But can any killing be just? This is not Playto's Greece, this is not Biblical times, this is America in the 21st century. Let's get with the program.
Yes, and one of the many the problems with America today is political correctness. It's made a mockery of the english language, caused people to cower in fear instead of being able to speak their minds, and has changed opinions on some very basic issues. Granted, there have always been people against the death penalty, and this is actually more of a problem in europe, but I can't help but thing that all these pc attitudes are to blame for at least some of it.
I agree about the p c atitudes but what I am talking about is morality.
indeed, Morality is the key here.
Tiff, people used to kill people for being gay, theiving adultarry, and a number of other crimes in the history of man kind.
we used to have a number of really choice ways of killing people to, and we used to do it publically and let little kids watch.
The catholic church used to torture and burn them.
history is full of man's barbaric ways of dealing with people they believe are wrong doers.
and legal systems were just as corrupt then as corrupt now.
capital punishment cannot run fairly, and should not be run, under the current conditions in the USA.
There is a big difference between killing someone because they've murdered or severely harmed someone, and because they follow a different religion than you, because they chose to love someone of the same sex or because they committed adultery. Those, certainly, should never fall under the death penalty and should never have been crimes in the first place. the only time I think adultery should be used in court is as a means to a divorce. Whom you love and whom you worship should always be your own business, so long as no one is being harmed. that said, I fully agree with public executions. For one thing, they'll keep people out of trouble, and for another, it's a good deterrent. It's one thing to hear on the news that someone received the death penalty and quite another to see it in action.
what, you believe in public executions where parents can bring their kids to watch?
now that is seriously sick.
my opinion is is that if one innocent man could be sentenced to death then the death penalty should never be an option.
and several innocent people have been found innocent after their deaths.
In the USA, one person was even sentenced to death when there were securety camera shots proving he was in a totally different place at that time.
if there is the possibility of an innocent man or woman dying, then it shouldn't be used.
I must admit I am a bit naucious.
You think public exicutions are okay? What the hell is the matter with you?
let's put capital punishment to the test by executing this board topic.
haha
I do think that there should be a reasonable age limit placed on who can view public executions. But overall, yes, I do think it's a good idea. Remember, i'm the same person who'd prefer gladiatorial combat over the death penalty in many cases, and that is certainly an item for public consumption where death is often involved.
Wow I don't understand your philosophy but...um okay.
Should criminals such as serial killers be studied rather than executed? What do you think?
Hmm, perhaps used as test subjects for drugs, cosmetics or some such. good idea!
I can understand why people would support the death penalty, and personally feel that the victim's family should decide the purportrator's punishment.
To play devil's advocate, however, people have been administering the death penalty for years, and people still commit crimes, you have to ask what a more effective way would be.
I think that people will always commit crimes of one sort or another. The question is what to do with them once they have, and of course, which way will make it less likely for people to do so. I think your's is one of the best ideas I've heard on the issue. Surely, the family or loved ones can make the right decision. But we run into a problem here. How should family be defined? For example, suppose that the person was a homosexual and that his/her lover wants to make the decision. If gay marriage isn't excepted by law, then he/she won't be considered family of the victim and the thoughts of those who are family by blood may differ from his/her's. Also, what happens if the victim has no family, if his/her family is in another country or if he/she wasn't even in contact with his/her family before the murder took place? Again, I think it's a great idea. I'd just be interested in seeing how it would turn out.
As a scientist I sort of like the idea of studying killers.
Wow, had to write a paper on this, and here's my take on it!
Capital punishment or the intentional and planned taking of a human life by a government in response to a crime committed by a convicted person is wrong. I feel that the government should not have that power to take someone’s life, no matter what the crime. I feel that life in prison without parole is a much superior punishment.
I suppose you could argue that it’s compensation for the family, but I could also argue that the defendant also has a family. You could argue that the defendant deserves to be punished that way, but who can really decide. Are we a country to uphold the view that to kill is wrong, and you punish that wrong by also killing? What sense if any, does that make?
There are also many risks to capital punishment. You could convict an innocent man, and he be punished for nothing. He’d be executed because of something he didn’t do. There’s always that possibility when dealing with capital punishment. I would think that it is very difficult to prove 100% that a man is guilty. There’s always a possibility of a mistake, so rather keep him in prison, and if there is a mistake, the government can compensate him, and let him go. But once a life is taken because of capital punishment, and there was a mistake, what then do you do? How does anyone live with that guilt? It’s not the families that suffer, it’s not just the deceased defendant that suffers, it also could be the prosecutioner and the jurors suffering from guilt, too.
Hell yeah Kia, you've hit the nail on the head of another good reason that capital punishment is barbaric and shouldn't be used.
people who are put to death are often the subject of a lot of media, and so their families get a lot of it too, and often they are treated poorluy by their communities because of the thing that the member of their family has done, but life imprisonment means that the media forget about it in time and get other things to focus on and the family members can live relatively free lives.
this doesn't make the death penalty itself immoral. If anything, it reflects the immorality or, at the very least, the manner in which society deals with capital punishment.
What we just did here is put another nail in the coffen. It further tells us how disgusting capital punishment is.
exactly.
I doubt that american society can be changed, people will always treat the families of murderers unkindly, and yes, I think that's wrong.
and Tiff, you haven't even addressed my point on innocent people being sent to death row.
that's like saying that we should stop doctors from prescribing medicine because, sometimes, they give the wrong ones to the patients with terrible consequences. Now here, they're honestly trying to do something which everyone will agree is a good thing, but something went wrong. So should we stop it because some very sad and unfortunate cases happened? In both cases, we're throwing out the baby with the bath water. And if you're going to bring up discrimination, remember that in the healthcare industry, the poor in America, including minorities, aren't treated as well as the rich. So again, should we stop it altogether because of some cases of discrimination? i say no. Things just need to be improved. Everyone who is sick needs to be treated equally and and those who are accused of a crime need to be given equal punishment, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation etc.
No that is not what we are saying at all. It seems you don't wish to face the morality issue...that is what we are dealing with here.
and the fact that, after you kill an innocent person, what are you supposed to do?
and this isn't just a few in every few hundred, in the last hundred years, america has executed several hundred of the innocent.
oh yeah, and the mentally ill.
the governor of illinois wouldn't have stayed all executions without good reason.
Again, that's corruption in the system. It doesn't mean that the death penalty itself is bad. It means that stricter control must be placed on it and on those who administer or rule in favour of it. As for the mentally ill, I am in favour of euthanasia for those who are severely ill to the point that they don't know who or where they are, can't take care of themselves, can't contribute to society etc. In the case of those who were healthy before, I think they should have a living will so that their wishes are met, even if it means keeping them alive, since they were of sound mind when they requested it. But in the case of those who are born that way and who have absolutely no chance of recovery, I think this is the most merciful thing to do.
I am in favor of yoothenasia if that person wants to die...but that's another issue.
The system is rotten mostly because the act itself is. Capital punishment should not even be considered today.
tifanitsa, it sounds like, you having an extreme arguements from most of us here. let me ask you something. if your beloved got caught one day, saying he commited a crime that he never commit, and you believe him that he never commit the chrime, will you have the same view?
do you think, capital punishment should happen to him, just because, "well, he's the unlucky one", out of the majority group?
and, if his exicution will take it in public, will you go and watch and support the exicuder because, as you put it, never mind the innocent, most important thing is we kill those who kill others, when you know truely, your beloved is innocent?
or, as you brought up another issue. let say, your beloved again, suddently have some kind of mental health issue, and they offer yoothenasia option to him because your suggestion got thru to the constutional laws, and they take your suggestion, so, everyone who have mental health issue in the states have the choice of yoothenasia, will you go for it, and say, ooh yay, my honeybun got mental health, now, i can kill him without any legality, and i can find someone new?
where is all the "morality" gone in both cases?
The euthanasia question is far easier than the one on the death penalty, so I'll answer it first. Yes, I'd definitely support it. If, prior to all of this, we'd talked about it and he'd agreed that he didn't want to live like that, I would certainly honour his wishes. As a matter of fact, to see him living in this kind of state would break my heart. It would rob him of his dignity, of his independence and of everything else imaginable except for the fact that his body would be alive. I'd also hope that he would do the same for me. I think I would do it even if we hadn't talked about it. Remember that, in this situation, he'd have no clue about anything. He'd basically be a vegetable and brain dead with absolutely no hope of recovery. A coma would be a bit different, and I'd probably give it a year or so to see how things turned out. Yes, I know that there are people who have woken up after 5, 10, even 16 years, but that's also not fair. What kind of life could they return to? Even someone in prison has had some kind of existance that they can remember. Finding someone knew wouldn't even be on my mind at that point because there would be alot of grieving, anger and hurt over the situation. Now as for him being innocent and executed. If I knew, beyond a shaddow of a doubt, that he was innocent, I would try to help him escape. If that failed, then there honestly wouldn't be anything that I could do. As much as it would hurt, yes, I would go to his execution, though of course, I would not side with the executioner. But I'd want the man I love to know that I was there for him, that he wasn't alone and that I still loved him no matter what.
No system in this world is without its flaws. That doesn't necessarily make the system unjust. For those that are on death row who are actually innocent, it is a terrible mistake on the part of the judge/jurrers, and I will admit, this is a very good argument for those who are against the death penalty. However, I still fail to understand how a life in a confined, but not uncomfortable prison cell is much of a punishment for those who were living with no roof over their heads, no food, and no water before going to jail.
Will the world ever be completely without crime?
Given as though I'm currently living in a country that actually has euthenasia, I'd like to state I support it in the most extreme cases, and only when the person has stated it in their wishes that it's what they want, and if there's good reason for it, if they ae terminally ill, for example.
Tiffanitsa, I consider myself a very liberal individual. I support abortian, gay marriage, euthenasia, but what you're saying is that people who are unable to decide should have it decided for them.
I can't think of a system that would be more open to corruption.
who would decide? loved ones or family? the people providing the care who might want to get rid of the burdon?
and you don't think systems like this would be corrupt?
you don't think people would try to abuse it to get old demented granddad put to sleep to get your hands on his money?
and it's just a very very small step from euthenasia for the mentally ill to doing it for people with severe disabilities...
and then another small step from that to people with lesser disabilities. people like you and me for example...
give me a free society where anyone can live any day.
well said swis griff. if euthenasia is in practice, and according to tifanitsa, when one aint capable to make decision the rest will make for them, this society will be full of nonsense, an the whole legal system, perhaps, will collabs to pieces. and by then, all the murder, wrape, and so on can consider is legal. because that person can't decide, i decide that is time to end it's life, and time to wrape it before i kill it. and because the law said so, for those who can't make up their mind, i can help them so, there i go. and i'm as free as a free soul can be.
And are we not deciding for them when we choose to keep them alive/ Supposing, for some strange reason, that they should wake up and be angry with us for leaving them in such a condition. Yes, I do think that loved ones should decide. All that said, I do see how it can become corrupt and how this can cause problems. Perhaps, in an effort to prevent people doing it just for money, the granting of said money can be postponed for two or three years, if it's a lrge sum. That way, while the person will get the money, it won't be right away, so they won't think of immediate gain and might, instead, be forced to think about the well-being and the wishes of their supposed loved one.
hahahahahahah. getting the money in 3 years is still better then getting it in 10 or more. you're honestly incredibly dim if you think there aren't people who will think like that.
Human beings are just too fond of money and shy away from burdons too much to allow them to make this decision.
indeed most wouldn't think like that, but it's enough to know that some would to stop me supporting such a system.
I am left wing, therefore I believe in taking care of everyone, not just the majority.
and therefore, I believe that every human life is precious, and if it's impossible for them to decide for themselves, it's best to be safe than allow the possibility of a family member motivated by things other than the person concerned to make the decision.
same as I believe that capital punishment shouldn't be used because of the innocent lives at risk.
and yes, I do believe that enough people have truely negative sideeffects to medication, that doctors should stop prescribing it. doctors prescribe all too much medication these sdays anyway, considering that viruses are now becoming immune to some of our strongest antibiotics because of over prescription.
Just because the majority of people who die on death row are guilty doesn't mean that the death penalty is right.
you can't take back an execution.
This is getting twisted.
You can't get back the life of an innocent victim either. I'm pretty sure that victim didn't ask to die.
I think what you're basically getting at is that two wrongs don't make a write.
the murder of an innocent person is wrong, but then again, the execution of an innocent person would also be wrong.
Yes, when I was just a child I remember learning about the difference between wrong and right. Well, death was on the no-no list.
I have to say, I've been quite enjoying one of the topics that The Time Keeper posted up here, called "What the world needs now is respect". In a way, it directly relates to this topic. In either instance, killing someone is certainly not showing respect for them. Having strongly supported that view on that topic, it would be wrong for me to come back here and say....kill the murderers. I can definitely see both sides of the argument, especially now that I've thought about it in greater detail.
To support the pro side of this argument, well, the criminal has now shown any respect either, so why respect those who have none themselves. At the same time, however, in the long run, I can see how killing them doesn't really accomplish anything, except to insure that person will never commit another crime such as that again. That's assuming, of course, that the person executed was the guilty one.
But 2 wrongs do not make a right. It's like kids:
"You took my toy so I'll break one of yours." Not acceptible.
as for my views on the death penalty, harp and kia and others against it, said it way better than i ever could. i agree with them.
Tiffanitsa, you flat out disgust me. i have a cousin who was born mentally retarded. she'll never contribute to society and all the other crap you spouted off in your post. that doesn't mean she should be murdered, because that is what it would be. no, she'll never be able to dress herself, have a job, walk or speak. but that doesn't mean she doesn't have feelings. she knows who her mom and other family members are. she is happy in the sun. she feels pain, happiness, sadness. just because she can't contribute to society as you put it, doesn't mean she doesn't deserve to live just like the rest of us. you really do have some seriously messed up views and thoughts. too bad they don't sell morals at walmart, you sure could use some.
and what happens when Mom and family die and she finds herself in some strange place with alot of people and doesn't know why? How can you explain that to someone who's that severely mentally dammaged? How do you tell them that their parents can't come back ever again cause they're dead and that they must now live in some kind of home etc. where they don't know anyone, where they may be abused, and where they can't speak out if they are because they don't know how? This is not purely a matter of economics or of society. It's not fair to the people involved either.
what, so you just put her to sleep like she's an old dog?
people are not fucking animals, tiffanitsa, no matter how you feel that some of them deserve to be treated like so, they are not animals to be treated like a drain on society, even if that is the case. people work to take care of such people because they know that they are people too. yeah there are some bad people in that industry, but most are good and caring loving human beings who believe that other human beings are deserving of what other people are deserving of.
If an animal gave birth to a baby that had defaults that would keep it from keeping up and so on, some would leave it to die, some would stay with it until it died and some would even kill it.
but, we are not animals, and that means we, who have the capacity to feel and to understand the consiquences of our actions should not act like animals.
Tifanitsa, regarding your arguement, can i kindly suggest you to watch a movie call "dance me to my song"? its a true storry by a person who lives with series of disability. that person herself actually write it, and guess what, it was presented an award in the Carnn firm festivel in France in 1997/1998. and you know what, your thinking remind me of her carer, who you will come to learn and love, in no time. also, ask your bf watch it with you, cause with it, he might able to give you some description who will help you.
also to all who interested, its a great movie. reflecting the struggle people with disability have, and what they can achieve regardless. its an Australian movie, South Australia to be exact. :)
As to Euthanasia, I think the living will serves the best interest possible: you decide ahead of time, being responsible and not leaving your family in a state where they are to make decisions.
As to death penalty, I can see what some of you all are saying regarding two wrongs make a right. My only defense for using the death penalty is prevention: not a deterrent, but prevention. If someone killed an innocent young woman, I think we have a duty to ensure this individual won't do such again. If he's in prison, there's always the chance he'll get out, then re-offend, then we have folks asking the hard but obvious question: Why, when we knew this guy would do this, could he get out?
I don't support revenge, and agree it's more the baser sort of thing, but extermination that prevents future people from becoming victims is the key. No, you can't bring the dead back; there's no restitution for murder. Whole families are victimized, and even the killer's own family is victimized; it's way to broad a scope to consider the restitution by one indivicual, even though the crime was committed by one. Cold as it sounds, I think humane extermination is the key: prevent future victimzations, now that we know this guy will commit this kind of crime.
But you all are right about all other first-world nations except Japan having no death penalty: Obviously it doesnt keep people from committing crimes, but perhaps in the U.S. anyway will prevent a known offender from becoming a victim factory.
tiffinisa, perhaps you need a dose of Euthanasia. it's not like you are contributing to society anyway...
I agree with Robozork. It shouldn't be about revenge, but about prevention.
I still have the potential to do so, and there's the difference. Good for Japan! Glad someone's thinking.
Tiff, I am trying hard to get close to you as a friend because...well, that is my nature...but you are showing me what a horrible human beeing you are. Hate to say that but...gr'r'r'r'r'r'rah!
I agree with Pippy.
Canada, the UK, Australia, in fact, most of the first world countries, barring a few like Switzerland, have, per capiter, comparably lower crime rates than the USA's crime rate.
and guess what, they don't kill people who commit crime!
If it was about prevention, then they could easily prevent it by locking people up for longer in prisons.
and the thing about people in prison, is that, most of them contribute to society.
unlike you, tiffanitsa, prisoners provide valuable labour, most of it is low paid, and a lot of the work is hard, work that not a lot of free people would want to do.
so they are actually, for the most part, important to the economy.
Treat people like animals and they will act as such.
don't know why everyone has to pick on a particular person. do you ever stop to think that makes you all just as low if not more so than you're saying Eleni is? just saying...
Hey, it's possible. I don't pick on people but I do let them know when they get under my skin.
she brings it upon herself.
when you have such radically different views to the majority, you can expect to have those radical views picked apart.
If she were actually capable of coming up with good sound reasons for all this, then I'd respect her more. I'd respect her more if she tried the economic stance, because at least there's grounds for that, but the crap she's spouting at the moment brings it all upon herself.
It says in my profile that I'm opinionated and a heavy debater, so deal.
Ah, but you assert she read your profile ... lol
Further proof that ignorance is no excuse where data exists.
no, but the warning is there, is what I'm getting at.
I'm more trying to make the point that if you express wildly different views to the majority, you can fully expect that majority to take you on.
Your point is right. If one is taking a minority stance, one can get resistance ... I was just foolingexpect to
I will say this:
The older I get, the more difficult it is to be nice. I vote we put this whole topic to bed as it causes trouble.
but I like trouble, that's just it.
and I like to point out to people who support the death penalty just how barbaric it is.
I firmly believe that humanity is not about killing one another, this means both for the murderer and the state.
I agree but we are just gonna go around and around in a big, angry, frustrating circle.
I did bring up the economic points, and how executing someone, without all the niceties, will save the government and the people money in the longrun.
That's nice for the economy but not for humanity. I wannted to stay out of this...but I just can't.
I agree. I think most or all of the valid points have been presented here. Now all we're going to do is toss them around like bath toys. If anyone has another point that hasn't already been made, I would love to read it!
I also agree and wasn't going to post yesterday. I only wanted to clarify that one point.
Guess it's winding down?
This is why I stopped arguing. I believe what I believe, but I admit that everybody who has posted here has a valid point to some degree, and what can I say now other than...I'm for it, but I can see why a lot of you are against it.
Sounds like the author of this topic wanted to start trouble...interesting to find that her account is disabled.
Anyone know why that is? She seemed like an okay person to me. A little different, but pleasant to talk to, in a way.
I was wondering the same thing. I never noticed any problems with her.
Neither did I, but then again, they never make banning a big public event or anything. I'm not complaining, but sometimes it's a bit of a shock, like in this case.
It's to bad...would have liked to have gotten to know her better...
I'm actually surprised that nobody created this topic earlier. She definitely got us thinking about quite a few things...
Yes and she stirred up the pot and brought out my dark side. I will miss her...even though she cursed me out in French that one time.
Actually, it wasn't you she was cursing. It was the site itself.
That is a relief.
I'm sure it is.
tiffanitsa, are you saying that the niceties, like appeals should be taken away?
like I said. it goes like this.
People on death row should be killed sooner, let's take away their right of appeal.
hey, people in prison have too many rights, let's take away their privelages.
hey, people in prison get 3 meals a day, that isn't fair, let's just give them one...
and so on.
If they're going to remain alive, they need to be subject to some form of punishment. This reminds me of a parent telling their child: Go to your room and stay there for awhile so you can think about what you've done. for a lot of kids, that is really no punishment, just as for a lot of criminals in prison, it is way better than their living conditions before hand.
I'm not sure about that...
drug addicts find it hard to get a fix, people getting raped all the time...I don't think it's better...
Okay, but do the guards honestly say, You're in prison now, so do whatever you want to punish your fellow inmates? The stuff that happens in prison is usually stuff that happens behind closed doors, and ends up getting noticed.
There's actually a few facilities, however, that I find quite useful. I mean, I'm not sure if they're real, but they're on TV, and since they have showed the location of such facilities, I am led to believe they are real.
If everybody could be helped by these sorts of places, then I would be against the death penalty, because everybody could be changed into someone good who would never repeat the crime. Problem solved. Unfortunately, not everybody is that easy to convince.
If it is clear and undeniable that the person is guilty, particularly if they show no remorse, then yes, the ability to appeal should be removed. They're only draining tax payers of their money and using excuses to stay alive when they know what they've done and it was done brutally. Prison is supposed to be harsh, not a hotel. Granted, I do think that those in for minor offences should be treated much kinder than those who've committed a serious crime. But I've heard of prisons where inmates were allowed to choose their meals, watch tv, including the latest movies, go to the gym, go online etc. I'm not sure of the work that they do but I know that it's not like it used to be in most cases. Some prisons have remained good but others have gone far too soft. As has been said here, I think this might motivate some people to do things so that they can get in and have a better living situation then they would out on the street. If prison life was made harsher, then these people, who may not even be bad but who may just be out of luck, might think differently before acting. If the crime isn't serious enough to warrant a life sentence, then I do believe in the possibility of rehabilitation. Sometimes, someone might commit a crime out of necessity, such as stealing food because he/she was hungry, and had no legal way of getting it. I'm very much against punishing these people severely, since food is a natural right. This is one of those instances where I think education and help is necessary. this is one of the reasons why I feel so strongly about socialised education, so that decent people don't wind up in the street, either because they make too much for government assistance or because they can't find a job without a higher education.
oh, prison guards know all about these things going on, but nothing really can be done about them...
I agree with you on the state of prisons, and I believe in punishment fitting the crime, but as a liberal and a humanitarian, I cannot support the idea of state sanctioned murder.
Eleny, what you're not getting is that people can believe that a person is guilty all they want, and they can still be wrong. Like Dan said much earlier in the thread, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Too, plenty of juries can be fooled in court by other officials tampering with evidence, which is a different topic.
And how do you all know that people who end up in prison have a higher standard of living than they did before? Do you know the socio-economic statistics of prison inmates? If so, let's see them!
perhaps some people watch too many unrealistic shows like prison break to suggest that one have a nice life to live in prison. with all the newer post, it does let me think, is someone better of on the street or better of on the prison. they might actually have a life in prison, perhaps get to retrain of some kind, and when they get out of the jaile, they might a brand new person again. however, if they on the street, they might never have the chance to renew again.
as someone origine from a country who does practice capital punishment (drug traficking) (with hanging), and personally visitted a prison muzeum years ago, i do believe that practicing capital punishment doesn't solve the problem at all, not in any chance of imagination. take hanging for example, the process for a convict to go thru that is basicly within seconds. i do'nt, and never think that those people who go thru that process will truely repend of what they did, what other's life they cause. by having them in prison longer, harder, it could be a way of paying back of what they done to others. although i against the idea of caputal punishment however, i absolutely agree on life centence.
people still commit chrime, no better if not worse. having capital punishment does not give the solution to problems. in fact, i think, to solve the issue of chrime, high school should bring their students to tour a prison, that would be a real education methods, and will be a step forward to control chrime rate.
exactly, americans who watch tv must remember that the people who run those big networks are mostly republican supporters, and therefore, most often, supporters of tougher prisons and capital punishment, so they make it out to be this great system that controls crime, when if you just did a bit of research, you'd find out that killing people doesn't benifit the economy, and how often the system is abused.
Season, I totally agree with you. High schools should take students on tours of prisons. I have heard stories of delinquints scared straight because they toured a prison or had to spend a day in a cell to see what it was like. I strongly support this suggested method of decreasing the crime rate.
And some people do come out of prison reformed. It's always nice to hear stories like that.
I also wanted to bring up a point that I forgot to put in my previous post. My point is that people are guilty until proven innocent. This is why the accused and people who are sure committed a crime are put in jail instead of letting them rome free. Of course, I see that the controversion to this would be that it's better to sometimes hold the wrong person in jail than let a possible criminal roam free.
I also like the idea of the scared straight programs and agree that they have the potential to decrease crimes.
I would be in favor of the death penalty if there were a clause that said if the accused were ever proven innocent, then the judge, prosecutor and jury that convicted them would be killed too.
Seriously, I'm against the death penalty because death should be a resource that is reserved for God, nature, whatever. Man is not infalible, so man shouldn't act as if he/she were.
For the Christians amongst us, "Judge not lest ye be judged."
In other words, just who in the hell do we think we are?
Bob
errr, actually, it's supposedly innocent until proven guilty...ha ha.
What we are talking about is justifiable murder...if there could be such a thing. You all need to watch that movie "The punisher." You will see that the main character is no better than the people he is getting revenge against. We are looking at that line between sanity and insanity. It is winking us right in the face!
Using that logic, the person being executed has judged others by killing them while the executioner has already been judged by society as a competent tool of justice. so he or she is simply carrying out the laws that were deemed accceptible by society and also executing someone who has been tried and found guilty by a number of individuals based on evidence. Of course, it doesn't always happen like that, but this is the basic idea behind the legality of the death penalty as I see it.
I don't remember bestowing on anyone the privilidge of "compitent tool". Hell, I don't even know my state's executioner, but since I'm from Texas I'm sure we have one unfortunately.
Bob
That type of thinking starts an endless cycle of violance. Not good.
Want my honest opinion? Most of you should agree with this: if someone were to do damage of any sort, to someone else, shouldn't they have the same done to them? Yeah I know that wasn't much, but it's all I can say for now.
The answer to your question is no. As has been hackneyed back and forth, two wrongs do not make a right.
Blbobby, actually, I would agree with that clause you suggested, because in that case, the executioner would be killing an innocent person. The only problem is that I'm sure there would be people demanding to have the executioner who killed the executioner killed, and so on, therefore, beginning a vicious killing circle, so, I see where you're coming from.
That's because people don't understand how to end these things. If you hurt me and I hurt you, that's the end of it. Why should our children hurt each other or someone else take revenge on us when the fight involved only the two of us? Granted, that was a very simplified example, but even in your's, it holds true. If the executioner was killed for killing someone guilty, that should also be the end of it. He/she killed someone innocent so he/she was punished. What on Earth would be the purpose of killing the executioner of the executioner. This second one killed someone who, in this case, was undeniably guilty.
I apologize if I am repeating something already stated, but part of the reason why so many African-Americans get put on death row is because so many of them live in poverty, and only the "rich, white" people can afford good enough lawyers to get them off.
This is an intriguing topic that I don't think will ever produce a unified opinion. We were just discussing this in Business Law.
Oh no. I'm sure it will never produce a unified opinion. It's just as much a moral issue as it is a legal one. That's why this topic is so popular.
Yeah, agreed.
So my opinion is basically that people who commit crimes worthy enough for death row, instead of ending their life and wasting all our money, they should just rot in prison like they deserve. I won't ever pretend prisons are a happy place to be, although I haven't been able to tour one. I agree it would be an excellant educational opportunity for students to see it though. Perhaps then they wouldn't be so ignorant about the life of prisoners. I used to be a hardcore believer in the death penalty, but really, what good does that do? Personally, I've never heard of a family member of the victem saying, "Yeah, I'm glad that fucker's dead; I feel much better now." It doesn't solve anything. Killing the person who committed the crime doesn't heal the pain of losing the victem, or pay for any injury the victem received, or anything like that. I guarantee the victem, given that they survived, and/or their friends and family don't feel any better after knowing the criminal was killed. I know it's our gut reaction to say, "They deserve to die!" But given the choice, would you rather die or spend your life locked up in prison? And I know we rarely ever consider the consequences of killing the criminal--I think Raskolnicov brought this up before. What about their family and friends? Their children? We watched a movie on it in Business Law, and it really outlined the horrors from both sides: the victem and the murderer. It also emphasized the fact that the wealthy always get off because they can afford good lawyers. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of it. It was based on the murders of two teenagers, a girl and a boy, who were seventeen or eighteen. The girl was raped and stabbed, and their bodies were found in the woods a day or so after they went missing. Obviously the kids' parents just wanted the man accused of murder dead, no question. And if I were in their position, I would no doubt feel the same. But what about his family? I know it's almost unbelievable to pity a murderer, but I almost did.
For me, it is more of a moral issue than a legal one. The law is, for lack of a better word, stupid...or at the verry least, foolish.
Maybe the family of the victim should meet the family of the criminal, and they can all go out for a nice dinner somewhere and discuss the issue.
oh yeah, I can imagine that going real well, not!! I'm thinking of how my family would react if I said, "let's go to dinner with the family of the guy who committed a hanous crime against me" to talk about some things. sorry, Charlie, but that's a definite no in my book.
Exactly. My point in making that post was: Sorry to the family of the criminal, but your loved one just killed someone, and now must pay the price. I know that sucks for you, but there's another family out there grieving about their loved one, who will never walk this earth again, through no fault of their own.
My thoughts exactly. I highly doubt the criminal was thinking of the victim's family when he/she decided to kill.
I know Jess...just had to say it though, to lighten the mood a little. yeah, I'm sure the criminal wasn't thinking of the victim's family either.
Of course not but it doesn't make it right.