How can people not support capital punishment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtWHH2HtGw&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HPFySefQdk&feature=player_embedded

Not for minors, it's a man getting shot, it's not graphic but minors shouldn't be watching that anyway.

How can anyone justify not executing these men? Why should they be given rights when they did not show the same to another? Why are they deserving of life when they took one so easily and for something as petty as a car? Why should only the families of one grieve and also live with the thought those criminals maybe given a second chance? Imo all these men should be hanged in the square, let all those little crooks see. Ever since we abolished physical punishment from schools and the death penalty our crime rate has soured, time to bring them back imo. (My country), and other countries should skip all the excessive paper work and appeals and start executing criminals faster. Limit it to 2 appeals and a maximum of 5 years on death row before execution.

How can people not support capital punishment?

Its my opinion that, as long as they are going away for the rest of their lives bringing more death does nothing to bring back life. Its just the ultimate form of hypocrisy. All the same, I'm not completely against it as much as I am a non-supporter of it.

The purpose of the justice system is not and should not be the exacting of revenge on those who wronged another, but rather is and should be the creation and maintenance of law and order, beginning first with the presumption of innocence of all accused and ending with the application of a fair and ordinary punishment if one has been found through a speedy and fair trial by jury to have be guilty as charged. As such, the question of what one "deserves" is not and should not be a part of any consideration regarding what punishment one should receive for having committed a crime.

Furthermore, pursuant to the value system that places the protection of innocents as more important than the punishment of the guilty, which is implied in the presumption of innocence in a trial, the prevention of the execution of an innocent person is more important than the execution of a guilty person.

There are certainly people in the world that deserve it, but that doesn't mean anyone should be in a place to be able to make that judgement.

Because simply taking away a life does nothing to amend the crime nor punish the person. In fact I think in many prisoners such as James French would rather have the state execute him rather than a life time of jail.

As for this statement:

Ever since we abolished ... the death penalty our crime rate has soured

Espada12

I will let this graph speak for itself:

Because lots of shootings are probably in the "gray area", and are too debatable to put life of the suspect in the balance.

And sorry, but I didn't really understand the context of the shooting in the videos you posted. What was giong on?

Yes. I agree completely. The act of killing another human being is so heinous that people who do it are the absolute worst thing in the world.

Thus the only way to deal with it is by killing them. Because killing another human being is a form of justice.

Punishment on that scale is just as antisocial as the crime itself. You have to try and recondition these people to be productive, but also teach them to understand what exactly was wrong with what they did.

i don't think killing someone is really a punishment

I will never understand why some people care about protecting the "rights" of criminals. chathuranga

1. Criminals do not cease being human beings; the decision that those who are guilty of a crime cease to deserve basic human rights is one that would dehumanize the justice system and render its moral authority null and void.

2. Criminals have only been convicted through a trial by jury; there is no ironclad 100% guarantee that they are guilty, and as such, the punishment should not be unbounded and should leave open the ability for one to receive proper restitution if they are later exonerated.

I will never understand why some people care about protecting the "rights" of criminals. chathuranga

As for this statement:

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Ever since we abolished ... the death penalty our crime rate has soured

GabuEx

I will let this graph speak for itself:

I'm not american.

I'm not american.

Espada12

What country are you from, then?

The purpose of the justice system is not and should not be the exacting of revenge on those who wronged another, but rather is and should be the creation and maintenance of law and order, beginning first with the presumption of innocence of all accused and ending with the application of a fair and ordinary punishment if one has been found through a speedy and fair trial by jury to have be guilty as charged. As such, the question of what one "deserves" is not and should not be a part of any consideration regarding what punishment one should receive for having committed a crime.

Furthermore, pursuant to the value system that places the protection of innocents as more important than the punishment of the guilty, which is implied in the presumption of innocence in a trial, the prevention of the execution of an innocent person is more important than the execution of a guilty person.

GabuEx

Doesn't your first bolded statement contradict the second?

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I'm not american.

GabuEx

What country are you from, then?

Trinidad and tobago. We are now the murder capital of the Caribbean since we abolish capital punishment.

People who are prove guilty of a crime of that magnitude should be punished but I think a life of being tortured would be more suiting then death especially all the hoops we go through to make it quick.

Because I don't believe in state-sponsored murder?PannicAtack

Well then make sure to give all police taser and all army taser as well and ONLY a taser.. no lethal stuff.

Punishment and rehab are ok for those that will be eventually released. they learn a lesson and may do better the next time around. However for those that have been condemned to spend rest of their life behind bars, it makes financial sense to just dispose of them. After all, society has rendered them useless with a life sentence.

Why do people say it costs more the execute someone then keep them in prison for life? I don't get how that even worksMario2007

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Because I don't believe in state-sponsored murder?Espada12

Well then make sure to give all police taser and all army taser as well and ONLY a taser.. no lethal stuff.

[QUOTE="Mario2007"]Why do people say it costs more the execute someone then keep them in prison for life? I don't get how that even worksProudLarry

[QUOTE="Mario2007"]Why do people say it costs more the execute someone then keep them in prison for life? I don't get how that even worksProudLarry

People who are prove guilty of a crime of that magnitude should be punished but I think a life of being tortured would be more suiting then death especially all the hoops we go through to make it quick.

Empirefrtw

I dont believe in cruelty just for the sake of it. Punishment and rehab should be about teaching a lesson and making people productive. Sending someone to supermax for the rest of their living days is cruel. If society has no place for them, then we should dispose of them quickly and cleanly,

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Because I don't believe in state-sponsored murder?PannicAtack

Well then make sure to give all police taser and all army taser as well and ONLY a taser.. no lethal stuff.

There is no difference, if you were going to kill him there why not kill him another time?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Well then make sure to give all police taser and all army taser as well and ONLY a taser.. no lethal stuff.

Espada12

There is no difference, if you were going to kill him there why not kill him another time?

Doesn't your first bolded statement contradict the second?

Espada12

Not at all, as a fair and ordinary punishment is doled out for one of three reasons: rehabilitation, deterrence, or the protection of society; revenge and what one "deserves" is not a factor.

Trinidad and tobago. We are now the murder capital of the Caribbean since we abolish capital punishment.

Espada12

Abolished? Although no one has been executed since 1999, as far as I can tell, it has not been legally abolished.

Furthermore, there are myriad other countries who have fully legally abolished capital punishment and have not shown any increase in crime after having done so.

Capital punishment isn't even illegal here but due to outside pressure "hur hur US" we don't use it, ever since the last one in 99 our murder rate has gone x5 higher.

Capital punishment isn't even illegal here but due to outside pressure "hur hur US" we don't use it, ever since the last one in 99 our murder rate has gone x5 higher.

Espada12

There are a few items to consider in this matter:

1. Why do we want the death penalty? If it is there merely to satisfy a sick obsession with death by using convicted murderers then clearly that should not be allowed, as it's rather sadistic and uncivilized and makes us little better (morally) than the Romans and their Colosseum. If we want it to deter further crimes then there should be some verifiable data supporting that hypothesis; however, no conclusive study has ever been presented (to my knowledge) that states that the death penalty deters crimes such as murder. If we want it for retribution then I do not think it should be allowed because "retribution" is merely another word for "revenge," which is an irrational quality, and I believe a rational penal system is the greatest root.

2. What is society trying to say with the death penalty? Are we saying that we are morally superior to the criminals. . .by doing exactly what the criminals did? If society holds moral superiority over the criminal then shouldn't our actions reflect this?

3. If we are doing it in respect to the phrase "an eye for an eye," why do not rape rapists or torture torturers? Given the choice between rape and death, I believe most people would choose rape, arguably making it a "lesser" punishment than the death penalty; so wouldn't a rapist be subject to the legal distribution of rape? Same argument applies for all crimes, really.

4. What about those on Death Row who are innocent of the crime for which they were convicted? It has been shown through DNA testing that it was impossible for some felons on Death Row to have committed the crimes for which they were scheduled to be executed, which means that we have and still are executing innocent people. If the purpose of the Death Penalty is to kill "those who kill our men, women and children," and if the Death Penalty is killing innocents in addition to that, then how can we possibly justify the Death Penalty? It makes no sense. The only way we could is if we could objectively prove that 100% of criminals on Death Row are innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted, and that is not possible even with DNA testing.

5. We should also consider costs involved. Due to the appeals process to which every Death Row inmate has a right, the Death Penalty actually costs more taxpayer money than to imprison somebody for the rest of their lives, with food and electricity provided.

These are just a few reasons why I do not support the Death Penalty in any circumstance. The Death Penalty fails in its objectives, costs a ton of money, executes innocent people, arguably deteriorates the morality of a society by serving to satisfy an irrational bloodlust, and is incompatible with a civilized nation of rational people.

[QUOTE="ProudLarry"][QUOTE="Mario2007"]Why do people say it costs more the execute someone then keep them in prison for life? I don't get how that even worksPannicAtack

Capital punishment isn't even illegal here but due to outside pressure "hur hur US" we don't use it, ever since the last one in 99 our murder rate has gone x5 higher.

Espada12

If abolishing capital punishment causes crime rates to skyrocket, then explain the graph I presented to you. You can't claim a causation in general when you only have one specific correlated instance to point to and when there are countless numbers of instances that run contrary to the asserted causation.

Capital punishment isn't even illegal here but due to outside pressure "hur hur US" we don't use it, ever since the last one in 99 our murder rate has gone x5 higher.

Espada12

One of the major benefits of global power shifitng east is that these kinda of cultural pressures from the west will subside. Perhaps we can look at singapore, with its extremely low crime rate if not as a model, at least as something to study

There are a few items to consider in this matter:

1. Why do we want the death penalty? If it is there merely to satisfy a sick obsession with death by using convicted murderers then clearly that should not be allowed, as it's rather sadistic and uncivilized and makes us little better (morally) than the Romans and their Colosseum. If we want it to deter further crimes then there should be some verifiable data supporting that hypothesis; however, no conclusive study has ever been presented (to my knowledge) that states that the death penalty deters crimes such as murder. If we want it for retribution then I do not think it should be allowed because "retribution" is merely another word for "revenge," which is an irrational quality, and I believe a rational penal system is the greatest root.

2. What is society trying to say with the death penalty? Are we saying that we are morally superior to the criminals. . .by doing exactly what the criminals did? If society holds moral superiority over the criminal then shouldn't our actions reflect this?

3. If we are doing it in respect to the phrase "an eye for an eye," why do not rape rapists or torture torturers? Given the choice between rape and death, I believe most people would choose rape, arguably making it a "lesser" punishment than the death penalty; so wouldn't a rapist be subject to the legal distribution of rape? Same argument applies for all crimes, really.

4. What about those on Death Row who are innocent of the crime for which they were convicted? It has been shown through DNA testing that it was impossible for some felons on Death Row to have committed the crimes for which they were scheduled to be executed, which means that we have and still are executing innocent people. If the purpose of the Death Penalty is to kill "those who kill our men, women and children," and if the Death Penalty is killing innocents in addition to that, then how can we possibly justify the Death Penalty? It makes no sense. The only way we could is if we could objectively prove that 100% of criminals on Death Row are innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted, and that is not possible even with DNA testing.

5. We should also consider costs involved. Due to the appeals process to which every Death Row inmate has a right, the Death Penalty actually costs more taxpayer money than to imprison somebody for the rest of their lives, with food and electricity provided.

These are just a few reasons why I do not support the Death Penalty in any circumstance. The Death Penalty fails in its objectives, costs a ton of money, executes innocent people, arguably deteriorates the morality of a society by serving to satisfy an irrational bloodlust, and is incompatible with a civilized nation of rational people.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

There are a few items to consider in this matter:

1. Why do we want the death penalty? If it is there merely to satisfy a sick obsession with death by using convicted murderers then clearly that should not be allowed, as it's rather sadistic and uncivilized and makes us little better (morally) than the Romans and their Colosseum. If we want it to deter further crimes then there should be some verifiable data supporting that hypothesis; however, no conclusive study has ever been presented (to my knowledge) that states that the death penalty deters crimes such as murder. If we want it for retribution then I do not think it should be allowed because "retribution" is merely another word for "revenge," which is an irrational quality, and I believe a rational penal system is the greatest root.

2. What is society trying to say with the death penalty? Are we saying that we are morally superior to the criminals. . .by doing exactly what the criminals did? If society holds moral superiority over the criminal then shouldn't our actions reflect this?

3. If we are doing it in respect to the phrase "an eye for an eye," why do not rape rapists or torture torturers? Given the choice between rape and death, I believe most people would choose rape, arguably making it a "lesser" punishment than the death penalty; so wouldn't a rapist be subject to the legal distribution of rape? Same argument applies for all crimes, really.

4. What about those on Death Row who are innocent of the crime for which they were convicted? It has been shown through DNA testing that it was impossible for some felons on Death Row to have committed the crimes for which they were scheduled to be executed, which means that we have and still are executing innocent people. If the purpose of the Death Penalty is to kill "those who kill our men, women and children," and if the Death Penalty is killing innocents in addition to that, then how can we possibly justify the Death Penalty? It makes no sense. The only way we could is if we could objectively prove that 100% of criminals on Death Row are innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted, and that is not possible even with DNA testing.

5. We should also consider costs involved. Due to the appeals process to which every Death Row inmate has a right, the Death Penalty actually costs more taxpayer money than to imprison somebody for the rest of their lives, with food and electricity provided.

These are just a few reasons why I do not support the Death Penalty in any circumstance. The Death Penalty fails in its objectives, costs a ton of money, executes innocent people, arguably deteriorates the morality of a society by serving to satisfy an irrational bloodlust, and is incompatible with a civilized nation of rational people.

l4dak47

If the purpose is to remove them from society then you can put them in prison with no possibility of a parole. It serves the same exact purpose.

There are a few items to consider in this matter:

1. Why do we want the death penalty? If it is there merely to satisfy a sick obsession with death by using convicted murderers then clearly that should not be allowed, as it's rather sadistic and uncivilized and makes us little better (morally) than the Romans and their Colosseum. If we want it to deter further crimes then there should be some verifiable data supporting that hypothesis; however, no conclusive study has ever been presented (to my knowledge) that states that the death penalty deters crimes such as murder. If we want it for retribution then I do not think it should be allowed because "retribution" is merely another word for "revenge," which is an irrational quality, and I believe a rational penal system is the greatest root.

2. What is society trying to say with the death penalty? Are we saying that we are morally superior to the criminals. . .by doing exactly what the criminals did? If society holds moral superiority over the criminal then shouldn't our actions reflect this?

3. If we are doing it in respect to the phrase "an eye for an eye," why do not rape rapists or torture torturers? Given the choice between rape and death, I believe most people would choose rape, arguably making it a "lesser" punishment than the death penalty; so wouldn't a rapist be subject to the legal distribution of rape? Same argument applies for all crimes, really.

4. What about those on Death Row who are innocent of the crime for which they were convicted? It has been shown through DNA testing that it was impossible for some felons on Death Row to have committed the crimes for which they were scheduled to be executed, which means that we have and still are executing innocent people. If the purpose of the Death Penalty is to kill "those who kill our men, women and children," and if the Death Penalty is killing innocents in addition to that, then how can we possibly justify the Death Penalty? It makes no sense. The only way we could is if we could objectively prove that 100% of criminals on Death Row are innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted, and that is not possible even with DNA testing.

5. We should also consider costs involved. Due to the appeals process to which every Death Row inmate has a right, the Death Penalty actually costs more taxpayer money than to imprison somebody for the rest of their lives, with food and electricity provided.

These are just a few reasons why I do not support the Death Penalty in any circumstance. The Death Penalty fails in its objectives, costs a ton of money, executes innocent people, arguably deteriorates the morality of a society by serving to satisfy an irrational bloodlust, and is incompatible with a civilized nation of rational people.

Theokhoth

the only immoral aspect are the innocents put into jail or executed. Under my watch, executions would decline for the less than certain cases and greatly increase for the without any doubt cases. If the sentence is going to be 60+ years with no chance for parole, the best thing to do is a quick execution. It's financially sensible and humane