What do you think about the death penalty?

Amnesty International yesterday released its report on Death Sentences and Executions in 2009. The report specifically singled out China, where thousands of prisoners were purportedly executed last year.

while i agree that China should have more transparency on its death sentences and executions, i do not oppose the use of death penalty. pardon me for being blunt, but i'll be damned if i allow scums enjoy the same rights as we all do. but i'm not everyone, and i'm curious to know what you think about this issue.

I think no one has the right or the authority to kill another person, and killing is only justifiable in self defense or in the defense of others.

Do I believe some people truly deserve to die? Yes, but I don't think anyone has the right or the authority to actually go ahead and kill these people, nor would it be justifiable if someone did.

Would I want revenge on someone who harmed my loved ones? Would I want to kill the person who harmed my loved ones? Yes, and yes. I'm only human, and it's human to desire vengeance, but if I actually went ahead and killed this person, I would still have no justification for having done it.

That's what I think in a nutshell. :)

No. Not only are executions in the end more expensive than life imprisonment, they are also altogether too final a punishment, and offer no real upsides to compensate.

The death penalty is a cruel punishment, so no I do not like it.

true, no one should have the right to end another person's life. but a criminal's life is not ended by just anyone. it is ended by the legal system which we place our faith upon. while the system may not be perfect, it is far more reliable and necessary than subjective compassion. Amnesty International and their ideologies don't ensure our security nearly as effectively as bars, walls and lectric chairs.

No. Not only are executions in the end more expensive than life imprisonment, they are also altogether too final a punishment, and offer no real upsides to compensate.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No. Not only are executions in the end more expensive than life imprisonment, they are also altogether too final a punishment, and offer no real upsides to compensate.

SeraphimGoddess

You can see one such study here, but the quick answer is that both the costs of imprisoning the person prior to his execution, and the costs of the trials that hand down and then uphold the verdict, are higher. An execution is not simply "yep, guilty, bullet to the head", on account of the fact that failure to execute a guilty person is obviously less severe a problem than the execution of an innocent person.

No. Not only are executions in the end more expensive than life imprisonment, they are also altogether too final a punishment, and offer no real upsides to compensate.

GabuEx

i disagree. the legal and penitentiary costs that follow life imprisonment definitely outweigh those of executions. but if you can provide a legit source for your data i'll stand corrected.

the "upsides" and "compensations" which some may expect from showing leniency towards criminals are in the end far too unpredictable. In many cases, it actually bring more harm than good to the society.

I'm for it, although I feel that the whole process take way too much time. Once a criminal is found 100% guilty execute him. Don't drag out the process.

true, no one should have the right to end another person's life. but a criminal's life is not ended by just anyone. it is ended by the legal system which we place our faith upon. while the system may not be perfect, it is far more reliable and necessary than subjective compassion. Amnesty International and their ideologies don't ensure our security nearly as effectively as bars, walls and lectric chairs.

Jinroh_basic

The thing is, I just don't trust the legal system (not to that degree, at least), because it's made up of people who I believe don't have the right or the authority to take another's life individually, so why would it be any different just because they got together?

If there was such a thing as a higher being or entity that was entirely separate from us, and as such could dictate unbiased, objective rules, and hold trials in an unbiased, objective way, with absolutely no chance of error, I'd support the death penalty. But since no such thing exists, I just don't feel comfortable trusting a system that is made up of imperfect humans with something as precious as the life of another person.

[QUOTE="Jinroh_basic"]

true, no one should have the right to end another person's life. but a criminal's life is not ended by just anyone. it is ended by the legal system which we place our faith upon. while the system may not be perfect, it is far more reliable and necessary than subjective compassion. Amnesty International and their ideologies don't ensure our security nearly as effectively as bars, walls and lectric chairs.

black_cat19

The thing is, I just don't trust the legal system (not to that degree, at least), because it's made up of people who I believe don't have the right or the authority to take another's life individually, so why would it be any different just because they got together?

If there was such a thing as a higher being or entity that was entirely separate from us, and as such could dictate unbiased, objective rules, and hold trials in an unbiased, objective way, with absolutely no chance of error, I'd support the death penalty. But since no such thing exists, I just don't feel comfortable trusting a system that is made up of imperfect humans with something as precious as the life of another person.

yours is definitely a popular point of view. but i think the problem some may not realise is that distrust and objection solves absolutely nothing. the legal system can and must be improved, and this is where our efforts should concentrate on instead of stripping the system of its power.

I don't agree with it at all for a myriad of reasons. In the abstract, the way I see it is the difference between a criminal and a non-criminal is simply the set of circumstances which shaped their life. Of course, if I am directly involved in some situation it is hard to have that sort of objective viewpoint, but as I see it the purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect the public. It is not to give people whatever satisfaction they think they will get out of vengeance. I think the prison system itself has other major problems though. They don't focus enough on rehabilitating the criminals who are going to be released at some point. I think prisons in general need to be more "locked down" so that prisoners aren't stabbing each other and crap like that. Seems rather obvious really, but for some reason in some prisons they let prisoners mingle in relatively large groups where bad things can and do happen. I really don't understand why they do that at all. (I'm talking about violent offenders here, not people in on fraud or something.) People in prison spend most of their time watching their back and then when they get out after spending years in that hostile environment they are probably going to be even worse than when they went in, and of course let's not forget that many people are falsely convicted.StopThePresses

i agree with your opinions on the prison system. the rehabilation and social reintegration programmes in many countries are severely lacking, and efforts should be made to improve the situation. this, however, does not conflict with the use of death penalties.

i disagree. the legal and penitentiary costs that follow life imprisonment definitely outweigh those of executions. but if you can provide a legit source for your data i'll stand corrected.

Jinroh_basic

Take your pick from the studies on this page. That the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment is not really something that is in contention.

the "upsides" and "compensations" which some may expect from showing leniency towards criminals are in the end far too unpredictable. In many cases, it actually bring more harm than good to the society.

Jinroh_basic

What is unpredictable about allowing a man falsly convicted of a crime the ability to have his name exonerated and to have his punishment end if new evidence comes to light? The problem is that many people treat those convicted of a crime as though it is 100% guaranteed that they are guilty, and in my view this is unconscionable.

yea, thanks for the info. it's very helpful indeed. this is a far more reasonable approach to suggest abolishing death penalties, though i stand by my belief that the use death penalties is necessary, provided that the legal system has the integrity and credibility to render the sentence. i also doubt the findings you show will change the majority's mind.

Justice system=run by people.

People=not perfect and make mistakes.

Putting the lives of people in the hands of those who are capable of error=NO WAY. However, if it was known that every person was iron-clad guilty 100%, then I'd probably be on the fence.

There are far more efficient methods of emptying our jails en masse, and the death penalty is unjustifiable due to the fact that it is absolutely impossible for any legal system to produce judgment that is beyond all doubt. The fear effect has yet to be supported by proven causation and economically speaking, the death penalty is somehow more expensive than life imprisonment. I don't believe in this "eye for an eye" nonsense that some people attempt to parrot around as a workable form of justice, so in the end I have to conclude that I have no reason to support the death penalty and every reason to oppose it.

I disagree with it. No one has the right to take anothers life, and an eye for an eye is a horrible policy. I believe in rehabiliation. Also, you cannot bring a dead person back to life. So if you execute the wrong guy you technically committed murder. Does that mean that we should put the jury, judge, executioner, etc up for a murder trial? They murdered someone, or atleast committed manslaughter.

What people dont realize is the cost that it takes to keep these people in prison for life. I recently read somewhere that it takes up $60 of the tax payers money per day to keep them in jail. This is per person. Iantheone

I think financial reasons are the absolute worse reason for euthanasia. A humans life is worth priceless, and if you'd prefer to not keep them in prison for life, perhaps try rehabilitation instead of just folding ones arms and saying "They can't be helped! OFF WITH THEIR HEAD!"

What people dont realize is the cost that it takes to keep these people in prison for life. I recently read somewhere that it takes up $60 of the tax payers money per day to keep them in jail. This is per person. Iantheone

though its cruel.. i'm for it

Life sentence should = Death imo

Having a few select people decides who gets to die and who does not, seems kinda "bad" for lack of a better word. Having I said that, I believe that there are people out who we as a whole could be without and wouldn't object in the least if they were put to death but I'm aware of this contradiction in thought and as hard as I try I can't seem to find a way for compromise as I'm just human.

the link has been provided earlier, and it does seem that death penalties incur higher costs than life imprisonment. however, the findings may not be applicable outside of America, and hence may be immaterial to the discourse on death penalties, which is invariably conducted in a global context. furthermore, if the notion that death penalties are more cost-effective is wrong, isn't abolishing death penalties to save money an equally false rationale?

the link has been provided earlier, and it does seem that death penalties incur higher costs than life imprisonment. however, the findings may not be applicable outside of America, and hence may be immaterial to the discourse on death penalties, which is invariably conducted in a global context. furthermore, if the notion that death penalties are more cost-effective is wrong, isn't abolishing death penalties to save money an equally false rationale?

Jinroh_basic

It needs to be enforced more and performed on the street if the officer has even the slightest doubt that the person seems a bit of an ass. Then they can write a report on it after and see if the officer did the right thing, or wether he should get a 10% penalty to his salary for a month. The world will be a lot cleaner place in no time.

the link has been provided earlier, and it does seem that death penalties incur higher costs than life imprisonment. however, the findings may not be applicable outside of America, and hence may be immaterial to the discourse on death penalties, which is invariably conducted in a global context. furthermore, if the notion that death penalties are more cost-effective is wrong, isn't abolishing death penalties to save money an equally false rationale?

Jinroh_basic

I prefer life without parole. There are quite a few stories of the justice system being abused where a guy was given the death penalty but should not have.

And it some states the death penalty seems to be just used as a legal bargaining tool and thats it. For example, when NYS had it, there was a criminal who killed family, including shooting an infant in a crib in the head. That didn't warrant the death penalty apparently, and if that didn't, then to me it was a joke.

No, Id rather see life without parole in a prison not so comfy.

What people dont realize is the cost that it takes to keep these people in prison for life. I recently read somewhere that it takes up $60 of the tax payers money per day to keep them in jail. This is per person. Iantheone

despite that, i think the death penalty should be used in certain circumstances, but i think they should go about doing it differently. get rid of all the appeals (after all, that's where a lot of the costs come from) for the people who are definitely guilty of multiple brutal murders, the kind of people who will never be able to function in society ever again.

My only problem with the death penalty is what if they're found to be innocent but they've already been executed?

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]What people dont realize is the cost that it takes to keep these people in prison for life. I recently read somewhere that it takes up $60 of the tax payers money per day to keep them in jail. This is per person. needled24-7

despite that, i think the death penalty should be used in certain circumstances, but i think they should go about doing it differently. get rid of all the appeals (after all, that's where a lot of the costs come from) for the people who are definitely guilty of multiple brutal murders, the kind of people who will never be able to function in society ever again.

Getting rid of appeals is a horrible idea, no offense. The amount of people who get wrongly convicted and executed would rise.

And then we'd have to charge all those jurors and judges for manslaughter, or atleast we would in a logical world.

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]What people dont realize is the cost that it takes to keep these people in prison for life. I recently read somewhere that it takes up $60 of the tax payers money per day to keep them in jail. This is per person. Pixel-Pirate

despite that, i think the death penalty should be used in certain circumstances, but i think they should go about doing it differently. get rid of all the appeals (after all, that's where a lot of the costs come from) for the people who are definitely guilty of multiple brutal murders, the kind of people who will never be able to function in society ever again.

Getting rid of appeals is a horrible idea, no offense. The amount of people who get wrongly convicted and executed would rise.

And then we'd have to charge all those jurors and judges for manslaughter, or atleast we would in a logical world.

i know there's still flaws in what i said, but that's why i'm not the guy that decides these kinds of things :P

There are far more efficient methods of emptying our jails en masse, and the death penalty is unjustifiable due to the fact that it is absolutely impossible for any legal system to produce judgment that is beyond all doubt. The fear effect has yet to be supported by proven causation and economically speaking, the death penalty is somehow more expensive than life imprisonment. I don't believe in this "eye for an eye" nonsense that some people attempt to parrot around as a workable form of justice, so in the end I have to conclude that I have no reason to support the death penalty and every reason to oppose it.

Barbariser

i don't think we should get rid of appeals completely, but you know how sometimes people make those threads here about people that kill entire families and then everyone comes in and says how they've lost hope for humanity? i think people like in those articles should get the death penalty. and it seems like in those cases, the evidence is pretty much refutable. for someone that shoots and kills a guy outside of a gas station because of a drug deal gone wrong, no, i don't think they should be put to death.

i know there's still flaws in what i said, but that's why i'm not the guy that decides these kinds of things :P

needled24-7

Legal judgment cannot be based on the "appearance" of strong evidence. The implementation of what you suggest - giving due process to only those who "seem" to "need proof before complete conviction" - would make any nation a laughing stock immediately.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

There are far more efficient methods of emptying our jails en masse, and the death penalty is unjustifiable due to the fact that it is absolutely impossible for any legal system to produce judgment that is beyond all doubt. The fear effect has yet to be supported by proven causation and economically speaking, the death penalty is somehow more expensive than life imprisonment. I don't believe in this "eye for an eye" nonsense that some people attempt to parrot around as a workable form of justice, so in the end I have to conclude that I have no reason to support the death penalty and every reason to oppose it.

Vandalvideo

As far as I'm concerned, it's because the Death Penalty is a form of penalty that, once performed, cannot be reversed - whereas the margin of error is acceptable for all other penalities because they can be corrected.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

There are far more efficient methods of emptying our jails en masse, and the death penalty is unjustifiable due to the fact that it is absolutely impossible for any legal system to produce judgment that is beyond all doubt. The fear effect has yet to be supported by proven causation and economically speaking, the death penalty is somehow more expensive than life imprisonment. I don't believe in this "eye for an eye" nonsense that some people attempt to parrot around as a workable form of justice, so in the end I have to conclude that I have no reason to support the death penalty and every reason to oppose it.

Vandalvideo

If there is no absolute doubt, how can one possibly support putting someone to death and possibly murdering an innocent?

I am generally opposed to the death penalty in all but the most extreme circumstances.

A society needs to have a punishment equal to the crime. We must have a deterrent to keep people from goin out and killin. If anything i think we need to shorten the appeals process for the death penalty. If there is irrefutable evidence such as dna or somthing i say once the trial is over take them straight to the chair. my cousin worked in huntsville tx state prision where we do our executions and he worked on death row there was a guy that had been there since 1984, that was the year my cousin was born and was just executed in 2004. so if the person that posted that its 60 dollars a day that prisoner cost us 438,000 just to sit there before he died. and we need to bring the chair back. this whole drugs to put ya to sleep thats to easy, these murderers and rapists do not deserve an easy out of life. they need to fry.Trollsters

Cruel punishment.

[QUOTE="Trollsters"]A society needs to have a punishment equal to the crime. We must have a deterrent to keep people from goin out and killin. If anything i think we need to shorten the appeals process for the death penalty. If there is irrefutable evidence such as dna or somthing i say once the trial is over take them straight to the chair. my cousin worked in huntsville tx state prision where we do our executions and he worked on death row there was a guy that had been there since 1984, that was the year my cousin was born and was just executed in 2004. so if the person that posted that its 60 dollars a day that prisoner cost us 438,000 just to sit there before he died. and we need to bring the chair back. this whole drugs to put ya to sleep thats to easy, these murderers and rapists do not deserve an easy out of life. they need to fry.Pixel-Pirate

Cruel punishment.

Shall we tear up the constitution anymore, or is that enough?

Shall we tear up the constitution anymore, or is that enough?

Pixel-Pirate

Amnesty International yesterday released its report on Death Sentences and Executions in 2009. The report specifically singled out China, where thousands of prisoners were purportedly executed last year.

while i agree that China should have more transparency on its death sentences and executions, i do not oppose the use of death penalty. pardon me for being blunt, but i'll be damned if i allow scums enjoy the same rights as we all do. but i'm not everyone, and i'm curious to know what you think about this issue.

Jinroh_basic