NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you agree that the death penalty should be re-introduced to ensure that dangerous criminals are not released back onto the streets, or that the risk of them escaping back onto the streets is gone.
The criminals who are quite obviously serial murders etc should not be allowed to be in a situation where they could escape or where they are costing money to maintain.
How can any nation call itself civilised when it allows murders free?

No. Neo Tyr is a peaceful nation, and death penalty has never been used once. Two wrongs rarely make a right. How can a nation that murders their citizens call itself civilazed?

The point of jail is to rehabilitate criminals. Logically, how can you rehabilitate a dead person? Also, it genereally costs more to kill someone with a lethal injection/electric chair than it costs to keep them in a maximum security prison for life. How can a nation call itself civilized when it needlessly adds burdens and taxes to its people?

The only thing that capitol punishment does that life in prison without bail cannot is to scare future murderers. Which it fails at. There is no rational purpose for it except revenge.

The only proven effect of capital punishment is vengeance.
It is a curious fact that the conviction rate for first-degree murder in jurisdictions which abolish the death peanlty actually increases.

Prisions?? Death Penalty?? Punishmeent?? What horrid lives you all must live..In Jaru we have no such things..There is no need nor desire.. Our people find such things obsene. To take the life of another is unheard of in Jaru.. And theft is unknown as is all things are provided..

The death penalty is not revenge, its retribution. It would be revenge if the victim(or surviving family, whatever) killed the criminal. Justice is served when the criminal is given capital punishment, not if they are put away for life. Also, the death penalty would not cost more if a sentence was reached quickly, like within a year. Many trials can take years, leaving the victim on death row for that amount of time, which obviously costs a lot of money.
And the point of jail is not to rehabilitate criminals. The point is to keep them away from civilians for a few years, and they will hopefully come out a better person. However, this doesnt work well all the time, and never works with murderers.

There is no differance between revenge and Retribution..

Also, it genereally costs more to kill someone with a lethal injection/electric chair than it costs to keep them in a maximum security prison for life. How can a nation call itself civilized when it needlessly adds burdens and taxes to its people?

First of all who says you need to use an electric chair or lethal injection. I think one bullet would do the trick and that doesn't cost more than life sentence. And you contradicted yourself with the "How can a nation call itself civilized when it needlessly adds burdens and taxes to its people" statement if you think jails are ok (which are supported by tax payer dollars) then your own views are not civilized.

Haven't we all recognized by now that all human beings have an undeniable right to live? Isn't the death penalty a mockery of that right? Some of you may say that the criminals we would execute mock that right themselves -- that is NO reason for US to do so.

If I tell someone to shut up, have I forsaken my freedom of speech? No. If I disarm someone, have I forsaken my right to bear arms? No. If I charge someone without evidence of a crime, have I forsaken my right to Habeus Corpus? No. Mocking a freedom does not waive it, and criminals DO have rights.

And the point of jail is not to rehabilitate criminals. The point is to keep them away from civilians for a few years, and they will hopefully come out a better person. However, this doesnt work well all the time, and never works with murderers.

I agree that the purpose of the justice system is to protect the innocent more than to protect the guilty -- or, if you prefer, to keep the criminals out of society. Rehabilitation is a second priority at best. But what data do you have that demonstrates that no murderer can be rehabilitated? Don't come back saying "It's obvious" or "Well, I think so," because we're talking about killing hundreds of people -- let's not do it on a whim, and let's not kill fifty people because of thirty bad apples.

Inmates can escape? That's a reason to increase security, not to murder people. Victim's relatives don't feel safe? That's a reason to get them counseling, not to murder people. People need vengeance? Hey, murder is okay, now that we don't like the person, right?

Capital punishment is not a proven deterrent of crime. Look at the United States and most (all?) of the first world European nations. Which have the death penalty? Which have high crime rates? Those nations WITHOUT the death penalty tend to have lower crime rates. Remember that people who break laws usually don't think things all the way through, anyway -- why should they worry about their punishment when they "know" they'll never get caught?

Government sponsored murder is still murder.

Also, it genereally costs more to kill someone with a lethal injection/electric chair than it costs to keep them in a maximum security prison for life.

Actually, the cost of the execution itself is quite minimal compared to that of the life inprisonment; it's the lengthy court appeals process that adds the extreme expense. Sure, some of you would suggest that we cut down the appeals process, but almost 200 people have been acquitted on appeal since 1980 in the US alone -- cutting out the appeals process would have gotten those people executed.

There is definitely a risk of executing innocent people. You can release someone from prison if their innocence is proven -- you can't un-execute them.

The second alternative does not seem very logical to me - if there is reasonable doubt about the question of guilt, then the person would be aquitted!

cheers

Two wrongs rarely make a right. How can a nation that murders their citizens call itself civilazed?


I agree.

The death penalty can and should be instituted.

Also, it genereally costs more to kill someone with a lethal injection/electric chair than it costs to keep them in a maximum security prison for life. How can a nation call itself civilized when it needlessly adds burdens and taxes to its people?

First of all who says you need to use an electric chair or lethal injection. I think one bullet would do the trick and that doesn't cost more than life sentence. And you contradicted yourself with the "How can a nation call itself civilized when it needlessly adds burdens and taxes to its people" statement if you think jails are ok (which are supported by tax payer dollars) then your own views are not civilized.

Currently the only accepted way to execute someone is through injection. Anything else can be considered "cruel and unusual," although I don't know how a bullet is any more cruel that injections that, if administered wrongly, cause massive amounts of pain.
As for the second statement, I was going with the trend of ending posts with the "how can a noation call itself civilized..." clause. Jails are expensive, true, but no more expensive than injections combined with the lengthy appeal process given to prisoners. As you probably know, in the US due process is proportional to the amount of freedom being taken away. There's no freedom that's given more due process than life, so the appeal process for someone on death row is much more lengthy and expensive than the appeal process for someone who is sentenced to life.

Eredron, would you care to back that statement up?

while simple solutions are romantic and certainly a person who is physicaly dead has been incapacitated from causing further death themselves. or have they?

well for the most part most likely at any rate.

there are several obvious slight problems of course.

collective kharma of society. dissmiss that one if you will. i won't but at any rate there are a couple more far more immediate problems.

one of the most obvious is that now justice system is flawless, not even the dna identity proccess is infallable. so you kill someone whome you think is the someone who committed an atrocitous act. well whoever you killed will likely not commit another one. but if it wasn't the real perp you've not only killed someone who may have been guilty of nothing or at worst of physicly resembling someone who was, but the real perp is still out there.

and finaly, and i'm sure not everyone can see this, but by allowing judicial exicutions you're contributing to an attitude and an atmosphere that calls life expendable and cheepens it. if anything this undermines any ambient social values reguarding life as sacred and if anything increases rather then decreases the likelyhood of further violent crimes occuring.

well of course it's not sufficient to say don't kill anyone even if you think the're a killer themselves. you DO still have to do something with and about them. have to is a relative term of course, civilization in any sense of the word does not HAVE to exist, but if we want it to, then of course those who are unwilling or unable to restrain themselves must be somehow restrained by the rest of us.

well there was a celtic custom in pre-christian times and i believe other indigenous cultures may have practiced it or something like it as well: and that is to remand the convicted perp into the custody of the famility(s) of his victum(s)

this might still require rendering them whatever assistence neccessary to continue to restrain the convicted in their custody, but at any rate useful reparation from the perpetrator can thus be extracted and at considerably less public expense then lifetime incarceration at the expense of the state. not only that but in the case of error the error can be corrected.

and for a truely world class tyrant death itself might be too much of a kindness. not that vengence ought sensibly to be the point but in a situation like that certainly some sort of closure is desireable. we need to be careful here as elswhere though.

by all means utilize every scientific and objective methodology availabe in determining exactly what has transpired and the roll of everyone envolved. there is no serving of anything resembling justice without doing so.

when we as a society are too ready to seek vengence there is a systemic problem not confined to known perps. and we must ask ourselves what must our priority be. is it to exact vengence or is it to prevent crime?

whatever the gratification of vengence, i for one, would prefer to live in a world that less motivates harmful and unlawfull activity.

=^^=
.../\...

Yes, i believe that the death penalty should be re-introduced if there is DNA evidence which proves the accused is guilty.

Prison is there to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a death penalty. Do you keep a rabid dog in a cage all it's life in the slim hope that one day it will be cured? No, you take it out back and with great sadness remove it from this cycle of it's life. Sadly there are people who are no better then these mad dogs who for the safety of others must be permantly removed. Is it better to leave them in a small 8 X 6 cell for the rest of their lives, or does it make more sense to send them on their ways and hope they do better in the next life?



The Council of Three
The Most Serene Republic of Naginah
One's Dharma Above All Else

Prison is there to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a death penalty. Do you keep a rabid dog in a cage all it's life in the slim hope that one day it will be cured? No, you take it out back and with great sadness remove it from this cycle of it's life. Sadly there are people who are no better then these mad dogs who for the safety of others must be permantly removed. Is it better to leave them in a small 8 X 6 cell for the rest of their lives, or does it make more sense to send them on their ways and hope they do better in the next life?

I wouldn't quite give those reason, that you have, for the reintroduction of the death penalty. I would say, instead, that the punishment has to fir the crime and that sometimes the gravest crimes require the use of the death penalty.

We in Heian-Edo fimd it to be morally repugnant and will never permit it in our borders.

The second alternative does not seem very logical to me - if there is reasonable doubt about the question of guilt, then the person would be aquitted!

cheers

The only way it is virtually definite that they are a murderer is if evidence has been found against them in numerous cases. Obviously the death penalty isn't appropriate for a first offence as there is, virtually, always some doubt, just not reasonable doubt, which is required to aquite someone I believe.

one of the most obvious is that now justice system is flawless, not even the dna identity proccess is infallable. so you kill someone whome you think is the someone who committed an atrocitous act. well whoever you killed will likely not commit another one. but if it wasn't the real perp you've not only killed someone who may have been guilty of nothing or at worst of physicly resembling someone who was, but the real perp is still out there.


That's why it is only appropriate for serial killers.

Prison is there to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a death penalty.

Your view is not consistant. If you believe the purpose of the justice system is to rehabilitate, you cannot justify killing people, because then they have no chance of being rehabilitated. So you believe the justice system is in place for some other purpose, as far as I can tell -- not that this makes you a terrible person, but rehabilitation is obviously not your primary goal.

Do you keep a rabid dog in a cage all it's life in the slim hope that one day it will be cured? No, you take it out back and with great sadness remove it from this cycle of it's life.

People are not dogs. Humans have an undeniable right to live.

Is it better to leave them in a small 8 X 6 cell for the rest of their lives, or does it make more sense to send them on their ways and hope they do better in the next life?

Is it better to keep them away from society or murder them, basically? Since you evidently think murder is a crime, I don't see how you can justify the cold-blooded killing of an unarmed man. I say again that government sponsored murder is still murder. If you're keeping them in a cell for the rest of their life, they're obviously not a threat to society, so I can't see the justification to murder them.

People are not dogs. Humans have an undeniable right to live.



Why should they be protected on the very right that they have denied others, and when someone becomes a senseless murderer doesn't he cease to be human and becomes an inhumane animal himself?

The Kingdom of Skullzz does not believe in a death penalty. We prefer to give prisoners worthy of capital punishment a lifetime of harsh torture, with no chance to attempt suicide. We keep our life torture victims alive as long as humanly possible.

i do support this cause i do and death is funny. if someone offends me why cant i give them an acid bath?hugh? let me know kk love. :twisted:

The point of jail is to rehabilitate criminals.

Who sez?