NationStates Jolt Archive

Before,(or if) anyone posts here please read just this one page of the Amnesty international web site. http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510691998

My own thoughts, for what they are worth, are that execution is wrong, for any crime!
To take a life is wrong in the eyes of the law regardless of what country you reside in, therefor to execute someone is equally as wrong.
Executing murderers seems to do little, if anything, to have any significant impact on murder stats where the penalty for the crime is death, so as a deterrant it's not working.
Mistakes can, and do, happen, of that there is no doubt and for a state (not necessarily one in the US, I mean a state as in country) to execute just ONE innocent person is one mistake too many. A postumous pardon will mean nothing if the truth comes out after the execution!

For crimes like murder and rape the penalty should be hard labour, no frills accomodation in a secure prison and no luxuries.

I can understand a murder victims family calling for an execution but whilst every consideration should be shown to the victims family it has been shown that they get little or no satisfaction once a murderer has been executed. While the murderer is alive and in prison awaiting to be killed the victims families have a focus for their grief and hatred, once you take the focus away (execute the criminal) many of the victims families fall into a kind of limbo, they feel nothing and now that the person they wanted punished for his/her crime is no more they have nowhere and no way to channel their feelings. If the murderer were to stay behind bars at least they would have a focus for their feelings.

Anyhoo, thats my take on things, what's yours?

Stupid. It is cheaper and more cruel to let a criminal rot in jail. Let him see is life go by his eyes, wasted. And when he his in his death bed, he will watch back, and see that they should have rather killed him. And that is the greatest punishment. Death is just a release.

Death penalty = an eye for an eye

"An eye for an eye will make the world blind"
-Gandhi

Inhumane, barbaric, and faulty. Sometimes, innocent people are put to death for crimes they did not commit.

absolutely inhuman

Oh, here's the Markfiore.com link about the death penalty. Thank you Mark:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/execution.html

I agree with Rem Saverem when she said, "No one has the right to take the life of another."

Oh, here's the Markfiore.com link about the death penalty. Thank you Mark:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/execution.html

Wow! That's so true!

Bin Laden and the beltway snipers take up too much oxygen for my liking.

superpower07 wrote;

Oh, here's the Markfiore.com link about the death penalty. Thank you Mark:

brilliant!

I support the death penalty, period.

(And I think they should speed up the process, there are too many people that just wait around on death row for years before they are put to death. If there is cold, hard evidence that they commited the crime then I am all for it.)

Bin Laden and the beltway snipers take up too much oxygen for my liking.
More oxygen is becoming available on a daily basis in Iraq so don't sweat the breathing room?

The death penalty, IMHO, is a violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. The death penalty is irreversable.

When even one wrongfully convicted person is executed, I think we have all commited murder, because the execution will have been carried out in our name.

I do not support the death penalty. It is a far greater punishment to rot in jail, and there is a possibility of the sentence being wrong and an innocent person being killed.

Suicidal librarians wrote:

I support the death penalty, period.

(And I think they should speed up the process, there are too many people that just wait around on death row for years before they are put to death. If there is cold, hard evidence that they commited the crime then I am all for it.)

Picture the scene: Your lying drunk as a skunk in a friends house, you have passed out completely. Your friend has a fight with his wife and stabs her to death, he then plants the knife in your hand and calls the police telling them that you came over drunk and made a pass at his wife, when she refused your advances you killed her and passed out.

The jury believe your friends account because you can't remember anything about that night and they convict you. The judge passes the death sentence and you are taken to death row.
Do you still believe the sentence should be carried out quickly?

The death penalty, IMHO, is a violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. The death penalty is irreversable.

When even one wrongfully convicted person is executed, I think we have all commited murder, because the execution will have been carried out in our name.

When you are arrested all of your rights are stripped from you, I dont support the death penalty I just wanted to point that out to you.

It's funny, but when you look at objectively i'e' not from the side of the law but from logic, Execution is just premeditative murder. Somebody kills someone, so somebody kills someone else. What's the difference? None, really

It's funny, but when you look at objectively i'e' not from the side of the law but from logic, Execution is just premeditative murder. Somebody kills someone, so somebody kills someone else. What's the difference? None, really
Good thing we don't look at things objectively then. Apparently we wouldn't be able to understand the concepts of being innocent and guilty.

When you are arrested all of your rights are stripped from you, I dont support the death penalty I just wanted to point that out to you.

Then why, when you are arrested, do they read you your Miranda rights?

You know...You have the right to remain silent...bla bla bla

The death penalty is indeed a good thing, and humane. The problem is that unless there are a number of witnesses to the crime and overwhelming evidence it should never be used. There is always a chance that the case is wrong and the defendant is truly innocent. If they get life without parole, then there is the possibility that if they are innocent it will come to light later on. However for convicted rapists with DNA evidence I would have no problems with castration.

heh- I agree with the 2nd reply to the thread of "it's cheaper n' a better punishment of letting the person die in jail..." If ya bring religion into this- then it gives the killer time to really think about what they've done... instead of ending it w/ the capital punishment. I believe we need to be able to give these people this chance of redemption... and a chance to make their peace w/ their God.

Good thing we don't look at things objectively then. Apparently we wouldn't be able to understand the concepts of being innocent and guilty.
not what I said. Murder does not justify murder. Imprisonment, perhaps. Interesting that the US considers itself a civil country and yet it is one of the minority of HEDCs left that still uses an arcane system of punishment.

What happened to the whole 'cruel and unusual punishment' thing? Being doped up to your eyeballs while people watch through a glass window is fairly unusual. Or killing someone by cooking them from the inside is fairly cruel.
(Yes, I know, the electric chair is supposed to stop the heart. But sometimes the poor sod just fries)

Death penalty is good because if a person who killed someone etc. gets the due punishment in this life for thier crime it will keep them from getting a lower birth and suffering the effects of karma in their next life. So death penalty is actually good for a person who has committed horrible crimes.

Too humane for pedophiles, animal abusers, and rapists. They deserve worse.

Actually, I think it depends on the case. A 17 yr. old that freaks out during a robbery and shoots a clerk should be punished, but not killed. A 40 yr old that abducts, rapes, and kills a 9 year old should die. Period.

not what I said. Murder does not justify murder. Imprisonment, perhaps. Interesting that the US considers itself a civil country and yet it is one of the minority of HEDCs left that still uses an arcane system of punishment.

What happened to the whole 'cruel and unusual punishment' thing? Being doped up to your eyeballs while people watch through a glass window is fairly unusual. Or killing someone by cooking them from the inside is fairly cruel.
(Yes, I know, the electric chair is supposed to stop the heart. But sometimes the poor sod just fries)
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. From an "objective" (whatever that means) point of view, if giving someone a lethal injection is equivalent to that same person killing someone in cold blood because he was having a bad day, I would say that this "objective" point of view can not tell the difference between innocent and guilty. It cannot tell the difference between taking the life of a guilty person and an innocent person.

When you are arrested all of your rights are stripped from you, I dont support the death penalty I just wanted to point that out to you.

Uh, no they are not. If anything, you have more rights than you did before. You still very much have 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendment rights as those amendments specifically deal with being arrested and tried.

I support the death penalty on more than one occasions.

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. From an "objective" (whatever that means) point of view, if giving someone a lethal injection is equivalent to that same person killing someone in cold blood because he was having a bad day, I would say that this "objective" point of view can not tell the difference between innocent and guilty. It cannot tell the difference between taking the life of a guilty person and an innocent person.
But if you decide to kill someone because he committed a murder, that's still considered murder: Therefore guilty doesn't enter into the equation. If the court decides the same thing, it's not murder. Anyway, "Lawful" and "Unlawful" are subjective: Change a law and it's Lawful to kill whoever you want, change another and it's illegal to execute prisoners. Therefore, skip the term "Murder", and use "kill". Anyone who decides to kill someone else thinks he has a good enough reason for it, so how is the court's decision better? I'm not arguing: I'm asking a question.

Anyway: Is it Humane or inhuman? Well, can't it be both? Can't it be so humane it's inhuman. Or maybe it can be inhumane but still very human, because humans aren't necessarily very humane... in which case it's neither. Or maybe it was a typo. ;)

But if you decide to kill someone because he committed a murder, that's still considered murder: Therefore guilty doesn't enter into the equation.
How so? The death penalty has not been unlawful nationwide in the United States since the Supreme Court overturned its ruling a few decades ago. I don't know where you come from, but here, the death penalty is not considered murder.

If the court decides the same thing, it's not murder. Anyway, "Lawful" and "Unlawful" are subjective: Change a law and it's Lawful to kill whoever you want, change another and it's illegal to execute prisoners. Therefore, skip the term "Murder", and use "kill". Anyone who decides to kill someone else thinks he has a good enough reason for it, so how is the court's decision better? I'm not arguing: I'm asking a question.
The State has always had rights that individuals do not. Taxation is not extortion, and taking someone forcibly into jail is not kidnapping, just like the death penalty is not murder. The court's decisions are based on laws usually put in place by politicans voted in by the people, just as taxes are. Someone extorting money from another or killing them is based on a single person's decision, without the consent of the general public.

In the British Virgin Islands

If you kill someone, someone will kill you
if you shoot someone to death someone will shoot you to death
if you stab someone to death, someone will stab you to death
if you strangle someone to death, someone will strangle you to death.

They have one of lowest murder rates oround.

Humane, within reason, and depending on context.

I've always been very 'an eye for an eye'. As the above poster said, if you kill someone, someone will kill you. If you don't want someone to kill you, then don't kill someone. Because, hey, you started it.

I don't think Hammurabi did very well with the whole 'an eye for an eye' concept thing, though. Because stealing something and then getting punished by cutting off the hand? That's not 'an eye for an eye', that's more like 'an eye for a penis'.

The death penalty is a type of punishment the U.S. have been using for countless centuries...yet...comon! get w/ the 21st century! I really think that its not suppose to be the government's choice whether a person dies or not.....its sort of like the government being a murder too in certain aspect. For all that I know, there aren't any strong and reliable research stating that the DP deters crime in any way. i know its probably the criminal's mistake in the first place to even kill a person...but what about the mentally ill or innocent? They might even risk being executed if people are trialed unfairly! Obama stated in a speech that they found 18 ppl not guilty on the death row which is pretty sad in way that the justice system insn't to total perfection yet...
-Bictor

ok there are certain circumstances where there is doubt. if there is a hint of doubt then i do not believe the person in question should recieve the death penalty. if there is undisputable evidence that the person committed murder then i believe that the murderer should be hung old fashoin. these humane ways of snuffing them are rediculous if they killed someone they should feel pain just like their victims.

I am in favor of the death penalty myself.... but glad the US has very stringent requirements on how it is applied, that the convicted get a lot of appeals, and it is comparatively rarely used.

I am not interested in the deterrent aspect of it (as it doesnt really seem to have one), I think some of people convicted have done evil, and in this case, we can stamp it out (the evil)....so its about punishment in my view.

The Death Penalty as it is applied is comparatively mercifully handled... an IV, then they are sedated, then they die. Which considering how most them killed is very merciful indeed.

Some people committ acts that are so heinious, so evil, that they deserve the harshest penalty that can be applied. Then they can go to hell (if you believe in that) to face Gods punishment.

New Shiron wrote:

I am in favor of the death penalty myself.... but glad the US has very stringent requirements on how it is applied, that the convicted get a lot of appeals, and it is comparatively rarely used.

The stringent requirements don't rule out mistakes bing made, it also still leaves one man with anothers life in his hands (i.e. The Governor of whichever state the prisoner is held in). This is not a position to put anyone in, let alone a murdering barsteward like Bush (when he was governor), his tally outdone many of his predessors put together!

I am not interested in the deterrent aspect of it (as it doesnt really seem to have one), I think some of people convicted have done evil, and in this case, we can stamp it out (the evil)....so its about punishment in my view.

Punishment to fit the crime eh? or "like for like?", state sanctioned murder is still murder and makes the state as bad as the murderer.
A quick death for a murderer does no one any good, certainly not the families of the victim(s) of his/her crime.

The Death Penalty as it is applied is comparatively mercifully handled... an IV, then they are sedated, then they die. Which considering how most them killed is very merciful indeed.

Death is death, no matter how you paint it, as long as we condone the taking of a life, under any circumstances, then we are condemned to be forever barbaric in nature.
Punishment is only effective if it is seen to work, killing someone as a punishment for a hineous crime is like squashing a fly thinking another won't bother you only to find that there are many more to buzz around your head.

Some people committ acts that are so heinious, so evil, that they deserve the harshest penalty that can be applied. Then they can go to hell (if you believe in that) to face Gods punishment.

Death is NOT the harshest penalty, in many respects it is just the opposite for the criminal, make them sweat it out in jail, with no luxuries and hard labour for the rest of their natural life, THAT is the harshest penalty!

well, we obviously disagree, but your arguements are well reasoned ones...

the issue is an emotional one though, which is why the debate continues

incidently, murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a life... while execution is considered lawful and allowed under the US Constitution.

The Governor only has the right to commute a sentence or pardon, the decision to place a man or woman on death row is made by a jury in all the states I am aware of.

New Shiron wrote;

well, we obviously disagree, but your arguements are well reasoned ones
the issue is an emotional one though, which is why the debate continues

I don't think the two opppising camps on this debate will ever see common ground, but it is enlightening hearing both sides of the argument.



incidently, murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a life... while execution is considered lawful and allowed under the US Constitution.

Making a law to allow the killing of another human being doesn't make it morally or ethically right, what the US constitution, and every other country who has capital punishment is doing is simply bending the rules to body swerve any humanitarian issues.

The Governor only has the right to commute a sentence or pardon, the decision to place a man or woman on death row is made by a jury in all the states I am aware of.

Exactly, the Governor has the power in his hands to grant clemency but even in the face of heartfelt pleas, dodgy convictions and just plain decency they rarely use that power to the good.

Too humane for pedophiles, animal abusers, and rapists. They deserve worse.

Actually, I think it depends on the case. A 17 yr. old that freaks out during a robbery and shoots a clerk should be punished, but not killed. A 40 yr old that abducts, rapes, and kills a 9 year old should die. Period.

Surely other child abusers as well as paedophiles should count above animal abusers?

"Let the punishment fit the crime."

"Let the punishment fit the crime."


Hell of an argument there Sukafitz!

The death penalty is too good for some convicts. But if being humane is a main concern for most people, the Gallagher is by far the most humane of death dealing devices. I still wonder why the state hasn't purchased the damn bloody contraption yet.

Well the death penalty needs to be more painful so that the sentenced has to go through several hours of excurciating pain before they die. But right now life in prison is worse than the death penalty.

There was a Outer Limits episode that had this murderer hooked up to a
machine, that tricked his mind into believing he was the victim of all the
murders he commited. He was forced to a life sentence of reliving the
murders over & over again.

i support the death penalty.simply because i consider takeing someones life more humane than tortureing them.if one wishes to remove someone from society permanetly death is the only humane recourse.

revenge is not justise,to seek to inflict pain upon those sentenced makes you as bad as them.the point of justise is to protect those who could be harmed and to make people learn lessons.not make people suffer.