NationStates Jolt Archive

America considers itself the "World Police" and a "civilised" nation, yet many states still have the death sentence, personally I consider that disgusting, but whats you view on it?

I would say that the image America has of itself and the image America has in the rest of the world rarely match. And I assume that both have very little to do with reality.

If they only killed people that were actually guilty I wouldn't mind so much.
But too many turn out not to have been guilty, and you can't undo death.

Because it is a very stong thing, the state meddling with someones affairs in life, this one the most major of them all, their life. Only about 2% (can't really remember the figure) of all death sentences have been repealed ever in the U.S.

If they only killed people that were actually guilty I wouldn't mind so much.
But too many turn out not to have been guilty, and you can't undo death.
I find killing itself a very disgusting thing, I can't claim I'm a vegan or anything, but I'd never even go out shooting rabbits and the so

I'd rather see them bring back hard labor, personally. *shrugs*

It's quite the conudrum really. Most experts agree that violence is addictive (hence the popularity of violent video games). In other words, most murders will kill again if given the chance. So by removing a guilty murderer from the world you are saving the lives of his potential victims, numerous of them. However, uncertainty does mean that occasionally government does kill the innocent (as was stated before). Personally, I'm for the existence of the death penalty, but for very conservative issuing of it.

Hard labour for serious crime is an excellent thing. Capital punishment kills too many innocent poorer people who cant afford top dollar lawyers, and in any case the argfument "We will kill you for killing" is odd

It's quite the conudrum really. Most experts agree that violence is addictive (hence the popularity of violent video games). In other words, most murders will kill again if given the chance. So by removing a guilty murderer from the world you are saving the lives of his potential victims, numerous of them. However, uncertainty does mean that occasionally government does kill the innocent (as was stated before). Personally, I'm for the existence of the death penalty, but for very conservative issuing of it.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

There are different kinds of murder. Some people kill for "fun". And those are the ones where I lean towards agreeing with you. They will kill again. If they don't have any relation whatsoever with their victim, if they just choose a person out of the crowd to cut their throat.

Many more, though, murder a very specific person. Their cheating spouse, their abusive parent, or another very well selected person that earned their hatred. They don't kill randomly. They killed someone for a very specific and hardly repeatable reason.

Same kind of murder? Same degree of danger for the public?

It's quite the conudrum really. Most experts agree that violence is addictive (hence the popularity of violent video games). In other words, most murders will kill again if given the chance. So by removing a guilty murderer from the world you are saving the lives of his potential victims, numerous of them. However, uncertainty does mean that occasionally government does kill the innocent (as was stated before). Personally, I'm for the existence of the death penalty, but for very conservative issuing of it.
This argument doesnt cut the mustard. In the first place it is entirely possible to restrain a person from killing other people without having to go to the extreme of killing the restrained person.

As is happens, of the people I know who have killed other human beings, not a single one has killed more than one since. One of those people I know (or knew) who has killed (a human being) is now dead himself (he died a few years after being released from prison) so in his case I know for a fact that he will never kill a second time.

Another person I know who killed someone did so decades ago, has not done so again since, and in my opinion that is not likely to change, and yet another killed over a decade ago and I would put money on it that he wont be doing it again either.

I dont expect that I'm such a statistically special person that even though most murderers murder again, every murderer I know happens to be the remaining exception to the rule...:rolleyes:

I'd be all for abolishing the death penalty if those in this country that were so vehemently opposed opened their checkbooks and agreed to pay the costs of housing the scum that earned said penalty for life out of their own pockets.
As for me, I'd prefer to see my tax money spent elsewhere thank you very much.

I'd be all for abolishing the death penalty if those in this country that were so vehemently opposed opened their checkbooks and agreed to pay the costs of housing the scum that earned said penalty for life out of their own pockets.
As for me, I'd prefer to see my tax money spent elsewhere thank you very much.

As far as I know, the death penalty is much more expensive than life-time prison. A prisoner on the death row has the right to use every legal means to get new hearings on his case, resulting in lawyer, attorney and judge fees. It often takes up to 20 years until the penalty is carried out.

Besides, I don't think that a state should have the right to take away the life of people. So I'm vehemently opposed to death penalty.

I'm opposed to the death penalty. I don't think we have the right to take someone's life, regardless of the crimes they have comitted.

Depends on if your justice system is designed to punish the guilty or protect the innocent. If it's the former, the death penalty is good. If it's the latter, the death penalty is bad.

I'd be all for abolishing the death penalty if those in this country that were so vehemently opposed opened their checkbooks and agreed to pay the costs of housing the scum that earned said penalty for life out of their own pockets.
As for me, I'd prefer to see my tax money spent elsewhere thank you very much.

Couldn't agree more.

Couldn't agree more.

Apart from that it has been pointed out that death penalty is in fact often even more expensive than a life-time prison sentence, would you support the following then?

A rich murderer can afford to pay for prison, so he should receive a life-time sentence. A poor murderer can't afford to pay for prison, so he should be executed.

Apart from that it has been pointed out that death penalty is in fact often even more expensive than a life-time prison sentence, would you support the following then?

A rich murderer can afford to pay for prison, so he should receive a life-time sentence. A poor murderer can't afford to pay for prison, so he should be executed.

I was waiting for the classist argument to rear its ugly head... :rolleyes:

Apart from that it has been pointed out that death penalty is in fact often even more expensive than a life-time prison sentence, would you support the following then?

A rich murderer can afford to pay for prison, so he should receive a life-time sentence. A poor murderer can't afford to pay for prison, so he should be executed.

It's only expensive because of the way the appeals process works.

I believe that the death penalty should only be applied in circumstances where the evidence is not dependent on eyewitness testimony (which is flawed), but on DNA evidence and video footage (or still camera footage).

If they have you on camera, match bullets to your gun, have your fingerprints on the gun, and have your DNA on the victim, the appeals process should last two weeks - not twenty years.

I was waiting for the classist argument to rear its ugly head... :rolleyes:

And your answer is...?

I would say that the image America has of itself and the image America has in the rest of the world rarely match. And I assume that both have very little to do with reality.
I tend to agree with this. It's much like self-image vs. public-image. The two are seldom congruent. But at least if you have a positive self-image there is always hope that you can make it come true. :)

I tend to agree with this. It's much like self-image vs. public-image. The two are seldom congruent. But at least if you have a positive self-image there is always hope that you can make it come true. :)

That would be the case if you recognised that changes are necessary to achieve this positive self-image. If you think you're already there, all you do is decieving yourself :p

It's only expensive because of the way the appeals process works.

I believe that the death penalty should only be applied in circumstances where the evidence is not dependent on eyewitness testimony (which is flawed), but on DNA evidence and video footage (or still camera footage).

If they have you on camera, match bullets to your gun, have your fingerprints on the gun, and have your DNA on the victim, the appeals process should last two weeks - not twenty years.

But with the process being as it is, the financial argument does not hold water.

Besides, death sentence does still lack any deterence effect. So what arguments are there actually for death penalty?

I worked Death Row at SMUII a couple of times, and it is a very quiet place.
The death penalty would work better for what it was intended for, if the process was streamlined. For instance, DNA evidence seems to be the key in overturning death sentances, so no DP without convincing DNA evidence. One auto appeal, as anybody can screw something up - definately give them another chance to prove thier point. Then, and only then, after the jury reccomends the DP, it should be put into effect within one week. Nowadays we keep them in Death Row for 25 years or more, and they fight appeal after appeal, and that is where the money is wasted. Currently, it costs AZ, (as of June 2005 figures), about $19,795 to house one inmate for a year, on the average. http://www.azcorrections.gov/reports/CAGJun05.pdf
So, let me ask a serious question - why would you want a life sentance?
A life sentance means this individual can NEVER be reformed, ever, is a serious menace to life and limb of society, can never be trusted or rehabilitated. So why do we feed, house, educate, medicate, all these lifers, who will never ever be anything but a huge burden to society? Every year a lifer is walking the yard, is one more year he is plotting to escape, and escapees will kill without thought. Either make your max sentance 25 years flat, or a crime worthy of life in prison is now death penalty. Period.

I'm sorry but people whos argument is 'there are too many mistakes/innocents/etc' should not be allowed to arguee this point. We live in a world of DNA testing that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty so there will be NO mistakes.

Lets see, would you rather £24,000 [$46,000] a year was spent of YOUR taxpayers money keeping scum like Multiple Rapists/Child Molesters/Seriel Killers alive and healthy till they die or their lawyer gets them out on a 'technicality' or would you rather they got the punishment they deserved?

I believe the deathn penalty is a good deterant to people that commit these crimes, look at us in the UK where since the death penalty has been abolished crime has risen year-on-year since. I rest my case.

http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/cappun.htm

just a link showing that capital punishment is more expensive.

Lets see, would you rather £24,000 [$46,000] a year was spent of YOUR taxpayers money keeping scum like Multiple Rapists/Child Molesters/Seriel Killers alive and healthy till they die or their lawyer gets them out on a 'technicality' or would you rather they got the punishment they deserved?

I'm fine with that, as no crime ever deserves capital punishment.


I believe the deathn penalty is a good deterant to people that commit these crimes, look at us in the UK where since the death penalty has been abolished crime has risen year-on-year since. I rest my case.

Ah, and before that it has been falling?

And your answer is...?

They should both be executed.

I'm fine with that, as no crime ever deserves capital punishment.

Umm.. Seriel Rape? Mass Murder?


Ah, and before that it has been falling?


Not quite but the increase was alot less and more in line with population increase.

But with the process being as it is, the financial argument does not hold water.

Besides, death sentence does still lack any deterence effect. So what arguments are there actually for death penalty?

Texas and Virginia have streamlined the process for cases with hard evidence.

There was a recent case in Virginia where a young man killed a state trooper. Caught on video. Bullets matched his gun - fingerprints on gun - his own blood at the scene (trooper managed to return fire and wound him before the trooper died).

Well, his time on death row only took a little under three years. Much cheaper.

Umm.. Seriel Rape? Mass Murder?


Speaking as a victim, still no.


Not quite but the increase was alot less and more in line with population increase.

Do you have the numbers to back that up or are you purely speculating?

I'm sorry but people whos argument is 'there are too many mistakes/innocents/etc' should not be allowed to arguee this point. We live in a world of DNA testing that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty so there will be NO mistakes.

Indeed. Why do we even bother with trials anymore?

Lets see, would you rather £24,000 [$46,000] a year was spent of YOUR taxpayers money keeping scum like Multiple Rapists/Child Molesters/Seriel Killers alive and healthy till they die or their lawyer gets them out on a 'technicality' or would you rather they got the punishment they deserved?


Deserved? They are getting the punishment they deserve. They are in prison.

I believe the deathn penalty is a good deterant to people that commit these crimes, look at us in the UK where since the death penalty has been abolished crime has risen year-on-year since. I rest my case.

So has the prevalence of STD's. Correlation is not causation.
Look at it this way. A murder is either going to pre-mediated or spontenous. If the murder is premeditated then the death peanalty will only make the murder more careful. After all he doesn't really think that he'll be caught. If it's spontaneous then the murder isn't thinking about anything at all. They're just driven by (usually) rage and drink. The death penalty has no deterrent factor.

They should both be executed.

But wasn't your reasoning, that death penalty should be applied because a lifetime sentence was a waste of taxpayer's money? Why then should it be applied for the rich guy who could pay for his sentence and thus there would be no waste of taxes?

America considers itself the "World Police" and a "civilised" nation, yet many states still have the death sentence, personally I consider that disgusting, but whats you view on it?
Thank you for defining the world "civilized" for us. Now make a seperate thread condeming as many world cultures as you can due to their lack of "civilization," since you seem to have such a well-defined definition and everything.

But wasn't your reasoning, that death penalty should be applied because a lifetime sentence was a waste of taxpayer's money? Why then should it be applied for the rich guy who could pay for his sentence and thus there would be no waste of taxes?

Because the law has to be applied evenly.

In principle I support the death penalty, but I dont support the way its applied. And Bush alone while he was governor had over 70 innocent people executed. all of them black, incidentally.

It should be used for serial killers and rapists and other such criminals whose crimes are severe and who would reoffend. And only if they are definitely guilty, ie if the evidence is so compelling only the criminal or their clone could have committed the crime.

In principle I support the death penalty, but I dont support the way its applied. And Bush alone while he was governor had over 70 innocent people executed. all of them black, incidentally.


Really? 70 innocent? Link please!

I believe it's irresponsible (to put it politely) to hand over to corruptable, fallible authorities the right to take a human life. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. Instead, strip down our prisons to barebones essentials by removing hotel-like amenities for lifetime inmates.
You know what would really work to lessen violent crime? Erradicate rediculous laws that would seek inprisonment for victimless crimes (drugs, gambling and prostitution) so that law enforcement actually has the time and budget to successfully combat violent crime.

Reason alone should dictate that this tactic would do more in one year to prevent and prosecute real crimes and criminals than twenty years of hard-core executions.

Because the law has to be applied evenly.

Point taken.

Really? 70 innocent? Link please!

Indeed. People should try and make thier outlandish claims remotly believable. Take it down to twenty and throw in three mexicans, a frenchman and a mime-artist.

I'm sorry but people whos argument is 'there are too many mistakes/innocents/etc' should not be allowed to arguee this point. We live in a world of DNA testing that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty so there will be NO mistakes.

Ah yes, the unshakable belief in the wonders of modern science… Unfortunately, that’s not how it works.

A few minutes of Googling:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/183018_crimelabboxesweb22.html
http://www.scientific.org/archive/Houston's%20Troubled%20DNA%20Crime%20Lab%20Faces%20Scrutiny.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/190668_crimelab14.html

There are many problems with basing judgment solely on DNA evidence. Partial DNA samples, contaminated samples, false matches and so on…


Personally, I think that the DP is barbaric. “Mister Jones, you are hereby condemned for murder – so now we will murder you!”. How can we condemn someone of a crime and then inflict the same crime on them? Should those who effectuate the penalty be tried as murderers themselves?

I believe that this reflects a difference in how we see convicts. In Denmark, we believe that no-one (save perhaps a few very disturbed individuals) is beyond redemption. And so we punish them, and then give them a second chance.
In America, there seems to be a belief that criminals are utterly beyond redemption, and so they’re never to be released back into society.

I have a feeling that it’s more about vengeance than about justice. “That SOB killed my friend / son / whatever so now I’m going to kill him!”.

Indeed. People should try and make thier outlandish claims remotly believable. Take it down to twenty and throw in three mexicans, a frenchman and a mime-artist.
If he had said, "allowed the execution of a mentally retarded person," I might have bought it.

But 70 innocent people? Nope.

In America, there seems to be a belief that criminals are utterly beyond redemption, on so they’re never to be released back into society.


Most criminals in the US never serve more than a fraction of the hard time. Most are released on parole, although this number is dropping due to mandatory sentencing laws.

We found through the 1970s and 1980s that recidivism (repeat offending by released prisoners who went through rehabilitation programs) was between 70 and 80 percent.

Cheaper just to warehouse them.

Most criminals in the US never serve more than a fraction of the hard time. Most are released on parole, although this number is dropping due to mandatory sentencing laws.

We found through the 1970s and 1980s that recidivism (repeat offending by released prisoners who went through rehabilitation programs) was between 70 and 80 percent.

Cheaper just to warehouse them.

Do you know what the repeat rate is for those who served their entire sentences?

Do you know what the repeat rate is for those who served their entire sentences?

I *do* know that if your sentence ends when you are above the age of 55, the odds of you repeating your crime drops to single digit percentages (with the exception of pedophilia and serial murder).

But if you're younger, especially below the age of 30, even if you served an 8 year sentence for armed robbery between age 22 and 30, your odds of repeat offending are around 70 percent in the US.

The best rehabilitation is aging someone until they can't get up the physical wherewithal and nerve to do the crime again.

America considers itself the "World Police" and a "civilised" nation, yet many states still have the death sentence, personally I consider that disgusting, but whats you view on it?
I'm technically against it, but since only brutal murderers and rapists and such get sentenced to it I don't get too upset. Kind of like some peole who are morally opposed to abortion but don't try to stop others from getting one.

I'd be all for abolishing the death penalty if those in this country that were so vehemently opposed opened their checkbooks and agreed to pay the costs of housing the scum that earned said penalty for life out of their own pockets.
As for me, I'd prefer to see my tax money spent elsewhere thank you very much.

Well, running a court system that has a reputable ability to adjudicate guilt costs more than simply putting the guy in jail after he's found guilty and then letting him appeal if he has any new evidence or evidence of misconduct on the part of the prosecutor.

Are you unwilling to see your taxes spent on a court system that finds out if people really are guilty before hanging them? If so, I accuse you of murder. I expect you to forego legal challenge to my accusation and turn yourself in to the police for execution. Otherwise I accuse you of hypocrisy.

A fair trial with life in prison is cheaper than a fair trial with execution for those found guilty.

It's only expensive because of the way the appeals process works.

I believe that the death penalty should only be applied in circumstances where the evidence is not dependent on eyewitness testimony (which is flawed), but on DNA evidence and video footage (or still camera footage).

If they have you on camera, match bullets to your gun, have your fingerprints on the gun, and have your DNA on the victim, the appeals process should last two weeks - not twenty years.

So if you have sex with a girl and then she gets murdered on her way home then you should get executed two weeks later because the DNA proves that you killed her?

Indeed. People should try and make thier outlandish claims remotly believable. Take it down to twenty and throw in three mexicans, a frenchman and a mime-artist.

This is what really annoys me about the Bush apologists. Bush does horrendous things that are completly inexcusable, and then when people point them out the response is "oh please! That's absurd."

Yes, it is absurd. It's true, but that's the most absurd thing about it. He's the fucking "Texecutioner." You don't get a name like that by doing 20 executions in 5 years.

Here's the link. (http://baltimorechronicle.com/executioner_jul01.html)

Yes. It's absurd that Bush oversaw 70 executions in his years as governor. It's also an understatement.

As Governor of Texas, George W. Bush held the proud distinction of being the deadliest governor in U.S. history. In five years of “compassionate conservatism,” Texas executed 152 inmates, including a record-breaking 40 executions in 2000 alone.

I suppose it would also be hyperbole to say that Bush didn't really give each of these executions the attention that the taking of a human life deserves. It would be rediculous to think that he didn't care about killing people. Right? So why should I say it?

During his record-breaking year, Bush averaged an execution every nine days. Furthermore, he racked up a whopping seven executions in both January and May. And in August, he accomplished a “daily double” by executing two prisoners on the same day in the same prison.

But of course, he only executed those who were clearly hardened criminals. Truly evil people who deserved the harshest penalty the law could mete out. Justice could not be satisfied with mere life in prison for people such as these.

For one thing, the U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned the death sentence of John Paul Penry, a mentally retarded Texas inmate. As Texas governor, Bush denied Penry’s requests for clemency despite the fact that Penry has the mind of a seven-year old as he likes to play with coloring books and still believes in Santa Claus.

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If something sounds to bad to be true, you'd better check.

Most criminals in the US never serve more than a fraction of the hard time. Most are released on parole, although this number is dropping due to mandatory sentencing laws.

We found through the 1970s and 1980s that recidivism (repeat offending by released prisoners who went through rehabilitation programs) was between 70 and 80 percent.

Cheaper just to warehouse them.


Now, that’s a lot…

Acording to ”Kriminalforsorgen” (those guys who take care of the Danish prisons), only 27% of inmates commit repeated offences.

How hard do the American prisons try to rehabilitate the inmates? Here in Denmark, we spend a lot of time rehabilitating the inmates and making sure that they use their prison-time for something useful (mostly education and acquiring new skills).

Link: http://www.kriminalforsorgen.dk/publika/aarsberetning2004/html/kap05.htm
(Unfortunately, it’s in Danish – I couldn’t find an English counterpart…).

Depends on if your justice system is designed to punish the guilty or protect the innocent. If it's the former, the death penalty is good. If it's the latter, the death penalty is bad.

And if it's designed to do both?

So if you have sex with a girl and then she gets murdered on her way home then you should get executed two weeks later because the DNA proves that you killed her?
O_o, how would having sex produce DNA evidence that you killed someone? Maybe you know more about Deep Kimchi then I do, but I know my penis isn't a lethal weapon, and so I think that the same general nonlethality would apply to his.

I support the death penalty.

For murder, rape, child molestery, selling class A drugs and Piracy.

Fairly obviously I dont agree with the dishing out of it unless guilt is pretty damn sure.

It might not be a deterrent (theres all sorts of arguments both ways floating about about that, and its hard to find evidence of crimes not committed) but it does prevent re-offending with 100% efficiency.

I'm sorry but people whos argument is 'there are too many mistakes/innocents/etc' should not be allowed to arguee this point. We live in a world of DNA testing that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty so there will be NO mistakes.


DNA isn't perfect. There is something called genetic variation, and the quality of the samples are imperative. Let's say we have a national DNA index, in which every person (legally) in the country are registered. A murder is committed 1000 km. away, the quality of the DNA-samples are bad, but it is possibly to point out you, but there is no doubt you could have done it. Why is there your DNA at the scene of crime?

And what if there are no DNA?

Hmm, pay exorbient sums to incarcarate a 21 year old for life subsequent to a murder conviction, or hang him, and save a considerable amount of tax money, and reduce taxes.

And, any convicted murderer deserves it, relativism is utter bilge, murder is a crime, and should be met with force.

I support the death penalty.

For murder, rape, child molestery, selling class A drugs and Piracy.
Is this Piracy on the High Seas, or Software Piracy?

Is this Piracy on the High Seas, or Software Piracy?


On the high seas of course.

oh, two I forgot to add to the list.

High Treason to the Crown and setting fire to HM's Dockyards (both of which can technically still warrant the death penalty here anyway)

This is what really annoys me about the Bush apologists. Bush does horrendous things that are completly inexcusable, and then when people point them out the response is "oh please! That's absurd."


The original poster said seventy innocent victims. That's what I found unbelievable.

Hmm, pay exorbient sums to incarcarate a 21 year old for life subsequent to a murder conviction, or hang him, and save a considerable amount of tax money, and reduce taxes.

I could save considerable money by simply taking things from stores instead of paying for them. It wouldn't make stealing right.

And if it's designed to do both?

One of them has to take priority. In America, it's punishment. In Europe, it's protection.

I could save considerable money by simply taking things from stores instead of paying for them. It wouldn't make stealing right.

Different notion and context, and an inappropriate reference. Why should we pay fes in excess of those charged by the ritz to incarcerate individuals who, to all intents and purposes, are degenerate, contribute nothing to society, and deserve to be dead?

Different notion and context, and an inappropriate reference. Why should we pay fes in excess of those charged by the ritz to incarcerate individuals who, to all intents and purposes, are degenerate, contribute nothing to society, and deserve to be dead?

a) It's immoral to kill them.
b) They might be innocent.

a) It's immoral to kill them.
b) They might be innocent.

a) whereas the original crime, to warrant the sentence, was morally justified I assume?

b) hence a more stringent legal procedure with a review after a period, and safeguards to ensure justice is served.

a) whereas the original crime, to warrant the sentence, was morally justified I assume?

Of course not. Doesn't make it any less wrong.


b) hence a more stringent legal procedure with a review after a period, and safeguards to ensure justice is served.

The eternal battle between punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent. If you think the latter is the most important, almost no safeguard would be safe enough.

Of course not. Doesn't make it any less wrong.



The eternal battle between punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent. If you think the latter is the most important, almost no safeguard would be safe enough.

firstly, an eye for an eye, my dear man. That would act as a deterrent for most crimes.

Secondly, punishment is always more important

Execution should not be option number one, CASTRATION should be option number one. (I haven't considered what to do with women murderers yet) Then, if they do it again, then put them out of our misery. Give them a year to come up with proof of innocence, if not, put them down. simple as that. I don't see why we have people on death row for decades.

firstly, an eye for an eye, my dear man. That would act as a deterrent for most crimes.

As I said before:
Look at it this way. A murder is either going to pre-mediated or spontenous. If the murder is premeditated then the death peanalty will only make the murder more careful. After all he doesn't really think that he'll be caught. If it's spontaneous then the murder isn't thinking about anything at all. They're just driven by (usually) rage and drink. The death penalty has no deterrent factor.


Secondly, punishment is always more important

Not this side of the pond. Cultural differences are to blame, I suppose.

Execution should not be option number one, CASTRATION should be option number one. (I haven't considered what to do with women murderers yet)

Because life isn't as simple as that? Forced castration is as immoral as murder, and equally difficult to reverse.

Then, if they do it again, then put them out of our misery. Give them a year to come up with proof of innocence, if not, put them down. simple as that. I don't see why we have people on death row for decades.

New evidence comes to light all the time. A "one size fits all" solution isn't helpful at all.

The death penalty is an aberration. The state should never kill people, regardless of guilt or innocence. The executioner does the murderer the compliment of immitation.

When we kill someone out of vengeance - and yes, the death penalty is pure vengeance. It is not justice, or restitution or any attempt at rehabilitation, it is pure vengeance built from hate - we commit the same crime as the murderer. We declare that, yes, killing IS the answer. Yes, it is acceptable to kill people to solve your problems or achieve your goal. Yes, it is acceptable to let your hate, your anger, your emotions to drive you to kill. To execute someone is to become the ultimate hypocrite.

The death penalty has no use as a deterrence, if someone is not going to be detrred by spending the rest of their life in prison then they are hardly going to be concerned about dying. When Britain dropped the death penalty there was an outcry that crime would spike, without the ultimate deterrence, we would see murderers killing without restraint or fetter. It didn't happen. the crime rate didn't spike. There was no increase.

In fact, deterrence theory in general is deeply flawed for serious crimes since it requires the criminal to believe that they will actually be caught. Few expect that.


We live and have the ultimate, precious freedom of life. There are few rights that are inviolate, but this must be top among them - for if the government can take your life then there is nothing they cannot take.

The death penalty should be used more often. If a person commites rape, murder, or treason that person should be killed. No more of this twenty years on death row, thats more like a life sentence than a death sentence and uses way too much money to keep these people alive. I belive that a few innocent people killed is fine as long as most are guilty though there should be strong evidence including DNA inorder to even give a death sentence. I belive that yes the governmnet does have a right to say that you as a citizen of their country, commiting a horrid crime, should die.:D

The death penalty should be used more often. If a person commites rape, murder, or treason that person should be killed. No more of this twenty years on death row, thats more like a life sentence than a death sentence and uses way too much money to keep these people alive. I belive that a few innocent people killed is fine as long as most are guilty though there should be strong evidence including DNA inorder to even give a death sentence. I belive that yes the governmnet does have a right to say that you as a citizen of their country, commiting a horrid crime, should die.:D

You willing to volunteer yourself as one of those "innocent people"?

I believe crime should be punishable by the eye for an eye method. If someone kills someone (other than self-defense) they should be killed. If someone rapes someone, they should be fed to Bubba the 300 lb hairy prison inmate. If someone steals, something should be taken from them of equal value or, if that person cannot compensate for the stolen goods, they should be given some kind of work program to pay back the debt. If someone does drugs, depending on the nature of the drug, they should either smoke out everyone else or be put in a place where everybody else does the same drug so that they can see what they will look like as say a 40 year old cracked out prostitute. Two wrongs do make a right, that's how I was born!:fluffle:

I believe crime should be punishable by the eye for an eye method. If someone kills someone (other than self-defense) they should be killed. If someone rapes someone, they should be fed to Bubba the 300 lb hairy prison inmate.

Again, rape isn't moral. Nor is it easy to reverse should the criminal be innocent.


If someone steals, something should be taken from them of equal value or, if that person cannot compensate for the stolen goods, they should be given some kind of work program to pay back the debt.

So the rich can buy thier way out of punnishment? That's hardly fair.


If someone does drugs, depending on the nature of the drug, they should either smoke out everyone else or be put in a place where everybody else does the same drug so that they can see what they will look like as say a 40 year old cracked out prostitute.

Give drug addicts more drugs. Not exactly the best of plans.

TI belive that a few innocent people killed is fine as long as most are guilty though there should be strong evidence including DNA inorder to even give a death sentence.

Do you have children? A husband/wife? Parents? Siblings?

Go look at one of these beloved family members. Someone you love totally and completely and it will kill something inside of you to lose them.

They are going to die. The government is going to kill them. They have done nothing. They are innocent. They are good. And you love them. But they are going to die and nothing you can do will stop it, the government you elected will kill them.

Are you ready to let them go? Are you willing to?

Because someone will have to. If not you, someone else will loose that loved one. Someone will see that loved one killed by the government that should be protecting them.

Unless you can watch your old children make that long watch, unless you can watch your parents take that last gasp, until you can watch the fear in your own spouse's eyes as the government kills them then you cannot ask another to make that sacrifice.

But too many turn out not to have been guilty, and you can't undo death.

Name one. Just one. I'll even agree that you can go back 40 years. I'll bet that you won't find one single case where the person who was executed was later vindicated. Not one.

Your line is merely a throw-away.

Again, rape isn't moral. Nor is it easy to reverse should the criminal be innocent. If we make a mistake then we let the guy go and to make up for Bubba raping him, we'll give him 5 prostitutes a day for the rest of his life.



So the rich can buy thier way out of punnishment? That's hardly fair.If they make up for the crime by replacing the value of what they stole, then I think it is completely fair. And whosays the rich don't already?



Give drug addicts more drugs. Not exactly the best of plans. Tell me that if you put a tweaker in a room with 5,000 other tweakers they won't find the immediate desire to quit. At the very worst, it would be the cleanest room ever.

Name one. Just one. I'll even agree that you can go back 40 years. I'll bet that you won't find one single case where the person who was executed was later vindicated. Not one.

Your line is merely a throw-away.

Here's a big list of death sentances that were reversed.

*Page has been defaced, I'll look elsewhere*

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6

They did the crime, the should do the time, or rather get legally murdered

no such thing as legally murdered, you're either murdered (illegal killing) or your killed (legal killing). so your 2nd poll option is an oxymoron and just shows your biased-ness to the options.

Either way, i believe in the death penalty. i just wish they would use it more wisely.

If we make a mistake then we let the guy go and to make up for Bubba raping him, we'll give him 5 prostitutes a day for the rest of his life.

You know, I might even put up with bubba for two years for that. Hmmmmm...

Here's a big list of death sentances that were reversed.

*Page has been defaced, I'll look elsewhere*

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6
he said after they were killed, not before :P

he said after they were killed, not before :P

If that many were found not to be guilty, I'm sure that there's someone who slipped through the net.
I'll look again. It'll be harder though. People don't usually work to clear the names of dead men.

You know, I might even put up with bubba for two years for that. Hmmmmm...

See? I have this all worked out.

If that many were found not to be guilty, I'm sure that there's someone who slipped through the net.
I'll look again. It'll be harder though. People don't usually work to clear the names of dead men.

nodnod. that's why i said they should use it more wisely. If that many are wrongly accused, there's something wrong.

As far as I know, the death penalty is much more expensive than life-time prison. A prisoner on the death row has the right to use every legal means to get new hearings on his case, resulting in lawyer, attorney and judge fees. It often takes up to 20 years until the penalty is carried out.

Besides, I don't think that a state should have the right to take away the life of people. So I'm vehemently opposed to death penalty.

the DP is more expensive than life in prison

and it is not logical... at all.

it is based on vengeance.

If that many were found not to be guilty, I'm sure that there's someone who slipped through the net.
I'll look again. It'll be harder though. People don't usually work to clear the names of dead men.
I believe a black woman in the south was pardoned posthumously for her murder of her white employer.

O_o, how would having sex produce DNA evidence that you killed someone? Maybe you know more about Deep Kimchi then I do, but I know my penis isn't a lethal weapon, and so I think that the same general nonlethality would apply to his.

The same way that your finger prints on a gun prove that you were the one who fired it into the murder victim. All that DNA evidence does is tie you to the scene/victim. It doesn't actually prove how your DNA got there.

It's like the Patrice O'Niel joke. "I don't litter, not because I care about the Earth. It's just that I know that the one time I do throw a Coke can into the bushes it's going to land on some dead white lady's head. Now all of a sudden, I'm the Cola rapist just because I'm too lazy to clean up after myself."

As I said before:
Look at it this way. A murder is either going to pre-mediated or spontenous. If the murder is premeditated then the death peanalty will only make the murder more careful. After all he doesn't really think that he'll be caught. If it's spontaneous then the murder isn't thinking about anything at all. They're just driven by (usually) rage and drink. The death penalty has no deterrent factor.



Not this side of the pond. Cultural differences are to blame, I suppose.

I'm British sweetheart, just reasonable and rational as well.

firstly, an eye for an eye, my dear man. That would act as a deterrent for most crimes.

Secondly, punishment is always more important

"Eye for an eye" is a mitigatory rule, not a compulsory one. 'No more than an eye for an eye,' not 'at least an eye for an eye.' It means that you can't hang a man for theft, or put him in jail for 10 years for posession of marijuana. It does not prohibit allowing a murderer to simply sit in prison for the rest of his life. Especially in a supposedly Christian nation (since you're quoting the bible here I feel justified in making this adendum), in which a person should be given up until the moment that God chooses to call him home to find his own salvation.