NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello everybody,

As we know there are some great differences between Europe and the USA. Besides gun control there is also the issue of the death penalty. As you probably know is there no death penalty in Europe. But how do you think about this issue?

I 'm from the Netherlands and against the death penalty. One of the reasons is that I think it's morally unjust. To punish someone with the death penalty because of murder is being as evil as the murderer. Because we (the society) now also murder.

Against. And I'm Dutch too.

And also for the above reason...sheesh

*thinks*

Oh! and because the death penalty is revenge, not punishment

We all know who's going to win. Most people here are liberal and for the most part liberals are against the death pentally.

Apparently, I'm the only person who sees justification in the death penalty in some cases...

I'm not a proponent of the Death penalty for every murder per se, but for some of the most sadistic, repeat offenders... yeah. I know that the death penalty isn't really much of a deterrant, and that it's 'only for the purpose of revenge', but that's an important part of the national psyche.

I also don't subscribe to the 'society will become murderers' point of view. Nobody's against putting down a vicious animal, or of soldiers shooting the enemy during times of War. Society is better off with some of these people 'put down'.

I'm no opposed to the death penalty in itself, I am strongly opposed to the stupid American system that is in effect. Do you realize that more people die of natural causes on death row than actually get executed? That is just a pointless strain on the economy. Death row inmates cost a lot more to keep than life-with-no-parole inmates. And it isn't a deterrent if the people know well and good that they probably will never actually be put to death. For probably the first time in my life, I actually agree with the Texas government on something. They have put in a kind of "express lane" for convicted first degree murders with at least 3 eye witnesses. They go right to the front of the line in Texas. That is a step in the right direction. Not only should we have that, but also more executions per year. I say that once you have had your days in court (original decision and appeals) you have exactly 3 months before you will be dead. If scheduling issues (as in a prison has like 10 executions in a single day) occur you can go later. And we impliment the Texas system of 3 eyewitnesses gets you to the front of the line. If there are three credible eyewitnesses and you have finished your appeals, then you have 2 weeks before your execution. If there are scheduling issues in this case, you are moved up instead of back (as in you can go earlier than normal) with a minimum of 3 days advance notice. If we speed it up it makes it much more of a deterrent, it makes jails less crowded, and it decreases the burden on the government to waste tax dollars on death row inmates. Obviously states without the death penalty won't be forced to adopt it, but the states that have it should impliment this policy in my opinion.

First try to rehabilitate them.
If that dosent work, well, send them to a work camp, no point in wasting an immate. I mean, why would you kill someone when you can use him to build roads, or carry dangerous materials. Plus because you're not killing them, and not torturing them, it will seem more humane.

I support the death penalty in certain murder cases. The death penalty is simply the golden rule being enforced. What you do unto others shall be done unto you. It is totally fair and equal justice, an eye for an eye, tit for tat.
It is sad though how death row is in most US states...there should really be fewer appeals.
Our methods of execution are also just stupid - gas chamber, lethal injection, electric chair...crazy. Why not a bullet in the head? That is much more humane than any of our current methods.

First try to rehabilitate them.
If that dosent work, well, send them to a work camp, no point in wasting an immate. I mean, why would you kill someone when you can use him to build roads, or carry dangerous materials. Plus because you're not killing them, and not torturing them, it will seem more humane.

Unless he chooses to do it then there will be cries that it is a violation of the criminal's civil rights. I'd rather go the route that is an issue frequently for my nation and simply force them to be blood donors. Have them give something back to society.

First try to rehabilitate them.
If that dosent work, well, send them to a work camp, no point in wasting an immate. I mean, why would you kill someone when you can use him to build roads, or carry dangerous materials. Plus because you're not killing them, and not torturing them, it will seem more humane.
Forced labor can be considered torture. Plus cruel and unusual if the work hours are great or it puts the inmate in dangerous situations. You'd end up with hundreds of murders walking free because of their constitutional right to humane and regular punishments.
I could see such a thing for "lesser" criminals, as a kind of community service, but murders should be kept in the least excapable locations. And the best location for convicted first degree murders is the grave in my opinion. I'm all for rehibilitation and humane treatment, but when someone plans and executes a murder of an innocent, that can't be allowed to stand.

I support the death penalty.

Tookie is a good example. Everyone was whining that he ought to be saved. Because it was a media sensation. Because he was an author, and thus part of the media. He trumpeted his supposed rehab (though he never admitted to the killings he did, let alone apologize) and 'liberals' swallowed it. Of course, the non-famous, non-media sensation death row inmates? No one made a big deal out of them. Sheep, sheep I say! Baaaah.

Unless he chooses to do it then there will be cries that it is a violation of the criminal's civil rights. I'd rather go the route that is an issue frequently for my nation and simply force them to be blood donors. Have them give something back to society.
Also could be considered cruel and [definitely] unusual to have mandatory blood donations as punishment.
Why not a bullet in the head? That is much more humane than any of our current methods.
Plenty of reasons. First of all, your logic is flawed that it is more humane to shoot someone. It is not. First of all, you are multilating their body, one which their family may want to preserve. Secondly, no one would want to be an executioner. Right now all they have to do is pull a lever, never have to see the person they are killing, never have to listen to the cries of family members, never have to think about the "what-if's" of the situation. If you put them in a position where they had to shoot someone through the head, it would be mentally draining, attacking their state of mind, and probably causing mental illness. Haven't you ever heard of all the councilling police officers go through after killing a criminal, even if the criminal was shooting at the officer? It is very hard to kill another human being, no matter what they have done in the past.

We all know who's going to win. Most people here are liberal and for the most part liberals are against the death pentally.

Isn't that the truth?

Anyway. I believe the death penalty is far cheaper than imprisoning someone for the rest of their natural life. I also believe that states such as my native California might see a reduction in crime if our death penalty didn't take, on average, 18 years to carry out.

With that in mind, I also support the firing squad. It's quick, it's efficient, it's guaranteed to work (provided your executioners aren't complete dipshits), and it leaves most of the body's major organs intact and suitable for donation afterwards. No other form of modern death, aside from decapitation and hanging, does this. And, personally, I'd rather be shot than "put down" like an animal, which is allegedly more humane.

Also could be considered cruel and [definitely] unusual to have mandatory blood donations as punishment.

Plenty of reasons. First of all, your logic is flawed that it is more humane to shoot someone. It is not. First of all, you are multilating their body, one which their family may want to preserve. Secondly, no one would want to be an executioner. Right now all they have to do is pull a lever, never have to see the person they are killing, never have to listen to the cries of family members, never have to think about the "what-if's" of the situation. If you put them in a position where they had to shoot someone through the head, it would be mentally draining, attacking their state of mind, and probably causing mental illness. Haven't you ever heard of all the councilling police officers go through after killing a criminal, even if the criminal was shooting at the officer? It is very hard to kill another human being, no matter what they have done in the past.

I would be honored if the State of California asked me to lead a 'Capital Punishment' firing squad, and would assume my duties immediately.

kill the killers.

Isn't that the truth?

Anyway. I believe the death penalty is far cheaper than imprisoning someone for the rest of their natural life. I also believe that states such as my native California might see a reduction in crime if our death penalty didn't take, on average, 18 years to carry out.

With that in mind, I also support the firing squad. It's quick, it's efficient, it's guaranteed to work (provided your executioners aren't complete dipshits), and it leaves most of the body's major organs intact and suitable for donation afterwards. No other form of modern death, aside from decapitation and hanging, does this. And, personally, I'd rather be shot than "put down" like an animal, which is allegedly more humane.


I prefer decapitation. Off with their heads!

Where the option for "For" but only if the system is reformed to ensure %100 of people executed are guilty. I have no problem with putting a bullet into the head of murderer, but killing an innocent person is worse than letting a criminal live.

I prefer decapitation. Off with their heads!
Inhumane. It'd never work with the Bill of Rights the way it is. It has been proven that the head continues to live for a few moments even after being seperated from the body.

Where the option for "For" but only if the system is reformed to ensure %100 of people executed are guilty. I have no problem with putting a bullet into the head of murderer, but killing an innocent person is worse than letting a criminal live.
The only way to guaruntee that is to not execute anyone.

Indeed. Conversely, seven Remington .30-30 Full Metal Jacket slugs to the head and chest will put you down instantaneously, if not in a fraction of seconds.

I'd rather be shot than "put down"

I don't agree with the death penalty, but I really don't get why lethal injections are more humane than other methods of execution. Personally, I'd prefer a quick shot to the head. I wouldn't like to be strapped to a table, get injected, and wait to die gradually. Plus, it'd be cheaper, more efficient, and easier. Major organs and such would remain unscathed.

It has been proven that the head continues to live for a few moments even after being seperated from the body.

Might I ask how this hypothesis was tested/proven? Did they chop off some heads and see how long they took to die?

Might I ask how this hypothesis was tested/proven? Did they chop off some heads and see how long they took to die?

I believe they based it off of brain activity scans before, during, and after the act of decapitation; the brain continued functioning for a few moments after being removed from the body, which leads us to believe the subject remains conscious of his bodiless state.

[QUOTE=FreDeath row inmates cost a lot more to keep than life-with-no-parole inmates.[/QUOTE]

How does that work out? They should just be shot, a bullet can't cost as much as a life time of meals.

Inhumane. It'd never work with the Bill of Rights the way it is. It has been proven that the head continues to live for a few moments even after being seperated from the body.

So? That'd be cool. Imagine living for a few seconds as nothing but your head. Watching the world tumble around you... it'd be almost worth getting executed!

How does that work out? They should just be shot, a bullet can't cost as much as a life time of meals.

I know this is true in California due to the completely ridiculous appeals process we have. It's blithering inefficient, and rarely gets you off death row anyway.

I think the death penalty should be used for all murders,
- It's cheaper
- It stops repeat offenders
- THough not proven, it MIGHT be a deterrant
- If someone has such disregard to people's lives to murder them, why the fuck should we care about them? "Oh but it's inhumane, blah blah blah". So is murdering someone. It's not murder if they did something to deserve the death penalty.

Don't make it mandatory for all murders. It's silly on the grounds of all mandatory sentences are silly, and murderers have been known to divulge very useful information when presented with a plea bargain to avoid the gurney/gas chamber/chair/what have you.

Don't make it mandatory for all murders. It's silly on the grounds of all mandatory sentences are silly, and murderers have been known to divulge very useful information when presented with a plea bargain to avoid the gurney/gas chamber/chair/what have you.

Ha! Yes. And that is why we should instead offer them the chance to be killed humainly, instead of slowly and painfully. I bet they'd give information then too.

I have a little tale for you blokes:
In 1985, 13-year-old Karen Patterson was shot to death in her bed in North Charleston, S.C. Her killer was a neighbor who had already served 10 years of a life sentence for murdering his half-brother Charles in 1970. Joe Atkins cut the Pattersons' phone lines, then entered bearing a machete, a sawed-off shotgun, and a pistol. Karen's parents were chased out of their home by Atkins. Karen's mom ran to the Atkins home nearby, where Joe then murdered his adopted father, Benjamin Atkins, 75, who had worked to persuade parole authorities to release Joe from the life sentence.

I know this is true in California due to the completely ridiculous appeals process we have. It's blithering inefficient, and rarely gets you off death row anyway.
All over the country it is a problem. Not just because of that, but also the reluctance of anyone to actually carry out the executions. In a prison in Alabama I believe they have a "million dollar club", that's death row inmates that have cost the government over $1 million dollars to keep in jail. Most people die on death row and aren't executed, which is the problem with the American system.
I believe they based it off of brain activity scans before, during, and after the act of decapitation; the brain continued functioning for a few moments after being removed from the body, which leads us to believe the subject remains conscious of his bodiless state.
Actually beheading mainly stopped in the civilized world far before we had the technology to do that. A frenchman one day at an execution had a head roll next to him after it was seperated from its body. The eyes were opened, but before the frenchman's very eyes the severed head closed its eyelids. The frenchman, in shock, spoke to the head, which responded by opening its eyes once again. After a few more instances like this, the french government abandoned beheading.

The death penalty is a useful punishment as a criminal deterrent. That is the main purpose, because MOST criminals fear death more than anything. The US system could be reformed, but for the most part uses a decent way of administering such penalties. Because of the death penalty, many people have felt safer knowing that (a) Many criminals are off the street for good, and many that would have committed crimes did not for fear of death.

Other people that would still be alive if the death penalty was used:

When Katy Davis observed three strangers outside her Austin, Texas, apartment, she walked away. Returning later, she was attacked and forced to open the door by Charles Rector, on parole for a previous murder. The men ransacked her apartment, abducted her and took her to a lake where she was beaten, gang-raped, shot in the head and repeatedly forced underwater until she drowned.

Ruby Longsworth of Pasadena, Texas, met Jeffrey Barney through a prison ministry, then helped him get paroled from an auto-theft sentence. Her kindness was repaid when Barney raped and sodomized her, then strangled her with a cord. She had made the mistake of calling Barney "a bum" after she had gotten to know him better.

In 1965, Robert Massie murdered mother of two Mildred Weiss in San Gabriel, Calif., during a follow-home robbery. Hours before execution, a stay was issued so Massie could testify against his accomplice. Massie's sentence was commuted to life when the Supreme Court halted executions in 1972. Receiving an undeserved second chance, Massie was paroled, but eight months later robbed and murdered businessman Boris Naumoff in San Francisco.

Some scum is worse than other scum, what can I say?

Anyway. A protracted, drawn-out death, while serving as a staunch notice to would-be criminals, removes our moral high ground by offering the convicted a swift, (basically) painless execution.

I'd also not be as enthusiastic to kill someone with a spoon than with a rifle, but that's just my personal preference.

Besides, wasn't this kind of activity better suited to less civilized times?

I don't agree with the death penalty, but I really don't get why lethal injections are more humane than other methods of execution. Personally, I'd prefer a quick shot to the head. I wouldn't like to be strapped to a table, get injected, and wait to die gradually. Plus, it'd be cheaper, more efficient, and easier. Major organs and such would remain unscathed.
I've already stated reasons for why shooting is no longer used. Also, the tiny chance of the bullet hitting at an odd angle and being lodged in the brain without killing the criminal. Injections are painless and always work. No pain beyond the small needle insertion occurs. It may be cheaper, but slave labor is cheaper than paying people, that doesn't mean we use it.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

I've already stated reasons for why shooting is no longer used. Also, the tiny chance of the bullet hitting at an odd angle and being lodged in the brain without killing the criminal. Injections are painless and always work. No pain beyond the small needle insertion occurs. It may be cheaper, but slave labor is cheaper than paying people, that doesn't mean we use it.

Usually slave labor incorporates enslaving INNOCENT people, who the fuck cares about these murdering scum? I don't. The more painful it is the better

And if you are a religion based person:

BIBLE QUOTES! YAYYYY!
I'm agnostic, by the way, don't accuse me

Revelation 13:10 says, "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints."

"But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee."

Exodus 21:12 says, "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."

We have to consider the overall health of society. A violent criminal has demonstrated their willingness to endanger society. As such, they must be removed from society. While rehabilitation would of course be morally preferable, it is in no way gaurenteed. I don't have the figures in front of me, but the rates of repeat offenders is appalling. In a situation like that, we cannot further endanger society by releasing potentially dangerous people into it. This includes not just murderers, but also rapists, particularly brutal assaults, and drunk drivers. The issue cannot be revenge, or punishment. From either a religious or non-religious perspective, both of these fail. Religiously, the belief is that God is the ultimate arbiter of justice, and thus humans do not have the right to take revenge or the capacity for justice to effectivly deal it out. From the non-religious standpoint, the criminal's actions have no less validity than a law abiding citizen's, except in that the criminal is outnumbered and endangering others. From both perspectives the only acceptable motive is the protection of society. With that goal in mind, even deterents are beside the point. If a violent criminal can never be safely released, then to keep him or her alive is a needless drain on the resources of society and it would save everyone trouble to simply kill him or her.

A point that I'll have an even harder time defending is this: it is far better to kill an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free. The innocent man's death deprives society of a small amount of resources, but the guilty man poses an active threat. Again, to argue both options is useful. Religiously, the innocent man loses little through death. The remaining years of his life will pale in comparisson to the afterlife, or would have proved useless anyway if his afterlife is less desirable. From the non-religious perspective, the innocent man's life is no more valuable than the other lives that might be protected by a more vigirous policy of execution.

One paradox about the Americans is that even though they're fairly anti-government, they want the government to kill people, on its own discretion.

Usually slave labor incorporates enslaving INNOCENT people, who the fuck cares about these murdering scum? I don't. The more painful it is the better
That is dangerous logic. Who's to say every convicted murderer is truely guilty? There are obvious problems with the justice system, especially in the United States.

That is dangerous logic. Who's to say every convicted murderer is truely guilty? There are obvious problems with the justice system, especially in the United States.

Especially the United States? I've heard some pretty disquieting things of the French criminal justice system. Hard to believe they ever get anything done.

A point that I'll have an even harder time defending is this: it is far better to kill an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.

I absolutely agree

Let's say that 100 people are arrested and convicted. Now lets say that 3 were innocent. SO, in fear of that, we give about 15 unharsh penalties. Let's say 5 or 6 then commit repeat crimes. That is now 5 to 6 people dead (assuming that each kills ONE person, and not more). Now, seeing as how liberals love showing human equality (which is not a bad thing), every person is equal. So, would you rather 5 or 6 innocent people die, or 3? I myself would be willing to give up my life to save 5 or 6 people.

I absolutely agree

Let's say that 100 people are arrested and convicted. Now lets say that 3 were innocent. SO, in fear of that, we give about 15 unharsh penalties. Let's say 5 or 6 then commit repeat crimes. That is now 5 to 6 people dead (assuming that each kills ONE person, and not more). Now, seeing as how liberals love showing human equality (which is not a bad thing), every person is equal. So, would you rather 5 or 6 innocent people die, or 3? I myself would be willing to give up my life to save 5 or 6 people.
What you seem to have trouble understanding is that those 3 innocents were killed by what is supposed to be the basis of justice, while the 5-6 are killed by ones who attack the justice system. That is the difference.

What you seem to have trouble understanding is that those 3 innocents were killed by what is supposed to be the basis of justice, while the 5-6 are killed by ones who attack the justice system. That is the difference.

Unimportant. Dead is dead, from the perspective of the dead people. And from the perspective of society, the important part isn't the morality of the situation, but its effects on the health of society.

Unimportant. Dead is dead, from the perspective of the dead people. And from the perspective of society, the important part isn't the morality of the situation, but its effects on the health of society.

Agreed. Some people seem to think that it's okay to kill (for example) 20,000 Iraqis as long as you don't MEAN to. As if that'd make them feel better. I died because some asshole was bombing my village because of some other assholes.

I'm from the North Eastern part of the US.
I oppose the death penalty because:

1. The concern that an innocent person maybe executed
2. It has been shown that it is not a deterrent to committing violent crimes.
3. It is more expensive to convict and sentence someone to death and then deal with appeals and etc. then it is to sentence them to life in prison.

The only exception:
I think if a person is "100%, smoking gun in hand" guilty, and the family(ies) of the victim(s) wished the murderer executed and it would give them closure then they could have a say in the sentencing or at least have their opinion weighted in.
The general populace is not affected by the execution, the victim(s) family(ies) are. A general policy of death sentence makes little impact on crime, but giving the victim(s)'s family(ies) an option or choice allows them a small bit of control and possibly closure.

Inhumane. It'd never work with the Bill of Rights the way it is. It has been proven that the head continues to live for a few moments even after being seperated from the body.
Apparently (and this might be an UL) there were two reasons why they held up the head after a guilotining.
1. So the crowd could see that the job had been done
2. So the head could see it's own body.

Which would be a fairly unpleasant experience.

What you seem to have trouble understanding is that those 3 innocents were killed by what is supposed to be the basis of justice, while the 5-6 are killed by ones who attack the justice system. That is the difference.


Wow, what a lame attempt at defending your point. It doesn't matter who does it, would you rather 6 people die or 3.

Im opposed to the Death Penalty because I dont recognise the right of a government to murder its own people. A government gets its rights from the consent of the people, and to murder any of those people is basically to murder its own moral justification. :sniper:

I'm from the North Eastern part of the US.
I oppose the death penalty because:

1. The concern that an innocent person maybe executed
2. It has been shown that it is not a deterrent to committing violent crimes.
3. It is more expensive to convict and sentence someone to death and then deal with appeals and etc. then it is to sentence them to life in prison.

The only exception:
I think if a person is "100%, smoking gun in hand" guilty, and the family(ies) of the victim(s) wished the murderer executed and it would give them closure then they could have a say in the sentencing or at least have their opinion weighted in.
The general populace is not affected by the execution, the victim(s) family(ies) are. A general policy of death sentence makes little impact on crime, but giving the victim(s)'s family(ies) an option or choice allows them a small bit of control and possibly closure.


1. Once again, dead is dead, more people would die from repeat offenders than innocents would die from the justice system, I can guarantee. I would glady give myself up to kill 99 criminals.

2. Number one, it hasn't been strongly proven either way. Not to mention the fact that this wasn't even one of my main arguements, hence why I put, "Might be a deterrant"

3. What is to say that a person with a life sentence wouldn't appeal his/her case either? Nothing. Also, a felony court case is a felony case, it takes about the same to prosecute someone no matter what the potential punishment. If someone was being put on trial for murder, why would the court case cost any more if the potential punishment was death, please answer that for me

I wonder how your opinion would stand after I came over there, raped your mom, killed your dad, and eat your little sister like a steak? Still want life in prison?

Im opposed to the Death Penalty because I dont recognise the right of a government to murder its own people. A government gets its rights from the consent of the people, and to murder any of those people is basically to murder its own moral justification. :sniper:

What if the people want it? Like someone earlier posted, 80% of Americans support the death penalty. Also, the government is protecting its people by executing murderers

Im opposed to the Death Penalty because I dont recognise the right of a government to murder its own people. A government gets its rights from the consent of the people, and to murder any of those people is basically to murder its own moral justification. :sniper:

...you are aware that upon the conviction of a felony, which all murders are, you lose your right to vote, yes? At that point you're no longer considered "people" in the terms of representative government.

Apparently, I'm the only person who sees justification in the death penalty in some cases...

I'm not a proponent of the Death penalty for every murder per se, but for some of the most sadistic, repeat offenders... yeah. I know that the death penalty isn't really much of a deterrant, and that it's 'only for the purpose of revenge', but that's an important part of the national psyche.

I also don't subscribe to the 'society will become murderers' point of view. Nobody's against putting down a vicious animal, or of soldiers shooting the enemy during times of War. Society is better off with some of these people 'put down'.

Agreed as well, on all points...

The Death Penalty, Capital Punishment that fits the crime

In The British Virgin Islands,
if you kill someone, someone will kill you slowly if possible,
if you shoot someone to death, someone will shoot you to death,
if you strangle someone to death, someone will strangle you to death,
if you stab someone to death, someone will stab you to death slowly,
if you rape someone, interesting question?

According to my source they have one of the lowest murder crime rates oround,
a lady friend of mine from the British Virgin Islands.

In Australia there was a granny who shot the rapists of her granddaughther, in the you know what area, of thier you know what, as justice for the rape of her granddaughther.

They will never rape again.

I say granny did the right thing.

What granny did was justice.

As I remember the story, granny did not get jail time because of her age, she was very old.

The story was posted on an NS Thread.

Complete Post.

The Death Penalty, Capital Punishment that fits the crime

In Arab nations if you steal, you can loose a hand or an arm.

In The British Virgin Islands,
if you kill someone, someone will kill you slowly if possible,
if you shoot someone to death, someone will shoot you to death,
if you strangle someone to death, someone will strangle you to death,
if you stab someone to death, someone will stab you to death slowly,
if you rape someone, interesting question?

According to my source they have one of the lowest murder crime rates oround,
a lady friend of mine from the British Virgin Islands.

In Australia there was a granny who shot the rapists of her granddaughther, in the you know what area, of thier you know what, as justice for the rape of her granddaughther.

They will never rape again.

I say granny did the right thing.

What granny did was justice.

As I remember the story, granny did not get jail time because of her age, she was very old.

The story was posted on an NS Thread.

Against.
It's obviously rather ineffective as a method of fighting crime.

Not that it's any of my business what other countries do to their citizens, but I think if you need to take the moral high ground towards other nations to push your own self-esteem, it might help your case to really be on the moral high ground..

Apparently (and this might be an UL) there were two reasons why they held up the head after a guilotining.
1. So the crowd could see that the job had been done
2. So the head could see it's own body.

Which would be a fairly unpleasant experience.
What about hanging? Hanging's good and quick, probably painless. Plus it has the right gravitas to it that an injection doesn't have. The walk up to the scaffold, the few last words, the blindfold, drum roll, sharp drop with a sudden stop. It really highlights how big a thing it is to kill someone. One minute alive and talking, the next dead as a doornail.

I don't think it should be used in all cases by any means. It's tricky either a murderer has the potential to reform in which case it seems wrong to hang them, or they are so mentally disturbed that medical treatment seems the better option. It seems hard to determine the middle ground who are fair game. You'd also have to be completely certain of the conviction, which means years of an expensive appeal process which probably costs more than locking them in an oubliette somewhere. .

So on the whole, in practice capital punishment isn't a great idea, but in theory I'm not opposed to it.

I think the death penalty should be used for all murders,
- It's cheaper

I believe the death penalty is far cheaper than imprisoning someone for the rest of their natural life.

False. I'm too tired and too busy to really join the debate, but this is one of the most persistent myths surrounding capital punishment, and it's simply not true.

See for example these three links/quotes, randomly pulled from the internet just now. There's tons more for further reading.

1) (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=557&scid=60#A.1F) "Although it is certainly cheaper to inject someone with deadly chemicals than to incarcerate them for 30 or 40 years, the best studies on the cost of the death penalty indicate that it costs about $2 million more per execution in a state with capital punishment than for a system which imposes a life sentence, including the cost of incarceration. Moreover, about 70% of the costs occur at trial with only a minority of the costs for the appeal. Although the costs of incarceration are expensive (about $20,000 per year per inmate), that amounts to $600,000 to $800,000 depending on whether a person lives 30 or 40 years after their sentencing. The death penalty, on the other hand, costs about $2 million per execution."

2) (http://www.nyadp.org/main/faq#0) "Isn't the death penalty cheaper than life in prison?

* No. It costs a great deal more.
* "Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis." (Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, 09/9/99)
* Total cost of death penalty is 38% greater than total cost of life without parole sentences. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002)
* Since its return to New York in 1995, $160 million has been spent. The New York Daily News estimates that before the first execution takes place, $238 million will be spent.
* In addition to the funds required to try death penalty cases, the New York Department of Correctional Services spent $1.3 million to construct New York's 12-inmate death row and pays nearly $300,000 per year to guard the unit. (New York Law Journal, April 30, 2002)"

3) (http://www.baristanet.com/barista/2006/01/new_jerseys_dea.html) "If New Jersey were to replace the death penalty today with a maximum sentence of life without the possibility of parole, and each of the 10 people on death row were resentenced accordingly, the cost to the state would be $15.1 million, according to Mary E. Forsberg, research director for New Jersey Policy Perspective. In contrast, she said, it could cost the state up to $845 million if court challenges in the same 10 cases were pursued under current laws." [I](the quote is from a NYT article, but you have to pay to access it, so the link is only to a blog that has the quote)

I am for the death penalty, but only when there is DNA evidence that conclusively links the accused to the crime.

It still isn't perfect, but it's a better way to make sure we're not executing any innocent people than what we're doing now.

The death penalty is fundamentally un-Christian.

Last time I checked, the 6th Commandment says 'thou shalt not kill', not 'thou shalt not kill unless the state sanctions the execution of an individual as retaliation for a crime'

And anyone so inclined should spare me arguments on how the 6th Commandment actually means 'thou shalt not murder', because then I'd be forced to point out that you're apparently happy to change what's written in the Bible when it runs counter to your deeply held personal convictions.

The death penalty is fundamentally un-Christian.

Last time I checked, the 6th Commandment says 'thou shalt not kill', not 'thou shalt not kill unless the state sanctions the execution of an individual as retaliation for a crime'

And anyone so inclined should spare me arguments on how the 6th Commandment actually means 'thou shalt not murder', because then I'd be forced to point out that you're apparently happy to change what's written in the Bible when it runs counter to your deeply held personal convictions.
The commandment is thou shalt not commit murder.
Still I don't agree with the death penalty.

Im opposed to the Death Penalty because I dont recognise the right of a government to murder its own people. A government gets its rights from the consent of the people, and to murder any of those people is basically to murder its own moral justification. :sniper:

The government is an extension of the will of the people (supposedly anyway, in a democracy), and is meant to serve the interests of society. It's like a club membership. Kill a club member, sorry, you're out of the club.

Every time someone posts a death penalty thread, I get a woodie.

I'm for, but it should be applied more often than it is. As it is, it really is no deterrent, as the chances of you recieving the death penalty for murder in any kind of a timely fashion is so unlikely that it can be safely dismissed from the ultimate equation.

I'm against the death penalty.

My reason:
*It is truly irreversible and irreparable if an innocent is wrongfully executed.

Also:
*It is disputed if and how much of a deterrent capital punishment actually is. And such a drastic form of punishment should in any case not be used if it does not work as an improved deterrent compared to ordinary punishments.
*It is disputed which costs more, life imprisonment or executions.

Just to repeat some points...

There is no such thing as justice, there is just us. What we decide is right or wrong, and how you should be punished for doing wrong is just an aspect of that. There is no higher set of values that we can compared our lives to, there is only the morals decided upon by society.

I’m against the death penalty, because I don’t think that death is a positive option. It you think that killing justifiably is ok, then remember that most murderers feel that killing there victims is justifiable.

Some times I see people on the new, (murderers, rapists and the like) that i feel should die slow and painful death. But what authority do I have to implement this? What authority dose anyone have? Though it pains me, I’d rather see these people live then add another to the list of people who have been killed.


(On a related side note, I think that Great Britain still has the death penalty, though its reserved for traitors. And we hang them)

In The British Virgin Islands,
if you kill someone, someone will kill you slowly if possible,
if you shoot someone to death, someone will shoot you to death,
if you strangle someone to death, someone will strangle you to death,
if you stab someone to death, someone will stab you to death slowly,
if you rape someone, interesting question?

Death by Bongo!

Against. Every Western country (except one) now recognises that the death penalty is barbaric.

A few interesting figures:

International human rights treaties prohibit anyone under 18 years old at the time of the crime being sentenced to death or executed. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the American Convention on Human Rights all have provisions to this effect. More than 110 countries whose laws still provide for the death penalty for at least some offences have laws specifically excluding the execution of child offenders or may be presumed to exclude such executions by being parties to one or another of the above treaties. A small number of countries, however, continue to execute child offenders.

Eight countries since 1990 are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime – China, Congo (Democratic Republic), Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA and Yemen. China, Pakistan and Yemen have raised the minimum age to 18 in law, and Iran is reportedly in the process of doing so. The USA executed more child offenders than any other country (19 between 1990 and 2003).


Delightful company the US is keeping, in terms of human rights. Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Vietnam, the DRC... No wait, Iran and China have actually progressed towards outlawing the execution of juvenile offenders. The US has yet to follow on. Also:


Since 1973, 122 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. There were six such cases in 2004 and three up to December 2005. Some prisoners had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt.

(On a related side note, I think that Great Britain still has the death penalty, though its reserved for traitors. And we hang them)High treason and piracy on the high seas officially still carry the death penalty in the UK, I think (I heard something recently about it being abolished for high treason, but I haven't seen this confirmed). Not that either offence is tried very often :p

As for the topic, I have mixed views. Having studied criminology for years, I've seen all the figures, heard all the theories - but still can't accept that someone didn't choose to commit a crime in the majority of cases. As such, their dignity, wellbeing and future are not things that concern me; they can rot and die for all I care.

I stray from American Republicans on this point. This is why the death penalty cannot rationally deter crime:

1)If the murder is a crime of passion, then the perp isn't thinking about anything, much less the death penalty -- he's locked in on his target in a rage of blind fury.

2)If the murder is planned, the planner will have attempted to take everything into consideration. And as it is with most sociopaths, the murderer believes himself to be beyond the intelligence of cops. He can't be caught, because his plans and actions are executed perfectly. That's what he thinks, anyway.

3)If the murder is done by a psychotic person, well, that person's brain is beyond help (Schizophrenia is an awful affliction), and the person literally can't tell what's real from what's not.

4)A maximum security cell keeps a killer off the streets just as well as death does. (assuming we have truth in sentencing -- where a life sentence actually means the entire life is spent in prison).
----

other reasons:

1)Executing somebody is extremely expensive... far more expensive than it is to imprison him for life.

2)There is always the possibility that the wrong guy is accused, convicted and killed. With the use of DNA evidence this likelihood should decline somewhat, but the fact is... how are we certain, unless someone saw it happen or there are his fingerprints all over the place, that the alleged perp is actually the one who did the crime? It's not like they're putting him away for 10-15 years if they're wrong... they're killing him -- the mistake would be a grave one.

3)The government tells you not to murder and then turns around and does it... sets a great example.

4)"Eye for an eye" is an Old Testament concept. If Christians are zealous about it, consider instead Jesus' example, to forgive those who wrong you. Jesus probably would be against the death penalty, if he were to comment on it today.



So what possible reason could there be... what use does the death penalty serve? I can only think of one:

vengeance

Vengeance is not enough of a reason for me to support it.

Im for the death penalty, not for every murder case. I dont want a serial killer sitting in prison planing his escape..(it does happen). The serial killer, sadistic murderers cannot be rehibilitated they are way passed that. And taking inmates out to work on roads is dangerous to the community if they are in for murder. theres the possibility of escape.

I think that the prison system right now is pretty good, death penalty does cost a lot of money but most of the people who die on death row from natural causes are still there because they are appealing to the courts. It would be unjust not to allow them to appeal.

High treason and piracy on the high seas officially still carry the death penalty in the UK, I think (I heard something recently about it being abolished for high treason, but I haven't seen this confirmed).

It was abolished in 1998. It had been abolished for all other crimes some time in the 1960s. Anyway, as far as I know, no-one had been executed for treason in the UK since it joined the EU.

I stray from American Republicans on this point. This is why the death penalty cannot rationally deter crime:

1)If the murder is a crime of passion, then the perp isn't thinking about anything, much less the death penalty -- he's locked in on his target in a rage of blind fury.

2)If the murder is planned, the planner will have attempted to take everything into consideration. And as it is with most sociopaths, the murderer believes himself to be beyond the intelligence of cops. He can't be caught, because his plans and actions are executed perfectly. That's what he thinks, anyway.

3)If the murder is done by a psychotic person, well, that person's brain is beyond help (Schizophrenia is an awful affliction), and the person literally can't tell what's real from what's not.

4)A maximum security cell keeps a killer off the streets just as well as death does. (assuming we have truth in sentencing -- where a life sentence actually means the entire life is spent in prison).
----

other reasons:

1)Executing somebody is extremely expensive... far more expensive than it is to imprison him for life.

2)There is always the possibility that the wrong guy is accused, convicted and killed. With the use of DNA evidence this likelihood should decline somewhat, but the fact is... how are we certain, unless someone saw it happen or there are his fingerprints all over the place, that the alleged perp is actually the one who did the crime? It's not like they're putting him away for 10-15 years if they're wrong... they're killing him -- the mistake would be a grave one.

3)The government tells you not to murder and then turns around and does it... sets a great example.

4)"Eye for an eye" is an Old Testament concept. If Christians are zealous about it, consider instead Jesus' example, to forgive those who wrong you. Jesus probably would be against the death penalty, if he were to comment on it today.



So what possible reason could there be... what use does the death penalty serve? I can only think of one:

vengeance

Vengeance is not enough of a reason for me to support it.

That is a very good argument you are making there.

I think that the prison system right now is pretty good

I assume you're from the US? I repeat:


Since 1973, 122 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. There were six such cases in 2004 and three up to December 2005. Some prisoners had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt.

Death is not sought, it is illogical. We see others die but the meaning is only loss of capacities for the world physicalism. I think that ethically we should not kill one another unless we agree. I think in respect to this the death penalty should only exist for presubscribing individuals who accept the penalty.

Since I myself have been held and subjected to psychotropic torture being put in that situation I would gladly choose death over the torture. So to with being held in prison as an innocent individual, I would rather be killed outright then be subjected to having my liberties removed.

That in as much is life for the ambitious. I do not seek to live but I have little choice in the matter, I'm not self destructive but there is no reason to live in fear, life is as it is, I'm already dead, because the world will not let me live my dreams. (instantaneously).

The world is totally mad. The death penalty is another aspect of that. It is a hypocracy especially when it becomes state sanctioned murder a game of survival of the fitest, quite aware. The world ain't pretty but it ain't necisarily those stated to be criminals that are the bad people. Sadly the government is the biggest crook of them all, an assembly of people set to enact their veiws under threat of murder. Then the glory of rightness comes into play, how can rightness be involved in a murderers mind.

Im for the death penalty, not for every murder case. I dont want a serial killer sitting in prison planing his escape..(it does happen). The serial killer, sadistic murderers cannot be rehibilitated they are way passed that. And taking inmates out to work on roads is dangerous to the community if they are in for murder. theres the possibility of escape.

I think that the prison system right now is pretty good, death penalty does cost a lot of money but most of the people who die on death row from natural causes are still there because they are appealing to the courts. It would be unjust not to allow them to appeal.

there's always the chance for escape, but prisons are so well designed now that it's miniscule at best.

and anyway, we could put murderers underground, in rooms with ten-foot-thick kevlar walls... or on the top floor, with no stairs descending, with only a retina-scanner-ID-unlocked elevator allowing access to the floor or off the floor. Murderers can be (and are) effectively kept "behind bars".

Amnesty International, that's a strong stat... comes to about 4 per year who were on death row, only to be released after evidence showed them to be innocent.

this begs the question:

how many are there whose mitigating evidence never came?

how many have been murdered by their government for crimes they did not commit?

We live in an imperfect world. There are some crimes from which society must be protected at all costs. The recidivism rate for some violent crimes is very high. The cost of incarceration, including free health care, is very high. Ergo, the death penalty for some crimes of violence is necessary to protect society from their being committed again and again by the same individuals.

shoot the fuckers, they committed a serious crime, why allow them the chance to do it again, or waste thousands of pounds of decents people's money keeping them alive, fed, clothed, sheltered and never having to work again...die die die

We live in an imperfect world. There are some crimes from which society must be protected at all costs. The recidivism rate for some violent crimes is very high. The cost of incarceration, including free health care, is very high. Ergo, the death penalty for some crimes of violence is necessary to protect society from their being committed again and again by the same individuals.

It's been stated before, the cost of an execution is far higher. And how can there be any recidivism if the individual is in prison for life?

It was abolished in 1998. It had been abolished for all other crimes some time in the 1960s. Anyway, as far as I know, no-one had been executed for treason in the UK since it joined the EU.Yes, it was abolished in 1965 (for all crimes except those mentioned) under the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act. Those on 'death row' at the time were, as far as I know, automatically pardoned.

I believe the last execution for treason was in 1946 at Pentonville, so retaining the death penalty for so long for said crime didn't serve much purpose anyway.

I'm against the death penalty, because that's a waste of human resources. Make them do absolutely awful work, or use them as organ donors. I understand the idea that this violates human rights, but hey, when you violate someone else's right to life, you ought to forfeit your own.

but hey, when you violate someone else's right to life, you ought to forfeit your own.Yes, a lot of proponents of human rights seem to forget that with rights come responsibilities. It's even written into the ECHR.

shoot the fuckers, they committed a serious crime, why allow them the chance to do it again, or waste thousands of pounds of decents people's money keeping them alive, fed, clothed, sheltered and never having to work again...die die die

because:

1)It costs a helluva lot of money

2)It sets a poor example -- you can't kill, but we can

3)It makes absolutely no sense -- there is no argument in favor of it except for vengeance on behalf of the family and the blood-thirsty, unthinking mob. I wonder if killing the alleged perp brings back their loved ones or makes the bereaved family really any happier.

4)If they're in prison, they don't have the chance to do it again.

The death penalty logically cannot deter crime. (see my prior post)

I spent considerable time and effort writing a ten-page paper on the complete failure of the death penalty to deter major crime... highlighted my main points in one of my recent posts.

It's been stated before, the cost of an execution is far higher. And how can there be any recidivism if the individual is in prison for life?
Sorry, but the logic is unassailable. Prisoners can, and do break out. Bottom line: having your child raped and/or killed by a recidivist only adds insult to injury.

This poll is misleading, as it divides the "For" camp in two.

I'm against the death penalty because of all the cases where people have been found innocent after they were exucuted.

111 death row inmates have been released due to innocence as of July 28, 2003.

Twenty three innocent people were mistakenly executed between 2000 and 2004.

Thats right people, the government of the united states has murdered 23 perfectly innocent people in 4 years. Do you pro-death people think that they deserved what they got as well? Has anyone ever even apologised for this? (not that an apology would be enough.) How can this be acceptable? What if you were put to death for something you did not do?

p.s. I will try to find more recent stats.

False. I'm too tired and too busy to really join the debate, but this is one of the most ... ... the quote)[/I]


Just a response on this is that the only reason that it costs so much is due to a completely disfunctional system.

You could buy a gun for 100$ and a bullet for less than 1$. The legal system is inflated and overpayed. The beuarocracy is layered on so many levels not required this done to 'reduce corruption?' doubted. Of course the balance between capacities and specialization effectively keeps a 'managorial' system in place, of course mechanization will ongoing reduce this factor.

I could say it has been mismangement for the last few thousand years but the world is still around.. the state is another matter.

The system is only 'costing' because of mismangament and greed.

The justice system is factual and trust based, there is no real truth to the past other than what people agree, there is no real justice except what is desired by all.

Sorry, but the logic is unassailable. Prisoners can, and do break out. Bottom line: having your child raped and/or killed by a recidivist only adds insult to injury.

I'd say the chances of a prisoner breaking out are even less than the chances of executing an innocent... sorry, but I feel to protect the innocent has priority in this case.

Just a response on this is that the only reason that it costs so much is due to a completely disfunctional system.

You could buy a gun for 100$ and a bullet for less than 1$. The legal system is inflated and overpayed. The beuarocracy is layered on so many levels not required this done to 'reduce corruption?' doubted. Of course the balance between capacities and specialization effectively keeps a 'managorial' system in place, of course mechanization will ongoing reduce this factor.

I could say it has been mismangement for the last few thousand years but the world is still around.. the state is another matter.

The system is only 'costing' because of mismangament and greed.

The justice system is factual and trust based, there is no real truth to the past other than what people agree, there is no real justice except what is desired by all.


"Kill them all and let god sort it out", is that what you're saying? Who needs an expensive trial, after all, it's just a human life at stake. Who cares if he/she may be innocent or not? We already bought the gun and bullet, it would be a shame to let it go to waste... :rolleyes:

I'd say the chances of a prisoner breaking out are even less than the chances of executing an innocent... sorry, but I feel to protect the innocent has priority in this case.

I agree. And also, I see it as a matter of resources. If a prison got adequate funding the chances of a prisoner breaking out could be almost negligible. So the death penalty would not be necessary to protect society if that same society was willing to spend the required resources to secure it's safety - and at the same time there would be no risk of wrongfully executing innocent people.

The death penalty is fundamentally un-Christian.

Last time I checked, the 6th Commandment says 'thou shalt not kill', not 'thou shalt not kill unless the state sanctions the execution of an individual as retaliation for a crime'

And anyone so inclined should spare me arguments on how the 6th Commandment actually means 'thou shalt not murder', because then I'd be forced to point out that you're apparently happy to change what's written in the Bible when it runs counter to your deeply held personal convictions.


News flash buddy, the Bible is a bad way of basing this. It contradicts itself SOOO much.

However, if you want Bible quotes, you will get quotes:

The death penalty was first instituted by God Himself in Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Exodus 21:12 says, "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."

Revelation 13:10 says, "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints."

Deuteronomy 19:11-13: "But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee."

I'm against the death penalty because of all the cases where people have been found innocent after they were exucuted.

111 death row inmates have been released due to innocence as of July 28, 2003.

Twenty three innocent people were mistakenly executed between 2000 and 2004.

Thats right people, the government of the united states has murdered 23 perfectly innocent people in 4 years. Do you pro-death people think that they deserved what they got as well? Has anyone ever even apologised for this? (not that an apology would be enough.) How can this be acceptable? What if you were put to death for something you did not do?

p.s. I will try to find more recent stats.

No, they didn't. But the shear people that would die from repeat offenders if the death penalty wasn't used would far exceed 23. I myself would glady give up my life to kill a few murderers and save a few lives.

Also could be considered cruel and [definitely] unusual to have mandatory blood donations as punishment.

Plenty of reasons. First of all, your logic is flawed that it is more humane to shoot someone. It is not. First of all, you are multilating their body, one which their family may want to preserve. Secondly, no one would want to be an executioner. Right now all they have to do is pull a lever, never have to see the person they are killing, never have to listen to the cries of family members, never have to think about the "what-if's" of the situation. If you put them in a position where they had to shoot someone through the head, it would be mentally draining, attacking their state of mind, and probably causing mental illness. Haven't you ever heard of all the councilling police officers go through after killing a criminal, even if the criminal was shooting at the officer? It is very hard to kill another human being, no matter what they have done in the past.

they could put them in motion detection suits, and put them in this room with robots, then have a huge online shootem up game. and the people playign are really controling the robots, but they dont know it, and the motion detection suits puts a visual representation on the game

No, they didn't. But the shear people that would die from repeat offenders if the death penalty wasn't used would far exceed 23. I myself would glady give up my life to kill a few murderers and save a few lives.

Extremely hypothetical.

Life emprisonment cost a maximum...
Why not mass death penalty?
Just to reduce costs.
A nice fire squad and you have more room in jails for some nasty juveniles.
Just a proposal... look gantana...heu there... it costs a maximum!
:mp5:

Against. And I'm Dutch too.

And also for the above reason...sheesh

*thinks*

Oh! and because the death penalty is revenge, not punishment


I acually agree...

...but there is a little persentig of people that do deserv the death penalty, Like maphya people and people that cant deal with other people, that should still die unowing and happynes.this is how it works, first sit the person down and tell them that there free to go and that they have one million dollors(or any other currensy you have). when he turns around to leave :sniper: or:mp5: in the head, he wont feel anything and he wont hear it ether(dieing from gun shot is better then the chair and poison). then you clean up the mess and call in the next person.[/I]

so f-in simple!!!:D

Life emprisonment cost a maximum...
Why not mass death penalty?
Just to reduce costs.
A nice fire squad and you have more room in jails for some nasty juveniles.
Just a proposal... look gantana...heu there... it costs a maximum!
:mp5:

It would be cheaper for your parents to kill you than it would be for them to raise you. Should every issue be judged solely on cost?

Against...

As it was stated earlier on, killing the killer just makes us the killers. There is also always the possibility of killing someone innocent which is my main reason for being against the Death Penalty. Many people are convicted and are actually innocent, why just a month or so ago, a man was released from prison after 24 years because he was found to be innocent. The risk of killing innocent people is too high to continue this practice.

I acually agree...

...but there is a little persentig of people that do deserv the death penalty, Like maphya people and people that cant deal with other people, that should still die unowing and happynes. this is how it works, first sit the person down and tell them that there free to go and that they have one million dollors(or any other currensy you have). when he turns around to leave :sniper: or:mp5: in the head, he wont feel anything and he wont hear it ether(dieing from gun shot is better then the chair and poison). then you clean up the mess and call in the next person.

so f-in simple!!!:D

Weird colours and fonts don't distract from your typos, buddy. ;)


You may, on the other hand, lead them into an room, tell them to undress and fold up their clothes as they're about to take a shower...

so it appears that it's been conceded that there is little or no deterrent effect on violent crime

and one argument that's sprung forth from the pro-DP camp is recidivism.

how many murderers escape from prison?

this not necessarily an argument for the death penalty, but an argument for more effective confinement techniques.

so let's lock them up and literally throw away the key.

life sentence = full life imprisonment

we'd save money, vengeance would no longer have a cause, and murderers would be locked up until they died.

How about?

Compulsory military service as a prison sentence

Public prisons utilised as work centres and free labour

All of which woyuld solve an awful lot of problems and pit the degenerates to a thoroghly good use

How about?

Compulsory military service as a prison sentence

Public prisons utilised as work centres and free labour

All of which woyuld solve an awful lot of problems and pit the degenerates to a thoroghly good use

Ask the French... they used to be pretty good at just that. Look up their Foreign Legion.

Don't know, I would say its really a case-by-case thing. :D

i think in many cases it should be leagle when a man kills many people but in many cases i dont think the state should decide who gets to live or die. i dont know how to solve the problem and i think we should always have the death penilty just cause we need to get rid of some people that have no use to society and have caused pain to dozens.

How about?

Compulsory military service as a prison sentence

Public prisons utilised as work centres and free labour

All of which woyuld solve an awful lot of problems and pit the degenerates to a thoroghly good use

Good in theory but the problem comes when you train criminals to kill and give them weapons.

I'm against the death penalty because of all the cases where people have been found innocent after they were exucuted.

-snip-
Twenty three innocent people were mistakenly executed between 2000 and 2004.

-snip-

Reference or link, please?

After all, if even one innocent person had been executed, all the anti-death penalty people would trumpet that every time they are trying to keep a murderer alive.

Murderers deserve death. They started it by taking innocent life. The murderer is no longer an innocent. Prove they are guilty, give them appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, then put them to death.

The only reason it costs so much to perform executions is because of the opposition. Trials are more expensive because people demand more proof to put people to death. And even then, when all the proof is laid out and not refuted, the anti-death penalty people want the murderer to live, because their lives are more important than the lives they took.

Criminals must not be punished. Society must not take revenge. Murderers must not die.

Unless you are interested in justice.

Good in theory but the problem comes when you train criminals to kill and give them weapons.

I was thinking more logistics and armaments production than front line fighting.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind-Ghandi

Reference or link, please?

After all, if even one innocent person had been executed, all the anti-death penalty people would trumpet that every time they are trying to keep a murderer alive.

Murderers deserve death. They started it by taking innocent life. The murderer is no longer an innocent. Prove they are guilty, give them appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, then put them to death.

The only reason it costs so much to perform executions is because of the opposition. Trials are more expensive because people demand more proof to put people to death. And even then, when all the proof is laid out and not refuted, the anti-death penalty people want the murderer to live, because their lives are more important than the lives they took.

Criminals must not be punished. Society must not take revenge. Murderers must not die.

Unless you are interested in justice.


why must murderers die?

How are they better punished by death than by spending the rest of their lives in the hole?

The DP does not deter crime.

The DP serves no interest but vengeance... "You deserve to die, MOTHERF***ER!"

that just isn't enough, imo. If it actually served some rational purpose, maybe. But it doesn't.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind-Ghandi

...and Jesus would very likely agree. Pity he didn't say anything about the DP while he was here. "Eye for an eye" is Old Testament...

It just doesn't make sense to kill people who kill people to show them killing people is wrong.

I'm a firm believer in the death penalty. Say what you will about it, but it's one guarantee these murderers will never kill again. And it's amazing to watch these wicked people, who killed with such bravado, who spent most of their lives giving morality and civilization the finger, turn into crying, whining bitches when they are strapped into that chair.

Hey there Mr. Killer, looks like you're not such a badass now, eh?

I'm a firm believer in the death penalty. Say what you will about it, but it's one guarantee these murderers will never kill again. And it's amazing to watch these wicked people, who killed with such bravado, who spent most of their lives giving morality and civilization the finger, turn into crying, whining bitches when they are strapped into that chair.

Hey there Mr. Killer, looks like you're not such a badass now, eh?

Because they are certainly all like that. :rolleyes:

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind-Ghandi

Big letters and red colours add little to a joke of an argument.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind-Ghandi
That's just talking about revenge though. It doesn't detract at all from the arguments relating to the practicalities of the death penalty, whether or not it could save money or completely prevent recidivism or comfort the families of victims etc. etc.

False. I'm too tired and too busy to really join the debate, but this is one of the most persistent myths surrounding capital punishment, and it's simply not true.

See for example these three links/quotes, randomly pulled from the internet just now. There's tons more for further reading.

1) (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=557&scid=60#A.1F) "Although it is certainly cheaper to inject someone with deadly chemicals than to incarcerate them for 30 or 40 years, the best studies on the cost of the death penalty indicate that it costs about $2 million more per execution in a state with capital punishment than for a system which imposes a life sentence, including the cost of incarceration. Moreover, about 70% of the costs occur at trial with only a minority of the costs for the appeal. Although the costs of incarceration are expensive (about $20,000 per year per inmate), that amounts to $600,000 to $800,000 depending on whether a person lives 30 or 40 years after their sentencing. The death penalty, on the other hand, costs about $2 million per execution."

2) (http://www.nyadp.org/main/faq#0) "Isn't the death penalty cheaper than life in prison?

* No. It costs a great deal more.
* "Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis." (Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, 09/9/99)
* Total cost of death penalty is 38% greater than total cost of life without parole sentences. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002)
* Since its return to New York in 1995, $160 million has been spent. The New York Daily News estimates that before the first execution takes place, $238 million will be spent.
* In addition to the funds required to try death penalty cases, the New York Department of Correctional Services spent $1.3 million to construct New York's 12-inmate death row and pays nearly $300,000 per year to guard the unit. (New York Law Journal, April 30, 2002)"

3) (http://www.baristanet.com/barista/2006/01/new_jerseys_dea.html) "If New Jersey were to replace the death penalty today with a maximum sentence of life without the possibility of parole, and each of the 10 people on death row were resentenced accordingly, the cost to the state would be $15.1 million, according to Mary E. Forsberg, research director for New Jersey Policy Perspective. In contrast, she said, it could cost the state up to $845 million if court challenges in the same 10 cases were pursued under current laws." [I](the quote is from a NYT article, but you have to pay to access it, so the link is only to a blog that has the quote)


BS Propaganda, anyone who can see exactly what they are writting can tell it's a bunch of BS... Misinformation designed to create the semblance of a logical point of economics against Capital Punishment.

The trial costs, with or without a Capital sentance being imposed, are identical for Class I felonies, Appeal costs are identical.

The above data is skewed information designed to attempt to show (to those who can't see past the rhetoric) that the Trial + Appeals + Execution cost > the cost of incarceration for 30-40 years.... [They don't factor the Trial + Appeals cost into the Life Sentence, thus skew the data in favor of no death penality]... You could use their argument to foot a concept around it simply being cheaper to automatically incarcerate criminals with no trial or appeals

The death penalty is fundamentally un-Christian.

Last time I checked, the 6th Commandment says 'thou shalt not kill', not 'thou shalt not kill unless the state sanctions the execution of an individual as retaliation for a crime'

And anyone so inclined should spare me arguments on how the 6th Commandment actually means 'thou shalt not murder', because then I'd be forced to point out that you're apparently happy to change what's written in the Bible when it runs counter to your deeply held personal convictions.

The 6th Commandment says "Thou Shalt not murder." And it means EXACTLY that in it's original language.

Frodo, speaking of Gollum,

". . . He deserves death."

"Deserves it! I dare say he does! Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it."

And that, if you'll remember, was Gandalf's view. I see no reason why someone who rejects my premises should hold to my view, but my premises are thus: doing harm does more harm to the doer than the receiver. Death, and whatever awaits us after, will find murderers and all those you would kill in the end. In light of eternity, a few years makes very little difference. I'm not so confident that Human justice matches True justice that I'm willing to lay a life on that line. Many will contend - and already have - that there is no justice, and they will not accept my argument. But to the other fundamentalists, of which I'm a sort, I would say that there is no justification for the Death penalty, if you truly believe that all humans are sinners deserving of damnation, and our only hope is in the blood of the Lamb. They deserve death no more than you, if that is your view, and if you have been saved from the power of sin and death, then it is your duty to seek to help save others, not destroy them.

For this reason I call fundamentalists who support the death penalty either fools who do not realize these truths, or hypocrites, or both.

I am for the death penalty for violent criminals because I don't see the point in taxpayers' money going towards giving those thugs free food and shelter for years on end or potentially their entire lives.

Here is my suggestion for reforming the death penalty:

For murder, DNA evidence required (for the actual murder. Don't know about accomplices, like Bin Laden, though I imagine he will be executed).

Also, I support putting slaveowners to death. Exterminate the bastards.

EDIT: Yes, I supported clemency for Williams. Didn't think that there was enough evidence for him to be executed.

It just doesn't make sense to kill people who kill people to show them killing people is wrong.

I guess it doesn't make sense to put a kidnapper in prison to show that removing someones freedom without their consent is wrong. Right?

The death penalty cannot be considered just so long as there is ANY chance of an innocent person being found guilty. If you think no innocent people get found guilty in the American justice system, you are deluding yourself...

For murder, DNA evidence required (for the actual murder. Don't know about accomplices, like Bin Laden, though I imagine he will be executed).
DNA evidence is far from infallible - it is only as accurate as the people who control it. There are documented cases of DNA tampering, over which high ranking members of the FBI and forensic investigators have resigned.

Someonetimes an overzealous investigator plants evidence because they are sure that the perp is the right one, but have no DNA evidence to back it up.

And I know people will call bullshit on me, so I'm off to find some documented cases of DNA evidence tampering. ;)

The death penalty cannot be considered just so long as there is ANY chance of an innocent person being found guilty. If you think no innocent people get found guilty in the American justice system, you are deluding yourself...

Certain crimes warrant death. To do otherwise is UNJUST.

And the difference is people like you think being imprisoned is OK, it's just, even if you're innocent. Because you think it can be reversed. But what if you die in prison? Then it can't be. And in any case, you can't have years of your life returned to you. You can't have the stolen freedom returned. None of this means we shouldn't even imprison people. Yes, the justice system is not 100% infallible. So what? Waiting for perfection before dispensing justice would mean no justice ever comes because there is always a chance Hitler may be innocent.

I support the death penalty in certain murder cases. The death penalty is simply the golden rule being enforced. What you do unto others shall be done unto you. It is totally fair and equal justice, an eye for an eye, tit for tat.
It is sad though how death row is in most US states...there should really be fewer appeals.
Our methods of execution are also just stupid - gas chamber, lethal injection, electric chair...crazy. Why not a bullet in the head? That is much more humane than any of our current methods.


That's not the golden rule- its doing unto others as you would like to have them do unto you.

Don't use the thing you learn in preschool as justification for murder ( meaning, the death penalty)

Personally, I'm majorly against the death penalty (even though I am a republican and we are suppose to be for harsh punishments -_-; )

I don't like the idea of playing God, choosing who lives and who dies.
I don't like the idea of stooping to their level and just killing them
I don't like the idea of letting them off free-scott. Killing them is an easy way out for them.
I don't like the idea of just letting them sit in 5-star hotel-prisons, they need to work instead of our taxes keeping them in their. I think the idea of them paying for their own stay in the prison is amusing.

And that is basically where I stand.

The author needs to realize that in the US, there is no "US style", as each state has its own set of rules. In California (my homestate) you get automatic appeals, about a 20 year wait, and choice of death. Other staes work different.

Certain crimes warrant death. To do otherwise is UNJUST.

And the difference is people like you think being imprisoned is OK, it's just, even if you're innocent. Because you think it can be reversed. But what if you die in prison? Then it can't be. And in any case, you can't have years of your life returned to you. You can't have the stolen freedom returned. None of this means we shouldn't even imprison people. Yes, the justice system is not 100% infallible. So what? Waiting for perfection before dispensing justice would mean no justice ever comes because there is always a chance Hitler may be innocent.
Your arguments make little sense...

"People like me" DON'T think that imprisoning an innocent person is OK, but it is a more reversible situation than killing somone. No, you can't return the time that the imprisonment has taken from someone, but I think you'll find that, in general, someone would rather be imprisoned for an amount of time and then released than be dead. Same with their families.

It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

It is about your value system, and mine says it is better for a killer to go unpunished than for an innocent person to be wrongly executed. Even if only 1 in 1000 people on death row have been wrongly convicted, it is still a figure I find too high to be acceptable.

And don't assume that because I am against the death penalty that I am for "soft" punishments. In the worst of cases, murderers should be imprisoned for the term of their natural life, with no visitors, no luxuries, and in the most heinous cases (such as serial killers etc.), life solitary confinement.

I'm against because of the risc that innocent people are executed. It happen far too often.

I am for the death penalty, but only when there is DNA evidence that conclusively links the accused to the crime.

It still isn't perfect, but it's a better way to make sure we're not executing any innocent people than what we're doing now.
thats what Im saying

The death penalty is not murder.

Simply because if the death penalty was murder, then imprisonment is tantamount to holding someone against his will.

When someone breaks the law, he is entitled to a few basic rights. The right to a fair trial, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

However, a person who has been tried and found guilty should not be given a lighter punishment merely on the chance that he may be innocent. That is not how a system works.

Most civilised countries (and most US states) don't even have a death penalty.

There is little correlation between a state (or country) having the death penalty and a lower crime rate. The reverse is often true.