TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Death Penalty
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Death Penalty

What do you guys think of the death penalty? Is it just? Is it wrong? Discuss.

Depends. An eye for an eye,and a tooth for a tooth. If someone murders,I think the death penalty fits. (especially with this sniper case here in the USA.)

i've been thinking, and i dont really agree with the death penalty for this reason: it is a waste of resources. I believe that instead of the death penalty, death row inmates should be forced to do serious manual labor. If you don't want to work, then they should just kill you on the spot. I suppose it violates the Eighth Ammendment, but who needs that one anyways .

Quite frankly I don't support the death penalty, and i'm pleased that it hasn't been introduced in Australia.

Moral arguments against it aside, wouldn't life in prison with no possibility of parole be a worse punishment than death?

I believe a person has a right to life, as long as they don't take that right away from another. When that happens all bets are off. Life in prison could be acceptable in some circumstances, however there are cases where the murderer either has no remorse, or when life in prison actually betters his living conditions (food, recreation, tv, medical benefits). Also, the amount of money and resources required to keep a person in prison for life is quite high. I think the death penalty should be reserved for only the most gruesome acts, but that it does have a place when used correctly.

As a libertarian I'm all about the individual's rights, and I see a person removing someone else's rights as the worst of offenses, especially when it comes to their right to life.

I am not against the death penalty as a principle but the system that exists in places that do have it, especially in the U.S. , is not a well designed system.

I live in Illinois which has been at the forefront of the debate on capital punishment because of former Gov. Ryan's commutation of all death sentences before leaving office due to the uncertainty of guilt in convictions.

What I believe is necessary for a "just" system of capital punishment are two things, of which the first condition existing is necessary for the second to exist,

1. The burden of proof must be set very very high. "Resonable Doubt" in this case must be quantified in more concrete terms. What is a resonable amount of doubt to one man or woman could be unreasonable to another. Thus the guidelines must be much more stringent.

2. The constant/automatic appeal process that most death penalty cases in the United States carry needs to be resolved. It ends up costing a state a lot more money to go through the appeals process and housing of the inmate waiting on death row than it would to keep them locked up indefinitely.

On an ethical note (which ties to number 2) capital punishment is really a "vengeance" punishment. It is a highly emotional process and it is always put forward as one in which closure can happen quickly and vengeance can be had. If a death penalty system were truly working for the "good of society" by taking "an eye for an eye" then it would give those sanguinary people who scream for the death penalty their wish quickly.

While on the topic of the "state" dealing with "untimely assisted death" (a new term I coined just now and I kinda like ) I always find it interesting that the same people who are vehemently against euthanasia and abortion and call themselves "Pro-Life", are almost always the people who most vehemently support the idea of the capital punishment. I have never been able to get a clear explanation as to why that is.

MrS

I oppose capital punishment because of ideological reasons. Specifically the hypocrisy involved. The death penalty can only be used if the crime is murder or treason. With treason its a bit fuzzy, but killing someone because they killed someone else just doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I believe a person has a right to life, as long as they don't take that right away from another. When that happens all bets are off. Life in prison could be acceptable in some circumstances, however there are cases where the murderer either has no remorse, or when life in prison actually betters his living conditions (food, recreation, tv, medical benefits). Also, the amount of money and resources required to keep a person in prison for life is quite high. I think the death penalty should be reserved for only the most gruesome acts, but that it does have a place when used correctly. As a libertarian I'm all about the individual's rights, and I see a person removing someone else's rights as the worst of offenses, especially when it comes to their right to life.

Still, even if they have no remorse, surley they wont be overjoyed at the fact that they will be locked up for the rest of their life. Perhaps there could be a system whereby rights such as tv aren't granted to people who commit more gruesome crimes/have no remorse (Although i'm not sure how one could fairly judge who should recieve benifits and who shouldn't). I'm not sure about you, but I would almost rather die than spend the rest of my life locked up with no rights (freedom, tv, medical benifits, recreation, phone calls etc).

I'm also a libertarian (From what I understand ), but I honestly can't understand the need for a death penalty. Who knows, it may be due to the fact that the death penalty isn't a law where I live, and thus I have no experience with it's usage.

As for the way the death penalty is used in America at the moment, I find it simply astounding. I've seen numerous documentaries/articles down here which document the fact that many innocent people are on death row, and that not all of them will be set free.
If the death penalty isn't abolished in the US, then I believe that at a bare minimum, it needs to used more sparingly/better enforced.

i believe that someone should be put to death if he commits a grave crime agiant humanity and is better for society dead then alive. let me explain. One of the purposes of jail is to keep society safe from those who would harm it. there are cases where even putting people in jail would be harmful to society, these are cases where i belive the person should be put to death. an example of such would be the following:

say Osama bin Laden was caught and tried in the US, found guilty (of course) for masterminding the death of thousands of americans. the reason i say he be put to death over the senctence of lifetime inprisonment is because even though he is in jail he still poses a threat to society. There could be people planning missions to rescue him from jail, or holding hostages and demanding his release. Same goes for any mass murderer, if they still pose a threat to society even behind bars then they deserve death, but otherwise i see no difference in death and lifetime inprisonment.

I have serious issues with the death penalty. Despite the fact that I think many offenders deserve to die for the offenses committed (John Allen Muhammad comes to mind), the hypocrisy disturbs me. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth was meant as more of a statute of limitations than a commandment for revenge. As in, you shall take no more than an eye for an eye, instead of you must take an eye for an eye.

My other issues are the unfair administration of the death penalty, and those put to death for crimes they did not commit. Maryland suspended (and unfortunately reinstituted) the death penalty because data showed it was reserved mostly for black killers of whites.

In any case, I think the death penalty is barbaric and hypocritical. In all aspects of life, I do not believe in treating people poorly because they deserve it. Idealogical as it may sound, I believe in being the bigger person and not sinking to the level of those who have offended you. Granted, if someone harmed my family or friends, I would want to suffer the most hellish torture imaginable, but I could never accept it's occurence. Maybe it's compassion, I have no idea, but morally and rationally I cannot accept the death penalty.

quote:

I'm not sure about you, but I would almost rather die than spend the rest of my life locked up with no rights (freedom, tv, medical benifits, recreation, phone calls etc).

For you and me, I agree this is true. However, we're also rational people who wouldn't kill others (I hope, or at least not in war). For the irrational mind, capable of killing , a lifetime in jail could almost be seen as a victory. Being able to kill others, and then lead a life in prison that could be at a quailty level higher than before the crime is not acceptable to me and I would argue probably not acceptable to the vitim's friends, family, etc. Again, echoing the statments of other posters, the death penatly should be reserved for the worst of cases. I do believe that if a system exists that minimizes the chances for mistakes, the death penalty is a valid form of punishment.

As far as the whole abortion/euthanasia/death penalty thing...I am pro-life, yet for euthanasia and the death penatly. I am catholic, and I realize that the church is against all three, but there are many points at which I have differences in opinion (no use of birth control, etc.). The way I explain my feelings on the issue is a matter of choice on the individual. With euthanasia and the death penalty alike, there was a choice involved by the person that may die. With euthanasia, the person could decide themselves to "pull the plug" or have it written in their will. Regardless, it's their choice, or when unable to make that choice, it is their family's choice...with legal restrictions of course (you can't just put a cap in grandma's ass for the hell of it). With the death penalty, the person who committed the crime also has the choice of killing or not killing. Once they have made the conscious decision to kill another, they have also made the decision that their life may too be forfeited. With abortion, the fetus (whether you consider it human or not) has no decision as to whether it should be killed or not. I would have to say that given the choice, a fetus would choose life over death, as I believe most people would agree. So anyway, that is where I draw the line. If the person has a choice as to life and death, death can be a possibilty. When there is no way for the individual (or future individual) to make that choice, then death should not be an option.

Killing people is wrong and can only be justified in circumstances of immediate self defence.

Studies have shown (in the american context) that the death penalty is unfairly applied and has a bias against those of the wrong race and class. Many peoples verdicts were unfair and many have been sent to jail and even executed who should not have been.

As a trained lawyer myself I can assure you that the human memory is a very unreliable thing and the reliance of witness testimony has quite frequently led to the wrong people being sent to jail.

I think it was J Edgar Hoover who once said law is seldom about justice.

When thinking of the death penalty, the phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind. Who are we to decide when someone is to die? It is morally wrong to decide when and where to take a life. But that does not justify taking the life of another.

That, however, does not mean that someone should go without punishment for a crime they committed. To me, it doesn't seem like sufficient enough punishment to kill someone. Punishment is to live with the choices you made.

More ofen than not, the death penalty is administered to killers. IMO, if we give them the death penalty, we are relieving them of their punishment. They don't have to live with it. They know that in a matter of time, (few years, few months, depending on the trial) they won't have to deal with it any longer.

A life-long sentence of confinement in prison, seems like a much more horrible sentence to be given. The prisoner is faced with a horrible and lonely life, remembering that the crime he/she had committed, was the one that landed them there.

Giving the death penalty is like flicking off the justice system in America.

That means, that we, are also killers. Are we not? We are taking someone's life, whether or not he/she was a "bad" person, we are still killing another person. Then, since we could be considered mass murderer's ourselves, should we be admnistered the death penalty as well?

In order for life in prison to have a meaninful value as far as a punishment for murder, the murderer must feel remorse. If the murderer does not feel any regret or sorrow for his actions, life in prison does nothing but allow him free room and board, at the tax payers expense, for the rest of his life. I believe most of us are assuming that murder is somehow rational in nature, in which the person who commits the crime will feel "guilty" about his actions later on. This is simply not the case in all circumstances. When a person is uncapable of feeling true regret or sorrow, as is the case with many of the mass murderer psychopath types, life in prison does nothing as a punishment for them.
As far as the "two wrongs don't make a right" issue, what is "right" and "wrong" is a judgement call based upon the individual. You may think that killing is always wrong, in that case are you oppossed to war? What if someone was going to kill you, and you killed them first to save your own life, is that "wrong?" My point is, killing could easily be shown to be "right" in some situations, and I would argue that many times, juries, family and friends of murder victims, and society as a whole sees the killing of certain criminals as "right."

A life for a life.
It works.

Fuck this "5 years in prison, you are a changed man" bullshit.

Someone kills your mother because she woulden't let him steal her car.
You let him live? Why.. because it's the "honest thing to do?" He didin't mind killing your mother.

Fuck that.

Capital punishment should be implemented everywhere, all around the world.

I've had a close family member killed. Not only was she killed, but she was killed by her own husband. I want him to pay, dearly. But taking another person's life, what does that gain you?

Think of the people you affect with each person that you kill. If you kill him, think of those that love him, the anguish they will feel.

If you've ever suffered the loss of a loved one, you would know how it feels. Why put another through that anguish?

Who are we to decide whether to take someone else's life? Who granted us that power?

quote:

Who are we to decide whether to take someone else's life? Who granted us that power?

And who granted the power to the killer to take another's life? They did. And when they performed that action, they gave the power to a jury of their own peers, as well as our legal system to determine if their life should be taken. So in answer to your question, the killer gave the power to have their life taken.

Another issue related to the death penalty is cost. While I havn't done enough reasearch on the topic Its my guess that the average amount of money put into each prisoner sentenced to death is greater than that of a prisoner sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

The logic is this: at any given time there is aproximatly 3500 or so inmates on death row(3557 in 2001, and 3551 in 2000) while only about 70 are executed each year, so the rest of them require the same federal funding as those not sentenced to death. However because inmates on death row appeal there conviction or sentence far more often then those not sentenced to the needle it seems logical that sentencing someone to death is a bigger burdon to the state in terms of both financing and time.

Another argument I have against the death penalty is the relative painlessness involved. I think that a needle is too easy of a way out, some people argue that instead of the needle people should do hard physical labor, I think they desrve worse, and should have 20 or so hours of complete isolation a day, really mess with there minds, and make them suffer.

good points throughout this thread. I always swing back and forth between supporting it and not. I think I don't really like it in that it is very very hard to prove guilt in a lot of cases. Also circumstances play a huge role in it, self defence, too much self defence etc.

and yes, most serial killers and the like who are up for murder do not feel the slightest bit of regret nor is proson a challenge. Usually when a murderer is serving their sentence this is not the first time they have been in prison so it is nothing new and they know how it all works.

What I would call for is tougher prisons. They need more funding to build large enough prisons to house these criminals and they should not provide many of the ammenities that they do, like tv n such. But you could also say that more funding should be spent on keeping people away from prisons and not breaking the law....thats not gonna happen.


Plus I don't think we can judge how these kilelrs think or how prison is til we see it ourselves. The media paints a different picture of criminals and prisons imo. Of course they are going to try to show every murder case that is overturned and an innocent man goes free. But they never really report on the thousands that are rightly accused, unless they kill over 5 people over a period of time.

I especially hate that movie The life of david gale, I have never seen a movie with such a bias setup such a gross distortion.

I suggest that all those death penalty advocates read this:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/art...scid=45&did=539

Racism and hatred run VERY deep in the United States and that is shown very starkly in the criminal justice system.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert I suggest that all those death penalty advocates read this: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/art...scid=45&did=539 Racism and hatred run VERY deep in the United States and that is shown very starkly in the criminal justice system.

The criminal system is based upon the crime, not the race of the criminal.

There is a serious problem of black fathers abandoning their families, and fatherless children seem to have a much higher rate of becoming criminals then otherwise. That is why there is a skewed rate of the black minority making up such a vast number of criminals.

I believe most of us are arguing whether death penalty is a valid means of punishment, not if the current system is fair or unfair. I don't think anyone would want someone put to death unfairly, but in a system where it can be fair it is a justifiable means of punishment. I don't think you'll find any protests when you say the current system is not perfect. However, that does not change the validity of the death penalty if used under the right circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade A life-long sentence of confinement in prison, seems like a much more horrible sentence to be given.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic I'm not sure about you, but I would almost rather die than spend the rest of my life locked up with no rights.

... then lets do the morally right thing and kill them!

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono And who granted the power to the killer to take another's life? They did. And when they performed that action, they gave the power to a jury of their own peers, as well as our legal system to determine if their life should be taken. So in answer to your question, the killer gave the power to have their life taken.

So if the killer gets his life taken away as well, shouldn't the executioner's life be taken? He is, after all, taking another's life. It would just go round in circles until the entire planet kills itself.

quote:

Another argument I have against the death penalty is the relative painlessness involved. I think that a needle is too easy of a way out, some people argue that instead of the needle people should do hard physical labor, I think they desrve worse, and should have 20 or so hours of complete isolation a day, really mess with there minds, and make them suffer.

I agree. For those of you who are for the death penalty.. You want the killers to have a merciful death such as this? Doesn't really make sense, considering you want them to suffer as much as those who were killed themselves.

quote:

What I would call for is tougher prisons. They need more funding to build large enough prisons to house these criminals and they should not provide many of the ammenities that they do, like tv n such. But you could also say that more funding should be spent on keeping people away from prisons and not breaking the law....thats not gonna happen.

I agree. A killer should be given no chance of interaction with anyone else (soiltary confinement), no television, only their own minds to converse with. It would drive them insane eventually.

quote:

I believe most of us are arguing whether death penalty is a valid means of punishment, not if the current system is fair or unfair. I don't think anyone would want someone put to death unfairly, but in a system where it can be fair it is a justifiable means of punishment. I don't think you'll find any protests when you say the current system is not perfect. However, that does not change the validity of the death penalty if used under the right circumstances.

Of course the justice system is unfair. If it weren't, we wouldn't have so many convicted innocents, and free guilty.

On that note. With the death penalty, it does not give a chance for perhaps an innocent man to be set free. Would you like the blood of an innocent on your hands?

quote:

Of course the justice system is unfair. If it weren't, we wouldn't have so many convicted innocents, and free guilty.

Using that logic, why even have a criminal law system? If there is even a chance that an innocent man is convicted, why do we even try? The answer is because we have to to keep civility. With the death penalty there are numerous appeals before an inmate is executed. We can only do as best as humanly possible. Unfortunatly there will be errors, but all we can do it try to limit them.

quote:

So if the killer gets his life taken away as well, shouldn't the executioner's life be taken? He is, after all, taking another's life. It would just go round in circles until the entire planet kills itself.

I think your logic is flawed, in that the executioner is following out a state-sanctioned killing, not a murder. If you have to see it this way, think of the executioner as killing the murderer in self defense. After all, isn't that what the death penalty does, permenantly remove a killer from society?

As far as having tougher prisons, with prisoner's rights the way they are there would be no way they would allow a prisoner to just be in solitary for life. There is the old "cruel and unusal punishment" and I think solitary to the point of driving someone insane probably falls under that category.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.