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.)

___________________
~Nessa

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?

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

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

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

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.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

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.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

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.