The Death Sentence.

Migatron.:

ChipmunkOnKetamine:

I think they should have just the bare necessities, and be punished by not having any privileges. I'm not talking about removing basic human rights, like food, water, and shelter, I'm talking about removing luxuries, like a comfortable bed, a nice view, television, radio, interaction with loved ones. Making it so that they would wish they were dead, but not giving them the privilege dying. I know that my opinion is cruel, and some people would regard it as heartless, but I think that anybody that kills someone should be made to suffer, and dying, just isn't suffering.

But then really think about the reason we incarcerate criminals ?/
we do it for two reasons i ) Rehabilitate ii) incapacitate. notice how rehabilitation comes first. if someones in jail most likely for drug offenses you want to be able to put them back into society ? so how on earth are you going to do that when you've basically alienated him but cutting him off from society and basically treated him or her like a subhuman entity?.

and like yeah we have that. its called high security prisons or supermax .
it costs 200000 aus dollars to keep someone locked up every year because they have to have four guards to each person. now 200g x how ever many years he has till he dies = tax payers $$$$.

if you kill a person, then you can't rehabilitate them. I'm not saying put every prisoner in a high security, low privilege jail, I'm saying put the people that would be sentenced to death in there. And you wouldn't need four guards to one prisoner, if they were alone in their cell with just a bed, a toilet, and a sink. They wouldn't be able to kill themselves, because they would have nothing to kill themselves with. Put a camera that can see most of the cell, bar the toilet, and then have one guy watching the screen, and a few other stationed near the cells. Tada, lots of money saved.

If you are planning to rehab a person, then obviously, keep them in contact with people, but don't make prison a breeze. If prisons were really harsh, and prisoners had very few niceties, then fewer people would commit crimes, because they would be more scared. As it is, people are breaking into the prisons (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1314033,00.html) because they are so comfortable. What sort of punishment is that?

I only suggest the privileges removed from prisoners that would ordinarily be executed, because it is more of a punishment than death. I would not suggest this for 'ordinary' prisoners, because they do not need 'death punishment' so to speak

capital punishment has several (supposed) purposes:

> retribution - but then aren't you as bad as they are?
> aversion - but this doesn't work as these criminals often think they are too smart to get caught
> prevention of recidivism - but what if they didn't do it in the first place?
> demonstration of disapproval - a bit like a public hanging in 1600s England

in these purposes, only retribution is really in effect; isn't that a bit Biblical?

survived abortion.:

I think if people do something SO TERRIBLY WRONG, like killed another human being, then why shouldn't they have the same pain inflicted on them? Then they would know what that person felt.

if u kill someone who did something bad, there not going to learn there lesson if there dead!

Migatron.:

first of all i never said i was an advocate for the death sentence. im just playing devils advocate. im just really sick of this one sided argument i figure why bother having a thread like this if everyone is just gonna look at the topic from one viewpoint.

but seriously just take a look at the people who have been executed in the us and the reasons they've been executed, i mean its just clear that most of them like the Oklahoma's bomber weren't fit to be in society. and then look at the people in south east Asia who are facing the firing line for drug offenses. those governments and law makers see drugs as a massive problem to their society and their just doing what they feel would serve their society. and if you look its doing its job and decreased the drug traffic but not entirely wiped it out. im not saying i condone this though

and yeah i've formed my own opinion on it and so have you and you make an excellent point but the thing is that there has to be more than just eye for an eye it has to serve some deeper purpose i mean if it was eye for an eye the person doing the execution would be the victim but its not, its the state.
the state makes execution very impersonal as opposed to the victim dishing out vengeance which obviously would be a very emotional affair

Of course there shouldn't be one side to the argument. That's the point I was trying to make! I felt that you were pushing your opinion as if it were a cold hard fact, and that your opinion was 'the right one'. So that's why I originally asked you to state where you got it from.

And if you note, I said in my opinion the eye for an eye argument was part of the reason. I didn't say I thought it was the complete and total reason.

I understand why many people say the death penalty is hypocritical
but honestly, what's life if you're going to be in jail forever?

And it was the persons fault for killing the other in the first place
(Of course i'm talking about cold blood murder here, self defense and
unintention manslaughter are a totally different subject matter)
and they could've chosen not to do that, and obviously they're crazy

normal people just don't kill others for no reason.

and that is why, if someones on trial for murder, and they're going to
get the death penality, they should be executed the same way
they comitted their homicide.

I don't think you'd see much more chopping up of people starting
with their feet.

NJ Sucess Story:

and that is why, if someones on trial for murder, and they're going to
get the death penality, they should be executed the same way
they comitted their homicide.

I don't think you'd see much more chopping up of people starting
with their feet.

So you think they should be "executed in the same way"? Who do you think is going to do this? Who is going to carry out that gruesome task of killing a criminal in what could be a very sadistic, nasty way? I can guarantee that a judge would be unwilling to sentence anyone to put a murderer to death the same way he/she killed the victim(s). It is unproductive to waste time "executing them in the same way" when it can just be done 'humanely' via an injection. Not that I agree with the death penalty at all, but if it must be done, then I think it should be done in the most 'humane' way possible.

against!
i mean the law tells every one that killing some one is illegel but then they can go kill some one for just breaking some law... stupid!

it could go either ways with me. if someone was a serial killer then keep them in jail and let them know everyday what they've done to the world. but if they're like a serious phsyco then i think keeping them alive would cause frear? and that might lead to more problems...... i guess

I am 100% against it.
The way that I see it is that I'd rather have them suffer in jail and have to go trhough every day knowing what they did than have them excuted and never have to think about it again.

I'm reposting something I said on another forum, it just sums up my opinion pretty well

What i really feel:
Death penalty is a sure sign of an underdeveloped democracy.
(Compare http://www.economist.com/images/rankings/Democracy.jpg to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation )
It is a regression back to "laws of the jungle" and fanatic standpoint that's been made in situations such as in primitive cultures or where a church has set the moral standards using phrases like "an eye for an eye".
It is an insult to the reasoning thinking human being.

I'm not saying that a legal system should be all roses and happy happy joy joy. I'm saying that a legal system has to be based on reason, not religious or emotional beliefs. The freedom to live in a nation, and the right to be a citizen should however be considered a privilege that could be revoked.
I personally feel that the real question should be when your citizenship should be permanently revoked (i.e life in jail) and when you still considered a citizen to be readjustable and give him/her the means to do so. (i.e treatment)

I do respect your opinion, and I'm not calling you fanatic. I think that most people who speak up for the death penalty base their reasoning on emotions. Problem is. emotions are subjective. When making laws for a whole nation you have to use a more objective standpoint and reasoning, respect and the value of human life should be the base for arguments around the death penalty, not emotions.

Quote

Death penalty is a sure sign of an underdeveloped democracy.

It is?
I thought democracy didn't exist.

But /sometimes/ can't the death penalty be a way of showing mercy? There are things worse than death out there. Personally, I believe it all depends on the situation. Of course, the problem with judging the situation is that you'd have to know everyone's histories, you'd have to had seen the crime or whatever happened yourself, and you'd have to hope everyone was telling the truth. It would get way too complicated. That's probably why the 'justice' of the legal system is rarely fair.
To sum up, there is no solution.

True democracy doesnt exist,(I have not claimed any absolute facts about that either) but the system can be more or less developed towards democracy. As stated by the two links, the most democratic countries are also the ones who do not enforce death penalty.

But I do claim that there is a solution, that is to base laws upon reason, not subjective emotions. Talking about "mercy" is something subjective. What is mercy to you might be a punishement for someone else.

im fine wiht it. you kill someone- you die. its extremely fair.

I'm against the death penalty. In no way have I ever been able to justify the killing of another person, no matter what they did. Even if it's a form of punishment. However, revenge and murder are some of my favorite subjects and I understand they're a part of human nature - but I still think the less it can happen, the better.

I'm against it. I just seeing having the ability to take someone else's life without consequence as too much of a godlike power for anyone to have. I don't care what the person who is being put to death did, I never think taking another human life is justified. I think life,under all circumstances,is a basic human right. Judges and juries shouldn't have the power to determine who is worthy of existing.

Yes;Indeed;True:

I'm against it. I just seeing having the ability to take someone else's life without consequence as too much of a godlike power for anyone to have. I don't care what the person who is being put to death did, I never think taking another human life is justified. I think life,under all circumstances,is a basic human right.

Then what kind of punishment should a killer have?

Quote

Judges and juries shouldn't have the power to determine who is worthy of existing.

But, to some extent, isn't that what a killer is doing? Deciding who they want to die and who they want to live. (I know that's not always the case)

I'm undecided on this. Punishing someone with a life sentence seems almost too nice, and this is really cold hearted, but if they're going to spend their life in prison why not just kill them and get them out of the way. I know that is cruel, but I don't feel any pity or mercy for some of those that would be sentenced to death. In cases where some one is not mentally stable, I think the person should be sent to an asylum, or something like that.