The Death Sentence.

1. There is irrefutable rock solid evidence that he/she murdered someone.
There never will be.

2. He/she shows no regret.
Not being able to show any empathy is often a mental ilness. (sociopath)
Often, people who are not sick but revenged something can show no remorse or regret. Does this mean that you'd rather kill a woman who killed her rapist than a crackdealer who regrets killing his girldfriend while high?

3. He/she will kill again so they cannot be put back into society.
Its called lifetime.

4. He/she does not have a mental illness/disability or legal insanity.
Its hard/impossible to put a 100% accurate diagnose for a mental state at the time of the crime.

Heybaberiba:

1. There is irrefutable rock solid evidence that he/she murdered someone.
There never will be.

I beg to differ.
A videotape showing the person murdering someone is irrefutable evidence

Quote

2. He/she shows no regret.
Not being able to show any empathy is often a mental ilness. (sociopath)
Often, people who are not sick but revenged something can show no remorse or regret. Does this mean that you'd rather kill a woman who killed her rapist than a crackdealer who regrets killing his girldfriend while high?

No because the women would most likely not kill again. And if he was high, that is an extenuating circumstance.

Quote

3. He/she will kill again so they cannot be put back into society.
Its called lifetime.

And then all of our tax money gets to go to keeping a murder alive in his comfy little prison cell.

Quote

4. He/she does not have a mental illness/disability or legal insanity.
Its hard/impossible to put a 100% accurate diagnose for a mental state at the time of the crime.

It can be done.

I meant all of these together, not as separate things. If a murderer reaches all these stipulations then I see no reason to keep them alive. If there is any doubt on any of them, then I wouldn't support a death penalty for that person.

We all remember being told at least once in our life that two wrongs don't make a right. But then through-out history some form of the death penalty has always been around.
I personally believe that if someone has commited a crime they should be held accountable for that crime. If you rapped and killed someone, then i feel that perhaps you should be around to live anymore either, BUT being human its agaist my right to pick and chose who dies.
Yes the death penalty is hypocritical, but at the same time, i personally don't want a man to be kept alive that killed people just because he felt like it. The day he's released( or escapes) there is not much keeping him from doing it again. I mean he already went to jail.
If the death penalty is the only way to keep they phsyco's off the street, then by all means do it, but use discression.

A videotape showing the person murdering someone is irrefutable evidence.
No. It can show that someone who looks like the person accused committed murder.


No because the women would most likely not kill again. And if he was high, that is an extenuating circumstance.
"Not likely" is not a 100% sure thing.
And according to that reasoning, dope up before you commit murder, good thinking!

And then all of our tax money gets to go to keeping a murder alive in his comfy little prison cell.
It coasts more to kill a person than keeping them in jail for life in the USA.
http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108

Quote

4. He/she does not have a mental illness/disability or legal insanity.
Its hard/impossible to put a 100% accurate diagnose for a mental state at the time of the crime.

It can be done.
No, it cant, but please, if you posses the miracle method to tell, share it with us.

I meant all of these together, not as separate things. If a murderer reaches all these stipulations then I see no reason to keep them alive. If there is any doubt on any of them, then I wouldn't support a death penalty for that person.

So, if you have a yet not existing way of showing beyond any doubt that a, mentally healthy at the time for the crime, non remorseful rabid serial killer committed a murder. You are for the death penalty.
Otherwise, you are against the death penalty.
Right...

Maybe that kind of technology doesn't exist yet, but in the future it will.

Eponine:

There's really no good solution, in jails they take up space and money has to go to give them food and clothing and other things, but then killing them may be considered inhumane.

I think a criminal should only be sentenced to death if:
1. There is irrefutable rock solid evidence that he/she murdered someone.
2. He/she shows no regret.
3. He/she will kill again so they cannot be put back into society.
4. He/she does not have a mental illness/disability or legal insanity.

I agree, people say "oh all rapist should be killed" and I know what they did was awful but in all honesty anyone could snap and rape someone or kill someone. People say "oh well they just have to go to jail and they get taken care of and we have to pay for them and now all the jails are over crowded" my grandpa works in a jail, it isn't easy and some of these people are good people who made a bad decission.

Now if you are insane (legally) then sometimes you just want out, my grandpa saved a prisonr who tried to jump off the third story and now my grandpa is in physical therapy because of it.

But there is really no guarentee they won't go out and kill agian. I don't belief the death sentence is always the answer but obviously there should be better alternatives tat are more humane

Heybaberiba:

3. He/she will kill again so they cannot be put back into society.
Its called lifetime.

Lifetime doesnt actually mean life. They are often let out after a few years, or in the UK atleast.

To Zanarkand:

Lifetime doesnt actually mean life. They are often let out after a few years, or in the UK atleast.

I am almost certain that lifetime in North America is 25 years. Parole shouldn't be granted but sometimes is.

Bob.:

I am almost certain that lifetime in North America is 25 years. Parole shouldn't be granted but sometimes is.

That's not a lifetime though.

To Zanarkand:

Bob.:

I am almost certain that lifetime in North America is 25 years. Parole shouldn't be granted but sometimes is.

That's not a lifetime though.

it's not, but that's what they call it. Criminals can also be sentenced to as many lifetimes as the judge/jury feels necessary.

I think that serial murderers and rapists that have been proved sane by multiple doctors, are not sorry for what they have done along with rock solid proof they did it, deserve the death penalty.
And yes, there is rock solid proof, video cameras are good enough these days to get apositive ID 100%, the police do haev technology that allows them to do facial recognition if there is any doubt. ANd for Rapists, you can tell by the presence of bodily fluids, a struggle and/or drugs that would have sedated the victim.
And some people might say that the struggle was some kind of fetish thing that some peole ave, but people who are into that sort of thing are normally proud of it and can have psychologists see them to see if they have any sort of fetishes that might prove they are lying.
If there is enough proof that the person did it and dosnt care then they deserve it. If they are mentally unstable and thats why they are not sorry for it then send them to a high security prison for life, that has the facilities to help them with their problems.
But i think the sane people deserve to die, why should they use up our money over however many years they are in prison?
ANd to the lifetime sentence, it is for "no less than 25 years and no longer than the rest of your natural lifetime". Which means that they CAN be in prison for their whole life, i think people are getting too strung up on the idea that they MIGHT get out after 25 years. The prison security and psychologists and stuff are not stupid, if they are still the same freak as they came in is they are not going to set them free. And besides, they can only be set free if they have proven over the whole 25 that they are worth society again and will not repeat their former acts. The criminals that we all think should get killed will never get let out, the probasion period that allows them to be set free early is for people who did stuff like robberies or something, the system is not stupid and will not let them out if they dont deserve to be free. Its for the people, mainly, who made an error in judgement and arent really bad enough to go their full sentence, thats why some robbers who are supposed tog et 20 years only get 10.

nevergetmealive:

And yes, there is rock solid proof, video cameras are good enough these days to get apositive ID 100%, the police do haev technology that allows them to do facial recognition if there is any doubt. ANd for Rapists, you can tell by the presence of bodily fluids, a struggle and/or drugs that would have sedated the victim.

yeah...maybe you should stop watching CSI and realize that the justice system is built up of humans who make errors. And NO there is no such thing as 100% reliable proof. But, since you claim it, maybe provide us with some facts around this miracle 100% accurate forensic science?

Heybaberiba:

nevergetmealive:

And yes, there is rock solid proof, video cameras are good enough these days to get apositive ID 100%, the police do haev technology that allows them to do facial recognition if there is any doubt. ANd for Rapists, you can tell by the presence of bodily fluids, a struggle and/or drugs that would have sedated the victim.

yeah...maybe you should stop watching CSI and realize that the justice system is built up of humans who make errors. And NO there is no such thing as 100% reliable proof. But, since you claim it, maybe provide us with some facts around this miracle 100% accurate forensic science?

I'm only responding in this thread because I'm upset with the lack of faith in modern technology. I work at an Emergency Room Rape/Psych ward, and there are absolutely ways to identify the accused. If there is a video, if enough angles are captured of their face, their "facial map" if you will can be identified precisely and accurately. Not simply by facial characteristics, it's a complex mathematical process that is different for every human (identical twins aside), much like your figerprint. Bodily fluids can be taken from the victim for traces of the presence of foreign body. Accurately, and precisely. Failure rate is almost non existant, and drugs can be so definely pinpointed that the chemical makeup of each drugs can be laid out to read. And the beauty is that not only one sample is taken, but many. Not one process is used to determine these things, but many. That's to prevent any failure from ever happening, and it's getting better all the time.

I'm personally for the death penalty, but it circulates around many personal reasons, along with the other reasons listed prior to my point.

Jesus and i thought i was cynical, before i show you some proof i would like to say that what your saying has one big flaw, that we can recognise people, videos are clear enough now and whats their excuse gonna be??its their identical twin??....seriously i think your just arguing for the sake of it, but ill show you anyway.
Have fun...

http://www.facedetection.com/facedetection/techniques.htm

http://www.biometrics.gov/ReferenceRoom/Introduction.aspx

....and since in the links im giving you there are links from those places, go here as well

http://www.face-rec.org/related-links/

Now if you read through all those articles and websites and everything, especially all the sites on the lastlink then you'll realise you might be being a tad too cynical.

Bob.:

I am almost certain that lifetime in North America is 25 years. Parole shouldn't be granted but sometimes is.

'25 to life'. Life is anywhere between 30 and 50 years, obviously depending on the severity of the crime.

Eponine:

Heybaberiba:

2. He/she shows no regret.
Not being able to show any empathy is often a mental illness. (sociopath)
Often, people who are not sick but revenged something can show no remorse or regret. Does this mean that you'd rather kill a woman who killed her rapist than a crack dealer who regrets killing his girlfriend while high?

No because the women would most likely not kill again. And if he was high, that is an extenuating circumstance.

As far as I am aware intoxication isn't an excuse for murder, so I'm pretty sure being off your face on illegal drugs wont be either. (Not meaning to be rude)

I don't care what a person has done, they don't deserve a second chance, and they don't deserve to die. Life should mean life not, 25, 30, 50 years. It should mean that person will die in jail, or in a secure hospital. They should be made to suffer. They should be punished, and I don't that death is a punishment. In my opinion, a lot of prison, especially in the UK are too soft, on inmates, and it is too cushy. I know there is a lot of violence that goes on, but there is television, computer games, things that people outside would like to have. In the US, it's slightly more violent, and I think, at times, it is too violent, but prison should be a better deterrent. People should be scared of going to jail, not breaking in, cause it is better than sleeping on the streets.

ChipmunkOnKetamine:

I don't care what a person has done, they don't deserve a second chance, and they don't deserve to die. Life should mean life not, 25, 30, 50 years. It should mean that person will die in jail, or in a secure hospital. They should be made to suffer. They should be punished, and I don't that death is a punishment. In my opinion, a lot of prison, especially in the UK are too soft, on inmates, and it is too cushy. I know there is a lot of violence that goes on, but there is television, computer games, things that people outside would like to have. In the US, it's slightly more violent, and I think, at times, it is too violent, but prison should be a better deterrent. People should be scared of going to jail, not breaking in, cause it is better than sleeping on the streets.

'made to suffer' can mean lots of things. Should murders be tortured? Surely that is even more inhumane than the death penalty. And what if they don't care if they are in jail? I don't think murders care about what punishment they get. The threat of jail if they are caught probably means nothing to them.

Eponine:

'made to suffer' can mean lots of things. Should murders be tortured? Surely that is even more inhumane than the death penalty. And what if they don't care if they are in jail? I don't think murders care about what punishment they get. The threat of jail if they are caught probably means nothing to them.

no, they should be tortured, because as you say that is even more inhumane that killing them. 'Made to suffer' means they shouldn't have privaledges; prison shouldn't be sweet. They shouldn't have access to people they love, to television, to internet connection, monitored or otherwise. They should be forced to live an empty life. They should have to work for their upkeep, so as not to put the cost on the tax payer. No, they shouldn't be treated as slaves; a murderer is still human, but they should find it hard. Health care, medication, food should still be given, but a meal shouldn't be more expensive than a kid's school meal.

And yes, I don't think that murderers care about going to jail; a lot of murders are spontainious, but for other crimes, such as robbery, the threat should be a real one.

ChipmunkOnKetamine:

They shouldn't have access to people they love, to television, to internet connection, monitored or otherwise. They should be forced to live an empty life. They should have to work for their upkeep, so as not to put the cost on the tax payer. No, they shouldn't be treated as slaves; a murderer is still human, but they should find it hard. Health care, medication, food should still be given, but a meal shouldn't be more expensive than a kid's school meal.

Well if they don't have access to the people they love then that is restricting their rights. (they loved ones not the murder) One could argue that for America they should not be given health care because the average citizen is not even given health care. A meal that is no more expensive then a school lunch would probably not be nutritionally balanced, seeing as actually school lunches aren't. The rest of it, I absolutely agree with.

Eponine:

Well if they don't have access to the people they love then that is restricting their rights. (they loved ones not the murder) One could argue that for America they should not be given health care because the average citizen is not even given health care. A meal that is no more expensive then a school lunch would probably not be nutritionally balanced, seeing as actually school lunches aren't. The rest of it, I absolutely agree with.

Standard school lunches nowadays have to be nutritionally balanced, at least in the UK, they do. At my brother's elementary school, the daily lunch is usually meat/pulses, vegetables, potatoes/rice, followed by desert which can be anything from apple pie to chocolate ice cream. That is a relatively balanced meal, and it is cheaper than prison food. Some prison meals in the UK have been found to cost more than a hospital meal, and one would hope that would be balanced.

If the prison is in a country that makes you pay for health care, then the prisoner should have to too, by say, working extra hours, to pay for health insurance. If there is a national health service, then they shouldn't have to, although I don't think anyone should have to pay for health care.

I don't think a person that has taken a life should be allowed to have contact with people they love, as they have taken away from someone a person who was loved. I know it would punish the relative, but I don't think that it is fair to allow a person to have their family when they've stopped someone else.