The Death Sentence.

Thats not really the point. The point is, if you had absolute power over whether someone lived or died and you had to carry out the sentence, could you do it?

i agree - make the crims live with their guilt. Killing them off makes them happy that they dont have to think about what they have done. Like those bali bombers - whats up with all the creepy smilling? *shiver*

Mud:

I don't think its fair to say that those whose lives are ruined by the death of others are weak. They're already going to be in a fragile state: a loved one has taken the life of another (possibly bringing guilt into the equation), has ruined their own life and now they're losing that loved one entirely. Not to mention the disruption to their day-to-day life. They can never be expected to carry on regardless.

Well, I'm sure anyone who has lost a loved one would be upset. But a person can't continue to be upset all their lives. They just wouldn't survive.

Such as countries that lack water. What if the last rain failed? The people of the country can't mope about it too long, or else they're sure to die. However, feeling grief just makes you human.

Mud:

Should she be killed for that? In the eyes of the law, that's murder.

My point was that she would want the killer dead. But I do beleive that capital punishment must be done when you're absolutely sure that the suspect really is the killer. Like, if there were several witnesses or something. With no questions left unanswered.

Death destroys the lives of others all over the world. Different cultures react differently, but premature death is always devastating to loved ones, no matter what the reason. And that isn't really the point: they're still being punished for something someone else did when they're already in a fragile emotional state.

And also, unless the killer is caught in the act, it is very rare that there is rock solid proof that the murderer has been caught. So few, in fact, that it probably wouldn't be economically viable to maintain facilities for execution.

im all for the death sentence. it is $60,000 a year for one criminal in a jail, and that money comes from public taxes.

Nabisco* is the Evna!:

It is possible to get the wrong person but not probable. People who murder are sent to jail because of concrete evidence nothing circumstantial. I want to say that killing is wrong no matter what, but some people deserve it. They feel no remorse for the things they did. And it costs to much money to keep them alive.

Innocent people are wrongfully convicted of crimes (including murder) in every judicial system. Its an inescapable fact of life. Some will always slip through the net and, when that happens, the government is committing the same act as it is punishing against. Surely keeping people alive in prison (both murderers and the wrongfully convicted) is a fairer system? That way if a convict is later found to be innocent, they can be released with an apology and some money. It won't get those years back, but its something. And how can you put a price on innocent life? Or any life, for that matter?

Suzical the Musical.:

Another reason I don't like the death sentance is:

What if the person who was put to death was wrongly accused?

Then what will you have? An empty cell and a millon apologies to make.

Usually when a person is sentenced to death, the execution doesn't take place for at least 2 years.
This leaves time for appeals, and also time for new evidence (if there is any) to be looked at.
It is extremely unlikely that an innocent person will recive the death penalty.

Behind My Crimson Eyes:

Usually when a person is sentenced to death, the execution doesn't take place for at least 2 years.
This leaves time for appeals, and also time for new evidence (if there is any) to be looked at.
It is extremely unlikely that an innocent person will recive the death penalty.

It still happens. I don't think anyone in the judicial business would attest against that, no matter what their opinion on capital punishment.

But how often does it happen?
Barely ever.

There are processes in place to ensure that it doesn't happen. Most of the time they work, but like everything, it cant be 100% perfect.

Behind My Crimson Eyes:

Usually when a person is sentenced to death, the execution doesn't take place for at least 2 years.
This leaves time for appeals, and also time for new evidence (if there is any) to be looked at.
It is extremely unlikely that an innocent person will recive the death penalty.

But if you're that innocent person, I doubt you'd be able to sit back and say calmly "oh well, this hardly ever happens." You wouldn't give a damn about the ratio of innocent to guilty people who receive the death penalty. If it's you and you're innocent you're gonna get angry.

Which is why there are things in place to prevent things like that.
Seriously, did you not read what I wrote before?

Yeah I read it, but I think your opinion would change if you were in the position yourself. You've said yourself that the system isn't 100% perfect, so even though there are ways of preventing wrong accusal, it can still happen. Which means it can happen to you.

How would you feel if it was one of your relatives, or your best friend, that was brutally murdered?
Would you want the murderer to be able to repeat the crime?
Even if they are in maximum security in a prison, there is still a chance that they could escape and do the same thing again.

Catch twenty two.
You've got about a 50/50 chance of getting the right person.
There's always some evidence that points to the true guilty person.
Sadly, if you did get the wrong guy, then the murderer is still out there.
But death is cheaper.
And there's a price on everything else.