The Death Sentence.

Hm.
I'm against it.
I really think that if someone did something horrible, they should suffer.
Not have it over with right away.
I dunno, that sounds really sadistic. "/

I would be against it if I was guaranteed that a first degree murderer was served a sentence which would not let him leave prison for the remainder of his life.

i rather let them get totured by conscience. i think that's worse. but i'm not against the death sentence. an eye for an eye. a life for a life. a pie for a pie. of course if the murder wasn't intentional then maybe locking them up for 10 to 20 years should be enough.

Isn't life in prison enough? Must they have to die? Can't they spend the rest of their lives dealing with what they have done? And what about wrongful accustions? What if they put someone to death who was really truely innocent? That can't be good.

Against it. Nobody deserves to die. They deserve to suffer, yes, but not a punishment as harsh as death.

Nobody has the right to decide who lives and who dies, no matter how much they believe they do.

monkeyinair:

an eye for an eye.

... leaves everybody blind.

- Mahatma Ghandi

I'm not really sure. I'm for it only because if someone kills somebody, they really don't deserve to live, or have any rights. But what other people said is true, that death is kind of an escape from your other problems. So I guess I'm against it, only because I think if someone has killed somebody, then they deserve to suffer...either be tortured, (which sounds terrible, i know) or just suffer from knowing that they killed someone. idk, it's a tough topic

Torture is never the answer. Regret is punishment enough.

Mud:

Torture is never the answer. Regret is punishment enough.

Not everyone regrets what they've done though.

Maybe not, but 99.999% will regret something if they are kept in prison for the remainder of their natural life. Even if that is only being caught. Torture is a terrible thing. Far worse than capital punishment, in my opinion. Imagine torturing the wrong person - the very idea is horrific. Besides, no one deserves to be put through that, no matter what they do. I know someone who has been tortured and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I think it really depends on what they did.

There are some situations where I wish the Death Penalty still existed in the UK. Prisons aren't enough for some people because they are out on parole and good behaviour. Even life isn't enough because most of the prisons are way too soft on the prisoners. If they can do the crime, they can take the punishment.
It could cut down on the amount of serious crime as well because people might think "Is this worth risking losing my life over?"
And I think most people would feel alot safer knowing there is no chance of them living beside a mass murder, peadophile, rapist, or other dangerous person or persons.

There is never "no chance" of not living next to a dangerous criminal, under any justice system.

I agree, often sentences are too short and dangerous people are released on parole. But the obvious solution in that case isn't to kill them, its to change sentences to be more appropriate to the crime and to do more to ensure that prisoners are fit for release when they reach the end of their sentence. Admittedly, you could never make 100% sure, but I don't think its right to kill on the off-chance that someone might reoffend.

You might think that the death sentence would deter people from committing crimes, but look at the USA. It has an extremely high crime rate, as compared with countries of a similar economic status. It can't be working.

Mud:

There is never "no chance" of not living next to a dangerous criminal, under any justice system.

Okay, so I agree, but there's a heck of a lot less chance of you living next door to a dangerous person. And I don't know about you, but I'd feel a lot safer thinking the police force and the justice system were actually doing something that stops serious crimes from re-occuring.

Mud:

I agree, often sentences are too short and dangerous people are released on parole. But the obvious solution in that case isn't to kill them, its to change sentences to be more appropriate to the crime and to do more to ensure that prisoners are fit for release when they reach the end of their sentence. Admittedly, you could never make 100% sure, but I don't think its right to kill on the off-chance that someone might reoffend.

How could you do that? People can be damned good liers. And appropriate sentence lengths aren't fool-proof. People are released on bail, remand, good behaviour for crying out loud. There will be very few prisoners who will actually serve the full time they are sentenced to.

mud:

You might think that the death sentence would deter people from committing crimes, but look at the USA. It has an extremely high crime rate, as compared with countries of a similar economic status. It can't be working.

But campaigning against these people and sticking up posters telling you about how you're going to prison if you get caught will work? I'm sorry, but I feel that the only surefire way to cut serious crime is to stop the people who commit it from ever doing it again. And if the death sentence is the only thing that's going to do that, so be it.

Natural life works just as well as all to keep dangerous criminals away from the public and stop them reoffending.

What I meant by saying that prisoners should serve an appropriate sentence was that, for a real-life example, the recent case of the baby rapist in the UK should not have received 5 years. His sentence should obviously have been much longer. Psychologists/psychiatrists can fairly accurately assess which prisoners pose a risk to the public. And theres always the option of keeping a very close eye on previous offenders (of serious crime).

I live in a country where drug offences are punishable by death, and let me tell you it does very little to actually deter drug use. So, although crimes such as murder and rape are a slightly different kettle of fish, the deterent is the same.

I still think the only way to deal with people who commit dangerous crimes is to sentence them to death. Natural life doesn't always mean natural life. There are cases were people serving natural life sentences are let out of prison.
If they can do the crime, and put families through Hell, they can take the punishment as well.
The policing service in Britain (Northern Ireland especially) can't keep a close eye on repeat/previous offenders because they are simply too short staffed and are determined to deal with petty crime before serious ones -example: The PSNI were called by someone I know to deal with an assault case, but they couldn't send any officers out because they were all telling off a 15-year-old for being in possession of an aeresol can in a public place. Which is more dangerous to the public, an unruly gang of children who victimise the elderly and families, or a teenager with a can of deodorant?
There aren't enough prisons either. So if we had the option of the death penalty, rather than threatening the public by letting "less harmful" prisoners out, they could re-instate the death penalty and eliminate any chances of people becoming repeat offenders of serious crimes. It's like killing two birds with one stone.

The problem you've stated about the assault case and the aerosol can is a matter of policing, not a problem inherent in the anti-capital punishment system.

Prisoners may have had a horrendous effect on the lives of others, but taking their life only creates further suffering for the (innocent) loved ones of the offender. And, as I've said many times, lifelong prison sentences (which can be ensured by natural life in prison with no parole) are an apt punishment: the prisoner can no longer partake in the activities of normal life. Its an extremely unpleasant existance; but it is an existance and it isn't too late to say sorry if you get it wrong.

The people who keep an eye on previous offenders need not actually be police. They just need to be able to alert the police if they have any concerns. And the government does have enough money to fund this, as it wastes enough on thinking up new ways to kill people.

But also, I take exception at talking about people's lives in terms of logistics. And this isn't a direct dig at you, its a general thing and I admit I've probably done it a few times. Life is the most important thing in the world, but I feel sometimes during this discussion its worth is overlooked.

I think the death penalty is baloney. Yeah, I know it'll hurt if a loved one of yours is killed, but killing the murderer doesn't justify it. You're still gonna be sad.

Mud:

The problem you've stated about the assault case and the aerosol can is a matter of policing, not a problem inherent in the anti-capital punishment system.

I know. I was stating it because it backed up my case that the police are under-staffed and not doing enough about serious crime.

Mud:

But also, I take exception at talking about people's lives in terms of logistics. And this isn't a direct dig at you, its a general thing and I admit I've probably done it a few times. Life is the most important thing in the world, but I feel sometimes during this discussion its worth is overlooked.

Yes, life is the most important - and precious - thing in the world, so if someone is willing to take a life, does it not follow logic that they should repay the victims in the same way - by giving up their life?

Starr:

Yes, life is the most important - and precious - thing in the world, so if someone is willing to take a life, does it not follow logic that they should repay the victims in the same way - by giving up their life?

You're saying the punishment should fit the crime? If murder should result in the murderer's own death then it follows logically that the sentencer should also receive the death penalty, as they have also basically committed a murder. Maybe that's a 'just murder', maybe they're doing it for the good of the people, the safety of the people, (and, also, the revenge of the people), but it's still murder. It's just legal murder. But how is that morally better?