Capital Punishment, for or against?

I am against it for two reasons. Firstly, how can anyone be sure that someone actually did it? A man who had been in jail for decades for supposedly murdering a woman was completely cleared of all charges and released when DNA evidence was found that had been lost at the time of the crime. With the death penalty miscarriages of justice cannot be corrected, except on paper.

My second reason is that giving someone the death penalty is hardly punishing someone. It is letting them off. I'd say life in a maximum security prison (a real prison, not the wimpy ones we have in the UK) would be much worse than just dying.

I think that our (the UK's) justice system is already too focused around money. It should be on justice. And justice means adequate punishment, something that doesn't happen very often.

 

Though the bible may have indicated a different meaning to that Commandment... I've always believed that there's an exception. I mean after all, God killed those Egyptian first-born sons even though he gave the "Thou shalt not kill" Commandment to Moses.

But the way the bible is interpreted is a different topic, so I'll leave it at that.

 

Differance is, God gets to judge. You don't.

 

Here's a fun fact: about 60% of released prisoners re-do the crime they were originally prisoned for in the United States. Most people don't learn from their punishment, and a good part of these people are going in and out of prison repeatedly until they die.

In most cases I'm against the death penalty. It's too inhumane and backwards for the 21st century. I actually think that being locked up for life would be a worse punishment than a quick death. And if the prisoner was jailed wrongly, a life sentence is obviously easier to reverse than a death penalty.

Only times when I can (sort of) accept the death penalty is in cases of mass murderers. (Of course, for some the difference between a serial killer and a mass murderer can be a bit elusive.) I think Saddam Hussein got what deserved, although the way his trial and execution were handled turned in to a farce.​

 

We have the right to lock people up and take their freedom though. What gives us that? What makes life any more sacred to you? I'll answer that for you: a gut feeling.
Basing society's rules and regulations on these gut feelings, that is what I call barbaric.

 

Once you kill someone, they don't come back.

You act like a lack of empathy is always a bad thing.

Laws are largely based on feelings anyway. Sure, crimes are crimes are detrimental to society, and that's independent of subjectivities, but if you were incapable of feeling bad that your father had his life taken from him unfairly, if I didn't get upset were my sister raped by a mob, etc we wouldn't have laws because nobody would care.

I don't think that it's wise to let feelings completely cloud one's judgement, since that's one the big reasons why some people support this in the first place, but acting like a robot about it doesn't seem all that good either.

 

^^This.

But the fact remains that most prisons aren't changing that. When that is changed, when a prisoner is actually punished for his crimes, that's when I'll be against capital punishment. Convicts should be educated and kept up-to-date with events of the world so they're not lost when (if) they get out, but they should not have entertainment. Prison should punish and reform convicts, not give them a hotel.

I agree with this. A simple gunshot would work best and would save money.

The criminal condemned his own life when he took/ruined another's life.

There will always be doubt. There's nothing we can do to change that.
We need to cut crime so there's less criminals to judge.

It is letting them off easy, I agree with that. But at least they won't ruin any more lives. I was thinking of saying that we should put them in a maximum security prison for a few years and then give them the death penalty...but that seems a tad cruel. Convicts who know they are going to die in a matter of years will probably commit suicide or lsoe all hope. (Although, depending on their crime, they may deserve that.)

True.

blindess is the punishment the world receives and deserves.

I could bring religion into the argument by saying if a criminal doesn't believe in a God then it's up to society to judge him.
But what I really want to say is this: Then send them to God and let Him judge their actions.

 

Which can be a good thing, or a bad thing. Keep in mind the nature of the people who are to be executed. Serial killers and rapists are the primary candidates. Compare the amount of people who still mourn for their deaths to the amount of people who are relieved that the threat is gone. May as well cancel eachother out.

Also, compare to lifelong imprisonment. Sure, he's still alive. Sure, you can visit him (if he behaves at least), but he won't be home for Christmas.
Whether you take him away partly or completely, the principle and the intentions are the same.

No, an overly rational approach to society is not a perfect solution either ("All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy").
Ideally there's a time and place for everything from keeping the gears of society in motion to recreation and social interaction. In this concept, however, there is no room for people who share so little affinity for either. Hence my stance on death penalty.

 

So demand an overhaul of the corrections system. Don't strictly endorse the captial punishment.

Disgusting.

No. They forfeitted their right to freedom, not their right to live.

Someone get this guy a Death Note.

My point is, it is beyond our rights to take anothers life or even make that decision.
Society's job is carry out justice, and that does not involve execution.
Convicts are just a product of their environment, so therefore society is to blame.
Hence, society owes to the convict to help reform them, not kill them.

 

Right, so in your mind, because of the failings of prisons, that means that we should just kill the convicts? So instead of fixing the problem that is in prisons it should be ignored and pushed aside?

How will executions fix anything? They won't.

That is horrible.

Actually some people are on Death Row for a very long time before they are executed.

They will be sent to God sooner or later, what gives the law to decide when someone's time to die is? Again that is just sinking down to the level of those who took another's life in the first place.

Just because it is under the title of the authorities doesn't take away from the fact it is the taking of another human's life.

I am not saying that prisoners should be cuddled and pampered and I am definitely not saying the law should go easy on them, but the Death Penalty is wrong no matter how you look at it.

 

With the way the death penalty works and the mistakes it brings about, I'd have to say no for most cases. I believe prison on a whole needs restructured and also certain attentions should be made to keep harmful elements out of the rest of society, but so far, no one has a good prison system that does what it should. Either countries are too harsh, too non-caring, or too easy going. There is just not a real system that actually benefits mankind out there, other than trying to keep the criminal element out of society, and that fails too.

Prisons to me should be at basics, about reformation and rehabilitation of the people sent there, for the most part. The only people that should be simply 'held there' with no chance of getting out are those who simply cannot be helped to assimilate to life outside of prison walls. Some of these, which tend to roam rather freely I'd point out and it disturbs me, are those who molest/rape and those who murder. There are exceptions to those who have killed, especially those who did so out of self-defense or helping someone else, but for the most part, these people are most likely not going to change and so why they keep getting out of prison before those who had drug possession, I just don't get it. Only those who are notorious or get super attention drawn to them remain in prison and some get the death penalty.

The death penalty in itself is cruel and barbaric. People are left alive for several months or even several years on death row, waiting. The cost to hold them and conduct the deaths is more expensive or the same amount as what you'd see if they were just left to prison for life. Also, some people are under the impressions that lethal injection is nice, and it is no better than just taking the person out to a pole and shooting them execution style. In the end, I'll also point out that some 'criminals' have died due to the death penalty, only to find out later, their pleas all along against having killed someone were true. You can't bring back someone from the dead who was innocent. Unless people know for absolute sure that a person did the crime, they should -never- be on death row.

The only people I see fit for the death penalty are those who if they live will continue to bring misery, pain and are a threat to humanity in and out of prison. If the guards and other inmates are in danger from the person, and there is no way that person is going to stop with what he/she is doing, then I feel that's worthy of the death penalty because not only can the person not be integrated in society ever again; the person cannot be trusted to being able to be held safely in prison. For people who are pathological, sadistic etc and can be held, might as well keep them in for life and not let them go. They won't change. And my last gripe is that religious people should not be allowed to go in and say criminals have reformed because of Christianity or Islam. There are Buddhists who go and donate time to helping prisoners learn meditation and such but they aren't trying to get people out early because something saved them. They are actually helping rehabilitate criminals so that they can cope with issues that put the criminals there in the first place. No one should get out on a religious pass. So many of these people have gotten out and either gotten rich off televangelical schemes and shows of their reformation which is staged or went right back to jail later.

The death penalty though, is not the counter to criminals who get out early to cause mayhem once again. The cure to that issue is a reformation of the prison system to pay attention to psychologically, the fact that a supreme high number of rapists, molesters and murderers are just likely to do the deeds again. Good behavior, topped with the fact our prisons are in a sorry state, holding too many prisoners for other lesser crimes instead of rehabilitating them and helping them find work and such (which is one of the reasons that a lot of crimes are done), is not a reason for criminals to be let go. A pathological person can easily play the system and be good and be seen as less of a threat. The reason.. because they do not care. I believe in most cases, the death penalty should not be used at all save for the criminals that are a supreme danger to the lives around them, and for how long the prisoners on death row are left alive anyway, the death penalty is truly a failed concept.

 

By the way, if you really think "reformation of the prison system" is gonna cut it, methinks you're naive as hell. It's worth a try though. Just don't expect it to perform miracles.

To be honest he hit the nail on the head when I talked about "considering methods that are generally viewed as less humane".
I've always laughed at the stupidity of the Americans (and other nations who use similar execution methods) prefering insanely expensive equipment because it looks less icky.

 

As if hanging or lethal injection is any more promising?

 

To all who think the death penalty is wrong: If Osama bin Laden was found, would you just simply reform him and send him back into the public?

Unbiased question by the way. I haven't formed my opinion on this topic yet. Although, both sides have had pretty good arguments. :)

 

Osama is exactly the kind of person who I think should, above all, get the death penalty. I mean, for the amount of people he has killed through his plans, not just here, but in countless terror attacks worldwide, and the number of people he has made miserable and afraid because of said attacks, he has clearly proven he is not reformable and should never be allowed back into society in any way. So, either keep him locked up in a windowless cell for the rest of his natural life, or go the easy route and put a bullet through his skull. Either way works, but a bullet costs less.

Also, successful topic is evidently successful. Thanks for a great debate :D

 

In the case of terrorists though, the Death Penalty will just make them a martyr for their cause, they don't care if they die for what they have done. Executing them in some cases can make them a hero in the eyes of their folllowers. Besides which when it comes to terrorism based on religion then you are just sending them to their god (who they are acting in the name of) earlier so in their beliefs they are going to go and be rewarded much faster.

It seems a lot of people think that if they aren't executed then they are going to be reformed and given back to society, I disagree with that. Keep them locked up for life.

You don't have to kill them to keep them out of society.

 

On itself? Not really, although it will always retain some advantages.
In combination with reformation? Yes. If you have a better idea to reduce crime though, please do tell us.

What good him leeching off state money ever do? Oh right, "he'll get his punishment". Like I said, that shouldn't be our priority.

 

What would you do to Osama Bin Laden?

 

Reformation of the prison system and rehabilitation offered for many criminals would be better as an option than just holding some in there that don't have to be there for long. Some criminals simply are there because of being misled, doing some stupid deeds they outgrow and stealing or possession of drugs. These people are not really needing to be there for life and some rehabilitation and learning to adapt can help them. Backgrounds for people differ. To say that this is not true and call others naive.. it makes you instead seem to be the naive one.

However, as I said above, there are pathological criminals that can and will play on the kindness of people who think 'anyone' can reform. These people get out and repeat offenses, to include molestation, murder and rape. It will not matter what you do for rehabilitation, these people are not going to change and should -never- be let out of prison. It should just be accepted that some people are not capable of existing in society well and that you are doing the person in prison as much of a favor as you are doing others by leaving that person there. This, I take it, is what you mean by calling others naive who think a reformation of prisons would cure everything. I do think at least most people here, know though, that there is no way to get some people to change.

As for your last statement, death is death. As long as it is not torturous, then I suppose that's the method to go with. There have been studies that suggest lethal injection, as costly and 'neat' as it is, happens to be making the victims suffer and they cannot move or protest it before they die. I can tell you one thing. If I was going to be up for the death penalty, I'd by far rather just be taken out to a pole and shot. To me, that is more humane and less costly, and over quicker. Sure, there's blood, but death -is- death and a person who got killed isn't going to worry about the mess. The living are.

The only people I think the death penalty should be ever used on are those that prove they cannot be held in safety in prison. This would also include someone like a war time leader, such as Osama Bin Laden. Holding such a person would prove trying and others may even try to assassinate or liberate the person, and some people can be bought off too. It's better, regardless of the 'martyrdom' situation, to kill a wartime leader because of the threat to those who would be doing their jobs to hold that person away. Prison was designed to hold harmful people out of society and if the people cannot be held in there right because they are a serious danger, prison is the last mortal step we can do. If death is the only way to ensure a seriously dangerous being does not escape, then that is the time to me to employ the death penalty.

Which is why I now go back to reformation. With a better prison scheme set up, it can be easier determined who can be rehabilitated, who should be 'lifers' and who needs the death penalty. The death penalty used as a form of punishment in itself is useless but to give some cowboys and vengeful pricks and chicks a sense that they got their revenge. If it was not this way, families and victims etc would not be let to see the executions. Also, someone's hands are always bloody for killing another life that is basically defenseless. It's not the same as soldiers having to kill armed people. Either the people doing the deeds are pathological with a weird sense of 'honor' themselves or they have a funked up idea of what conscience is. These same people say it is fine that some innocent people have died wrongfully because others were evil criminals that got what was comin' to 'em and mistakes happen. It's simply inexcusable to me that all of those mistakes have happened and maybe that's a telltale sign that we should not be dealing out lethal justice unless it truly has to be dealt out. Justice is not about revenge.

 

Murder? Does that include euthanasia? What about self defense? Not to mention those who didn't actually do the crime.

Children often give false evidence and can be talked into being "victims" of crimes that didn't happen. If the police keep asking the same questions, the child will eventually say yes.

Attempted mass murder? Again, innocence. Also, killing them doesn't make you any better, and will only insight more attacks.

Betray your country as a death sentence? Good idea. Isn't that how Stalin justified killing millions? The ruler of the country defines betrayal. Thus the ruler of the country would gain the power of life and death over his/her subjects.

Agreed. If we use the death penalty, it is a small step from that to saying "Oh, well if they're going to die, we might as well use them for slave labour" to "Oh, well if they're going to die, let's have them fight each other to the death for our entertainment."

It's the first step down a road leading back into history.

Not for revenge? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that. The death penalty is revenge with side agendas of clearing space. The victims want to see the criminal get killed. Like Johnny has said, it is barbaric, but at least the Romans had the decency to admit the motives behind it.

Cold hard facts are difficult to come by. And when is "little chance of improving" defined? Many criminals have little chance of improving their life. Are you suggesting that we execute common thieves?

Capital punishments may annihilate the chance of escape, but it is indiscriminate. The injection does not know if a person committed the crime or not. At least in jail, you can release the person and compensate them. How do you go about fixing up that guy you just jolted with a few million volts? Can you say "Sorry mate!" and stick a guy's head back on? I didn't think so. Instead of directing resources to killing people, perhaps use it to secure them.

To what degree is "Less humane"? Are you for locking prisoners in a cell to starve or die of thirst? That's certainly an efficient way of killing. Wait half a week and they die. No one extra needs to be hired. But this type of treatment can still be done to those condemned in error.

Your rational future seems to be a dystopia.

If you find fault in the current prison system, then why not expel the worst criminals from society? I think that dumping them on an island with simple shelter and some way of producing food could work out. They are out of the world, they still survive. The punishment of their crimes against society would not be death or imprisonment, but removal from the benefits of society such as our food, our hospitals and our care. Stick those that are healthy enough on an island, and leave them to their own devices. Or even give them a choice between that or death. They are out of society forever, unable to return, with minimal costs to the taxpayer. Transport, but that's all. If it's not about revenge, this is a fine way.

They took action to kill. You take action to kill. They hire a contract killer, you vote for parties that promise death. The only difference is the label on it. Collective conscience doesn't exist. Remember, 51% is not consensual. It's 49% of people who are dissatisfied. Not to mention that the final decision comes down to a Jury of 12 people. That's not consensual either. In fact, it's never consensual, because the criminals certainly don't agree to being executed. It's always you imposing your judgment on someone else, and it doesn't matter whether you're a juror or a gang member. The result's the same and the condition is the same.

The decrease of luxury in cells? Isn't that a form of revenge?

I took it as God being a hypocrite and not worthy of worship. I made a thread about it.

The Egyptian massacre was murder, because he killed innocents. I think that these actions, as well as the contradictory commands are proof that the bible is flawed and is unable to be used in a debate about the ethics of capital punishment.

No, God should not get to judge either. His way of dealing with things tends to be rather unjust. See the Egyptian massacre for proof. He hardens the Pharaoh's heart so he had an excuse to do the murders. God is not justice.