Capital Punishment

[Raiser]

It was, is, and always will be an ongoing debate amongst everyone: should capital punishment be a more major part of each of our societies.
My socials class last year debated about this several times over, but it seemed that the majority was that it should not.

My view is different, however.
Many conflicts are instigated and finished by one party, as seen here:
http://gbatemp.net/index.php?showtopic=252...t=0&start=0

You have some morons drinking, doing drugs, or just doing plain stupid things and it costs the lives of one, two, maybe even three or four lives.

"Everyone has the right to life."
"No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed."
- as written in Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

I mean, it's just absurd.
I know the whole "eye for an eye" thing is a little cynical, but I think it's fully justified.
People may think "well, capital punishment will just result in a bunch of cycles where he (1) dies for kill her (1), and she (2) dies for killing him (1)."
I figure it would just be a one-for-one thing, although considering how messed up many humans are, they'd keep on wanting some sort of vengeance.

And speaking of vengeance, that's not why I favor capital punishment. It's just that, you take away a life (or lives) with either a stupid or inhumane act; the accused may get lifetime, maybe 50 years, maybe less.
The point is that they've taken away a life and they still get to be taken care of, fed, and kept alive while the families of the deceased mourn? Sickens me.

What do you all think?

EDIT: For those that don't know, capital punishment is another term for death penalty.

 

[Deleted member 35947]

-

 

[Blood Fetish]

Capital punishment has been shown to be an ineffective deterrent. It does not keep society safer.
Capital punishment (inclusive of "death row" and the repeals process) generally costs more money than detaining a prisoner for life. It does not save money.
Capital punishment can be done quicker and more importantly, painlessly using methods such as nitrogen asphyxiation. It fulfills a barbaric sense of "vengeance", ignoring justice and humanity.
Capital punishment has quite a few false positives over the years. You can release someone from prison, but you can't bring them back to life.

 

[0ddity]

Absolutely not. Since the death penalty was reinstated in the US in 1976, about 175 people on death row have been exonerated of their crimes and set free. 1224 have been executed since then, so extrapolating, a low estimate would mean about 14% of all executions are those of innocents. Unacceptable.

 

[Raika]

I'm kinda in the middle. Half of me thinks that people who take away lives from others are cruel, as they have no right to do so and would deeply hurt someone, and that they deserve to die for it. The other half of me thinks that we ourselves have no right to take away human lives, or we would just be murderers, lives are irreplaceable after all, what's done is done, human live are precious, we have no right to judge...

Argh I don't know what to think anymore, I'm confused. D:

 

[0ddity]

Raiki, just ignore whether or not you find it moral to kill an actual murderer, and realize how obviously outrageous it is that we execute innocents, and you can come to only one conclusion. Death penalty is not worth it.

 

[Magmorph]

If it was possible to get 100% accurate results about who committed the crime then maybe it wouldn't be so bad. The truth is that our legal system is nowhere near 100% accurate and many innocent people have been put to death. If you kill someone there is no way to appeal or undo what has been done.

 

[Jamstruth]

I don't believe in killing people for whatever reason. It doesn't matter who you are or what you did you should be given a slight chance at least i.e. Rehabilitation. Dometimes that doesn't work, I'll admit, and people just end up back in prison. Even then I don't think any Government should be killing people willingly. There's just something wrong about sentencing someone to their death that I don't like. Its like deeming their life worthless to the world.

 

[Issac]

I'm against Capital Punishment. Main reason: WHAT IF he/she was innocent?
then I also think: It's not okay for this man or woman to kill a person, so therefore some other persons will kill him/her. what gives any person the right to kill another person? I don't think it's justifiable. No, life time of butt raping in jail and shame and loong looooooong days in a cell... that's a punishment that will be hard on the villain...

 

[Uncle FEFL]

Few reasons why not:

For the amount of time some people stay on death row, it's way too damn expensive.

Uh...since when did any human obtain the right to know when to murder someone? Who cares if it's a crime?

It's against my morals as a person. Not religious morals.

 

[Raiser]

I understand what you all mean. It just incredibly irritates me at how people take the lives of others and are given the chance to be rehabilitated and live on. Sometimes, the convicted will be released when being declared "rehabilitated" only to strike again and flee. Other times, yeah, they'll end up living a peaceful, normal life.

I was considering it ONLY on those that are proven guilty. Obviously our legal system is nowhere near perfect, but in many cases, determining if the suspect is guilty or not isn't that hard to determine.

Its like deeming their life worthless to the world.
Well, someone who has intentionally killed someone (presumably an innocent bystander) can't be of any good to the world. Not saying they're worthless, just that they're doing much more harm to the world than good.

It's a thorn to me too: killing someone who killed someone. Is it right? No. Is it a seemingly "better" alternative? To some.
Think of the families of the innocent victims. They have a loved one torn right out of their lives and trampled on. Now on the other hand, again just saying, I don't know how much you could love a maniacal son or daughter that runs around knifing (or other) people. Yeah, you probably wouldn't want them to be put on death row, but what about the several other families that have witnessed a pain far worse than them?

EDIT:
QUOTE(Edhel @ Sep 8 2010, 06:38 AM) What I would support is longer prison terms for certain crimes. Some sentences are just a joke, a few years for murder.

This is what I want to see at least. Criminals have it far too easy this day and time.

 

[Rayder]

I'm all for capitol punishment. Violent criminals won't be robbing/killing/raping anyone if they're dead.

 

[Wombo Combo]

All I know if a guy killed my family and didn't get the death penalty I would take justice in my own hands that day.

 

[Giga_Gaia]

All I know if a guy killed my family and didn't get the death penalty I would take justice in my own hands that day.

Then his family would do the same and the cycle of hatred would just never end.

As for me, I agree and disagree. No, it shouldn't be allowed because you can't be 100% sure the person is guilty. You could condemn an innocent man to death.

However, for example, in a country where a tyrant killed hundreds or thousands of people, I do agree that those kind of persons should be executed. Also, a person who is undoubtedly guilty shouldn't be allowed to live. He didn't allow his victims to live, why should he be able to live if they didn't? The victims probably begged to be spared, but the killer did it, so why should he still remain alive?

 

[Uncle FEFL]

All I know if a guy killed my family and didn't get the death penalty I would take justice in my own hands that day.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mohandas Gandhi

 

[Paka]

Definitely opposed, and many of the courses I took while in college (many forensic classes, and I minored in Criminal Justice) combined with independent research and reading have backed up and made my feelings on this issue even stronger.

My issues with it and arguments against it consist of many of the common ones-- question of possible innocence, racial and economic biases, cost vs. life imprisonment, the fact that it is not a deterrent, cruel and unusual punishment, evolving standards of ethics that my country is rapidly falling behind in. An irreversible punishment, and arbitrarily assigned one, in a system which is so prone to error (uneducated juries, corrupt prosecutors, inadequate defense, ect.) is unethical in the extreme, and there is no evidence that these issues can ever be resolved. Even in cases where guilt is definite, there can never be a definite determination of the state of mind or motive... the # of those who are intellectually impared, suffer from mental illness or have had their personalities altered by years of abuse, ect., on death rows is quite large; impossible to really determine culpability in such cases. Also, execution creates a whole new group of victims in the loved ones of the executed. And even in the case of unrepentant and admitted murders committed in the name of a cause, executions only produce martyrs and further killings. Society is well served and completely protected by giving the worst offenders life without the possibility of parole... indeed, the conditions in U.S. "supermax" prisons are very harsh (possibly inhumane, really) and life spent in one is certainly an ultimate punishment in itself.

 

[Blaze163]

I've never been able to make up my mind on this issue. On the one hand, I don't believe that it's morally sound, we'd become the evil we're trying to fight. But on the other hand, sometimes it takes a harsh hand to enforce discipline. I guess I would agree with this in exceptionally bad cases, where rehabilitation is simply not possible. Mass murderers, serial rapists, paedophiles, etc. The real pond scum of the human race. I see no reason why the tax payers (now including me) should pay to keep these people in relative comfort.

In truly dire circumstances or people who have no will to change, while it's still morally questionable it would at least be understandable.

 

[Uncle FEFL]

I've never been able to make up my mind on this issue. On the one hand, I don't believe that it's morally sound, we'd become the evil we're trying to fight. But on the other hand, sometimes it takes a harsh hand to enforce discipline. I guess I would agree with this in exceptionally bad cases, where rehabilitation is simply not possible. Mass murderers, serial rapists, paedophiles, etc. The real pond scum of the human race. I see no reason why the tax payers (now including me) should pay to keep these people in relative comfort.

In truly dire circumstances or people who have no will to change, while it's still morally questionable it would at least be understandable.

So you'd rather pay for their death?

 

[Wombo Combo]

All I know if a guy killed my family and didn't get the death penalty I would take justice in my own hands that day.

Then his family would do the same and the cycle of hatred would just never end.

As for me, I agree and disagree. No, it shouldn't be allowed because you can't be 100% sure the person is guilty. You could condemn an innocent man to death.

However, for example, in a country where a tyrant killed hundreds or thousands of people, I do agree that those kind of persons should be executed. Also, a person who is undoubtedly guilty shouldn't be allowed to live. He didn't allow his victims to live, why should he be able to live if they didn't? The victims probably begged to be spared, but the killer did it, so why should he still remain alive?

QUOTE(Wombo Combo @ Sep 8 2010, 08:31 PM)

All I know if a guy killed my family and didn't get the death penalty I would take justice in my own hands that day.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mohandas Gandhi

Honestly I very well doubt if some guy stormed in your house and killed your family that you would not end his life and just call the cops and IF they will catch him he will just sit in prison living while you have to visit your family at the cemetery. You say no I would not kill him now but being in that situation is a lot different then just saying you wouldn't on the internet.

 

[0ddity]

All I know if a guy killed my family and didn't get the death penalty I would take justice in my own hands that day.

Then his family would do the same and the cycle of hatred would just never end.

As for me, I agree and disagree. No, it shouldn't be allowed because you can't be 100% sure the person is guilty. You could condemn an innocent man to death.

However, for example, in a country where a tyrant killed hundreds or thousands of people, I do agree that those kind of persons should be executed. Also, a person who is undoubtedly guilty shouldn't be allowed to live. He didn't allow his victims to live, why should he be able to live if they didn't? The victims probably begged to be spared, but the killer did it, so why should he still remain alive?

QUOTE(Wombo Combo @ Sep 8 2010, 08:31 PM)

All I know if a guy killed my family and didn't get the death penalty I would take justice in my own hands that day.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mohandas Gandhi

Honestly I very well doubt if some guy stormed in your house and killed your family that you would not end his life and just call the cops and IF they will catch him he will just sit in prison living while you have to visit your family at the cemetery. You say no I would not kill him now but being in that situation is a lot different then just saying you wouldn't on the internet.

And how would you feel if the state executed a family member convicted of a crime you know they didn't commit, like for example they were with you when it occurred?