Here it is sciforums people, the big one, the death penalty.

If you are a yes - please say why

If you are a no - please say why

lets get a dialogue going, discuss the pros and cons of capital punishment and if you can be bothered use examples, links, news stories and photos.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind...I can go with that. After all Gandhi is a very peaceful person and it's been working out for him.
I think it all depends on the case though. I know that if someone were to kill someone close to me I'd want a punishment that's equal for them. People think it's cruel to have the death penalty but isn't it worse to have someone in prison the rest of their life?
If you've killed somone in cold blood...where do you draw the line in the punishment? Isn't the death penalty the only just way of doing this? If you don't want to die then you shouldn't be killing people. It's easy.

its not solely about vengance, it is also about prevention, there was a case recently in britain where a convicted attempted murder was released after 6 years of his 12 year sentance, killed and robbed a man on his door step within 3 months of release.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4757414.stm

so now this murderer is serving 36 years on the tax payers bill, will it mean he is released in 18 years or less? if so he will be around 40 years old and still capable of similar horrific acts.

prison doesnt rehabilitate, prisoners reoffend more often than they dont, its time to realise prison isnt working and that a 'new' method needs to be devised.

On a related note: it costs thousands of pounds to keep a prisoner jailed for a year, currently britain is facing up to a huge shortcoming in the pensions sector and the state of the NHS (national health service) is appauling, yet the tax payer can pay to keep scum like hanson and many many more fed and kept in prison. NO THANKS, we have war veterans, and pensioners struggling to get by - living below the poverty line.

when did looking after criminal bastards become a higher priority to looking after the innocent and hardworking.

As I suggested in a previous post, criminals should be given a number of points dependant on the gravity of each misdeamenour as well as probation or prison sentences according to the crime.

Rehabilitation, education, skill learning and social service should be a mandatory part of any prison sentence.

If the criminal can't learn the error of their ways even after the chances they are given as in the above paragraph and they persist in crime, then, after a number of points have been reached, they should be put to death.

I'm the first dissenting vote. Yay?

Slavery is better than death, I would say.

No, just build a just and social society and half your crime problems are already gone. Of course it is easier to shout that you need the death penalty because;
a. it requires no effort
b. you can close your eyes for the real problems

I'm told that the legal costs of putting a criminal to death are more than it costs to keep them imprisoned for life.

Of course, you could always cut costs by throwing away the ideas of "reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty". It's tempting to do exactly that, but I suspect that the long-term cost to society might be too high.

Prevent reoffense? Either don't release from prison, or rehabilitate (re-Neducate?)

If a life sentence is a fate worse than death, then allow suicide, or call it a voluntary death sentence if you prefer.

What does the death sentence do? Deter criminals? No. Prevent re-offense? Certainly, but so does life in prison. Vengeance? I think that's what people really want it for, deep down. Perhaps we should bring back public floggings?

Different circumstances call for different measures.

I believe that paedophiles, once found guilty should be immediatly killed.

They harm peoples mental health, and get away relatively scot free. for example, the other day on the news, a man had been found guilty of raping a 9 year old girl several times, he got 5 years, which, if he behaved well would be reduced to half! Two and a half years of punishment versus a whole lifetimes worth of anguish.

Makes me feel sick!

:m:

indeed, i say execute, not because it is easy, not because it helps turn a blind eye to other problems, but so that the bastard never does anything like it again.

imagine an execution live on television, for lets say a paedophile, if watching the perverted scum ball hang by his neck till he stops breathing plants even the smallest degree of discouragement in the mind of even one single other would be paedophile is it not worth it?

i would prefer to ladel out justice and retribution in such a fashion so as to scare paedophiles and murderers and rapists and terrorists so much that they would be less likely to offend. even a 1% reduction in such horrific crimes must be worth the means.

Also, i do not buy into this culture of blaming everybody else for my problems, "its societys fault for being so elitist/corrupt that i decided to kill someone"

"its the inequality of society that forced me to go out thieving"

"its not my fault i didnt get an education and so cant get a good job, instead i will snatch old ladies hand bags and deal drugs"

The moment a person decides to break the law, they have forfeitted all their rights in my view, it is currently why we imprison criminals - the worst offenders should be used as examples to other criminals - the state will force the RESPONSIBILITY of YOUR CRIMES on YOU!

i would prefer to ladel out justice and retribution in such a fashion so as to scare paedophiles and murderers and rapists and terrorists so much that they would be less likely to offend. even a 1% reduction in such horrific crimes must be worth the means.
Perhaps we could crucify them?
What about burning them alive?
Make them fight lions?
How about hang, draw, and quarter?

hows about cover them in honey and let a colony of army ants take them to pieces.
or starve them to death
or maybe, cruelest of all make them read posts by Theoryofrelativity and Ophiolite

No, just build a just and social society and half your crime problems are already gone.

Far easier said than done. If anything, societies are getting harder and harder to control and manage and this is why the superpowers (governments) are moving slowly but surely into fascism and totalitarianism while their peoples follow like blind sheep. Just who, is supposed to change societies into just and social ones in the present socio/political climate?

What is the point of wasting tax payers money on keeping persistent re-offending criminals behind bars? The only reason I can see and that I don't agree with is because of some Christian religion based moral code.

Far easier said than done. If anything, societies are getting harder and harder to control and manage and this is why the superpowers (governments) are moving slowly but surely into fascism and totalitarianism while their peoples follow like blind sheep. Just who, is supposed to change societies into just and social ones in the present socio/political climate?

I didn't say it was easy, but all european countries have lower crime rates than for instance the US. Most do not have the death penalty. How can crime be lower if death penalty deters criminals? Because the social climate is different.

Can the US ever change? No. I have been here now for 9 months or so. Selfishness is a way of life here. The highest good. A good climate for crime and support for the death penalty. I'm sure americans don't want any change.

i aint gonna lose sleep knowing that child murderers are going to be put to death. id say something better would be to keep them in a closed space by themselves for the rest of their lives as they slowly start to go insane, you could also choose when to put the lights on so the body never has its 'clock' to work so they suffer horrific sleep depravation. then as they near their death we use them for live vivisections so at least they serve a purpose, oh and quagmire that list is bloocks as you havnt included duendy

hows about cover them in honey and let a colony of army ants take them to pieces.
or starve them to death
or maybe, cruelest of all make them read posts by Theoryofrelativity and Ophiolite
Throw them in a pool with sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads!

Get a knife, cut open their spleen, and drink their fluids! Does that sound good to you?

Why not let the women stone them. Or crucify them on top of the local hill. :bugeye:

No!
I support either slavery or isolation. I would like to send those who would otherwise be executed, on an island into community with anarchy. If they kill eachother, fine :( Island based on personality types would be nice.

I didn't say it was easy, but all european countries have lower crime rates than for instance the US. Most do not have the death penalty. How can crime be lower if death penalty deters criminals? Because the social climate is different.



Crime statistics may show a lower rate in Europe, but the prisons are overflowing with up to 4 times as many inmates as they were designed to hold. All this does is provide breeding grounds for more criminals. Many Judges in the UK now avoid handing out jail sentences because of this overcrowding.

The problem is, that the whole prison system is inadequate and outdated and it is obvious that imprisonment is ineffective as punishment, especially for re-offenders. The ones that suffer the most in prison are the non-career criminals; those that are normally law abiding but have just been caught doing something naughty and anti social, usually through greed or ignorance or diminished responsibility like being drunk or drugged when commiting their crime and the trouble is that when you put those type of offenders in the same environment as hardened criminals, the weak ones are likely to be brutalised and the others will get further education in the criminal arts.

If I were to reform the prison system, I would devise some sort of tier system with many levels as befits the many levels of criminal behaviour, taking into account the type of person the offender is and their previous record. I know that this already happens to a certain degree but the measures taken are half baked. Basically, prisons are designed to cause grief and punishment and while this is fine for serious offenders, I think that it's totally the wrong ploy for most first time and even second time offenders.

For those people, prison should be more like an ashram; a place where people are made to see their errors and understand the harm they caused; a place that can help to deprogram them from their criminal tendency, to educate them, enlighten them, rehabilitate them and give them a chance to service the community in some way and although this might seem to be horrendously expensive to implement initially, it may prove to be an excellent investment in the long run, if it achieves a genuine reduction in re-offending criminals.

I would still award points according to the nature of the crime and the deterrent would be that with each re-offence, more points are awarded and the punishment gets harder but still with an emphasis on rehabilitation until such time as that after a certain number of points have been awarded and the person has proved that they could never be rehabilitated and that they are utterly useless and a danger to society, then the only solution is execution. A simple end to the matter.

There's always the danger of killing someone innocent isn't it? And once one becomes a murderer, one becomes a murderer, right? A justice system killing criminals aint a justice system. It's a killing system, which makes it no better than the murderer. If a person who has murdered is on death row and actually has changed, and kknows with himself that he won't kill again, then is it right to kill him?

In short: The death penalty accomplishes nothing that life imprisonment doesn't, with the disadvantage of being irreversible. Also agree with Pete: imprisonment = justice, execution = revenge.

The thing I will never understand about executions is the mandatory health checkups that preceed them.

No!
I support either slavery or isolation. I would like to send those who would otherwise be executed, on an island into community with anarchy. If they kill eachother, fine :( Island based on personality types would be nice.
Ever heard of Alcatraz?

No I Do Not Support Death Penalty.

Justification: Humans Are Not Gods To Decide Who Is To Live And Who Is To Die

Those who kill are sinners and their act cannot be justified.

I voted no
its irreversible (you'd be surprised how many mistakes the legal system makes)
and regardelss. killing a murderer makes you no better then they

Yep. I disagree with the killing of anyone that isn't an immediate threat and is unable to defend themself.

yes, to punish those who engage in unforgivable acts like rape, murder without cause, selling people into prostitution, being involved in genocide of innocent people, sexual abuse of prisoners... etc.

That's what prison is for. Who are you to decide what is and isn't "unforgivable" anyway?

There's always the danger of killing someone innocent isn't it? And once one becomes a murderer, one becomes a murderer, right? A justice system killing criminals aint a justice system. It's a killing system, which makes it no better than the murderer.

if we have to callously take even one innocent person with them - that's just immoral and the entire society has his blood on their hands. When the death penalty fails, we all become murderers.

Penn & Teller recently did an episode of Bullshit! (Their program on the Show Time network, where they take social and political issues and go about proving them to be a bunch of BS in one way or another through well reasoned arguments, and a good dose of entertaining humor, and the occasional magic trick) did an episode about the death penalty just recently – they had an interview with a man who was put on death row for a murder that he could not have committed.

He was fingered by two witnesses, tried, and sentenced, and sat on death row for two years. The real kicker? He was already in jail when the murder took place! The witnesses who fingered him turned out to be the murderers, and the prosecutors in his trial knew that he was in jail at the time, and withheld that information. The death penalty is a horribly flawed system of “punishment”.

What really gets me is that most people who support the death penalty don’t even trust the government to put up street signs or license and register vehicles – but they’ll trust them with the supreme power over who lives and who dies. It just doesn’t make any sense at all to me.

Good point.

But do you believe that in ANY circumstance the death penalty is justifiable?

I really don't think so. People always bring up things like "Well what if you had hitler" or "What if they caught the guy that killed your family" or things like that - well of course I'd want revenge, but revenge and justice are two different things.

True, but it would be hard to see how different these two things would seem if ( now im going to fall into the trap of 'the guy that killed your family') you were in the previously mentioned position.

And, after that event, if you heard on the news that some guy had killed a different family, then surely you would be pre-disposed in taken the side of the harsher form of punishment i.e. death penalty?

I could be wrong, but i really do think that mass murderers, mass rapists and child molesters deserve nothing but death induced punishment.

Can you see my point?

sustained child abusers should be put to death...but there are also so many different kinds of murder, do you think it is acceptable when the child is being abused to turn around and stab him. that i think is the problem with the death penalty, apart from the fact that sometimes you may put an innocent man to death there are so many grey areas in the law system. however if there is ABSOLUTE proof and the crime is heinous enough then the perpurtrator should be put to death.

I agree, life imprisonment is plain stupid and a waste of resources. Death should replace all life sentences. I don't know what the big deal is, thousands of people die everyday we wake up.

look at milosovic he died in jail and no-one but a few serbs cared one bit

The real problem w\ being against the death penalty is that many are UNTILL the crime effects them.

Ever heard of Alcatraz?

Alcatraz still had guards and rules. I was thinking more in the lines of an island in oceania. I am in no position to tell that this is more humane, but those who would otherwise be sentenced with death penalty would appriciate it, I hope :rolleyes:

I'm undecided on the issue right now, and haven't voted yet.

When a person is executed, what kind of problem is being solved?
It isn't an effective deterrant. People are still compelled to do the crimes for one reason or another, and continue to be executed.
It doesn't really make an effective spanking. Usually, a punishment is intended to somehow reinforce ethics, but it doesn't do the criminal any good becuse death removes the opportunity to comply.
I'm not really sure what benefit/context it has to the victims families (justice perhaps?)..... maybe I should think it through and post later.
It certainly eliminates the criminals ability to repeat the crime, so that's something in the DP's favor.

I dunno.

Crime statistics may show a lower rate in Europe, but the prisons are overflowing with up to 4 times as many inmates as they were designed to hold. All this does is provide breeding grounds for more criminals. Many Judges in the UK now avoid handing out jail sentences because of this overcrowding.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4841938.stm

On UK prisons:
Although many people might expect the tougher line on crime to be connected to an increase in offences, this has not been the case, the Prison Reform Trust says.

The number of people found guilty by the courts has remained "comparatively static", rising from 1.7 million to 1.8 million between 1993 and 2004.

It also reports that there has not been an increase in the number of serious crimes.

What has happened, the charity suggests, is that many people whose offences would not have attracted a custodial sentence in the past are now being sent to prison.

And for those convicted of some of the more serious offences, sentences are getting longer.

Despite the stable crime levels, a factor other than the political climate which may have contributed is a change in the pattern of offending, particularly where drugs are involved.


There are now more people appearing before the courts with long strings of convictions who have failed to comply with non-custodial sentences, says Mr Allen.

It may be that courts believe "these people have run out of road... and prison is inevitable", he says.

Another factor is the 250% rise in the number of people recalled to jails for breaching release conditions.

Some 11,081 inmates were recalled in 2004/05, compared with 3,182 in 00/01 - a "staggering" increase, Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers reported in January.

It seems a change in social values has caused the overflooding of the UK jail. Not an increase in crime perse.

And the Uk might not really be representative for Europe:

Nowhere in Western Europe jails more of its population than England and Wales, where 143 people per 100,000 are in prison.


Bloody hell. Just found this:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41530000/gif/_41530240_prisons2_gra203.gif

1 on every 140 persons in the US is in prison! 2.1 million Americans!

Within Europe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/img/prisons3_gra203.gif

Alcatraz still had guards and rules. I was thinking more in the lines of an island in oceania. I am in no position to tell that this is more humane, but those who would otherwise be sentenced with death penalty would appriciate it, I hope :rolleyes:
You mean like what pirates did? Left on a desert island with a biscuit, bottle of water, and a gun with one bullet?

sustained child abusers should be put to death
Why? I've heard life can be pretty tough for you in prison if the inmates know you were convicted for child abuse.
however if there is ABSOLUTE proof
There's no such thing as absolute proof.
and the crime is heinous enough
Where do you draw the line?
then the perpurtrator should be put to death.
Again, why?

The real problem w\ being against the death penalty is that many are UNTILL the crime effects them.
So you'd pay more attention to someone blinded by rage and demanding revenge than you would to someone less biased?

Why not let the women stone them. Or crucify them on top of the local hill. :bugeye:

no not sharks, mutated sea bass only.

There's always the danger of killing someone innocent isn't it? And once one becomes a murderer, one becomes a murderer, right? A justice system killing criminals aint a justice system. It's a killing system, which makes it no better than the murderer. If a person who has murdered is on death row and actually has changed, and kknows with himself that he won't kill again, then is it right to kill him?

put the violins away please, i am more bothered about how the murderers victim suffered and the lifetime of grief caused to the victims family than i am with some supposed reformed murderer.

it seems like the absolute proof is a subtopic i will have to face in a few posts time, so i will get to that then.

As for "A justice system killing criminals aint a justice system. It's a killing system, which makes it no better than the murderer."

thats utter tosh, "a justice system executiong murderers and paedophiles is providing a useful service to society - cutting out the cancer of violent criminality"

"as for no better than the murderer" thats utter tosh as well, the murderer ran the gauntlet of possible penalty when they murdered someone or someones. the justice system would be executing violent criminals found guilty in courts of law - to be as bad as the murderer would be a case of indescriminate killing.

please re read what you post in future - you post and the points it made are somewhat disgusting.

In short: The death penalty accomplishes nothing that life imprisonment doesn't, with the disadvantage of being irreversible. Also agree with Pete: imprisonment = justice, execution = revenge.

The thing I will never understand about executions is the mandatory health checkups that preceed them.

execution means they absolutely never offend again
imprisonment for life ( for life - thats a good joke ) means them being looked after by the state - guards, cells, food, cooks, cleaners, doctors.
whilst in prison crimes can still be commit - like murder and rape, and other violent acts.

No I Do Not Support Death Penalty.

Justification: Humans Are Not Gods To Decide Who Is To Live And Who Is To Die

Those who kill are sinners and their act cannot be justified.

seems like you missed the point here

the murderer isnt a god, but still killed, and so decided who was to die - it is these murderers who are the sinners, and it is their acts you ought to cast your judgement upon, instead of joining in after the CRIME has been commit.

I voted no
its irreversible (you'd be surprised how many mistakes the legal system makes)
and regardelss. killing a murderer makes you no better then they

i dispute that, brady, hindley, west, the ripper - if the state were to execute them - would make the state as bad as them?

dont think so!

I'm not comfortable with giving my government the power to kill me. Under certain circumstances, I can understand exceptions, like with the police having guns to protect themselves and others, but as soon as someone is in custody, the emergency stops. A prisoner cannot commit their crimes again, unless we let them, so I'm against the death penalty.

Why not study the criminal in order to understand them and help prevent the circumstances that made them one?

As a society, we should not be in the revenge business. If someone doesn't like the fact that a murderer of their loved one continues to live in confinement, that's their problem.

Yep. I disagree with the killing of anyone that isn't an immediate threat and is unable to defend themself.

like their victims? only the victims are innocent - a murderer is not.

That's what prison is for. Who are you to decide what is and isn't "unforgivable" anyway?

lets ask the victims... oh wait - some are dead, some cannot face the vile act FORCED upon them by the criminal.

to compare the malicious acts of a criminal to the justice handed out by the state is spurious.

I'm not comfortable with giving my government the power to kill me. Under certain circumstances, I can understand exceptions, like with the police having guns to protect themselves and others, but as soon as someone is in custody, the emergency stops. A prisoner cannot commit their crimes again, unless we let them, so I'm against the death penalty.

Why not study the criminal in order to understand them and help prevent the circumstances that made them one?

As a society, we should not be in the revenge business. If someone doesn't like the fact that a murderer of their loved one continues to live in confinement, that's their problem.

Its cost, life doesnt mean life, and if it did, prisoners would die in prisons, the state would have to pay for their extended retirement, yet currently in britain there is a time-bomb ticking with regards the NHS, poverty in the community, a pensions crisis.

so please, undertsand me when i dont feel that keeping murderers rapists paedophiles and thieves in a state of perpetual comfort is the correct thing to do.

there are other more needy elements of society - and they deserve our help before the criminals do.

If cost is the issue, think of the legal costs relating to death row inmates. They would be less likely to appeal if it was only life in prison. Paying for those who don't follow the rules is just part of living in a society. The death penalty doesn't save any significant amounts of money.

Even in the army, you can't shoot a POW.

If it's a matter of a life sentance not really lasting a lifetime, in the US you can give someone multiple life sentances with no room for early parole.

Sometimes, a conviction is overturned based on new evidence like DNA.

Prison is not comfortable.

if we have to callously take even one innocent person with them - that's just immoral and the entire society has his blood on their hands. When the death penalty fails, we all become murderers.

Penn & Teller recently did an episode of Bullshit! (Their program on the Show Time network, where they take social and political issues and go about proving them to be a bunch of BS in one way or another through well reasoned arguments, and a good dose of entertaining humor, and the occasional magic trick) did an episode about the death penalty just recently – they had an interview with a man who was put on death row for a murder that he could not have committed.

He was fingered by two witnesses, tried, and sentenced, and sat on death row for two years. The real kicker? He was already in jail when the murder took place! The witnesses who fingered him turned out to be the murderers, and the prosecutors in his trial knew that he was in jail at the time, and withheld that information. The death penalty is a horribly flawed system of “punishment”.

What really gets me is that most people who support the death penalty don’t even trust the government to put up street signs or license and register vehicles – but they’ll trust them with the supreme power over who lives and who dies. It just doesn’t make any sense at all to me.


Here it is, the guilty innocent idea.

So we are aware that at times some people will BARE FALSE WITNESS in order to manipulate the justice system.

solution - when it is found that these people have lied in court - they are to be subjected to the punishment that their victim received.

in the case you mentioned, they 2 actual murderers should have been charged with perjury as well as the murder as well as the attempted conviction of an innocent with regards the obstruction of justice.

top that off with a helping of them both being the murderers in this case and we have 2 individuals that are prime candidates for execution.

The lawyers involved that wilfully withheld evidence that would have cleared the innocent should have been sentenced to some prison time and never allowed to practice law or be involved in employment related to law/security for the rest of their lives.

And now to my favourite part, the underlined part

"if we have to callously take even one innocent person with them - that's just immoral and the entire society has his blood on their hands. When the death penalty fails, we all become murderers"

When society fails to properly deal with malignant elements such as paedophiles, murderers, rapists then the blood of these criminals victims is on societies hands.

Its a case of responsibility, roy whiting, a convicted paedophile was released from prison, he then commit the following atrocity

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/18/newsid_2514000/2514769.stm

i wanted him dead first time round, i certainly want him dead now.

you accept 8 year old sarahs blood on your hands, if we did it my way, she would be alive now.

the following link should give heart to all those disgusted by the creature that commit this most heinous crime

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/3826657.stm

what a shame prisons have hospitals and doctors on standby (payed for by the tax payer) if he had bled to death would anyone have shed a tear.

If cost is the issue, think of the legal costs relating to death row inmates. They would be less likely to appeal if it was only life in prison. Paying for those who don't follow the rules is just part of living in a society. The death penalty doesn't save any significant amounts of money.

Even in the army, you can't shoot a POW.

If it's a matter of a life sentance not really lasting a lifetime, in the US you can give someone multiple life sentances with no room for early parole.

Sometimes, a conviction is overturned based on new evidence like DNA.

Prison is not comfortable.

cost is a major issue, nuts to death row inmates, if they wanted rights they should have abided by the laws of the land.

no appeal, no legal aid, straight to justice and deterrent.

sentances are also a major issue, in britain life sentances do not mean life, and those that feel they have been wrongly sentanced can appeal - hindleys case got to europe - they tried to tell the british sovereign justice system that she had been in prison longer than she should have been

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=651&id=587472002

disgusting isnt it. criminals...murderers... with more rights than their victims.

pardon me, as for DNA getting people off convictions - fine, DNA can put people in the executioners noose then.

as for prison not being comfortable - criminals are still alive - unlike their victims.

sustained child abusers should be put to death...but there are also so many different kinds of murder, do you think it is acceptable when the child is being abused to turn around and stab him. that i think is the problem with the death penalty, apart from the fact that sometimes you may put an innocent man to death there are so many grey areas in the law system. however if there is ABSOLUTE proof and the crime is heinous enough then the perpurtrator should be put to death.

"do you think it is acceptable when the child is being abused to turn around and stab him."

absolutely - it is self defence, completely justifyable, and understandable.

there are cases where excessive force being used is a crime, like battering the handbag snatcher THEN kicking him round the floor, that is excessive.

if someone pulls a knife on you and attacks, i honestly believe you can kill the criminal and get away with it, attack with a deadly weapon should always be punished by death.

lets stop this culture of knife carrying before it becomes the plague the epidemic is threatening.

im tired for now, i will continue to reply to those that make adequate points, and do so retrospectively also.

hard day today, plenty for you to get your teeth into.

No: I would not entertain it for other than murder, and would reject it for that crime for these reasons.
Innocent people get killed.
It lowers us to level of the killer.
It seems like action, yet fails to address the underlying causes of the murder.
It is uncivilised.
It favours revenge over reconciliation, punishment over rehabilitation.

And while we are at it Quagmire, what about the rights of those who have been wrongly imprisoned?

"i dispute that, brady, hindley, west, the ripper - if the state were to execute them - would make the state as bad as them?"

Never heard of any of them except Jack the Ripper, but, yes, The State's who killed them are as bad.

Jack the Ripper killed numerous people, who were helpless compared to him.

The state killed Jack (and would have kileld more peopel if there were more to kill) and Jack was helpless comapred to the might of the British Empire.

The state can claim that it has reason; Protecting society, It being too expensive to give him the help he needed, Laziness. I'm sure Jack had equally flimsy reasons for killing people.

Oh good, I'm not the only one against capital punishment. :D

Is the death penalty an effective deterrent?

I think not. See, the thing is, criminals never expect to be caught. They generally don't plan that far ahead, and they always think they will be the ones who will get away with their crimes. If they didn't believe they could get away with it, they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. Would they?

I'm sure the death penalty - or any penalty for that matter - brings remorse to the criminals exposed to it. Mostly, they are sorry they got caught. But a deterrent for potential criminals? No way.

undertsand me when i dont feel that keeping murderers rapists paedophiles and thieves in a state of perpetual comfort is the correct thing to do.

Ah! The old "prison is a holiday camp" ploy.

If prison was really such a great place, wouldn't people be committing crimes to try to get in? It seems to me that nobody is rushing to get into prison, despite the "perpetual comfort" it supposedly offers. I wonder why...

execution means they absolutely never offend again
Ok, no arguments there. So you'd have potheads executed to make sure they never smoked a joint again?
imprisonment for life ( for life - thats a good joke ) means them being looked after by the state - guards, cells, food, cooks, cleaners, doctors.
You're making it sound like prison is a comfortable place to live. It certainly isn't, and this:
whilst in prison crimes can still be commit - like murder and rape, and other violent acts.
is partly why. Anyway, if you wanted these people executed, why would you care about them raping or killing each other?

like their victims? only the victims are innocent - a murderer is not.
That's why they're thrown in jail. Once the murderer is in jail, they are defenceless and harmless to the general public. There's simply no justification in killing them at that point. That and, as you seem to be forgetting, IT'S IRREVERSIBLE. If you kill someone and find out they were innocent, its too late. I don't know about you, but I'd prioritize protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty. You're beginning to come off as bloodthirsty.

lets ask the victims... oh wait - some are dead, some cannot face the vile act FORCED upon them by the criminal.
Therefore jump to the conclusion that the victim would have wanted an execution? Anyway, even in other crimes, justice is not decided by the victim.
to compare the malicious acts of a criminal to the justice handed out by the state is spurious.
Remember you said that the next time you claim murderers deserve to be murdered.

I voted yes.

I think its okay to put people to death. We must maintain order in society. People must understand that their acts will have consequences.

I shall pass judgement, I sentence you to death, I will excute you, I shall take responsibility for my judgement when the time comes.

Personal responsibility.

Except that you are killing in the name of government.
Personal responsibility does not enter into it at that point.
And even if it did, what if you are wrong in your sentence?

:m: Peace.

Daylight.

Shouldn't you then be killed as punishment for murder?

tough luck

on the plus side, whoever executes/murders you will get what's coming to them

Is the death penalty an effective deterrent?

I think not. See, the thing is, criminals never expect to be caught. They generally don't plan that far ahead, and they always think they will be the ones who will get away with their crimes. If they didn't believe they could get away with it, they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. Would they?

I'm sure the death penalty - or any penalty for that matter - brings remorse to the criminals exposed to it. Mostly, they are sorry they got caught. But a deterrent for potential criminals? No way.

Such solid logic...

I voted No.

I'm not someone that thinks noone 'deserves' to die. I think plenty of people deserve to die, but it's all subjective. There has been people put to death for crimes I don't think worthy ofd a death sentace, there has been people allowed to live who I think the world would be better off if they were dead, but who exaclty should have the right to decide whether someones life should be taken away or not? Noone should have the right to be able to legally kill a person.

fuck it cremate the bastards alive then the problem is solved

Is the death penalty an effective deterrent?

I think not. See, the thing is, criminals never expect to be caught. They generally don't plan that far ahead, and they always think they will be the ones who will get away with their crimes. If they didn't believe they could get away with it, they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. Would they?

I'm sure the death penalty - or any penalty for that matter - brings remorse to the criminals exposed to it. Mostly, they are sorry they got caught. But a deterrent for potential criminals? No way.

I see, so the criminal considers the the statistics for crime detection that the police in that area make available to the public, then decides their chances of getting caught or not.

I believe the police - who say 'a lot of crime is commit by opportunists'

So, risk assessment, crim sees drunk woman walking home alone at 3am - opportunity for misdeeds - crim thinks they wont get caught - rapes and beats the woman - runs off and leaves her bleeding in an alley

Now im not usually one for mind reading but

they always think they will be the ones who will get away with their crimes

so, i would like to put the following thought in the crims mind

***"crim thinks they wont get caught" + but if i do, i will be forfeiting my life ... is it really worth it?

Ah! The old "prison is a holiday camp" ploy.

If prison was really such a great place, wouldn't people be committing crimes to try to get in? It seems to me that nobody is rushing to get into prison, despite the "perpetual comfort" it supposedly offers. I wonder why...

because it is full of degenerate scum, degenerate scum no one wants to deal with.

i am happy to deal with the worst of the worst, a bullet to the brain, crap to all this 'it costs more to execute a prisoner' bullhunky

Ok, no arguments there. So you'd have potheads executed to make sure they never smoked a joint again?

You're making it sound like prison is a comfortable place to live. It certainly isn't, and this:

is partly why. Anyway, if you wanted these people executed, why would you care about them raping or killing each other?

prison isnt what it was and should still be. prison in egypt means hard labour in the baking sun, all day, everyday.

prison in britain means 3 square meals, a gym, television, guaranteed access to the outdoors for an hour a day, AND best of all NOT HAVING TO DO ANYTHING.

rape and murder is wrong, simple, if we could guarantee that only those that deserved it had to suffer in this manner, if we could handpick the recipients then that would be just dandy. but we both know that isnt the case

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/3826657.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/51090.stm

any tears on either account? none unless you count the blood wept by the ripper.

Quagmire:

I see, so the criminal considers the the statistics for crime detection that the police in that area make available to the public, then decides their chances of getting caught or not.

No, they don't, generally. Which was my point.

I believe the police - who say 'a lot of crime is commit by opportunists'

Crime is committed by people who are open to those opportunities...

***"crim thinks they wont get caught" + but if i do, i will be forfeiting my life ... is it really worth it?

My point was that most crims never get to the "but if I do" part.

i am happy to deal with the worst of the worst, a bullet to the brain, crap to all this 'it costs more to execute a prisoner' bullhunky

Well, it's good to see you're not dismissing evidence which opposes your prejudices out of hand. ;)

what evidence?

and

My point was that most crims never get to the "but if I do" part.

it is time for some force then, responsibility is the key, lets take a tougher line, a stand now before it gets worse.

alternatively, can we class the crims that never get to the 'but if i do' part as sociopaths? and therefore deal with appropriately

Daylight.

Shouldn't you then be killed as punishment for murder?

tough luck

on the plus side, whoever executes/murders you will get what's coming to them

you seem to have that 'arse about tit'

the system puts the crims to death, not a person.

there are no parallels between a murderers crime and the execution of a criminal by the state, apart from that a life is lost.

on one hand there is the murderers victim, on the other hand the murderers life was lost when they decided to become a killer.

prison isnt what it was and should still be. prison in egypt means hard labour in the baking sun, all day, everyday.
Russian goulag was probably worse - same idea, except freezing temperatures in winter. I don't really think you accomplish anything by working prisoners to death, but I'm certainly not against getting prisoners to do labour for society.
prison in britain means 3 square meals, a gym, television, guaranteed access to the outdoors for an hour a day, AND best of all NOT HAVING TO DO ANYTHING.
Is that why the suicide rate in British prisons is so high?
rape and murder is wrong, simple,
Not in itself. It's called "wrong" because 99.99% of people feel that way about it (I'm one of them, in case you have any doubts about that). The small minority who disagree are the ones in jail. Their opinions are effectively ignored.
if we could guarantee that only those that deserved it had to suffer in this manner, if we could handpick the recipients then that would be just dandy. but we both know that isnt the case
Do you think this problem magically disappears if capital punishment is introduced? Incidentally, its not a clear-cut issue as to what a criminal "deserves." Obviously the victim (or the victim's family) will want the criminal to receive a tougher punishment than someone that isn't involved in the incident. As I've stated before, I make a distinction between "justice" and "revenge" - I don't think the justice system should be there to please anyone, and its not like an execution will undo a murder.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/3826657.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/51090.stm

any tears on either account? none unless you count the blood wept by the ripper.
What point are you trying to make here? Are you trying to argue that prisons are comfortable or not? You can't have it both ways.

Incidentally... (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3474407.html)

it is time for some force then, responsibility is the key, lets take a tougher line, a stand now before it gets worse.
What makes you think this 'brute force' approach is the only approach, or the most effective? Personally I think things were worse during Viking times and the Dark Ages than they are now.

If the death penalty really would make you feel safer, why don't you move to California or Texas? The British people as a whole have decided they don't want a death penalty. Capital punishment does not come without its costs to society, and most Europeans don't think its worth the price. If it is such an important issue for you, why don't you move to a place that would better satisfy you.

Quagmire:

what evidence?

The evidence that it costs most to execute a prisoner, on average, than to keep him locked up for life.

Is that why the suicide rate in British prisons is so high?

Seriously man, british prisons are cushy, when it comes down to it. They have everything but their freedom.
Education, councelling, therapy, gyms, tobacco, matching bedsreads and curtains (oh yes), ps2s, Tv, cable, access to food, and cooking utensils (Including knives, chip fat etc), and drugs(Yeah, they have to smuggle those though :D). Seriously, the only thing they really go without is some decent company and the ability to leave when they like.

how the hell can anyone say that english prisons are hard most prisoners have more to do than i do

Before I started this post somebody died, as I am typing this post somebody is dying, and after finishing this post there will be a total of three deaths. Death is nothing, people die everyday;and obviously the people committing the most horrifying crimes are tired of life anyway or looking for something life and the society cannot possible give them.Thus my opinion is... let's see them out.

Seriously man, british prisons are cushy, when it comes down to it. They have everything but their freedom.
Education, councelling, therapy, gyms, tobacco, matching bedsreads and curtains (oh yes), ps2s, Tv, cable, access to food, and cooking utensils (Including knives, chip fat etc), and drugs(Yeah, they have to smuggle those though :D). Seriously, the only thing they really go without is some decent company and the ability to leave when they like.
As if the loss of freedom was a trivial issue. All you have to do is look at rebellious teenagers constantly complaining about the relatively small constraints imposed by their parents to realize to what extent people value their personal freedom. Most kids can't wait to grow up and leave home, and they're way more comfortable and have more freedom than any prisoner. Would you give yours up for all those luxuries you listed? I wouldn't. It might be nice for a while, but year after year?

Before I started this post somebody died, as I am typing this post somebody is dying, and after finishing this post there will be a total of three deaths. Death is nothing, people die everyday;and obviously the people committing the most horrifying crimes are tired of life anyway or looking for something life and the society cannot possible give them.Thus my opinion is... let's see them out.
While we're at it, lets get rid of the medical system. So many millions wasted on people's health. What difference would a few more deaths from cancer or old age make, given the number of deaths every day anyway?

Death row is costly in US, but that does not mean it's the same else where.
The cost problem is completely man-made. A 10,000-page doc to detail a small crime. You get the idea.

As if the loss of freedom was a trivial issue. All you have to do is look at rebellious teenagers constantly complaining about the relatively small constraints imposed by their parents to realize to what extent people value their personal freedom. Most kids can't wait to grow up and leave home, and they're way more comfortable and have more freedom than any prisoner. Would you give yours up for all those luxuries you listed? I wouldn't. It might be nice for a while, but year after year?

I actively demonstrate I wouldn't give it up by not being a criminal.
Though saying that, I wouldn't actually consider being in a prison a punishment. Not in England.Maybe in thailand or somewhere yeah, but from my point of view the punishment in england would be when you get out of prison to realise by committing whatever crime, is going to make it very difficult for you to get your life back, and get peoples respect back. But, alot of people in prisons don't actually want that anyway. They just come out commit more crime, and get put back in.... that's how terrible it is for them.

I have known people commit crimes simply so they get put in prison, be it because they have nowhere to live, or because they want to get off heroin. Would you call something a punishment when people commit crimes on purpose to be given this 'punishment'.

Seriously, I know people who have been in prisons, and I know people who work in prisons, and it's less of a punishment, and more of an inconvenience.

But, alot of people in prisons don't actually want that anyway. They just come out commit more crime, and get put back in.... that's how terrible it is for them.
Some people never learn. There's not much you can do about that.
I have known people commit crimes simply so they get put in prison, be it because they have nowhere to live, or because they want to get off heroin. Would you call something a punishment when people commit crimes on purpose to be given this 'punishment'.
Are we talking 6 months, or do they willingly give up 50 years of their lives? I was talking about long term/life imprisonment.

EDIT: Why are we talking about prison anyway? I thought this thread was about the death penalty. I don't see how current punishments can in any way be used to justify other punishments under consideration. Saying that Britain needs the death penalty because its prisons are too comfortable is like concluding you need a tank because your car's tyres are flat.

If your going to take a life on your own accord, society has the right to judge your action to the same level of result, and then send you on a long drop, short rope, tall tree, journey. Why is it not OK to remove a person from society, who is willing to remove the life of another with out due process for personal gain?
DNA is becoming the true arbiter of guilt if the DNA gives proof positive send them on the final trip, it should work both way if it can prove innocence, it can also prove guilt.

Why is it not OK to remove a person from society, who is willing to remove the life of another with out due process for personal gain?
This is the idea behind the slammer...

Why is it not OK to remove a person from society, who is willing to remove the life of another with out due process for personal gain?
Something about not stooping to their level, I think. ;)

But we don't stoop to their level, they make their decission to kill on selfish personal gain, monetary, revenge, to hide their crime, or for the worst reason of all, the thrill of it because they can! Society has the right and duty to remove these individuals permantly, and we should not have to support these people by our taxes for the rest of there life and justice has to be served or eventually civilation ceases to exist. The major reason also for exicution is that you bleeding heart eventualy want these people realeased because it is inhumane to keep the them locked up, and that thay can be reabilitated, now if this is true move them into the house next to yourself and expose your loved one to their tender mercies and sleep well, as for me if they are exicuted no more mistakes can be made, and no new victims will have to die at there hands!

But we don't stoop to their level, they make their decission to kill on selfish personal gain, monetary, revenge, to hide their crime, or for the worst reason of all, the thrill of it because they can!
As long as we don't kill them back just because we can...
Society has the right and duty to remove these individuals permantly,
= life imprisonment.
and we should not have to support these people by our taxes for the rest of there life and justice has to be served or eventually civilation ceases to exist.
As has already been mentioned, execution is very expensive.
The major reason also for exicution is that you bleeding heart eventualy want these people realeased because it is inhumane to keep the them locked up,
But it's humane to kill them?
and that thay can be reabilitated,
I'm sure at least a few can, but certainly not all of them.
now if this is true move them into the house next to yourself and expose your loved one to their tender mercies and sleep well,
The idea is not to release criminals you wouldn't feel safe allowing back into society.
as for me if they are exicuted no more mistakes can be made, and no new victims will have to die at there hands!
You could be making a mistake executing them, and that you can't undo.

If you are a yes - please say why
Yes. You kill someone, you deserve to be killed back. Let the punishment fit the crime. That's why I think it's not a bad thing to cut the hands off of thieves.
Though it could be a bit extreme. Life imprisonment in a Federal "pound-you-in-the-ass" Prison would be better, probably.

Society as a whole just may barely support the death penalty but we are talking individual opinions here, the makeup of society. To all I say, where is the forgiveness? Should you expect others to give you any mercy or love if you do not show them any? Treat others as you want to be treated. Should we kill them to prevent them killing someone else? If you steal, should your hand be cut off? Can that hand not be used to give back also and then some? To be used to labor and help make up for any expenditures attibuted to the crime. And then the man will hopefully also learn and then be able to use that hand in the future to teach others and to hold his daughter or son and labor for them in the future. If a man takes another man's life because he didn't forgive the man for a sin against him, and then we don't forgive the man for not forgiving, then the unforgiving just spreads. Why take a bad action and make another bad action? Why not take a bad action and make it into something which could be better and in turn bless the family because of the sin he committed and in turn hopefully teach others. If he goes to prison, it can also teach him to teach others forgiveness. These people in prison are not a lost cause. They deserve second chances just as anyone out of jail gets and most of you commit crimes, albeit misdemeanors, and mostly never get caught. That could just as easily be any one of you in jail. Chances are, you're lying if you tell me you've never broken the law and I know you're lying if you tell me you've never committed a sin. Where is the forgiveness instead of the whole, 'holier than thou', attitude that is so common these days but yet, hardly anyone even attempts to be holy. Lots of hypocrisy going on.

If a man takes another man's life because he didn't forgive the man for a sin against him, and then we don't forgive the man for not forgiving, then the unforgiving just spreads.
Nice statement, actually.

You have to be careful with forgiveness though, and not be too hasty to hand it out. The only general rule I think applies to human behavior is that there are no general rules. It doesn't make any more sense to say everyone can be forgiven than "once a killer, always a killer." I'm sure some murderers are not criminals by nature, while others really are cold blooded killers/psychopaths with little or no regard for human life. There's simply no place in society for such a person.

Also, if you show too much willingness to forgive, you're likely to be manipulated and taken advantage of. Its why I'm not really sure what to think of parole or early release from prison based on good behaviour. I'm not, in principle, against the idea, but there's a definite potential for abuse (another thing I have against execution is that it completely removes this possibility - it doesn't make much sense to sentence someone to "death with the possibility of parole").

In the case of forgiveness here, I am speaking of taking someone's life. A man can still be forgiven but still take his punishment. In any case, I don't think killing another is the way out. Let them serve their time and labor in a prison to help others. These people would feel a lot better, I'm sure, to get out and get some sun, even if it is to labor for the public or government's sake and they can still feel needed. Keeping them behind bars is not productive or healthy to them or society. It is counter-productive. I won't get into the politics of it here but I believe God put us here and it is for God to decide when it's our time to go, not us.

If you murder someone, your life is forfeit. You have no right to enjoy any of the pleasures of life while your victim is rotting in the ground. Every breath a murderer takes is an insult to his victim.

I'm not in favor of cutting off thieves hands, though. Violent punishments should be reserved for violent crimes. Let the thief pay back the money, maybe ten times the amount he stold.

yes maybe you should cut the hands of someone who has beaten someone to within an inch of their lives yet have survived

Nope, that would never be good. Think of all the people in jail who are there by a fault in the justice system, wrongly accused, and when you lose your hands, there's no putting them back on like they were. Suppose someone is mad at you and starts a fight over, let's say a woman, and you punch back and it knocks him out. All it takes is one good punch to kill a man. When you get in a fight, it's easy to make a mistake and injure them more than you intended. Would you want your hands cut off for that? Life and body parts can't be taken back so if they're accused wrong, does that mean someone in the justice system should have their life taken away for wrongly accusing them? I doubt anyone here could kill their son/daughter if they killed another one of your sons or daughters. If they were fighting and one beat the other to death, would you beat the one who killed to death yourself? I seriously doubt it. That's because you have less hate and more understanding for a family member. And it's got a lot to do with hate and who's who, unfortunately. It's corruption. Let's face it, killing is barbaric and for the less intelligent. Only under an extreme case of self defense could it be deemed innocent. You can always disable in self defense instead of kill. If you think someone else's life is cheap and quick to kill, you can expect them to think the same of your life.

Make the punishment fit the crime:

Thieves should be stolen from (bank robbers should have their banks robbed),
Copyright infringers should be copied,
Speeders on the highway should be overtaken,
Prostitutes should be fucked (and charged for it),
Drug dealers should be dealt drugs.

No. I have no desire to be involved in the killing of any human being... What is "it" that causes some people to want to kill (or not)?

The death penalty is more merciful than a lifetime rotting in a cell.

not in the luxury of british prisons its not

If I had committed a crime worthy of the death penatly, I'd prefer death than spending the reminder of my life in a cell.

not in the luxury of british prisons its not

If you think any prison is lucky you're mistaken. It's not just the prison you're in, it's what you would miss and the rights you'd be stripped of.

but the fact remains tha british prisons are too easy going, i have stories of homeless people actually commiting crimes just to get themselves off the streets

Easily solved with the death penalty.

But how do you prove the conversion, and if you are willing to accept his word, are you willing to become the gurantor of his future actions, and suffer the same fate as him should he re-offend? Will you stand Blood Bond for a murder. If you have DNA evidence and the murder was cold blood murder and there are no extenuating circumstance or is a second time in the commission of a crime sorry, Snap-Crackel-Pop!

If I had committed a crime worthy of the death penatly, I'd prefer death than spending the reminder of my life in a cell.
The justice system does not aim to give convicts their preferred punishment.

[Side point: If you're sentenced to death, you also spend the rest of your life in a cell :p]
Easily solved with the death penalty.
Why do people keep pretending that the death penalty is the only solution to comfy prisons, let alone the most desirable one?

If someone's a permenant threat to society then there's no reason to spend money keeping them alive other than issues to do with the morality of human life and accidental convictions.

God says: "Thou shalt not kill".

Now here this.... FUCK... THAT... SHIT!

I generally don't like looking at the issue of the death penalty from a moral standpoint, because I look at morality as a personal issue. To me, morals apply to individuals, not society. A society can have an overabundance of immoral people, but the society itself cannot be immoral. Therefore, I do not say that it is "wrong" for the government to kill people when they commit a crime. There are several reasons why the government kills people who commit crime:

1) They are reinforcing the power of the state over the citizenry, which is necessary for a society to survive. The government must be more powerful than individuals or else that society is doomed, so execution of individuals who do things that the government has prohibited is a way of saying that you do not have the freedom to do what the government has said you cannot do. They are not punishing that individual, specifically, but rather it is a display of power (not a deterent, mind you). This is simple enough.

2) Of course there is the issue of removing specifically dangerous individuals from society in order that peace and order be maintained, and this is the second reason why I think that it is reasonable for the state to execute criminal citizens.

They are reinforcing the power of the state over the citizenry, which is necessary for a society to survive.

Wrong, what is necessary is for the individual to be just as powerful as the state. A state is nothing without individuals. A totalitarian society won't work. Instead of society killing others, it should prevent such measures from happening. Otherwise it is society's fault another man is taught wrong, as well as those who don't teach him wrong. We are all our brother's keeper. We should do our best to look out for one another. Help one up if they fall, not shoot them down. And when you fall and want a hand, will you expect someone or God even, to lift you up in a time of crisis or when you wronged? If you try to rule others with an iron fist, so will God rule you with an iron fist.

Wrong, what is necessary is for the individual to be just as powerful as the state. A state is nothing without individuals. A totalitarian society won't work.
History disagrees with you, Caesar.

what is necessary is for the individual to be just as powerful as the state. A state is nothing without individuals.
Wrong. If individuals are just as powerful as the state, then there is no state. That's called anarchy.

No, it's called equality.

Exactly. When you have complete equality you have anarchy, which is why all societies are inherently unequal.

Equality/justice/fairness, yes, there is no better system.

No, equality is not the same as justice or fairness. We are talking about political power. If all individuals in a society have absolutely equal political power, there is anarchy because people are no longer living in the context of a group, but as stand-alone political entities. This is why people are unequal in the real world, usp8triot, because if they weren't the survival of the human species would be impossible.

All individuals have, or should have, the same political power to get defend themselves if on trial. The state should have no more. If you mean if someone is suspected of trouble and runs from the state, that the state can come get them and put them through a fair trial, yes, but no one is more powerful than another. We are all equal, or should be. I am quick to defend against a quick to kill attitude. God forbid, it could be your innocent life up there in court one of these days and let's hope you would get a fair trial and a judge who values life, without having a quick to kill attitude or making hasty decisions on a life he thinks is cheap.

All individuals have, or should have, the same political power to get defend themselves if on trial. The state should have no more. If you mean if someone is suspected of trouble and runs from the state, that the state can come get them and put them through a fair trial, yes, but no one is more powerful than another. We are all equal, or should be. I am quick to defend against a quick to kill attitude. God forbid, it could be your innocent life up there in court one of these days and let's hope you would get a fair trial and a judge who values life, without having a quick to kill attitude or making hasty decisions on a life he thinks is cheap.

You don't understand at all what I am saying. The fact that you are even on trial in a courtroom means that the state has political supremacy over you because the state is deciding your guilt or innocence with respect to something that the state has defined as prohibited. The jury is acting in the capacity of the state when deciding your guilt or innocence, and the judge is acting in the capacity of the state when deciding what punishment should be handed down. Rethink your position when you understand what I am trying to say.

Yes, I understood. That's only if you're breaking the law or suspected to. Otherwise, I'm just as supreme as the law. Give unto caesar what is his, but if I don't owe him, I am not under his power. If I take an item in the store, I am under authority to pay before I get out. So if I do not take or owe the state, so am I not under it's power. I am under God's power though. He is the ultimate authority. No one can be subjected to giving to someone they don't owe. We are equal until we have broken the law, aka, owe the govt a debt for disobeying it.

You have not understood Jaster at all. The state has decided what the law is. Not you. You have very little say in determining that law, or how it is implemented. This is not an arrangement of equals. The state is practically supreme. The individual is subsumed. The checks and balances of the legal system serve only to modify that power in minor ways, not to control it.

Yes, I understand, but it's the individuals who make the law that make up the state. I have little say in the law? Then what's the use of voting. How do you know I'm not a senator? They are individuals. I see it from your point of view also, that the state is composed of individuals. This is my point of view. Others may see a state, some may see individuals, but all in all, we're all equal. You can walk up to a figure of the state and tremble in your shoes if you like because of their 'supreme' power, I don't though, I just see another individual of society.

You vote because the state allows you to vote.

Yes, I am in favor of the death penalty but only in cases of 2 murders at different times. This concept of the death penalty being a deterrent is bogus, and as being a punishment for gruesome crimes, it's weak. But to murder someone who murders people to solve problems or get kicks, which is to be certain if he/she is a multiple offender, is the responsibility of the state to protect others from being harmed by the offender in the future (the concept being you can't murder anyone else if you're dead).

No exceptions on the demographic of the offender.

As an atheist I place immense value in life, and so I do not like the death penalty, but it is necessary for a safer world.

*Sigh* The death penalty isn't the only way of keeping people safe.

Arguably, it makes criminals more dangerous: If they see the police coming to arrest them, and they know they're facing the death penalty, they're likely to feel they have nothing to lose.

At least we know that those we execute will not murder and/or rape ever again...

At least we know that speeders, once executed, will never drive dangerously again.

I propose we execute anyone caught driving over the speed limit. Society must learn that speeding is simply not acceptable.

There's a difference between intentionally killing someone and speeding. Speeding is reckless endangerment, but if you don't kill anyone you don't kill anyone. However, if you kill someone by speeding twice you should be executed to keep others safe.

I do agree with przyk that it is not the only way to keep people safe, but it is the sure way. And who's to say the "nothing to lose" mentallity would increase more or less as it is? There is the death penalty in many states, and has it become more frequent since reinstitution of the death penalty? I'd like to see some data on that.

Anyone who get's killed by a convicted murderer, and I mean anyone, the state has killed that person themselves by neglect.

There's a difference between intentionally killing someone and speeding. Speeding is reckless endangerment, but if you don't kill anyone you don't kill anyone.
I know perfectly well that "murder" and "speeding" are not synonyms. I was just pointing out that simplistic attitudes like "kill anyone that endangers society" rarely work, if ever.
However, if you kill someone by speeding twice you should be executed to keep others safe.
:eek:

I'd prefer it if the state focused on a person's intent, rather than actions. There's different kinds of killings: first degree, manslaughter, accidental, self-defence, etc. You wouldn't treat them all (blindly) the same way, would you?
I do agree with przyk that it is not the only way to keep people safe, but it is the sure way.
Even more sure would be to lock every single human on the planet in their own isolated cell. That way no-one could hurt anyone. Starting with the assumption that every individual is "safe" until they prove otherwise will permit and inevitably result in violence. Maybe some things are more important than maximizing everyone's safety.
And who's to say the "nothing to lose" mentallity would increase more or less as it is? There is the death penalty in many states, and has it become more frequent since reinstitution of the death penalty? I'd like to see some data on that.
I'm talking about criminals being more dangerous to arrest, after they've already committed a murder. I haven't seen any statistics, but I would expect someone to be more desperate knowing they're facing the death penalty than if they were facing life imprisonment.
Anyone who get's killed by a convicted murderer, and I mean anyone, the state has killed that person themselves by neglect.
Personally, I'd blame the murderer. You can't expect the state or justice system to be foolproof.

And while were here:

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."
- J. R. R. Tolkien (via Gandalf, Lord of the Rings)

Wait, did you just quote Gandolf?

I'm not saying that murderers don't deserve their day in court, and intent as well is a bit overrated and sticky. If you're someone who just has an accidental knack for killing people, you should be dealt with the same. This is not about punishment, it's about protection, and killing anyone in self defense is not murder, it's self defense. The point of doing it is to protect people so they can leave their isolated cells without fear.

The point about being more dangerous should be examinable, as the death penalty was not around in the US for awhile then reinstituted.

And you'd have to blame the state. One of a government's funamental purposes is to protect it's citizens, and I don't think it's too bizarre to expect that people who kill those citizens should be put to death to insure it will not happen in the future, especially since citizens are not empowered to do so themselves until attacked, which gives a major advantage to the attacker.

Bullet in your ass. yes or no? I suppose thats a no.
Those of you who answered yes to: death penalty, yes or no? Are happy to get a bullet in their ass.

Wait, did you just quote Gandolf?
Yep.
I'm not saying that murderers don't deserve their day in court, and intent as well is a bit overrated and sticky. If you're someone who just has an accidental knack for killing people, you should be dealt with the same. This is not about punishment, it's about protection, and killing anyone in self defense is not murder, it's self defense.
Wait, you'd execute someone for being clumsy??????????

What's with these extreme views on ensuring safety, Silkworm? Are you afraid of being murdered or something? I think your idea of "kill anyone that's a threat" and "2 strikes and you're out" is a bit of an overkill.
The point of doing it is to protect people so they can leave their isolated cells without fear.
But they do have reason to fear. All forms of justice give the sentence after the crime. The crime has already happened, and cannot be undone. Do you really think a zero-tolerance policy combined with the death penalty will wipe out murders? I can tell you that the "justice" system during the middle ages was even tougher than what you have in mind - would you have felt safer back then?
The point about being more dangerous should be examinable, as the death penalty was not around in the US for awhile then reinstituted.
It was a guess at a possibility. You can do the research if you want; I'm too lazy.
And you'd have to blame the state. One of a government's funamental purposes is to protect it's citizens,
Yes, it provides a police force, legal justice system, military, what more do you want? Crime is not a result of the state's negligence. You could just as easily blame the voters.
and I don't think it's too bizarre to expect that people who kill those citizens should be put to death to insure it will not happen in the future,
As I said already, I think its going a bit far. There are other, more reversible ways of dealing with convicted killers.
especially since citizens are not empowered to do so themselves until attacked, which gives a major advantage to the attacker.
And what will an execution 15 years later change?

Law enforcement wasn't back then what it was today, and who's to say it was or was not more safe in the middle ages anyway?

The burden of proof is on you to do the research, I didn't make the statement and I'm too lazy as well.

In a democratic nation the voters are ultimately responsible for the actions of its government. So every time a murderer escapes, or kills someone in prison, etc, I'm partially to blame for it. I agree.

Law enforcement wasn't back then what it was today, and who's to say it was or was not more safe in the middle ages anyway?
Um, you could get burned at the stake for being a catholic, hung for theft...
The burden of proof is on you to do the research, I didn't make the statement and I'm too lazy as well.
It was a statement based on my intuition. You are not required to agree with my intuition, so ignore it if you don't think it carries any weight.
In a democratic nation the voters are ultimately responsible for the actions of its government. So every time a murderer escapes, or kills someone in prison, etc, I'm partially to blame for it. I agree.
I think you're being a little hard on yourself. "Security for all" is a nice ideal, but that doesn't mean it's practical or even attainable.

przyk: Um, you could get burned at the stake for being a catholic, hung for theft...

The point I was trying to make that investigations have gotten a lot more sophisticated as of late. Back then, if you weren't caught red handed, how would you ever be caught if you didn't take and keep and object that would trace it back?

And I never said that more death penalty = a better criminal justice system. Just that if someone solves his problems or gets his kicks or habitually behaves recklessly enough that they have a body count of 2 or greater, they must be put to death in order to protect innocent people. That's all I'm saying.

I do not support the death penalty as a form of punishment or a deterant, that's ridiculous, but I do support it as protection. What better protection can one person have?

I suggested a better prtoection system: isolate every person on the planet in their own individual cell - prevent everyone from interacting with everyone else. This will prevent people from murdering others, rather than having the murderer dealt with when its already too late.

I suggested a better prtoection system: isolate every person on the planet in their own individual cell - prevent everyone from interacting with everyone else. This will prevent people from murdering others, rather than having the murderer dealt with when its already too late.

just release a whole load of ricin into the air

Yeah, but isolating everyone will just make them kill THEMSELVES because of sheer boredom-lol


I think the death penalty is right. Why should murderers and stuff live "freely" in prison? Many don't realize this, but prison isn't some place where you're completely isolated (unless it's a supermax); there are times when you can play, and if you have a good prison record, you get freedoms around the prison.

So, why should child molesters, murderers, and Michael Jackson go free?
They shouldn't.
They should be punished with true justice. If you commit crime, society doesn't want you. Death to Criminals!

Michael Jackson was found not guilty.

Many don't realize this, but prison isn't some place where you're completely isolated (unless it's a supermax); there are times when you can play, and if you have a good prison record, you get freedoms around the prison.
This is common knowledge, actually.

You vote because the state allows you to vote.

No I vote becuase our forefathers had the wisdom to realize you cannot oppress the people for any length of time. The state does not allow me to vote. I allow the state the right to exist. That is American Democracy

1) It is a natural consequence of the death penalty that innocent people will now and again be killed in this way. This reason alone should be sufficient to scrap this law.

2) Innocent families and loved ones of the person put to death have to suffer

I voted no because we know that innocent people have been sent to death row.
When half the people on the Illinois death row are proven innocent with DNA evidence any reasonable person has to question the system.

No. I agree with candy and KJC. Nuff said.

No I vote becuase our forefathers had the wisdom to realize you cannot oppress the people for any length of time.
Actually, you can. Monarchies? Dictatorships? These were real popular, and still are in some parts of the world.
The state does not allow me to vote. I allow the state the right to exist. That is American Democracy
Don't delude yourself. Try denying the state this right and see what happens.

some people in prison deserve to be gassed for the fun of it, would the world be a worse place without someone like alan webster

If the legal system sentences you to a term in prision that is longer than your life will last, say 80+ years, then you have simply become a burden on the governement. If there were a way to pay for your tenure in prison other than taxes, thats fine, but there are too many people in the world that need help to let this person be paid for in prison for the rest of their life

I voted no because we know that innocent people have been sent to death row.
When half the people on the Illinois death row are proven innocent with DNA evidence any reasonable person has to question the system.


I don't really think this is a good arguement, its like saying 'we shouldn't drive cars because some people crash them.'

I voted no because an eye for an eye makes the world go blind. I also believe that our criminal justice systems are extremely flawed. Innocent people are executed everyday. Think about the way the death penalty is implemented in the U.S.A. A district attorney has the right to charge a person with murder one and seek the death penalty depending on what kind of mood they are in. Unfortunately most of the judges, district attorneys, and jurors that are responsible for decided if a felon should live or die, are incapable of thinking objectively when their working. The feelings of the victim’s family members should have nothing to do with our criminal justice system. All of the people that are involved criminal justice process should be trained to think objectively at all times. Painful emotions don’t solve problems. They usually make our problem worse. Logical decisions solve problems.

A person that is being charged with murder one doesn’t even have to kill someone. He or she just has to be in the process of committing a felony while someone is killed. For example, a man that has never committed a violent crime in his life could be driving in a car with his friend. They could be going to a place to sell some cocaine to an acquaintance. Now what the driver doesn’t know is that his friend has a gun on him, and the customer is actually an undercover police officer. The man would then proceed to exchange the cocaine for the money. That is when the police officers would come out of hiding to let the men know that they are under arrest. That is when the guy with the gun panics and kills one of the police officers. The police officers would then open fire as the suspects run for their lives. The end result is that both suspects are charged with murder 1 despite the fact that only one of the men is responsible for the death of the police officer.

I believe that our criminal justice systems should be about 10% punishment and 90% rehabilitation. Unfortunately it is the complete opposite. We choose to combat the misery and pain in this world by inflicting more misery and pain. We don’t like to think about creative ways to prevent or reduce the misery and pain in the world. We hear stories about rapists, murders, and child molesters and the first response from most people is that they should be executed or imprisoned for the rest of their lives. We don’t want to think about the problems in our society that created the criminals. We don’t want to think about what has to be done to rehabilitate the criminals.

I will admit that some criminals cannot be rehabilitated, but they can still be useful in our society. I believe that all prisoners that are serving a life sentence should be given a reason to live. If they behave properly they should be given some privileges like, a comfortable bed, internet service, cable television, conjugal visits with a spouse or prostitute. (If they weren’t convicted of rape) In return they should have to give something back to our society. They could work within the prison. (General labor, factory jobs, Ect.) We could create a relatively peaceful society within our prisons, where the inmates would have to work for all of their privileges. But that would be too difficult our politicians, wardens, Ect. It would require too much thinking and rational thought. It is much easier to treat our criminals like shit and release some of them without any rehabilitation so they can commit more crimes.

The logic of comparing the execution of an innocent person to a car crash escapes me.

I say yes for execution if they are proven guilty, send all murderers to the "prison planet", give them food, they can either kill eachother or they could build a civilization, and to pay for all this, we make it a game show!

On that note, prisons are something you can invest in, thus I'd image the prison investors like seeing prisoners in their prison, $$$, so hey, why not let them take care of themselves somewhere else? Maybe a large prisoner island for the world murderers?

anyway...

Why is it simply yes or no? Don't we need to look at the crime in question? Or in the case of murder look at the circumstances that lead to the act? Personally I would like to see all child molesters hung by their testicles so therefore I am not against the death penalty but the justice system should be careful in how they assess the crime and dole out the judgement.

The logic of comparing the execution of an innocent person to a car crash escapes me.

Your arguement against the death penalty was not that it was wrong to punish someone capitally, but that some innocent people are killed by mistake. So you're saying that it is not wrong in principle, but in that it is not done correctly. My analogy is that you would take a stance against driving a car, not because you are against the idea of driving the car, but because sometimes people crash them.

I don't think poor execution (no pun intended) of an ideal is quite as convincing of a reason to disbar it than actually finding a fault in the ideal itself.

I say yes for execution if they are proven guilty, send all murderers to the "prison planet", give them food, they can either kill eachother or they could build a civilization, and to pay for all this, we make it a game show!

On that note, prisons are something you can invest in, thus I'd image the prison investors like seeing prisoners in their prison, $$$, so hey, why not let them take care of themselves somewhere else? Maybe a large prisoner island for the world murderers?

anyway...


A great idea, and then in 200 years, they'll be way sweeter then other places, and everyone will want to go there for vacations, just like Australia!

No I vote becuase our forefathers had the wisdom to realize you cannot oppress the people for any length of time. The state does not allow me to vote. I allow the state the right to exist. That is American Democracy
You allow the state the right to exist? Who told you that? Try to stop the government from existing. Try to stop just one member of the stae from existing. There's like a 90%+ chance that you would be caught. If caught, they would take away your right to exist. You give the state no such rights, because are a slave to it. The government already owns everything that you own because it owns you.
Make the punishment fit the crime:

Thieves should be stolen from (bank robbers should have their banks robbed),
Copyright infringers should be copied,
Speeders on the highway should be overtaken,
Prostitutes should be fucked (and charged for it),
Drug dealers should be dealt drugs.
That would be a fitting government, but you're forgetting that theives and bank robbers steal because they have little or nothing to be stolen. Copy-write infringers are actually stealing, so they should be stolen from. Drug distribution and prostetution shouldn't be crimes.


I don't agree with the death penalty, because the accused won't gain anything from the experience. Since it is America, shouldn't we be interested in each individual reaching success? Again our government has failed us...

Make the punishment fit the crime:

Thieves should be stolen from (bank robbers should have their banks robbed),
Copyright infringers should be copied,
Speeders on the highway should be overtaken,
Prostitutes should be fucked (and charged for it),
Drug dealers should be dealt drugs.
That would be a fitting government, but you're forgetting that theives and bank robbers steal because they have little or nothing to be stolen.
I wasn't expecting anyone to take this post seriously, and I was implying that the "make the punishment fit the crime" rule is too simplistic to be of any practical use.
Copy-write infringers are actually stealing, so they should be stolen from.
Actually, they're copying. Whether you consider it a crime or not is a seperate issue, but there's a big difference between copying and theft.

Yes they are copying, but by copying and publishing, they are stealing wealth from the origination of the idea, and in actuality, from the society which buys the same work twice; that is why it is considered a crime.

I'm not so sure about that. The way I see it, the fact that digital data is easy and cheap to copy is a property or feature of the product, and it's not like software and record companies don't profit from it. There's an overhead cost to developing software, but practically no incremental cost for each additional copy produced. This is why large software companies like Microsoft have so many billions at their disposal. In essence, one could argue that such companies had economic laws changed just to suit them - they're allowed to take full advantage of the fact that data can be easily copied, but no-one else is due to an artificial law.

In the case of record companies, I've heard that it's the artists themselves that have to pay the recording fees. If this is the case, what is the record industry really offering? People are being forced to pay for a service they don't need. Anyone can burn a CD, so there's no real need for some organization to do it for them. I really find it difficult to sympathize with the record industry.

As for considering copying to be theft, I don't agree here either. Suppose I see a BMW in a showroom I like. If I go home and build an exact replica of it, did I steal the original car? Copying something doesn't prevent anyone from using the original or the manufacturer from selling it. Also, when you talk about all the money lost to piracy, you assume that every copyright infringer would have purchased a legitimate copy if piracy didn't exist. Many probably wouldn't.

Basically, the question is: should a market that is inherently risky be protected by the introduction of artificial laws that restrict the rights of the public? I don't know about you, but I think it's just plain ridiculous for laws to exist that restrict which sequences of ones and zeros are allowed on my CDs and harddisk.

[Not that this has anything to do with the death penalty...]

I think it's just plain ridiculous for laws to exist that restrict which sequences of ones and zeros are allowed on my CDs and harddisk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime_number

double tap to the back of the head, put them out of our misery. :D

edit: oh yeah, as for the why, there are just some people that are beyond redemption.