Capital Punishment: Is it right?

[LJP07]

Over 1,000 in America have been executed either by electrocution or Lethal Injection, Gas Chamber, Hanging or Firing Squad.

 

Here is a list of the crimes of each state that will pursue Death Penalty:

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144&scid=10

 

There is also a table on http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/ in which they state that you don't have to be involved in killing the person in order to not get the Death Penalty.

 

But is the Death Penalty justified? If it's justified in one case, then why not all?

 

Another site states that the Death Penalty reduces more murders, but isn't the act of killing the murderer the same for what he committed, what justifes that? The famous film called " The Life of David Gale ", which is about him supposed to be getting killed by Death Penalty, when in fact he didn't do anything at all, he was innocent.

 

" The Death Penalty is no more, at best, than a deterrant than a sentence of life imrpisonment ", would that be true?

 

Theres an interesting argument in which people think that Saddam Hussein should be put up for Capital Punishment and killed off, if it happens to him why not more?

 

My opinion on this is that it shouldn't be used under any circumstances, if you put someone up for the Death Penalty, then you would be just as bad as the killer himself, which is intentionally going out to kill someone themself.

 

It's a waste of money and time and a greater punishment would be life imprisonment because you could give punishment inside the prison, that would be worse. Theres more harrowing updated statistics on the Amnesty Website:

 

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

[Tormod]

The famous film called " The Life of David Gale ", which is about him supposed to be getting killed by Death Penalty, when in fact he didn't do anything at all, he was innocent.

 

Using a film as an example is okay but it is still a work of fiction. There will always be other works of fiction which counters it.

 

Or even documentaries - the one which tried to portray Michael Peterson as innocent failed pretty badly to convey all the facts of the story (although one has to ask if this is even possible?).

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/peterson/

 

That said, I am opposed to the death penalty as I think it is a brutal act performed by an institution (ie, usually the State) which should have better things to do than kill people. I am for prevention, not murder.

 

I will never defend the right of a killer to go free. However, nor will I defend a system where innocent people, children, and mentally people are kept behind bars or executed after grave miscarriages of justice.

[LJP07]

I heard once that a person who commiteed a murder in the US, he was proved for insanity and yet was still put on Death Row, luckily for him, he was taken off it yet I don't justify the murder.

 

Another fault within the system is when you have cases US or Worldwide, where people who change their Religion are put up for the Death Penalty. George W. Bush also commented that he should choose his religion how he wants, I'm not sure but the punishment probably took place.

 

Even people who are innocent get killed in the middle eastern countries or when in the US, you can't take the action back when their proved innocent (if innocent ) when using the Death penalty.

 

It's a flawed sickning system and I'm going to post up what happens to people physiologically when they get brutal punishments, especially middle-eastern ones.

[TheBigDog]

The famous film called " The Life of David Gale ", which is about him supposed to be getting killed by Death Penalty, when in fact he didn't do anything at all, he was innocent.

 

Using a film as an example is okay but it is still a work of fiction. There will always be other works of fiction which counters it.

Especially this particular film, since in this film the characters (including the "victim") conspired to make a man look guilty of the murder and to hide evidence of his innocence from investigators until after he had been executed. All in the name of proving that innocent people could be unjustly put to death.

 

There are a few people out there who I would glady throw the switch on personally. And sleep soundly that night. I don't give a damn if it deters other people from commiting crimes, although I think it is safe to say that it deters more than it encourages. Some people are not worth the expense of having around.

 

Bill

[Turtle]

In priciple I'm opposed to the death penalty because it eliminates the possibility that a person might still contribute to society. While I'm not christian, what always comes to mind is John Newton. Filthy murdering slave trading vile man worthy of the death penalty. Then he changed his tune & in that course wrote one of the most stirring & inspiring hymns of all times, Amazing Grace.

Life in prison at hard labor in place of death penalty.

That said, I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone myself in defense of my own or others lives.:cup:

[LJP07]

 

There are a few people out there who I would glady throw the switch on personally. And sleep soundly that night. I don't give a damn if it deters other people from commiting crimes, although I think it is safe to say that it deters more than it encourages. Some people are not worth the expense of having around.

 

Bill

 

Turtle made a good point, even though people commit horrible murders, they can turn around and try to do right again after realising what they've done. It's inexcusable to ask for the murdered persons family to support this, but everyone should have the right to live, even in a prison for punishment, I'm not saying that it's right to do crime then turn all nice, but I heard before that's what imprisonment is supposed to do, which is change your opinions of making crimes again.

 

" Some people are not worth the expense of having around "

 

At what expense, 5 million dollars, a persons job like Prison Warden? People commit crimes for many reasons, mental, social and stress, although this is no excuse for committing the murder, those in their right mind wouldn't do it, that's no reason to kill them off, it's obvious they need mental help to make them think straight. It's not a computer game we deal with here, it's people lives.

[TheBigDog]

It's not a computer game we deal with here, it's people lives.

You don't say! And that is exactly why some people forfeit the value of their own. Because they are unable or unwilling to value the lives of others. And in the name of the value of human life, I would harvest out the malignecy of murderers and others for the sake of the whole. Want to lock them away permanently instead? OK, but the next life they take is on the hands of those who stopped the execution. And I will bet that our death penalty has saved more lives than it has taken.

 

When you were listing your reasons for people commiting crimes you forgot to list "evil". There is such a thing as an evil person who does not care for others and kills without hesitation and laughs at the attempts to "cure" them.

 

Bill

[LJP07]

And I will bet that our death penalty has saved more lives than it has taken.

 

When you were listing your reasons for people commiting crimes you forgot to list "evil". There is such a thing as an evil person who does not care for others and kills without hesitation and laughs at the attempts to "cure" them.

 

There was a statistic found on one the main American Capital Punishments website that said :

 

" There has been no documented proof that it does save more lives or not "

 

Evil people aka Saddam Hussein, they should be sent to another Institution for there specifically horrendous crimes, they should be severly punished daily until there life ends due to their self. Killing shortens punishment. Why not punish for the rest of his life than punish for few minutes.

 

How would you answer this question in one word:

 

Do the American Government not make a contradiction of themselves killing people because they kill? If they are supposed to claim " Don't kill ", yet they ( and other countries ) support it by Killing?

[TheBigDog]

How would you answer this question in one word:

 

Do the American Government not make a contradiction of themselves killing people because they kill? If they are supposed to claim " Don't kill ", yet they ( and other countries ) support it by Killing?

Naive

 

You asked. There is a difference between death as a penalty for crimes against society as determined by a court of law, and crimes committed against society that lead to deaths. If you cannot see that distinction then there is no talking to you.

 

Bill

[Boerseun]

A democratically elected government is an extention of the people's will. If a democratically elected government willingly kills people by virtue of a law enabling Capital Punishment, then the people who have voted this government into power are all party to murder.

 

You can't justify this by saying "Yes, but he was a murder." What's his history got to do with it? Let's say that I kill my neighbour, because my neighbour killed someone years ago. His history has nothing to do with the fact that I've now committed a murder, too.

 

Catch a criminal, and punish him - sure. But don't kill another person on my behalf. A government allowing Capital Punishment makes killers out of everybody who voted that government into place.

[TheBigDog]

A democratically elected government is an extention of the people's will. If a democratically elected government willingly kills people by virtue of a law enabling Capital Punishment, then the people who have voted this government into power are all party to murder.

 

You can't justify this by saying "Yes, but he was a murder." What's his history got to do with it? Let's say that I kill my neighbour, because my neighbour killed someone years ago. His history has nothing to do with the fact that I've now committed a murder, too.

Murder is the deliberatly, willfully and unlawfully taking of a human life. Unless you wish to change the definition of the word, or the lawful power of government, then you cannot say that capital punishment is murder. It is not. Otherwise I can start calling astrology science.

Evil people aka Saddam Hussein, they should be sent to another Institution for there specifically horrendous crimes, they should be severly punished daily until there life ends due to their self. Killing shortens punishment. Why not punish for the rest of his life than punish for few minutes.

Are you advocating torture, or restricting access to the Internet? What exactly is severe daily punishment until they end life by their self? (suicide?) How is that more humane than the death penalty?

 

Bill

[LJP07]

Murder is the deliberatly, willfully and unlawfully taking of a human life. Unless you wish to change the definition of the word, or the lawful power of government, then you cannot say that capital punishment is murder. It is not. Otherwise I can start calling astrology science.

 

Are you advocating torture, or restricting access to the Internet? What exactly is severe daily punishment until they end life by their self? (suicide?) How is that more humane than the death penalty?

 

Bill

 

Rephrased: They should be punished from life, not kept in a jail but in a more serious confinement for punishment. I don't mean to suggest suicide if that's how it looks.

 

If it's not murder, then it's Voluntary Manslaughter, even if it's not that, it's still taking a life which underlyes all killings. And taking a life deliberatly is what murderers do. They both might not be equal but both sides, Murderers and Government, are equal in terms of willingness to take life.

 

What justifies taking a life?

[Cedars]

I have only one problem with the dp and that is the possiblity of taking an innocent persons life, that being an innocent person convicted of a crime they did not commit. Other than that I havent a quarrel with putting a murderer out of our misery. I wish SCotUS had not decided rape isnt enough of a crime to warrent the dp, for this ruling includes child rapists.

 

Personally I think the dp should be an option for lifers. If someone is convicted of a crime that warrents life without parole but the judical system does not allow for the dp to be mandated for the crime, I think the convict should have the option of chosing to undergo the dp themselves rather than the punishment of life in prison. I think it is a cruelty that we decide such a punishment without an option to forego life, yet we can all agree that some persons should not be allowed free to act on their impulse ever. Child molesters comes to mind. While you can say suicide is an option for them, some people cannot bring themselves to fufil that desire no matter how much they hate their own life. And then too, the state/feds have an obligation to prevent such actions as much as possible.

 

As far as justifing it? Well we shoot mad dogs dont we? We havent a cure for the impulses some criminals have. John Wayne Gacy made pretty cool clown pictures when in prison, yet the beauty of his clowns was intertwined with the heinious person he tried to hide. It (his art) isnt enough of a value to society to warrent allowing him to continue with life. The loss to society of the 20+ people he killed (and the survivors of those murdered persons) hold more value for me than the scumbag who (acting out sexual deviances) denied society of their potential value and scarred the remaining surviving family in ways that we can never know how it negativly impacted their lives and output to society.

 

There are always people who try to save wounded animals, abused animals, etc and we read about their success/failures in the news everyday. I hold people (as in murderous criminals, molesters, etc) to a higher standard than I do pit bulls and tigers. If they (violent criminals) havent the internal restraints so that the dp does not deter their actions, well then why would I want to risk them someday being free to inflict their impulses on another, or support, via my tax dollars, their continued existance in prison. I do not see how this is a wise investment on my behalf by the state/country that I reside in.

[TheBigDog]

Rephrased: They should be punished from life, not kept in a jail but in a more serious confinement for punishment. I don't mean to suggest suicide if that's how it looks.

 

If it's not murder, then it's Voluntary Manslaughter, even if it's not that, it's still taking a life which underlyes all killings. And taking a life deliberatly is what murderers do. They both might not be equal but both sides, Murderers and Government, are equal in terms of willingness to take life.

 

What justifies taking a life?

What the laws of society deam appropriate. It varies from place to place. In the US there are Federal and State laws that will bring the death penalty. Some countries have the death penalty. Others do not. It is a matter of choice. Changing the meaning of words to criminalize those with a different belief system as you is usually frowned upon.

 

You still do not get that there is a difference between criminal murder, and Capital Punishment. Does the murder victim have the benefit of a justice system that presumes him innocent? Does the murder victim have a defense and an opportunity to be found innocent, or plea to a lesser punishment? The legal system makes it very difficult to execute a person. Those who are executed have gone through the most thorough examination of evidence that can be done. Both by the professionals that they may hire, and my teams of activist volunteers.

 

You need to read the definition of the word Manslaughter. Again, UNLAWFUL is the key word in the definition.

 

Bill

[Spiked Blood]

How can capital punishment in any way be right?

 

It fixes nothing. There is no proof that it deters crime in any way. It is simply refusing to deal with a problem in a rather prosaic caveman manner. Have we not outgrown this style of problem solving?

 

Was it Stalin that said, "Death solves all problems - No man, no problem"?

[TheBigDog]

How can capital punishment in any way be right?

 

It fixes nothing. There is no proof that it deters crime in any way. It is simply refusing to deal with a problem in a rather prosaic caveman manner. Have we not outgrown this style of problem solving?

 

Was it Stalin that said, "Death solves all problems - No man, no problem"?

My God! Why are we still using the wheel to roll things? I mean, cavemen used the wheel! Haven't we advanced past cavemen yet? And didn't Hitler use the wheel? Do we want to use what Hitler used?

 

Bill

[C1ay]

Capital punishment has outlived it's usefullness....