Printable View
But isn't the obverse true? That someone might be released rather than killed, and then go on killing? What of those who feel no remorse for killing?Quote:
Which is better, to spend 10 years in prison and be executed or 11 years and be released? Removing the death penalty allows for the possibility of new evidence coming to light.
If you say so...Quote:
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.
The "life in prison with no possibility of parole" would replace the death penalty. And I agree that some people deserve death--I just don't trust the justice system to make the determination of "certainly guilty".Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
If you cannot be 100% certain of someone's guilt (I think that's what you must have meant), how can you sentence them to prison? How is it any different?Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
So the Guy who killed 3 Offers in my hometown should be given Life in Prison?
Sure! And Lets give life in prison to Child Rapers, Other murders, etc.....
:rtwno:
I'm for the death penalty to those who willingly take the life of an innocent.
I don't really see on what basis the state is allowed to kill people. So no for me.
EU hman rights provisions prohibit the death penalty in any of its member states.
I myself sway back and forth. I don't feel any urge to kill people, nor do I feel particularly inclined to protect the right to life of some people.
I do not have any moral objection to the killing of certain people, other than that it wastes the opportunity to make their life miserable.
More life sentences are fine with me. I particularly struggle with the irriversability of the death sentence in combination with horror stories, that we're all familiar with, of people turning out innocent after sometimes decades of imprisonment. :shame:
It's like this, a life term in prison, (in India atleast) is not a life term at all....it's 14 years I think.
Now, there are some people, who kill, despite knowing that it's wrong....they are aware of everything, and yet they do it. Such people ought to be executed themselves. They don't deserve to live. It's like show respect and earn respect....if you don't respect the other person's right to live, you don't have right to live either.
In my opinion, all people who commit a murder ought to be executed. This is something that should be absolutely 'not-negotiable'. And if not this, then atleast, atleast they ought to make life imprisonment mean a chap should remain in prison until he dies. It's useless otherwise send a man to prison once, and he won't think so much of going in again.
I remember reading this news in paper several years back. The police had caught a killer for hire, who'd committed quite a few murders. Political ones mainly. They'd shown a pic of him in the paper as he went into the courtroom, and he was grinning in it. As if he feared nothing. Such a man, a cold blooded killer....does he not deserve to die? ofcourse he does. you sentence him for life, he gets out after some 10-20 years, comes back out and starts on hiw old profession again....what then?
I'm for stricter laws. You abide the laws if you want to stay well. If you toe the line, you pay the price. No dilly-dallying then.
Infact I'd say, in such cases the courts should only be used to decide if the person in question even deserves a quick death or a slow one.
Well, it sort of takes away a life, that is usually not a good idea IMO.
As has been said it's a bit too definite for my taste.
And yet that is its strength and weakness. If you put the rapist to death, they definately are not going to rape someone again. For instance (perhaps Lemur will remember this, as he is from WI), in my home state, just a 5 minute drive from where I live about 10 years back I believe, some childmolester grabbed a little girl who was biking and molested and killed her. Turns out he had done it before, and he ended up getting out and doing it again. If that :daisy: had been killed the first time 2 innocent girls would not have been horribly degraded, tortured, and killed. That is reason enough in my opinion. I remember reading somewhere that most capital crime is commited by repeat offenders. (like 80-90%) That means that theoretically you could prevent at the least close to half of the rapes in murders by putting the worthless :daisy: down the first time. You would be saving the lives and pain of all those innocent people by giving the trash just a tast of what they deserve in the first place. Of course that is forgetting a deterrant effect completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Life prison dooms you to a horrible existence for the rest of your life (+ the guilt, conscience) so I don't think it is more lenient punishment than the death penalty.
My motives to oppose the death penalty are the irreversibility of the capital sentence. And despite the long period most of the countries put between the death sentence and the execution, there is always chance to kill an innocent person. There is another aspect: by death sentence you involve physicians in the process of murdering. I think this opposes the moral of this profession.
:bow:
Well, whether he is in prison for life or is killed does not make such a big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
You are right, it should be soldiers. Lethal injection, electrocution, all BS. What they really need is 8 06's in the head. That will put the scum down at a really good price too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
Not really, because as noted above, death is final. You do not have any BS getting out for good behavior, escaping from prison, etc, and it does not give him the opportunitty to prey on prison mates. Unless you are Jesus Christ, death is final, and that is why you need it to keep scum like that out of society.Quote:
Well, whether he is in prison for life or killed does not make such a big difference.
I presume you know the prisoners are not killed immediately after the capital punishment. I also think you know it takes years for the execution to take place. Years. This is plenty of time for a person to escape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
You can not have a man with life long sentence allowed to go home for his good behaviour. Escaping from prison is relatively rare.
Which is not the fault of the death penalty, but of a justice system in need of overhaul. I already stated that for the death penalty to work correctly the justice system would need to be overhauled. That is as I said though, not an argument against the death penalty, but agains teh justice system in its current state. Capital punishment cases and appeals should be given first priority and be gotten done with as quickly as possible. Hopefully the average scumbag would not be in jail for more than a year, then you can take them out to a firing range and put 8 shots into their worthless heads and dump their filthy bodies into the ocean. Think of the costs we would save?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
People who are supposed to be in for life get off early all the time, and many times commit more crimes. Scum should not be supported by the people OR have a chance to harm more people in prison anyway. They should be disposed of quickly and efficiently.Quote:
You can not have a man with life long sentence allowed to go home for his good behaviour. Escaping from prison is relatively rare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
What about the innocent? Or kill them all and then send letter to the families of the innocent how good citizens these people were and that they have been killed by mistake?
About the second: I think this is easier to be fixed with reforms of the judicial system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Well, that approach usually serves America well...
~:smoking:
As you have stated yourself, the death penalty is not a worse punishment than life imprisonment. And as I stated earlier in the thread, the answer is not to get rid of the death penalty, but to fix the justice system to minimize such mistakes. Innocents die in car accidents, we should not ban autos though. Far more innocents would be saved if you had the death penalty Asen. Sure, some would die, and that really does stink, but as I said, the answer is to minimize friendly fire, because you are saving innocents in the long run. Or we could just tell the family of Cora Jones that we let her daughter be brutally raped and murdered because we did not have the balls to put the :daisy: who did it to her to death the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
EDIT: I used to bike down the exact same place where he got her. After I found out about it, I couldn't stand to go there for quite a few years. He had raped, tortured, and attempted to murder a woman before in the 60s, and was supposed to get a life sentence, but got out in less than 15 years.
EDIT2: And to be honest with you, I would much rather die by a quick bullet to the face than rot my life away in a prison. I think prisons are one of the most inhumane things in the world. (that being said, I used to grill up the burgers that were serverd to prisoners for people participating in Hunters Safety courses. Darn they get good food. :P Those burgers really were good stuff)
Better make stricter legislation. Let the people with lighter crimes go if they good behaviour, keep those with serious crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
How about the innocent Stephen, When you lock them up for 20-40 years, released them, and say "Sorry, we wrongfully convincted you" and now they can't do anything since they are getting old if not old already.
Death Penalty is needed.
Why? So they can commit crimes in prison? So their families can pull strings to get them out? So the taxpayers and victims of their crimes can pay for them? Think of it, that is what we do to victims? Make it their responsibilty to support the scum who raped them/killed their family/friend? That is hardly justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Better this than paying money to the orphanes of those innocent killed by your system.
Warman, better wait some years for justice than die without any. 20-40 years are quite an extreme case, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
I highly disargee with you here Stephen. I have heard of cases of people being locked up 20 years and getting out in their 40's, 50's and 60's, and their lives ruined due to false impirsionment.
If someone does a terrible crime, they must be excuted then. But I'm to tired to argue anymore today.
:hanged:
Innocents hardly every are wrongly sentenced to death, and if you were to overhaul our BS justice system, a lot less (and dare we hope none) would. On the other hand, criminals repeat their crimes in and out of prison quite often. Sure, an innocent could die (as an innocent could get hit by a car crossing the street), but you would be saving thousands of innocents by puttint the trash to death. And you know what? Next time David Spanbauer decides he would like to rape and torture a little girl, he is not gonna think "Yeah, well if I get caught I will just get out again anyway!", he will think, ":daisy:, if I get caught, my no good :daisy: is toast!". Under which circumstance do you think he would be more likely to commit the crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
Vis-a-vis the social contract, the government of the polity in question is duty-bound to remove the threat of such predators from society. Chronic recidivists and those committing the most heinous of crimes MUST be removed permanently from society. I do not feel this requires the death penalty, and the absence of such a penalty as sentence of court gives us space to correct mistakes and time for the violent criminal to choose to repent and to seek peace in their own hearts. But such persons need not be freed again, save if new evidence causes us to know they are not responsible and that justice has miscarried.
Note: This means that those who guard inmates in such facilities should receive distinctly better training and compensation than they currently recieve. They are playing "point" with the predators so that we don't have to endure their threat.
But that will never work Sea, esp with well connected scum. You are right, the government does have that responsibility, but it does not have the resposibility to burden the people with keeping trash alive who have no right to be alive. If they want to repent, then a deadline will give the trash motivation. I do not believe in punishing them, only removing them from society. The problem is that if one 'repents' and is set free, he could just go back and do something else equally as evil. Kill the trash, and if they want to repent, then their souls will be safe, and if not, then the trash will get what they deserve later on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Belief. This is the key word. You do not believe the government and the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Do you think the capital punishment will make it work better? Better than reforms?
Death penalty is only the surface. I doubt you will reduce the crime rate or decrease the numbers of the victims.
I belief the government and justice system itself needs serious reforms, but I believe that if it had those reforms, the death penalty would save the world a ton of suffering, AND cost a heck of a lot less money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
comes back to the question of inalienable human rights again. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
i don't believe in them which is one reason why i have less qualms than some about the death penalty.
in the case of britain, i do not suggest that britain should have the death penalty, only that if the british people want it then it should exist.
i support the death penalty but i realise that i am not the sum-total of british opinion.
Well there was a big clamour for reintroducing the death penalty over there a while back , public opinion was quite strong on the issue wasn't it , you had the criminals bang to rights with plenty of definate evidence to string them up no doubt about it, the public was all for it .Quote:
i support the death penalty but i realise that i am not the sum-total of british opinion.
Them poor bastards got released didn't they , after years of trying , on the legal technicality of them being innocent and the evidence being bollox .
Pretty lucky for them fellas that the British government didn't give in to what the British public wanted isn't it:yes:Quote:
only that if the british people want it then it should exist.
So just because a very small number of people might be wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, we are giving all the criminals a lighter punishment, in the hope that those later found to be innocent might get a some time off their sentence?
The fact is that with the death penalty or without it, a minority will be wrongly convicted. You can't give them their life back any more than you could return the years they lost in prison.
The justice system can't be perfect, like it or not the reality is there has to be a balance between effective punishment and confident sentencing. Maybe we should never sentence anyone to prison in case they didn't deserve to be there?