The Death Penalty

[AKALeenaLean]

This is one that has bugged me for a while until my friend brought it up last week. The background story isn't necessary, but overall the death sentence is a punishment when you kill someone, you get killed by the government.

 

So, what do you think of the death sentence? Are you against it or for it? Why or why not?

[Russ]

I'm pretty much on the fence about it. I'm not in an outrage over the use of it but I also wouldn't be upset if it were banned. I guess I support it but only in the case of really severe offenders, like really bad serial killers or people who do really really bad things to little kids, and only if their guilt can be proved 100000% beyond any possible shadow of a doubt.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I'm completely for the death penalty in theory.

 

In theory.

 

In my lovely little fantasy death penalty world, it is only used on people who are beyond a doubt guilty. I don't care how many victims there were, but if they murdered someone in cold blood and it is easy to prove, that person can die. Their lives will be worth nothing while they're in jail, and they'll never be allowed out. Honestly, I think it's crueler to have someone live the rest of their lives in misery and captivity. I don't care about having mercy on someone; I'm just saying it's a waste of taxpayer money.

 

And speaking of taxpayer money, in my fantasy world, the death penalty is swift and costs very little.

 

Too bad my lovely little fantasy world doesn't exist. I don't work in criminal law, so I don't really understand WHY it takes so many years to carry out the death penalty. I don't understand why it costs so much money to carry out. Yeah, you need the doctor, the security guards...you need to pay them for a few days. The shot itself...who knows how expensive that is, but even if it were $100,000, that still wouldn't be nearly the cost of each execution.

 

So, to sum up: I'm not against the death penalty, but I'm against its inefficiency.

[AKALeenaLean]

My problem with the penalty is that they make death ethical, when the people they're killing are supposed to be accused of doing the the wrong thing by killing others.

 

If killing others is wrong, then why kill the murderer? One could argue this in some instances, but for most instances, this is where I'm kind-off questioning the government's power to play God on who gets to live or not. Shouldn't the person who injects the shot be accused of murder themselves? The government is legalizing murder, the very thing that they are giving these people the sentence to. Of course, the executioner and the murderer are completely different matters, but they do the same thing so why not the same punishment?

 

I don't know if I made myself clear or if I was just rambling on, I tend to do that. :worried: Well, again, isn't there some sort of moral oxymoron about, killing is bad then killing the murderer with the government's part? That's why I'm against the death penalty.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

My problem with the penalty is that they make death ethical, when the people they're killing are supposed to be accused of doing the the wrong thing by killing others.

 

If killing others is wrong, then why kill the murderer? One could argue this in some instances, but for most instances, this is where I'm kind-off questioning the government's power to play God on who gets to live or not. Shouldn't the person who injects the shot be accused of murder themselves? The government is legalizing murder, the very thing that they are giving these people the sentence to. Of course, the executioner and the murderer are completely different matters, but they do the same thing so why not the same punishment?

 

I don't know if I made myself clear or if I was just rambling on, I tend to do that. :worried: Well, again, isn't there some sort of moral oxymoron about, killing is bad then killing the murderer with the government's part? That's why I'm against the death penalty.

 

There's a difference between "murder" and "killing"--a huge legal difference, in fact. Manslaughter is not nearly as heavily punished as murder. Execution is legally something else entirely.

 

Basically, the law goes like this: everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Let's focus on #1: life. As soon as you take the life of somebody else who has these rights, you lose your right. That means that you no longer have the right to life, so it is NOT wrong for someone to kill you.

 

I would also just turn it around and say "If hostage situations are immoral, then why are we allowed to imprison criminals?" Because once they commit the crime that infringe on others' rights, they have lost their own rights.

 

In the end, we have to punish criminals. To me, if it's done correctly, the death penalty is actually the most humane and efficient way of punishing. You know, in my little fantasy world where it's done right...

[Yuika]

I'm liberal about most things, but I believe in the death penalty in certain cases. If people get more than 1 life sentence, for example, and are clearly never getting out of jail. It sounds mercenary, but it would save the country/taxpayers money to carry out the death penalty on those people rather than house them in jail for 50+ years.

[April]

It really depends for me.

Most prisons are about rehabilitating.

But for Serial Killers? Wouldn't it be safer for the overall society for them to be gone?

My one major problem is though... A major reason why Canada got rid of their Death Penalty was because of innocent guy having the Death Penalty.

[nailguard]

Unfortunately, there is no way to fully guarantee that the criminal/suspect is guilty. Sometimes, the suspect is innocent, or/and sometimes the suspect lacks the mental capabilities to deal with the legal procedures involved. Through various interrogation methods, a suspect could confess to a crime they've never committed, because in some cases, interrogation is akin to torture and they just want it to end. Various methods are often employed by the interrogator and these methods have a chance to lead to false confessions and potentially an innocent person being executed in the event that capital punishment exists. If capital punishment doesn't exist, the innocent person would likely be imprisoned, and later they might be able to appeal and find ways to prove that they were wrongfully convicted though chances of that happening may be slim. With the capital punishment, the innocent person is wrongfully convicted, loses their life, and their story ends. If new evidence was later produced, and it was able to disprove the person's guilt, problems would arise.

 

Now, lets add a bit more background information because it does make a difference. In various countries, capital punishment isn't restricted to just murder, it can apply to drug trafficking crimes. Some issues involved could be: innocent people being framed, and of course luggage being left unattended. One idea is that a drug trafficker places drugs in someone else's luggage, and later attempts to retrieve the same luggage case after processing is done. If the illegal contents are found, the owner of luggage would be framed, and the owner would receive the death sentence, while the drug traffickers loses their drugs, but not their life. Again, capital punishment laws in different countries could allow death sentences for other crimes, resulting in different opinions as to what is fair or not.

 

The funny part is, if capital punishment on a large scale did exist, jobs in correctional facilities may diminish as less inmates are incarcerated, thus less correctional facilities are required. That could be economically harmful.

Perhaps some parameters should be in place when discussing capital punishment. Are you still going to include countries which performs capital punishment on drug trafficking related crimminals in the discussion?

 

These are some reasons why I wouldn't want to see capital punishment - if you're a traveler and you get framed, or if you get interrogated and you released unknowingly incriminating information the consequences are much greater.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Holy moly, nailguard! I never knew any of that. What countries give the death penalty for drug trafficking?

 

I DEFINITELY don't think drug trafficking should get the death penalty--depending on the drug, I don't think it should even get jail time. But you can look over in the legalizing marijuana topic to see my views on that.

 

There are some crimes that I think would deserve the death penalty besides death. Torture, horrible abuse...things where the victims suffer worse than death. But drug trafficking? That's crazy.

[nailguard]

Singapore is probably the best example. Malaysia, Iran, Indonesia, Saudia Arabia, China, United Arab Emirates are some other examples as well. Theres probably a full accurate list somewhere on the web, but I can't seem to find one at the moment.

 

We have to remember - different countries means different societal norms, values, and more importantly, a different society. Until I permanently live in other countries where capital punishment is prevalent, I would not have a strong or valid opinion as to whether the country should end the capital punishment on drug related offences. Perhaps there could be an underlying reason to why the country may have such strict law - discourage drug trafficking since drug abuse are generally harmful to societies. Maybe the politician will say: Drug trafficking greatly increases criminal activities, gang related activities, violent incidents, health problems (standard of living, life expectancy), and a less effective labour market with higher unemployment.

 

When I said torture, I should have mentioned the degree of this torture. Hopefully, the interrogator in other countries would not use extreme measures to physically, mentally, or psychologically scar a human being. But still, things like making the interrogation room uncomfortable (get an uncomfortable chair, poor ergonomics, not stable, away from light switches, thermostats), or choosing an interrogation room with a layout that maximizes the suspect`s helplessness (soundproofing the small room, with 3 chairs, 1 desk, walls and observation mirror) could be arguable similar to torture as you subject someone to some sort of pain/suffering for however many hours or minutes the suspect is in there.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Singapore is probably the best example. Malaysia, Iran, Indonesia, Saudia Arabia, China, United Arab Emirates are some other examples as well. Theres probably a full accurate list somewhere on the web, but I can't seem to find one at the moment.

 

We have to remember - different countries means different societal norms, values, and more importantly, a different society. Until I permanently live in other countries where capital punishment is prevalent, I would not have a strong or valid opinion as to whether the country should end the capital punishment on drug related offences. Perhaps there could be an underlying reason to why the country may have such strict law - discourage drug trafficking since drug abuse are generally harmful to societies. Maybe the politician will say: Drug trafficking greatly increases criminal activities, gang related activities, violent incidents, health problems (standard of living, life expectancy), and a less effective labour market with higher unemployment.

 

When I said torture, I should have mentioned the degree of this torture. Hopefully, the interrogator in other countries would not use extreme measures to physically, mentally, or psychologically scar a human being. But still, things like making the interrogation room uncomfortable (get an uncomfortable chair, poor ergonomics, not stable, away from light switches, thermostats), or choosing an interrogation room with a layout that maximizes the suspect`s helplessness (soundproofing the small room, with 3 chairs, 1 desk, walls and observation mirror) could be arguable similar to torture as you subject someone to some sort of pain/suffering for however many hours or minutes the suspect is in there.

 

To me, though, if drug trafficking increases criminal activities, etc., then punish for those activities instead. If I smuggle marijuana in and sell it to college students, I'm not doing anything violent or dangerous until I start shooting people up because they're trying to steal my portion of the dough. You can't punish someone for a crime that hasn't actually happened.

 

When I was talking about torture, I was just giving another example of a crime that I think deserves capital punishment. But I understand the "false confessions" deal--they can happen. If someone is interrogated for a long period of time without getting fed, they'll confess to anything. There are some cases in which it is proven beyond a doubt, though--getting caught at the scene of the crime WHILE you're doing it, DNA evidence combined with other factors...a confession alone will not even prove it, but other things will.

[Russ]

It's not as if you can never know with 100% certainty whether a certain person committed a certain crime. Obviously if you interrogate people they'll confess to anything and the testimonies of others can be incredibly unreliable if not blatant lies, but there are ways to know with complete certainty that someone committed a crime and those situations are the only ones in which I believe the death penalty should even be considered.

[AKALeenaLean]

The Troy Davis Case is one that I'd like to bring up too, it's more recent and one that really puts me to the con side.

 

He is innocent. Plain and simple. He did not kill the victim but he was FOUND GUILTY so he was put to the death penalty. He had another trial and he DID NOT PROVE HIS INNOCENCE but is so much evidence to prove that the other person was guilty, it was just a matter of fact that he couldn't prove his own innocence so he is an innocent person being sent to the death penalty. His date is the 21st of September I think. It really is an interesting case. It's online too. It's just one of those instances that the wrong person is being accused of a crime and they have to pay for it, with their lives. The victim even confessed that he killed the person to his lawyers but Troy Davis still "cannot prove his own innocence". The death penalty isn't only for bad people, but sometimes, we don't always know people are wrongfully accused.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I came back here just to post a link to an article about Troy Davis, but I see I've been beaten to it on the information level.

 

I don't know enough about the case to say if he's innocent or guilty. All I know is what I read in the article. And what it told me was that the only argument FOR his death penalty being carried out (which, naturally, is the one being listened to somehow...) is this: "Oh, the witnesses who say he didn't do it are unreliable." ...But the ones who say he did ARE reliable?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/troy-davis-executed-parole-board-denies-clemency-131916604.html

 

 

Like I've been saying this whole time, the death penalty is only a good idea IF DONE RIGHT. This is NOT done right. If he DID commit the crime, then yes, I'm okay with executing him. But with so much evidence to the contrary...

 

And if the victim weren't a cop, you know he wouldn't get the death penalty. The death penalty is used a lot more often for more violent, torturous deaths, or else multiple deaths.

[AKALeenaLean]

I guess where I'm going with Troy Davis's case is that the death penalty isn't there to kill people that have done something wrong or bad, it is there to kill people who haven't proven that they are not murderers, which in this case Troy Davis is in. Good lawyers, bad lawyers, and evidence used is a factor here since there was more evidence to prove that Coles was guilty rather than to prove Davis was innocent.

 

The death penalty still follows the justice system. There are many murderers put to justice but there are still some that leave unnoticed.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Kind of unrelated, but related at the same time...what do you think about the Amanda Knox case?

 

It goes hand in hand with the Troy Davis case, which is why I bring it up. She's been thrown in jail, allegedly due to circumstantial evidence when there is so much evidence to the contrary. The difference here is that Amanda Knox won't die (Italy doesn't have the death penalty) so she has years ahead of her to prove her innocence if she is innocent.

 

There are other differences, of course, and we can get into them later.

 

My view: I genuinely do think she's guilty, but from what I have read, she's being found guilty for the wrong reasons.

 

Reason why I think she and Sollecito are guilty:

*The DNA evidence, while questionable, is still more than one case. Sollecito's DNA was found on Meredith's bra clasp, and Meredith's DNA was found on a knife IN SOLLECITO'S APARTMENT. What are the chances that both cases of DNA evidence are false?

*Amanda had motive. She (Amanda) was a terrible roommate, partying all the time and bringing strangers into the apartment, and Meredith was trying to kick her out.

 

How the Italian court appears to be finding her guilty, according to the stuff I'm reading:

*DNA evidence. Okay, that's legit. But other than that...

*By painting her as an un-Christian vixen who seduces men. Because she had a lot of sex, she's automatically a horrible person, and therefore capable of anything.

 

Posting this here because I don't think it's worthy of its own topic, and since it bears some similarities to Troy Davis (although Troy Davis actually had an unflimsy case proving his INNOCENCE.)

[hipy_chicky]

Completely against capital punishment. End of. In theory it seems like a good idea, but it's used so carelessly in many countries that the thought of it is simply appalling. (I happen to come from one of these countries so perhaps I'm slightly biased)

[Vivies]

It's biased against certain races. In the US, minority offenders are more likely to receive the death penalty. When that issue is completely ironed out, then we can talk.

[Russ]

Problem is, that issue will never be eradicated. What are we supposed to do, make a law saying "Cops, you can't be prejudiced anymore"? We unfortunately can't regulate prejudices and there will always be some prejudice against some people in all areas of law enforcement but not in ways that can be explicitly outlawed.

[Vivies]

Problem is, that issue will never be eradicated. What are we supposed to do, make a law saying "Cops, you can't be prejudiced anymore"? We unfortunately can't regulate prejudices and there will always be some prejudice against some people in all areas of law enforcement but not in ways that can be explicitly outlawed.

 

 

It's not just the police officers, it's the laws and the very system itself. The fact that more money is spent on prisons than education. The effort to then privatize prisons. The immigration crackdown that isn't really about immigration, as much as it is getting rid of certain groups of people. The fact that prosecutors more often seek the death penalty for black and brown people than they do for whites. To say that prejudices and bias will always exist is a bit dismissive and doesn't even address what I consider the real issue, which is again, the very justice system.

[Aalnius]

im am for the death penalty in england in certain cases, i mean there are people who are sat in english prisons who are never going to change they're too far gone or mentally unstable for them to return to normal society safely which is the whole point of prison so instead they are going to continue to sit in prison draining resources and taking up space and also influencing other criminals who will be released.

[sakura_blossom221]

I'm in favor of the death penalty. You murder someone, we kill you...that's how it works. That may sound harsh and I can hear the arguments, "What if the person's really innocent?" or "That's so archaic?" but really, it takes SO long for someone to actually make it to the end of Death Row, there's plenty of time to prove your innocence if you're really innocent. And as for it being archaic, so what if it is? It works. And I honestly can't see any other option that would be feasible. Banning the death penalty would just fill up prisons even more than they are now, and then criminals would have to be let go due to overcrowding. But obviously there are exceptions. Notice how I said murder in the beginning. Manslaughter is a whole different animal. Do I believe that someone who killed another person by accident should receive the death penalty? No. But murders should. Overall, the death penalty should be in effect.

 

 

This topic has been edited by a member of staff (Neomysterion) because of a violation of the forum rules.

Don't bump any topics that have not received posts over 21 days.

Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this incident, then review our rules.

Per the reason above, this topic has been LOCKED. Please contact Neomysterion if you have any questions regarding this action.