I don't think it should be abolished. If you think capital punishment is against human rights, I would rather say that sending someone to jail till death is worse than capital punishment. It is more cruel than capital punishment.
If someone has committed a crime which deserves capital punishment, he/she should be given it.
There needs to be a limit on how many appeals a convict can make while they're on death row. I'm surprised that the courts haven't suggested something like that yet. ...Well, I'm a law student, so maybe I could work on that when I pass the bar. Worth a try
Then again, it's also expensive to keep them alive as well.
I think it's too nice because there are some criminals who would rather die than go to prison where they could be killed by fellow inmates or raped.
There's a jail in Texas or somewhere in America (or so I've heard) that is outdoors and criminals have to make their own house and food and stuff like that. Isolated. (I'm sure it's fenced in) I think that's fair for the really bad criminals.
I also believe that they should stop making some jails so fancy with tvs and such. It's stupid.
What about the people who are falsely convicted? Why punish them for the crimes of other people?
Currently, there are prisons who have programs where inmates are allowed to keep a cat at their own cost. Evidently, it changes people. Personally, I think there should be more programs like it, there certainly seem to be benefits and it doesn't cost taxpayers.
Even criminals are just people. People who made a mistake.
If they are murders, like serial murders, it was no mistake...that's what I believe.
I'm not saying for all criminals to be sentenced to this....only the ones who commit terrible acts.
People get falsely accused a lot, right? It's terrible and it sucks, but I don't doubt someone got the death penalty by being falsely accused as well. That's wrong, too.
Those programs do seem to be good and I'm not against them at all. I'm just against all the luxury they receive, such as food being better than my high school (dude at my school was in prison before - said prison food was better) and TVs. Seriously, they shouldn't have that.
Some people commit crimes because prison is way better than their current living state.
I disagree with your ending sentence. Criminals with mental disorders make mistakes. Criminals that had every intention in doing what they did....that was no mistake. Especially if it was cold blooded. That's just what I believe anyways..
The death penalty has become so expensive that we are unable to afford to execute people. I say stop recruiting for the military and anyone condemned to death or life in prison be forced to serve ten years of continuous deployments.
Lose a limb, you'll be outfitted with a artificial and sent back out.
You are giving them weapons in the war zone and while training. In war, you need that violence, because it is war and war should always be as violent and terrible as possible so that all may never again want it in any life time.
If your nation is at war and its very survival as a nation isn't at risk... you should feel a endless pit of shame for being at war. Thus why I demand that we end wars quickly and that at all times we go to war, we have a draft with a war tax.
This pain the public has inflicted upon it for being at war will encourage our public to demand of the leaders to end the war at the soonest possible moment, rather than drag it out for ever.
If the public doesn't demand this both with their votes and with their anger... Than the public agrees with the war and the price it exacts from the public.
I may be cruel when I say this, but there are a couple of groups of people I personally believe that should be 'humanely euthanized' for the sake of the greater good. Convicted murderers, rapists and pedophiles being top among them.
Screw rehabilitation. You do the crime you pay the price. Period.
However, seeing as there have been cases where innocent people have been executed under the falsehood they've committed crimes like murder (and i don't think innocent people should die for crimes they didn't commit), I'd only agree with doing it if there's absolutely no doubts in the case and 100% legitimate proof they're guilty of the crime.
Then again, "to err is Human", so probably even then there'd be a few innocents that paid the price for someone else's crime. There's always exceptions.
My response is a general one regarding the whole "we shouldn't execute a potentially innocent person out of the need to exact revenge so that the victim's loved ones can have their petty closure" argument. One has to ask why we punish someone for their crimes. Could that punishment, be it incarceration, community service or a fine be considered a form of revenge, from a certain point of view?
I believe everyone convicted of first degree murder, child rape, or violent rape should all be executed. You're only condoning these crimes if you allow the prisoner to eat three square meals a day, get a yard for exercise, see family member whenever they please and get mail while their victim is either six feet under or suicidal or traumatized for life.
This whole "civilized" thing is garbage. Don't let the tree-hugging-hippie-liberals trick you with this. They love criminals because they vote for them. I mean if I were a felon, I'd love the people asking for my release.
Being against the death penalty proves you're weak on crime, and probably love having people get murdered, you probably love children getting raped, or anyone getting raped, beaten, robbed, burned, etc.
Civilized nations should not be doing government-sanctioned murder. We live in 2012 ffs.
No, it doesn't matter what the criminal did, even if they raped small babies or killed hundreds of people. Revenge is not a good reason for taking someone's life, ever, and it doesn't undo their crimes.
The problem with the death penalty is that it invariably ends up being used against the "undesirable" portions of the population, and invariably innocent people end up getting executed, especially if they're a part of the "undesirable" class.
All criminal penalties should be rehabilitative in nature, not punitive. If someone hurts other people, there's obviously something wrong with them, and they should receive treatment and rehabilitation to fix whatever it is. If it's not possible to fix then they should be locked up for safety. But capital punishment isn't about trying to fix things, it's simply a means to satisfy some kind of primitive urge for revenge, a perverted idea of "justice" that probably has to do with some kind of biblical "eye for an eye" mentality. No, we (as in, the people of the world) should be above this sort of thing by now.
That depends on the country/culture. A lot of nations consider rehabilitation to be a primary purpose of the prison system. These nations usually have less strict sentencing, more humane treatment of prisoners, and consequently, lower crime rates.
Justice is a very vague idea, everyone has their own idea of what it is. Laws are not necessarily just.
Isn't US of A the place with privatized prison system, where there are wealthy, influential corporations with a vested interest in ensuring as many as possible people get convicted to prison sentences?
A place where it is possible that judges take bribes from the prison industry to deal harsher sentences, even when the defendants are underage?
In the same sense that Europe is the place which is going bankrupt, sure.
Federal use of private prisons is very limited; a few states, including Pennsylvania, the state where the two judges were caught taking bribes, lean on them pretty heavily. But that particular kind of corruption is not a national problem.
You're generalizing about a country the size of Europe based on a single piece of news.
FerricPlushyFeatured By OwnerDec 3, 2012Hobbyist Artist
Considering how ineffective a large minority of cases are carried out the last thing we should be doing is executing people. There are some people that just need to die, but humanity is on a trend of valuing life more than ever. Look how worthless your life was during the civil war where you literally stood in a row and absorbed bullets on an open battlefield. Look how worthless life is in WWI where they used chlorine gas which literally turned the water in your body into hydrochloric acid. Look at vietnam where we sacrificed tens of thousands of lives for no real reason. We're caught between an age of throwing lives away in war, and becoming a country that's finally hesitant to wage war. Were caught between an age where people believe that courts are in place to PUNISH criminals, and an upcoming age where crime is so rampant we have to focus on rehabilitation before this becomes a criminal wasteland. We had nearly 15,000 murders in 2010, and england had 56. We have ten times the population and over 250 times the murders. We need to stop reacting and start preventing. Just because murders are down per capita doesn't make this an acceptable number.
As far as I know, there aren't a whole lot of benefits to the death penalty. It's way more expensive, and it doesn't necessarily serve as a great deterrent for criminals. In rare instances, maybe I could see it, but for the most part no.
1. Planned murders: If an individual plans the slaying of somebody on advance deserves to be put down. In this case, I exclude a killer that under a high amount of stress due to being abused, decides to kill his or her abuser. Of course, there has to be a proof that he was a victim before turning into a murderer.
2. Child rapists and murderers: Even if the victims of abuse are left alive. The damage is done, the victim is scarred for life
Offenders with mental illnesses are another matter. Mentally ill people need treatment and imprisonment, more than execution. Some individuals are just pure monsters, greedy and nasty. Is not the same killing on a fight than setting up a plan to get the insurance money form the husband or wife, to put an example.
It's always easier to justify taking someone's life when you dehumanize them (eg. they're not a "real" person, they're a "monster" or something). Why do you think armies have been using the same strategy for centuries...
Well, considering the fact that the murderer gets off easier than their victims...
Ted Bundy killed at least 14 women. He tortured and raped them. His death, by the electric chair was a clean and fast one. He did not care about his victims, he just cared about himself. He was successful, educated and looking for a prosperous future, but he messed everything up. He planned his killings in advance and got almost away with them
I believe all humans are born equal regardless of race, sex and social condition, but I also believe you can lose your condition as a human being depending of your acts.
Sorry, but a child murderer and, a normal, law abiding citizen, in my opinion, are not at the same level.
Of course, before condemning somebody, the evidence has to be clear. The system is full of mistakes due to the eagerness to get justice. An innocent can be sent to die just because he or she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, there is not a real culprit and the evidences are not clear and the public opinion wants justice (it has happened before). But is most cases is clear who do what, when, how and why
I am talking about extreme cases. Cutting off the hands of thieves, like they do in some countries y out of line and barbaric, but we are talking here about people whose behavior is extremely brutal.
So because someone's behaviour is "extremely brutal" that makes it ok to kill them? Wouldn't that just be stooping down to their level?
But let's leave out the morality of it, and look at this from a more practical angle. How does it benefit anyone to execute a murderer? Where's the benefit? It's not economical, since there needs to be all the safeguards, legal overhead, etc. to ensure no innocent people get executed (even though it still happens, sometimes way too often than would be necessary) which means the death penalty costs in fact MORE than imprisoning those people, even for life.
It's not a "crime repellant" either, since all the data points to the fact that jurisdictions where punishments are stricter have a rate of crime that is higher or on the same level as less-strict punishment areas. People who are going to commit violent crimes do so no matter what punishment they are going to get. If the death penalty were succesful in discouraging violent crime, you would be able to see it in the crime statistics of places with death penalty.
So from a practical view, what is even the point, other than getting some kind of twisted satisfaction from "avenging" the victims? Is that sense of "revenge" enough justification for taking another person's life?
Well, to be honest, my opinion is no, since those individuals lack of humanity.
Execute a murderer saves taxes in the long term. As anybody, he deserves a proper trial, and yes, this costs money, but if convicted, an execution is way cheaper than lodging the individual for years and years. We aver overpopulated anyhow, we do not need those rotten apples in society. The problem today are the appeals that maintain those people alive for years, playing with the system. In the 50s in one year you were done, now you have inmates on death row for 20 years, trying to convince us that they have become better persons.
The crime rate will never vanish, I have that clear, but at this point, is not about justice, is about punishment and revenge.
I know if somebody kills a member of my family I would be eager myself to execute him with my own hands. Law does not allow this, so I conform myself to watch him die. The only pity I can feel is about the killer's family, another forgotten victims of their relative, but not of the killer himself
But see, there's a problem. If you remove the appeals process, and the "waiting time" for death penalty, then you drastically increase the probability that innocent people are going to get executed. To make death penalty cheaper than incarceration, you'd have to remove all the safeguards that prevent innocent people getting convicted.
The question is, which is more important to you: that "bad people" get killed, even if it means more innocent people will die as well; or, to save more lives of innocent people, even if it means that some "bad people" get to live some more years without their freedom?
>>> The crime rate will never vanish, I have that clear, but at this point, is not about justice, is about punishment and revenge.
Well, at least you're honest.
Someone told me that the purpose of law in a civilized society is to prevent revenge. Also, why do you think the crime rate will never vanish? That's absurd, there's tons of ways to reduce crime that have nothing to do with punishment. Is it that you find it more important to punish people than actually make the society better for everyone?
I do not expect to remove the appeal process, that would be a bad move, but reduce the number of appeals. I mean, 20 years appealing?. Ugh... that is too much. Appeals are necessary, the court can make a mistake, but today are ridiculous.
If in not clear the person is actually guilty, then imprisonment, until something comes clear.
I think the crime will never completely vanish because human beings are predatory animals, we prey on other species and on our own. It is nature, is sad, but it is the what it is; just imagine what would happen if we remove the laws right now: Maybe, the neighbor that was nice to me two days ago, would break into my house (is an example) and steal my stuff, or even assault my family, for whatever reason he has on mind.
Some individuals behave according to the laws because they genuinely care, but others behave because they are scared of the punishment. Others simply do not care of the consecuences of breaking the law
No. You're not listening, innocent people are already being executed in every regime that uses capital punishment aka. death penalty, including USA. This is unavoidable because no legal system is perfect. Reducing the safeguards in anyway, including removing appeals, makes MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE GET KILLED. I can't tell it to you any more clearly.
If it's not clear the person is guilty, they should not be in jail in the first place. Why would you even imprison someone if "it's not in the clear" the person is actually guilty? Do you actually know how your own justice system works? I don't even live in the USA yet even I know you have to show the guilt of any defendant beyond reasonable doubt or they cannot even be sentenced in the first place. At least, theoretically.
The thing is, you can't classify people who are convicted by "how certain" their guilt is. Because that's the job of a legal system, to ascertain whether people are guilty or not. And the "appeals" you want removed are the way for the convicted to find justice if there's evidence that they were convicted unfairly. Without the appeals process, there would be NO way to know that "it's not clear if the person is actually guilty".
So what you're proposing is, basically, "kill everyone except those who we're not sure that are actually guilty, but take away the one way they can show that they are not actually guilty". How the fuck does that make any sense at all?
Also, the fact that you think that without laws people would just be all over murdering each other and stealing says more about your personal morals than the rest of mankind. Regardless, no one has suggested removing all laws, I don't even know why you brought that up. You can have a reasonably fair justice system, where there isn't 2,5 million people in prison (of which 90% are in for non-violent crimes), and still provide deterrent for crime. If the death penalty (or overly harsh sentencing in general) were so important in "keeping people in line", why are most of the world's countries not experiencing hugely higher crime rates than the countries that have them?
Maybe if you spent the money that is wasted on "the war on drugs" and other such bs on actually addressing the issues that actually cause people to turn to crime (such as poverty, lack of education, etc) things would look better. But no, that would be "soft on crime", wouldn't it?
I am in favour of it. People who have raped countless women, who have brutally beaten children, who are paedophiles why shouldn't they be killed? Why shouldn't they suffer for their crimes? Obviously it would have to be a long trial, therefore the risk of innocents being accused of this would not be persecuted. As of who persecutes them? The judge, the jury. I think the system is fine how it is, but I think in some circumstances it should be tougher. Also people of that proffesion should be trained to deal with these things? Doctors and surgeosn are trained to face death, so should these men.
FerricPlushyFeatured By OwnerDec 3, 2012Hobbyist Artist
The reason it is an absolutely horrifying idea to execute criminals is because cases where death penalty was a possible sentence are overturned everyday. If you're ok with innocent people being executed by the state then you're no better than the people you want killed. Depraved indifference is a crime. You realize it's not uncommon in divorce hearings for the mother to accuse the father of molesting their children, even forcing their child to lie under oath. This happens all the time. I don't know why you think capital punishment is suitable in this century. Do you realize that correctional officers that work on death row go through extreme emotional distress because they know this person for 10-18 years and have to walk them to their execution, and in some states are the one executing them?