Due to reasons of population control, I ,as a person who looks at the world from the perspective of an administrator, sincerely thinks that it's a great idea but $137m/year is too hefty a price. We're an industrialized civilization, if we can teach children in an information factory called school, we sure can put criminals in a slaughterhouse.
Hitler was a dude that had a good idea in the field of genocide. Gas Chambers, ingenious!! To bad he was a biased, racist, irrational moron that had only the ability to be as well breed haters through his speeches.
But as a humanist, I believe that human life can be preserved and that all people, with sufficient intervention, can be made a better person. We're already making motion films that work as propoganda for people to be better and more caring.
The United States has the biggest prison in the world. One third of our population is in fucking prison. And it costs more than a thousand dollars to keep somebody in prison for a year. The people in jail probably want to die anyway, and keeping them locked up isn't supposed to serve as revenge, but for justice. Barely anybody who was innocent has even been on death row. That is why I believe the death penalty should forevermore continue to be enforced.
I think nobody no matter what the crime should be put to death, just think about the emotions- knowing that you will be killed and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. But, I do think there are some criminals who would rather be put to death than rot away in a prison. So then if they want to be killed they have the choice. I think that the argument should be more of the moral side than the economic side.
You can't have the death penalty with the American legal system as it is. There's too much corruption, and juries, often with no legal education or experience, are asked what to do with other people's lives. What can be done is keep capital punishment in place, but not execute anyone until the system's been fixed. People who are still found guilty of heinous crimes can always be brought to death after that. Personally I think nobody has the right to decide whether someone else lives or not, and that's coming from someone who's been molested as a child for years.
It's the repeated appeals that jack up the costs of execution, at least in California, hardly anyone gets executed (yet many are on death row) because they keep appealing their case. I heard in Texas people only get one appeal, and if they are still guilty, they get executed.
Well, how would that be fair to the family of the accused? Or fair at all, for that matter? It's almost certain they will want the accused to die. Then, appeals would flood in, spending more and more money on court costs.
A criminal makes his choices. His family and himself should accept responsibility and face the consequences. I think it should be the victim's/victim's family's right to carry out the punishment (if they want to).
If you have a different view on punishment altogether, I can understand not agreeing.
If, hypothetically, someone killed my sister, I would like to be the one to take his life. I don't think criminals should be given a chance to rehabilitate and become better men. Their victims after all are usually not given that chance.
If someone hurt my family I would like to kill him too, but in a long term I can't imagine a country functioning like that, when everyone brings justice by him/hersefl.
Today law discerns sht called "dolus" while judging. It can prove that someone is not really responsible for what he did, for ex. if it was an accident. But victims shuold act impulsively and not be able to see, that there was no someone's fault. That is why the judge is needed.
I get what you're saying. I simply advocate a completely different society.
My comments should be taken in the context of someone who is anti-government and believes in self responsibility, so therefore I cannot see any 'state' functioning like that.
Judges can be machinated into freeing rapists, as long as the lawyer does a good job. Sometimes the evidence of a crime are simply not enough and, even if it did happen, a judge can do nothing more than close the case. I don't think there's any way of 100% proving guilt/innocence unless we passed every accused person through truth-serum procedure (hypothetical and unethical of course).
Well, I know that judges can fail, but I think that this situation is still better than admittance for lynching. Imagine a situation when someone is lonely and he's got no one to avenge him- then if he was murdered the killer is unpunished? It was like that in barbarian times, when someone without a family hasn'd been protected by anything and anyone, cause the law was "private".
Hm, I think that with today's methods it is sometimes possible to prove someones guilt. Not in every case, but in some of them.
I'm sure, I mean lets see, if a man had raped and killed a child of mine, by all means I'd want to strangle him with own hands. On the other hand, I don't think the Death Penalty acts as that much of a deterrent a people think it would/does. What I'm basically trying to say as on the whole, nope, I don't believe in the death penalty, I can safely look now, without knowing what it's like to lose a loved one so brutally to a sicko, that it ultimately wouldn't help in the long run.
Im seriously interested in serial killers. For me some of them shouldn't have been punished like they were, but on the other hand-there are some cases in which I think this penalty should be used. For example, here in Poland in 2001 there has been a brutal robbery for money in Credit Bank. But I know there are some abuses sometimes-thai is why I think death penalty should be an extraordinary one, maybe President only could start this procedure...
I actually have quite an interest in criminal psychology. Take for instance Mark Chapman, the guy still imprisoned for killing John Lennon. If he was sent directly to the chair or lynched, we would have never been able to understand why he killed John. Child abuse, a strong Christian following, and an obsession with the Beatles all crashed down on Chapman when Lennon decided to say that the Beatles were "greater than God." Some statements just really mess with a person. Chapman felt as though he was a nobody, since the Beatles were stated to be greater than his faith. So he killed John Lennon because he just "couldn't handle being a nobody anymore." We would never be able to understand criminals if the death penalty was put into full swing.
I think that some people are not responsible for what they do, even when they do most horryfying things. I'm interested in crime psychology too-Polish killer, a vampire from Cracov was mad, there was a group of people who were trying to persuade the judge not to give him capital punishment because of his problems. But they did it. And I don't think it was good.
In US Your president has much more power than in Poland. But even here he has his own prerogatives-for ex. he has an ability to forgive. Then if he could pardon a crime, why not to pronounce a death penalty in some cases? In PRL (when socialists had power in Poland) there was a death penalty, and there were some cases that weren't 100% clear, and the punishment was done. It can't work like that.
Well, I have read that the injection costs about 700 $ and the electric chair only 30 cents... but I don't think the second methond is good for today. The world since XVIII century has made a great progress in humanity, human rights and situations in prisons. There is no need to make a regres in that. But the death penalty should be, I don't really want to be very usually used, but I want it to BE somewhere in law and to SCARE.
Of course, some dissocial people don't care if they will be killed and don't mind the after effects of what they do.
Personally, I think the death penalty should be reserved for the worst crimes. Like, for example, if a child was kidnapped, tortured, raped, and then killed... I would vote for the death penalty in that case. But ONLY if the evidence shows 100% that the criminal committed said crime.
There was once the man who was given the death penalty, and was later discovered to be innocent. That's why I'd be pretty careful about it.
But some of them were responsible, cold and calculating. Murderers like Bundy for ex.
About not certain cases-there was a case like that in Poland that is still uncertain. Two brothers were hanged for brutal murders in '67. But it is probable that the real killer hanged himself in arrest and the police HAD to find someone else cause one of the victims was a daughter of sb high situated.