The Death Penalty

Remove all ads!

Replacing the Death Penalty with a Life Penalty, wouldnt work either, because it doesnt have the suddenness that would make people stop and think.

What are you going to tell someone when they are sentenced to jsut Life in prision, "Oh you commited 27 acts of homocide and various other heinous crimes agaisnt humanity, so you get to sit here on this comfortable matress, and watch T.V and read books about how to be a better criminal.. etc. etc. ..while the people who work hard, and obey the law and everything has to pay for you to stay alive"

Sure, sounds like a great thing to trade.

 

I'm absolutely against the death penaly; murder is murder is murder... no matter who does it for what reason.

Besides... if I had to choose I'd much rather take the lethal injection than rot in prison for the next 50+ years...

[Edit]

'so you get to sit here on this comfortable matress' - Yes... I'm sure they're quite comfortable... that'll make your prison stay much better.
'and watch TV' - Since when?
'read books about how to be a better criminal' - What the hell are you talking about? Libraries, ect are provided because perhaps, just perhaps, some criminals might just want to make something of themselves once they leave! <GASP!>

Now add in the gang hierarchy, insessant violence, and daily anal rapes... yes that all sounds rather plesant to me.

"while the people who work hard, and obey the law and everything has to pay for you to stay alive" - If you really want to bitch about saving every last tax dollar, I'd recommend crying about the greater ammount paid out each year in corporate welfare. At least by funding the prisons we're keeping criminals off the streets, instead of bathing them in luxury.


[This message has been edited by Alex (edited July 09, 2002).]

 

Actually, I would like to see the study that says that non-whites are sentenced to the death penalty more frequently for the same crime. There is no doubt that some minorities are over-represented on death rows, but I always attributed that to the first two factors you cited: that those same minorities are also more likely to be poor and uneducated.

The death penalty does, in fact, serve as a deterrence in certain societies. Think of the Old West when they started hanging horse thieves.

I doubt it does in modern America, however; people think they can get off on a technicality or they won't get caught or they flat-out don't worry about it. And there is no other rationale for the death penalty. You can argue that what needs to happen is to make it harder to get off on a technicality and/or raise the conviction rate of those tried for capital offenses.

But my argument against the death penalty in modern America is just this: the power over life and death should be reserved for God if at all possible. Death is, obviously, final. You can set a captive free, give him reparations, and apologize. You can't really exhume and kick-start him. And, as Violet pointed out, there are a lot of people who've been executed who shouldn't have been. When we support the current system, we're partly guilty for their wrongful deaths.

As for the arguments of those who whine that their tax dollars go to clothe and feed criminals: Get some f$#@! morals. Since when do we assign a dollar amount to life?

 

This is always a tough debate...and it *should* be. I am mostly against the death penalty, for a few reasons.

Despite the argument that the death penalty (in modern society) is an effective deterent to would-be criminals, it in fact does not. It has absolutely no effect at all on whether someone is going to commit a capital crime or not. And there are actual reasons for this. First though, lets break down the criminal element.

There are 1) the 'monsters'; psycho-paths and socio-paths that constitute serial killers, mass-murderers and serial rapists. There are 2) the 'impoverished' criminal. And 3) there are those criminals who do it for 'kicks', the 'excitement' or 'getting caught in the wrong crowd'.

For the monsters in group 1, there is no hope, nor was there ever any hope, of deterring them from their actions. And there is no hope of rehabilitating them. These are the Ted Bundy's and the Charles Manson's of the world. They are also predominantly white, middle-class males that you could very well have gone to school. For these, I don't have a problem of using the death penalty - they're not human. And they make up a very, very small portion of convicts on death row.

As to group 2, please note that I am *not* justifying their actions, but laying the grounds for why and how they often turn down this path. These are the people I grew up with - extremely poor (some living in 3rd world conditions in a developed nation), socially disadvantaged, and with little hope of attaining a normal life. From birth, they are surrounded by crime, drugs, and alcohol.

Even when raised in a good, caring family, it is everywhere they look: their neighbourhood, their school, their streets. At school (yes, this happened to me), they are treated like trash, spoken to like trash and thought of like trash by *their teachers*.

Imagine being an 8-year old kid and having your teacher tell you that you're never going to amount to anything. Imagine teachers telling you not to bother taking certain courses (math, science, etc), not because of your mental capacity, but because they simply won't give you the chance. This happens, and it is common. From a very young age, they are told that they do not belong in society - are not welcome in society. These people quickly shut-out so-called 'normal' society, and turn to 'their own kind' - mainly gangs - in order to 'belong' to something.

Now add in the fact that just walking down the street is an act of survival: you're a young kid, and you carry a chain, a knife, or even a gun so you can get home safely. Your next door neighbour is a drug dealer. Your best friend's mother is a hooker two streets over. There's a crack house across the street. Every other corner has a liquor store, and every third or fourth is a gun store. By the time these kids hit 14 or 15, they no longer believe that they have a place 'outside' in 'normal' society. Their every day life, since they were young enough to cross the street, is a struggle for survival.

But, they belong to their gang. Their gang looks out for them, sticks up for them, and makes them feel 'important'. Being denied everything already, it's not a hard logical step to say, 'well, why not take it.' They become part of the criminal element that raised them.

Is the death penalty a deterrent for these people? Generally, no it's not. Walking down the street becomes as much a risk as getting caught for armed robbery, car jacking, etc. Are they 'evil'? Most of the people I grew up with are not evil. They're misguided, ignorant, and sometimes stupid, but not usually evil. Rehabilitation rarely works, since once released, they return to the same neighbourhood they were raised in, with the same friends, the same options, the same surroundings, etc. Getting 'out' is very, very hard to do.

Does it make their crimes 'okay'? No, of course not. But the Death Penalty isn't the answer - it doesn't mean anything to most of them. The answer is to reach them *before* the whole problem sets in, and this is not easy to do. It means cleaning up the slums, especially public housing projects, and changing people's attitudes (like their teachers, and the shop owners that always wanted to check their bags before leaving the store).

For group number 3), well, I don't know. Most of these people are just too stupid and or lazy. They don't think ahead, and so the death penalty, again, is no deterrent. I'm at a loss with this group.

There are two main reasons usually sited for supporting the death penalty: first, as a deterrent and second, to reduce the cost of housing prisoners. Well, it is a generally accepted that it's not a deterrent. As to reducing the cost of housing prisoners, my personal belief is that if you can prevent those people in group 2 above from becoming criminals, you've significantly reduced the number of prisoners you have to house.

I have other reasons, but I think I've gone on long enough for this post Thanks for your patience!



[This message has been edited by Gnolyn Lochbreaker (edited July 09, 2002).]

 

I think the UK should bring back Capital punishment AND Corpral punishment for lesser crimes. If you were going to get beaten everyday your in prison or killed for things like rape and murder youy'd certainly think twice about what your about to do

 

I there was capital punishment for lesser crimes I think it would be much more of a deterrant. The worst criminals would still be around but the police would have more time to deal with them as there would be no repeat offenders to waste their time over. I don't care about innocent people being executed, I'm sure they've done something wrong at some point in their life and it would be start on solving the world over-population problem.

 

I am strongly against the death penalty, I don't see the point.

1) What if you get the person wrong, it would be a waste of life and the family may hold a grudge against the law system.
2) they victim(s) would learn nothing from it
3) Others will think I don't want to be caught - I'll be more careful it isn't likely to deter crime

 

I think the question at hand is not what punishment for the guilty is suitable, but if death penalty should be a punishment at all since, as mentioned earlier, how can one be sure you really got the right one.

I would say that lifetime in prison would be a better option, since, if a mistake is discovered, the one put to death would still be alive.

 

In response to Tal's comments about victims families. My brother, Brian, was murdered on August 26, 2000. His murderer killed two other people before shooting himself (fatally). We were spared the difficulty of a trial (in which I would probably have been called as a material witness).
We discussed what we would have wanted done with Mark if he had not killed himself. I am against the death penalty. I would rather have seen him spend the rest of his life in prison, thinking about the 3 people that he killed. My brother and father both would have stuck the needle in his arm themselves. I did not discuss it with my mother and sister. So we could not agree and I believe that most families would not reach a consensus. The only result would be tearing already wounded families apart.

 

I didnt read this whole topic today but I have had this discussion many times before.
There is only one reason to have the death penalty, a primal need for vengeance, revenge to make that bastard pay for his crimes. Is that something that we really want our goverment doing in our society? Sure it would be good to see that bastard that killed and raped those ten little children fry, but what would it gain us? We would lower us to his level. We should be better than them, not cry for vengeance like a maffia organisation.

 

that depends how you look at it, Joacqin. Many follows the belief of, basicly, eye for an eye. Or if one takes a life, he forfeits the right to his own (can't remember the quote, but I think it's english philosopher, might be american, can't remember).

BTA, yes you're right it wouldn't give you lost years back, but it would give the remaining years that you might have lost as well when thinking of death penalty. Not saying it's a good solution, but IMO, a better one.


[This message has been edited by Lokken (edited July 10, 2002).]

 

I am seriously impressed, Jack. Even the bastard who killed your brother could not shake your ideals. That is strength.

But enough about the damn car -- Blackthorne and Taluntain drop all pretence of a desire for justice in seeking to provide victims' families with the power to decide the life or death of the convicted man -- the most direct vengeance possible. And would they be allowed to give the lethal injection? Or -- if the family's feelings demanded it -- be allowed 15 minutes with the convict and a lead pipe?

That is what I would want -- you betcha. If someone harmed one of my children, I'd want to rip their throat out with my teeth. Frying would be too good for them -- *I'd* want them to die slowly.

But guess what? The feelings of crime victims are exactly what should *not* determine sentences. These feelings, however natural, are not our better selves. They pass, and then our consciences reassert themselves. In the meantime, the State, dispassionate and impartial, punishes the person justly and in measure to the crime.

Indulging the bloodlust of the grieving families of murder victims is... not a good reason to put a person to death.

 

Here is an argument that I said in chat yesterday. It is illegal to take another humans life practically anywhere on our globe. As the US are one of the most developed nations that still uses the death penalty I will use it as an example. Killing a person is illegal in all the states. Everyone agrees? Ok then, how can it be that in some states quite a few of LEGAL killings occur every year? A goverment cannot say to its citizens that it is wrong and illegal to kill and then do it themselves, it is a paradox. You cannot justify that to anybody. This is my main objective against the death penalty, it is morally wrong no matter how you twist and turn it. It cannot be justified. Murder is illegal. If that is the case how can the goverment then kill its own citizens?
Killing is not only wrong in a legal sense (it can be argued that locking people away for several years is illegal to but atleast they can be let out), it is wrong in religious, human and every other aspect too. For once I agree with Shralp, let whatever being/entity/deity/whatever take the descisons as to who should live and who should die. It is not for the governemt to do. The goverment are none of Gnolyn's three kinds of people that murder so they have 'reason' to be on the murderers low level.
End rant.