Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong? The death penalty is so hypocritical.
The original purpose of the death penalty was to stop that person from repeating their crime. It's not used that way anymore. It also served as a public lesson to evildoers. It's not used that way anymore. Here's a question for you- If we keep a man in prison until he dies of natural causes, are we not taking his life from him in a slightly different manner? Which is less reprehensible, to execute a man for his crimes, or to keep him in a box for 50 years, at the end of which, he expires?
I think I'd prefer it quick personally, but I'm still glad we don't have the death penalty in Britain. I don't think I could ever sit on a jury and give a guilty verdict if I knew it would end someone's life.
Actually the purpose of the death penalty was to stay within biblical law. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life and all that. And while it is up to the individual states to enforce or repeal the death penalty for crimes committed within those states, there are still federal statutes that carry the death penalty. Given the current political climate in the US, there really isn't any possibility that it's going to change anytime soon.
Ah. True. I stand corrected. Should have said secular intention. I agree that things are unlikely to change anytime soon. I personally believe the death penalty should remnain, but only to be used in cases with conclusive DNA evidence as to the identity of the perpetrator. I believe wrongful imprisonment of a man for a crime to be nearly as heinous as killing him. After all, even should the mistake be discovered, his release doesn't give back the years spent away from his family. This is why a man should be "innocent until proven guilty", and the reason our jury system is supposed to only convict when evidence shows"beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone is guilty. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works today. Lawyers stack the jury as they see fit, and very few get a "fair trial". Our system has been broken, and I don't see anyway of fixing it, short of violent, bloody revolution. And frankly, I'd rather not tread that road, thank you very much. I've seen plenty of death.
Actualy DNA can not do that. To take a typical case, DNA can prove that the semen on the victim was from the accused. It cannot prove that the accused caused the death of the victim. It takes a human jury to assemble the physical evidence and come to a conclusion about guilt or innocence.
Humans are the only ones competent to judge or punish humans. It is appropriate that the justice system be admisistered through human judgement. A well designed system will take the fallibilities of that judgement into account. Thus, protections against self-incrimination, double jeapordy(sp?), etc. My main point was that DNA cannot prove guilt. It can clarify the evidence (this piece of evidence definatly did (or did not) come from that person), but it can not evaluate that evidence. I think that if a state adopted "death by incarceration" as its method of exicution, there would be less arguing about the death penalty. I see a prison specificaly for the "dead." A bag of food is tossed over the wall once a day, but little beyond that is done for the "dead."
I said this earlier, but seriously, the death senence is soo hypocrytical. People kill people to prove that killing people is wrong. Death in many cases is the easy way out too, so why not give people a while to think about what they have done instead of playing God. Since there is no way Texans are going to change penalties, the least they could do is treat "dead" men asthough they were the living human beings that they are.
The murderers don't think about the life of the people they kill. Personally if its beyond reasonable doubt like with people such as Charles Manson then I'd pull the lever myself. I wouldn't expect anyone to do something I wasn't willing to do. I could give a guilty verdict which could condemn someone to death. Look at those two Thai men that raped the English women. They are going to be sentenced to death by the Thai government and why not. Have they shown remorse? No. Did they do the crime. Yes. If you put a dog down for biting a human then why can't you put a human down for killing a human. As for people that are convicted incorrectly then it should surely be a case of making sure only the correct people are convicted in the first place. I reckon the following should be hung: murderers rapists paedophiles drug dealers (class A) U2 band members (subjected me to torture for years)
An eye for an eye, and don't give me that then the whole world is blind bullshit, you wouldn't be getting a punishment if you didn't commit the crime to begin with.
An AUssie was hung in Bali for trafficking herion it was the sadest day hundreds of pople gathered in sydney's town hall and when he was hung the bells at town hall rung... He wasd doing the wrong thing i know but his reasons for exporting the herion was to pay off his twin brothers drug debt and now look at him..... I didn't know this guy but i was in shocked for half of the day just wondering what has this world come to...... his family didn't derserve it It makes me soooooo sad ...
but i can see some poeple on this forume agree to the hanging for drug traffkers i guess it upsets me cos he was an australian i mean wouldn't wish that opun anyone bt they are killing more young kids (our future) whe bringing extensice amounts tdifferent countries....
Oh, I see. That makes it alright then. This is the attitude that will very soon lead to a major uprising in the US. The religious right can't have it both ways. They want to put every murderer, rapist and child molester to death, but they want to do it in the name of God's love. This makes no sense. Good luck with that, OK?
No, I don't agree. The punishment should fit the crime and that goes WAYYYYYY beyond. The death penalty is archaic and savage. Just like most humans.
Let me take a sort of shallow stance on this issue: with all of the appeals and lawyers and time spent tryng to get someone to be put to death, in the end, it wastes a LOT more money than keeping them in prison for life. I know there's a lot more to it than that, but strictly monetarily, the death penalty is no good. ~Nova
I heard a comedian talk about the death penalty in Texas the other day. They love them some killin' in Tejas...He was saying that they tried to enact legislation to fast track death row inmates who had committed crimes that were witnessed by three or more credible witnesses. You committ a capital crime in Texas, three credible people witness your crime, you go to the front of the line. No more 10 years on death row waiting for appeals and such. Stick the needles in and get it over with. How barbaric.
