the death penalty

I think that is probably the BEST idea I've heard. EVER.

 

That's really a great way to look at it and how I've been trying to come to terms with the murder I've dealt with. The particular person who was arraigned and withstood trial for it took the guilty plea on involuntary manslaughter and was released a few days after my 24th birthday. The murder in question happened about 6 months after I turned 21. So his sentence was not very long at all...but you know, it happened, nothing will change that and I certainly wouldn't feel any better if he was put to death for his actions. Seeing him arrested changed nothing, seeing him sentenced changed nothing. So all in all, I guess I'd be more leaning to the no side of the fence. The only point would be prison population control, and really, if they'd just let the non-violent drug offenders free, they'd have plenty of room for the twisted bastards of the world.

 

If only the powers that be had that much sense.

 

An irreversible penalty seems useless in a justice system prone to error.

I've only had one personal brush with murder (the man who taught me how to fall trees got stabbed to death at a party by his girlfriend). It was sad, but I don't see how killing her would help the situation.

 

Right on A loss is a loss, regardless. It breaks your heart, but I can't see how putting the guilty to death will change that.

It's probably the more explicit things that the dealth penatly be considered for. Like the few vile people in the world who subject innocent children to torture. But in instances like that I personally think death would be an easy way out. And that's only when the justice system is right!

I'm certainly no expert on the matter! Even though I do have a little bit of experience on one thing. Anyway, this is my (very un-expert) opinion

 

Sums It Up Just Nicely...:2thumbsup:



Cheers Glen.

 

sounds similar to The Running Man

 

The question for me is if there is a kind of society that is more or less likely to produce murderers, one that has a death penalty or one that doesn't. If you could make a correlation between the death penalty and a higher than average murder rate, then of course it should be outlawed.

Maybe it speaks of something in us to treat others as worthless. Maybe the death penalty perpetuates that as well as reflects that. I can easily see how that kind of attitude could create murderers, if someone constantly feels as though they are being treated like they're waste, because of where they're born or what have you. Could be the case that it's in our best interests to be above this kind of thing.

 

Completely against it. Regardless of what someone may have done to receive the death penalty, I don't understand how the idea of the state taking someone's life in such a manner apparently sits quite well with so many people. It's embarrassing that this country retains the death penalty (among the loads of other things I find embarrassing about this country). We banned it here in NJ a few years back and we haven't executed anyone is nearly 50 years, and yet some asshole republican wants to bring it back, and our fat republican governor would just as easily bring it back.

 

If you believe your unspoken assumption that vengeance has no part in justice or the law.

 

Truth be told I'm pretty sure the death penalty has absolutely no bearing on crime rates. To use anecdotal evidence from the world, the 2 first world nations that still have it and apply it on a regular basis are the United States and Japan, the US as most people know has a pretty high murder rate, Japan has a pretty low one.

 

I've followed the death penalty for several years now and how come to the conclusion that it is a failed concept. It is not applied consistently or fairly. There is a quote by the first person executed in Florida after the state reinstated the death penalty.

"Capital punishment: them without the capital get the punishment."

To the best of my knowledge the last person executed in the United States was this past Thursday and he had been on death row for 27 years. 27 years of those families having to put up with appeal after appeal, getting to relive their tragedy each time.

I won't argue that there are monsters out there that don't deserve to live but I don't have enough faith in our justice system to do it right. Most states have the option of life without parole. But then people argue that these monsters don't deserve to live out their lives in what might not even be good conditions compared to being put to death but they still get to live. Maybe we need to add doing hard labor to the life without parole. I don't have the answer to that, just that they don't deserve to finish there existence sitting in their cell reading a book or whatever. If I remember right prisoners that get that sentence don't have the option of partaking in alot of programs.

One other thing bothers me about the death sentence. The law of parties, which states that if your along for the ride you can get the same punishment and that seems fair until you read about cases where the actual murderer gets life but the accomplice gets executed. Something just isn't right with that.

I also agree with posters who have posted about getting offenders who's only crime was committed against themselves need to be released. Prison should be for people that harm others.

Just my opinion.

 

I do if the cost of vengeance is that more people get murdered than would otherwise. It's pretty ridiculous that people should have to die so somebody can feel badass.

 

I also am embarrassed about this country, and that is because so many take up the cause of a murdering monsters right to life and ignore the victims of these monsters. More importantly they ignore future potential victims of these monsters, because for some twisted reason they feel that the murderers right to life is more important than that of the innocent.

The death penalty is referred to as punishment and yes it is just that, but it is also a form of protection. It's protection for the other inmates, for the people who guard the inmates and the general public.

The monsters can't commit any more of their heinous crimes or influence others to do them, if they are dead.

 

I am against the death penalty. It is about retribution, not punishment. That is not the purpose of the penal system.

 

It offers protection to no one. Since it doesn't address the reason people become criminals, it does nothing to combat criminality. And since we're supposed to have a constitutional prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" I think there's a strong case to be made that the death penalty qualifies as such. We should think of ourselves as a first world Western country -- I certainly hope you'd agree with that. What other first world Western country practices capital punishment? The answer is none of them! It is obviously cruel and unusual by the standards we should be holding ourselves to.

 

The logic isn't there in your argument. The murderers already committed their crime and is incarcerated. If they're a danger to the guards or inmates they'll be put in solitary confinement, and if they were going to kill other inmates, than they'd be following your line of logic that killing other murderers is good.

Recidivism doesn't happen much for murderers. 4% Of released murderers kill again.

http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_Cy04.pdf

Yes, I'd be willing to jeopardize the innocent for the sake of not murdering the guilty, because murder is wrong.

 

I beg to differ, is does protect future victims(who ever they are or where ever they are), it protects by preventing without a doubt, that these monsters will never commit another one of their horrible crimes again.

The reasons people become criminals(I'm guessing you mean the monster variety of criminal) vary from person to person, and in some cases, there is no reason they're just are a monster. Frankly I don't care why, I only care about what they did, and making sure there is no chance they can ever do it again.

You call the death penalty "cruel and unusual punishment", whats so cruel about it, it couldn't be anymore humane in my opinion. The crimes these monsters commit are cruel and unusual, and in most cases cruel and unusual would be an understatement of their crimes. If the death penalty was truly cruel and unusual punishment, then the person being executed should be treated the way they treated their victim.

 

lol, you call my argument illogical. I fail to see the logic in putting the innocent at risk to be murdered. I also don't see your logic in saying that all other inmates are murderers, in fact it's just a false statement.

Murder is wrong, but you'd be willing to jeopardize the innocent :banghead:
are you sure you thought that threw?

What you call murdering the guilty, I call protecting the innocent, and punishing the guilty, who have been found guilty and sentenced in a court of law.

 

I've thought that through.


Does anyone else want to trust a forumer that doesn't know when to use "through" as opposed to "threw"?