Death Penalty

[Kamuro]

it does sound kind of side when you compare the people who actual get the lethal injection to animals, it does sound cruel, but its death, how "un-cruel" can it be, and even if it is cruel, why should it be nice for them? was it nice for the people they killed? I doubt it, they're death should be no more peaceful then their victims

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='x kakashi x']it does sound kind of side when you compare the people who actual get the lethal injection to animals, it does sound cruel, but its death, how "un-cruel" can it be, and even if it is cruel, why should it be nice for them? was it nice for the people they killed? I doubt it, they're death should be no more peaceful then their victims[/quote]Presicely my opinion.

Therefore, beheading is the best choice, or a gunshot to the head . Not a nice way to go, but not torturous either.

Elfpirate mentions getting the loved ones of the victims to carry out the punishment. Not a bad idea, but it still needs to be done in a controlled manner. They shouldn't give the murderer a torturous death even if he did that to the victims. We can't go too far with "an eye for an eye", because two wrongs don't make a right. If someone steals from you, you shouldn't steal from him, you get your justice the proper way. [/COLOR]

[Coltonw911]

I think it depends on what they did. what ever happend to you do to me what you done for my people? like if they killed over one or if it was a nasty murderous kill they should let each one of the victims family members have hooks, glass, and razorblades on his sick perverted a.s!(wow that rymes) but if he hit them with a car then they should shock him but let him live in pain ...pain that will forever be in the hearts of the families ....to remind him.And if someone gets raped i think that should be death right there!

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=elfpirate][b]The system should not be the ones taking a murderer's life... the loved ones of the victims should be able to do it ..and in whatever way seems fit to them.[/b]

[b]Then again, my perspective is a little bit biased and jaded. I personally, would like to inflict pain and death upon whomever it was that killed the people that I cared about and loved... with my own two hands. In no other way would I be satisfied-- not even if I watched the execution (performed by the state) first hand. (Yes, I realise that I sound creepy--and I really don't care)[/b][/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]I'm afraid then elfpirate that you've left the realm of Justice and entered that of what is essentially vengeance for the victims. Why not just get the person who has committed the murder and hang him from a tree before he goes to court ? Why not shoot him while he's in court ? Why wait until the sentence has been passed so you can go and inflict your own brand of violent vengeance on the person ? If you violently murder someone in retribution for what they've done to your family, what's to stop a member of the murderer's family from coming after you to seek a nice bloody revenge ? It's better to let the law [in which countries the death penalty is applicable] take care of such matters. [/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]I agree with the death penalty, and that it should be carried out soon after the murderer is found guilty.

It should not be painless, such as lethal injection, because that would be unfair to the person who was killed. This might sound harsh, but hey peoples, an eye for an eye I say. The murderer needs to know how their victim felt when he/she murdered them. The murder needs to feel (a little) pain and fear. I say beheading, which is not too painful if done with a sharp blade. It's not as "cruel" as the electric chair, nor as "sympatheitc" as lethal injection.True, so I think the only time the death penalty should be carried out is if you have good witnesses.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Actually to my knowledge the Lethal Injection is not nearly as painless as it's made out to be. As far as I know the poison actually works on the nervous system and shuts down the lungs before it shuts down the brain and heart, so in essence the person actually suffocates to death. The only problem is that it also freezes motor control so the person cannot show that they're suffocating, they just lie still and die in a very unpleasant manner. As per the beheading of someone, that's just barbaric and shouldn't even be considered in a civilised world, though neither should the Death Penalty in my own opinion.

As for just getting "Good witnesses" I guessing that the majority of cases that get overturned or proven that the defendant is in fact innocent shows that that is a major issue, as is getting a good lawyer. [/SIZE]

[Zidargh]

[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1]I'm afraid then elfpirate that you've left the realm of Justice and entered that of what is essentially vengeance for the victims. Why not just get the person who has committed the murder and hang him from a tree before he goes to court ? Why not shoot him while he's in court ? Why wait until the sentence has been passed so you can go and inflict your own brand of violent vengeance on the person ? If you violently murder someone in retribution for what they've done to your family, what's to stop a member of the murderer's family from coming after you to seek a nice bloody revenge ? It's better to let the law [in which countries the death penalty is applicable] take care of such matters. [/SIZE]



[SIZE=1]Actually to my knowledge the Lethal Injection is not nearly as painless as it's made out to be. As far as I know the poison actually works on the nervous system and shuts down the lungs before it shuts down the brain and heart, so in essence the person actually suffocates to death. The only problem is that it also freezes motor control so the person cannot show that they're suffocating, they just lie still and die in a very unpleasant manner. As per the beheading of someone, that's just barbaric and shouldn't even be considered in a civilised world, though neither should the Death Penalty in my own opinion.

As for just getting "Good witnesses" I guessing that the majority of cases that get overturned or proven that the defendant is in fact innocent shows that that is a major issue, as is getting a good lawyer. [/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Well said.

I think the easiest solution to this debate is to put yourself in this situation: -

You're casually strolling down the street, like you've done so every day. All of a sudden, a police car containing armed police pull up next to you and demand you drop to your knees. You're fear stricken with no clue of why you are here.

Standing in the dock in the courtroom, you hear the fatal and final words of declaration, "This man/woman has been found guilty as charged. They shall be facing a penalty of mortality, in that they face the Death Penalty." Or however it goes.

All because you coincidentally have resemblances to someone who was reported to have murdered someone.

It's ridiculous. The Death Penalty just brings back to us, a barbaric society. Yes there are some people who deserve to [i]seriously[/i] repent for what they've done. But in my opinion, I think this is the easy way out.

If we managed to truly create a life sentence, where a life sentence means life, instead of 99% of the time never becoming a life sentence, then don't you think it is worse for the scum to rot away?

This length of time allows investigations to be carried out, in the event that a prisoner really is innocent. And then government has to pay compensation for the boo-boo they made. Everyone's happy.

[elfpirate]

[quote name='Gavin][size=1']I'm afraid then elfpirate that you've left the realm of Justice and entered that of what is essentially vengeance for the victims. Why not just get the person who has committed the murder and hang him from a tree before he goes to court ? Why not shoot him while he's in court ? Why wait until the sentence has been passed so you can go and inflict your own brand of violent vengeance on the person ? [/size][/quote][b]Um... That's what I said [i]here [/i]:[/b]
[b][QUOTE=elfpirate] [/b]
[b]The system should not be the ones taking a murderer's life... the loved ones of the victims should be able to do it ..and in whatever way seems fit to them.[/QUOTE][b]Endorsing personal vengeance was exactly what I was getting at with that part...[/b]

[b]...and I was under the impression that I had stated my bias and skewed perspective on the matter with [i]this[/i] part:[QUOTE=elfpirate] [/b]
[b]Then again, my perspective is a little bit biased and jaded.[/QUOTE][/b]

[b]and then I finish with yet another endorsement of personal vengeance.[/b]
[b][quote name='elfpirate'] I personally, would like to inflict pain and death upon whomever it was that killed the people that I cared about and loved... with my own two hands. In no other way would I be satisfied-- not even if I watched the execution (performed by the state) first hand. (Yes, I realise that I sound creepy--and I really don't care) [/quote] [/b]
[b][b]I had believed that I had made it rather clear that I was speaking from an extremely subjective standpoint. I was venting more than anything, actually. [/b]

[b]I had planned to let the rest of you hash the debate out as far as the pros and cons were concerned... I was simply sharing my twisted perspective (of the moment) for your viewing pleasure.:smirk: [/b]
[b](See? I'm not rude-- I was thinking of all of you.:love: )[/b]
[/b][/b]

[ForgottenRaider]

I cannot agree with the death penalty.

Mistakes happen, and because of that punishments like this are insane. Also as we slowly move away from the grounding that "every one is innocent until proven (without a doubt) guilty" it will become far more dangerous. I refer to 'The Staircase? as an example of this fundamental principal being broken.

[JT Darkfire]

You know, the death penalty is kind of a gray area. On the one hand, put yourself in the place of the innocent who were accused. No, I'm pretty sure that at that moment you feel that this was an unfair punishment.

Now, for a twist.

Imagine you were the family of the victim.I know it sounds like a personal vendetta, but I would want the worst for that person who was found guilty of a loved one's murder.

Then, there is the problem with the family of the accused.They, in turn, would be the ones who suffer most, not the convicted. People always think of this as a punishment for just one person, but that's not the case. There is no right answer for this problem. If the convicted does not face capital punishment,the family of the accused feels relieved, while the family of the victim feels forsaken. If they do face capital punishment...

See what I mean, no clear cut solution. While I do openly voice support for the Death Penalty, I do realize that the system has its flaws, and that our goal should be to try to fix those as soon as possible instead of bicker amongst each other about if its a good or bad idea. At the current, it is in action,and no matter how much you complain an innocent person could be sentenced with it at any moment.

[Kamuro]

I've thought of this for awhile, since my last post, and I began to think that the death penalty is to good for some of these people, it gives them an easy way out of the mistakes they've made, if you killed someone, wouldn't it be worse to live longer, sit in a jail all day and have nothing to do but think about what you'd done, as long as the jail is secure, they have no way of escape, could you imagine sitting in a desolate room for hours contemplating the mistake you chose to make? maybe I'm just "sinical" but I think having to suffer through your own memories is a far worse punishment then being killed

[Retribution]

[SIZE=1]The issue of the death penalty in and of itself is much deeper than just that. There always pops up the other side effects of either killing them or keeping them alive, and then the scenario if you were in their shoes.

I'm not exactly sure on this issue. Baron presented quite a good arguement, saying that if you don't kill the killer, you're valuing his life over the victims. I had never thought of it that way. But on the other paw, there's the fact that it costs more to kill the offender than to just lock them up. They would also not get an easy way out if they were locked up, and you don't run the risk of killing an innocent. On top of it all, the death penalty isn't a deterrent ... so it's just senseless violence unless it actually serves to avert coming threats by fear of the punishment.

I'll stay silent on this issue. I don't know where my heart truly lies. But I'm pretty sure that it's against the death penalty.

And if you're pro-life on abortion, don't come in here and say you're pro-death penalty. You're contradicting yourself.[/SIZE]

[Havokio]

[COLOR=Indigo]It isn't really right or wrong. Light or Darkness. Just a shade of grey. Sure, who the hell are we to determine another one's fate?

But then again...

Same goes for the murderer. They kill, they get killed. It's the law of the land. One thing... What does the executioner feel the first time they pull the lever? Or makes the injection? This is the problem.

If the executioner's enjoying taking another ones life, then it's a problem. As long as the execution's justified (9/11, Timmothy McVeigh, etc.) ,it's morally ok. [/COLOR]

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=elfpirate][b]Um... That's what I said [i]here [/i]:[/b]
[b][b]Endorsing personal vengeance was exactly what I was getting at with that part...[/b]

[b]...and I was under the impression that I had stated my bias and skewed perspective on the matter with [i]this[/i] part:[/b]

[b]and then I finish with yet another endorsement of personal vengeance.[/b]
[b] [/b]
[b][b]I had believed that I had made it rather clear that I was speaking from an extremely subjective standpoint. I was venting more than anything, actually. [/b]

[b]I had planned to let the rest of you hash the debate out as far as the pros and cons were concerned... I was simply sharing my twisted perspective (of the moment) for your viewing pleasure.:smirk: [/b]
[b](See? I'm not rude-- I was thinking of all of you.:love: )[/b]
[/b][/b][/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Yes and I was making the point that if you were going to simply murder the person you believed was responsible for killing someone you cared about why wait to go through the whole process of a trial for that person ? Why not simply kill them before the trial so you can have your vengeance sooner, rather than waiting for the court to pronounce the Death Sentence on the individual ?

The simple answer to that question is that courts make mistakes and innocent people get sentenced to death, and if you later found out that the person you had gleefully murdered was innocent I get the feeling you'd fell pretty bad about it. The plus side is you wouldn't live very long after because a member of that person's family would probably tear you a new one in a very brutal manner.[/SIZE]

[Gentle]

I don't really think that's all that right. To me you're doing the same thing with the death penalty. You're still murdering people. So your last years are spent in containment until you're finally put away. I just don't like it. If you're not guilty, you're being executed for someone else's crime which isn't fair.

Even though most of America's systems run on religion, though they're not supposed to, it's "An eye for an eye." Kill for a kill. I think that's the reason it was put into place. The punishment is yours if you do the same thing to someone else. If we're not supposed to use religions out in public, why is it all the government ever does?

Killing is just wrong all around. It doesn't matter who does it. Penalty or not, it doesn't bring back anybody who's dead.

[Mitch]

I believe in the death penalty in only [i]extreme[/i] cases. I reserve it for people who cannot, will not, be able to change their ways no matter how hard one tries. I reserve it for the worst of the worst.

That said, I also believe life in prison is a much better solution to the death penalty. It's somewhat ironic in and of itself to kill someone because they killed on the basis that killing is wrong. Anyway, the being sent to death is a mostly painless process these days: the sentenced is only given a lethal dose and slowly "falls to sleep," much like a dog will. It's painless. Whereas, in prison for life, the sentenced will have to brood over what he's done, come to terms with why he's in jail till he dies.

Also, one who has done heinous crimes shouldn't get the rigths one in prison gets: they should have limited access to anything that will let them get their mind off what they did. No books, no TV, no anything, or very limited anything. Make them suffer a bit, like they did to their victim. It's a much more logical and worthy punishment than easy death. Eventually they will be killed by what they did anyway, and they'll die painfully because of all the years of their life they wasted in bars. In one way or another, they'll realize what they did was wrong. Or if they are incapable of this realization, they will die in anguish, in hatred of our government's judicial system, in iration of our world's morals. Whichever they case, they go through much more pain than just dying right away for their crime.

This way, the sentenced will never go out in the world again to repeat their heinous crime. That is, unless the sentenced escapes somehow. But it's sure they would be placed in maximum security, and although they would be treated somewhat nicely, they should be treated for what they are. Our prison system is softer and less harsh than one is led to believe, but I believe solitary confinement should be in place for the sentenced, and as mentioned above, they not have the pleasures of every day life, but only what's necessary for them to have life.

Another venue worth consideration is rehabilitation for the sentenced. By any means necessary and proper, whether it be therapy, drugs, or any other thing, the sentenced could be changed from their heinousness. The only thing of necessity would be that this change had near-permanence, and that they would not recommit their crime repeatedly. Even so, they would still have to serve a rather long prison sentence because of their crime, but because they changed, and have certifiably been found to be changed nearly completely, and tested about such, they would be released eventually.

[elfpirate]

[QUOTE=Gavin][size=1]Yes and I was making the point that if you were going to simply murder the person you believed was responsible for killing someone you cared about why wait to go through the whole process of a trial for that person ? Why not simply kill them before the trial so you can have your vengeance sooner, rather than waiting for the court to pronounce the Death Sentence on the individual ?

The simple answer to that question is that courts make mistakes and innocent people get sentenced to death, and if you later found out that the person you had gleefully murdered was innocent I get the feeling you'd fell pretty bad about it. The plus side is you wouldn't live very long after because a member of that person's family would probably tear you a new one in a very brutal manner.[/size][/QUOTE]
[b]True, it doesn't apply to all cases...[/b]

[b]Like I said, I was venting and posting subjectively-- and I [i]do[/i] know who it was that murdered one of my friends...without a doubt. [/b]

[b]It was that person that had my mind and heart filled with the idea of vengeance... and I agree, the family of said murderer would probably kill me... which is why I would never endorse anarchy-- because people like me can get a mite too emotional about things and take things too far...[/b]

[b]*Shrug*[/b]

[Sui Generis]

[i][COLOR=Indigo]See you know many people have thrown out the coin term "barbaric society" and pointed out how we can't be a "civilized culture" when we are actively "killing" are own citizens

The point I think that has been quite over looked in this whole entire thread is one thing: these people killed others. Would it not be the act of civilization to get rid of the uncivilized.

[b]civ·i·lize (tr.v. civ·i·lized, civ·i·liz·ing, civ·i·liz·es)
1)To raise from barbarism to an enlightened stage of development; bring out of a primitive or savage state.
2)To educate in matters of culture and refinement; make more polished or sophisticated.[/b]

By letting killers go we are simply promoting this barbaric notion that everyone has been saying. I know some people may think that I'm just being kind've radical, but think about it. Besides even without the death penatly there is no hope for us to be "civilized" given the definition proclaimed by everyone so far.

Think about it; they say only barbaric people/things kill, but citizens make up society not just the legal system; so there is no hope for us to be civilized anyways.



Going on. Just a quick note its already been adressed so I'm not going to hit on it too much. Letting the victims do it would definatly fall into the category of "Cruel and Unusual punishment."

You know there would be extremests out there who would kill the people slowly, lord knows use your imagination; if someone killed your loved one (the person you've given so much of your time to) and the law said "do whatever you wanted with them."

You know there would be some sick things going on in this world; worse than the electric chair.



A lot of people continually say that tons of innocent people are put to death. First off I'd like to point out that less than 100 people are put to death in a year...in fact in 2003 and 2004 it was less than 40. I'd also like to point out my previouse statement about how 64 people have been cleared since 2000 because of the new technology.

The court systems are getting more effecient, because their technology is better. It is simply absurd to think that you will get the death sentence for just looking like someone. There are crime scene investigators and a whole list of different aspects of a murder case. They don't just simply go "Hey you look like the person they described; sleep well." So many people have an over-simplified thought of a murder trial, the simple fact is they arn't careless when it comes to the death penalty. Its not just something they throw out on any given day like so many people believe.

There have been a couple comments where people have stated "the death penalty is only ok in extreme situations." I'd like to point out that is exactly what it is used for. Not every murderer gets the death penatly, in fact its typically only serial killers that get the death penatly, or particularly sick murderers. The death penalty is an extreme circumstance and is only used in extreme situations.


Plus we have to view this point from every angle and one angle is the economic angle. Everyone seems to think that having to put people to death would cost so much more than just "locking them up." The problem is we have to pay for every single inmate that is in jail. We (the tax payers) have to pay for the toilet paper they use, and the food they eat. We have to pay for their facilities, and every year that number gets larger for every person that continues to stay there. The death penalty actually saves us money in the long run, because instead of a person being there from the age of 22-68 (random ages) they are there from 22-23. The end.




As to what Heaven Cloud's said I am not saying that our justice system is perfect. Not everything is spotless and completely equal, I'm just saying that is what we believe in as a whole society. If not then we would change it; thats the way of the world. Well perhaps the way of the democratic world.



Lets look at it from a psychological stand point. There are things called enforcers and punishments. There is also a positive and negative for each.

An example of an enforcer would be:

Positive- If you finish your homework I'll give you some candy.
Negative- (You take something away) If you pay attention you will have no homework

An example of a punishment:

Positive- If you eat that candy I'll spank you
Negative- If you fail that test I'll take away your computer.

Really basic examples of each, but the basic knowledge is all you really need to know. Anyways there is a very common belief among the psychology world when it comes to both human and child development.

The belief is called fast response. In other words you should "deliver the enforcer or punishment in its maximum force as soon as possible in order to maintain the desired action or eliminate bad ones." Many believe that if you do not use the maximum punishment (Or enforcer but for our case lets focus on punishment. Punishment=death penatly) then a human will refuse to change. In other words if you simply give a warning to someone it may not do the trick.

As I said earlier the maximum punishment is the death penatly. If you get rid of this maximum punishment not only are you taking away the punishment itself, but you are also taking away the threat of it. The simple fact is many people don't want to die; and the threat is enough to restrain that one person from an seriouse actions, but 20 yeras in jail with an easy bond can be a different story.

Its a hard line stance, but in such a seriouse situation how can you say you should be anything but strict? There are so many examples in the world where you have to take a hard line/"Fast response" stance. That is what you've been taught.

For a final example lets take a classroom setting. If a teacher tells the class clown Joe Schmuck to settle down or else he gets a detention, he keeps doing it. Simply because the detention is harmless...its 30 minutes long at max and doens't even go on your permanent record. The next day Joe Schmuck is back doing what he did the day before. Now what happens when the teacher does something more extreme, and exacts the maximum punishment for his offense.

A saturday school or suspension. Then the probability of Joe Schmuck being such a class clown drops.




Like its been said so many times: "the issue of the death penatly is neither black nor white it is grey." Its a gross necessity of life that we have the luxury to frown upon.
[/COLOR][/i]

[Iron_Inuyasha]

No one owns another persons life...they shall choose to live and die when they please...thats what i think... :animedepr

[elfpirate]

[b]Okay, so my original post was purely subjective and vengeful... but really, if you give it a bit of thought, the death penalty is, in essence, nothing more than vengeance carried out by the state, anyway.[/b]

[b]For a punishment to be an effective tool, as was mentioned earlier, it must modify a person's behavior. How is a person going to learn anything after you kill them? They're not-- so it becomes indirect vengeance.[/b]

[b]People really want to believe that murderous people are deterred by the death sentence that other people have received, but it's just not the case. [/b]

[b]The authorities (church, state, tribal leaders, etc...) have been using capital punishment for as long as there have been people living on earth. Most people know that, and yet there are thousands and thousands of murders across the globe every year...despite this foreknowledge of the possible implementation of the death penalty.[/b]

[b]So whom is benefitting from it? The people who want "justice" ...AKA "vengeance". It's entirely based on the "an eye for an eye" principle.[/b]

[b]Whether it takes time to file all the legal paperwork and to hire lawyers and hold a trial...and whether it's by lethal injection or beheading or what-have-you, it is still [i]not [/i]teachinga murderous person to modify their behavior nor their murderous thoughts... and is therefore a fancy, drawn out way of exacting vengeance upon a perpetrator, in my opinion.[/b]

[SunfallE]

[QUOTE=elfpirate][b][b]People really want to believe that murderous people are deterred by the death sentence that other people have received, but it's just not the case. [/b]
[/QUOTE]

I agree with elfpirate on this one. Knowing that the Death penality is a possibility hasn't stopped people from committing crimes. If it really worked, then the crimes for which the Death penality can be applied would no longer be committed, and that just isn't true. There are those criminals who simply aren't detered by anything and in that case, if proven guilty, in my opinion they have earned the death penality.

[Missa]

[QUOTE]Plus we have to view this point from every angle and one angle is the economic angle. Everyone seems to think that having to put people to death would cost so much more than just "locking them up." The problem is we have to pay for every single inmate that is in jail. We (the tax payers) have to pay for the toilet paper they use, and the food they eat. We have to pay for their facilities, and every year that number gets larger for every person that continues to stay there. The death penalty actually saves us money in the long run, because instead of a person being there from the age of 22-68 (random ages) they are there from 22-23. The end.[/QUOTE]

Two things...

1) No one is executed quickly. The felon must be given the opportunity to appeal, just in case the judge or jury made a mistake, and they are in fact innocent. Because of this, most people on death row aren't executed, they die of other causes before they even see their execution date. In some states, while they may serve the death penalty as a sentence, they very rarely ever carry it out. For example: California. Scott Peterson was sentenced to death, but the media has all ready speculated that he will never be punished, simply because it's California. So basicly, whether or not the death penalty exists, you're still paying for them to spend the rest of their long lives in prison.

2) The reason the death penalty may cost more...Remember what I just said about appeals? Retrials? Do you know how much those cost? A lawyer alone? Millions...And guess what, that guy on death row isn't paying for it. (How would he, with the money he earns from making license plates?) It's all about the taxpayers. Let's look at Scott Peterson again...After that whole fiasco, residents are paying extra taxes, somewhere in the millions. (Sorry, I forgot the exact number.) Just to pay for the tab that Mr.Peterson ran up.