The Death Penalty

[ATTENTION DUELISTS]

What do people think about the issue of capital punishment?

While I do acknowledge and feel disappointment over the fact that there are indeed cases in which innocent people are wrongly tried, convicted and executed for crimes they didn't commit, I'm well and truly not convinced at all about the statement that "capital punishment doesn't deter crime". Well, if it doesn't deter crime, then what can it possibly do?

I do think that homocidal madmen like Anders Breivik and Nidal Hasan obviously wouldn't be deterred by something like the death penalty because, figuratively speaking, they're "beyond the point of no return" in terms of their mental health. But really? How can people say that capital punishment doesn't deter crime, full stop? What if there existed a hypothetical situation where even the most minor of crimes such as stealing a piece of cake or calling someone an "asshole" in the streets was punishable by the death penalty? Will the death penalty not deter crime in that case?

In any case, my vote goes to #2. I live in Australia where they don't have the death penalty, so I'm not as well versed in the issue as you guys in the United States. According to http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 , California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since its reinstatement in 1978 - $308 million per each of the 13 executions which took place), and spends $184 million on it per year. However, much of it is clogged up in judiciary costs.

Now, I can't help but wonder..."Why?" Breivik is obviously guilty, with so many eyewitnesses who have given direct accounts of his actions in court. Nidal Hasan has had eyewitnesses speak against him in court. There's no question at all that both men are guilty, so why not just give them a single trial and to the gallows with them? Why is there a need to build up such unnecessary costs? Why must we continue to refrain from what is seen by many as a just punishment for a capital offence for which there is an utterly overwhelming amount of evidence? Are such cases so similar to cases for which false findings or a lack of adequate evidence lead to the execution of an innocent person, that we must remain stagnate and grant murderers such as Breivik and Hasan amnesty through life sentences?

By the way, Breivik's sentence won't even be a life sentence. It'll be 21 years, in accordance to Norwegian law, according to numerous articles published in April.
Twenty. One. Years. For killing 77 people. Go figure.

[Risottia]

What do people think about the issue of capital punishment?

What Cesare Beccaria said.

[Unilisia]

Anyone given a life sentence should just be killed, since they're obviously not going back to society anytime soon and are wasting taxpayer money. Then the extra money saved from all those prisoners can be used to reform the prison system so it actually functions and rehabilitates.

[Sedikal]

Anyone given a life sentence should just be killed, since they're obviously not going back to society anytime soon and are wasting taxpayer money. Then the extra money saved from all those prisoners can be used to reform the prison system so it actually functions and rehabilitates.

^this

[Risottia]

Anyone given a life sentence should just be killed, since they're obviously not going back to society anytime soon

Same for people sentenced to 20 years I guess. Define "soon", lil' weasel...

and are wasting taxpayer money.

Dunno about the nanny-state you live in, but here inmates work and must pay for the food if they or their families have money/properties.

[Penguinmark]

It should be abolished, as it's a waste of money. A paradox, I know, but considering the legal costs of the decades of appeals made before the execution, as well as the high costs of maintaining execution equipment, it is cheaper just to imprison them for life.

[Tubbsalot]

Anyone given a life sentence should just be killed, since they're obviously not going back to society anytime soon and are wasting taxpayer money. Then the extra money saved from all those prisoners can be used to reform the prison system so it actually functions and rehabilitates.

Yeah good luck with that, seeing as death is enormously more expensive than life in prison. I'm sure all those savings you make will be very useful.

[The Mesozoic Era]

Strongly against the death penalty, let them rot in their cell for life, no parole.

[Extistia]

The death penalty should not be leagal. The law should not be about revenge.


"every punishment which does not arise from absolute necessity is tyrannical." - Montesquieu/Beccaria

When constructing the legal framework for a society the collective should distance themselves from emotional bias and think instead of the overall effect.

Societys such as the United States which have notriously harsh sentences appear to result in a greater crime rate. More empathetc societies such as Ireland appear to have a reduced crime rate.

[Ethel mermania]

Anyone given a life sentence should just be killed, since they're obviously not going back to society anytime soon and are wasting taxpayer money. Then the extra money saved from all those prisoners can be used to reform the prison system so it actually functions and rehabilitates.

Yeah good luck with that, seeing as death is enormously more expensive than life in prison. I'm sure all those savings you make will be very useful.

It is only more expensive because we make it that way. Change the ptocess, it could be a lot cheaper.

I support the death penalty, but am amazed at how many times we get it wrong. The death penalty is not about deterence, it is about societies abhorance at the crime committed.

I don't understand why, charles mason or bernard madoff, are still alive.

[Tubbsalot]

It is only more expensive because we make it that way. Change the ptocess, it could be a lot cheaper.

It would also kill far more innocent people, which would be unacceptable regardless and is particularly bad considering how frequently they're killed already by death penalty.

I support the death penalty, but am amazed at how many times we get it wrong. The death penalty is not about deterence, it is about societies abhorance at the crime committed.

So revenge then, basically.

How about we just express our disappointment in a more civilised way? Maybe cut off their hands or something? Let's not become monsters, I mean really.

[The United Celtic States]

The death penalty should only be used in extreme cases where DNA is present and can be proven unequivocally . It most defiantly has a place in the judicial system Aslong as its not abused and used with extreme caution .

[Ethel mermania]

It is only more expensive because we make it that way. Change the ptocess, it could be a lot cheaper.

It would also kill far more innocent people, which would be unacceptable regardless and is particularly bad considering how frequently they're killed already by death penalty.

I support the death penalty, but am amazed at how many times we get it wrong. The death penalty is not about deterence, it is about societies abhorance at the crime committed.

So revenge then, basically.

How about we just express our disappointment in a more civilised way? Maybe cut off their hands or something? Let's not become monsters, I mean really.

Not revenge but a big "NO, that is not acceptable"
I'm not a friend of sharon tate, but I want manson dead.
I did not lose money to madoff, but I think for the fraud he purpatrated, the millions who sufferred in consequnce, I want madoff dead too.

Their behaviour went beyond the pale, rehabbing either one of them says the behaviour can be gotten away with. Society has the obligation to say "no, its just too much", and I am fine with that.

[Lemmingtopias]

It is not just about the criminals right to not be killed. It is far more to do with our right not to have to collectively kill.
Your lack of such an option betrays your lack of understanding of the issue.

[Falsea]

Capital Punishment is an effective means to discipline and scare future criminals from doing their jobs, so it is widely accepted as a natural part of law here in Falsea.

[R Ev0lution]

It would also kill far more innocent people, which would be unacceptable regardless and is particularly bad considering how frequently they're killed already by death penalty.


So revenge then, basically.

How about we just express our disappointment in a more civilised way? Maybe cut off their hands or something? Let's not become monsters, I mean really.

Their behaviour went beyond the pale, rehabbing either one of them says the behaviour can be gotten away with. Society has the obligation to say "no, its just too much", and I am fine with that.

... So, can't we just throw them in prison for their entire lives?

[Safed]

I disagree with the death penalty simply because the judicial system is not infallible. As such people are executed who have since been shown to be innocent. If they were imprisoned for life then they can be let free. Obviously they've spent maybe 20 years in prison which isn't a good thing, but it is better than telling their corpse you made a mistake.

Also, the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment per person sentenced, doesn't act as a deterrent, in fact the countries with the death penalty in general have far more murders per 1000 than countries without it.

It is also linked to a desire for revenge, which is unhealthy and not an ideal upon which a country's law should be based.

[R Ev0lution]

I disagree with the death penalty simply because the judicial system is not infallible. As such people are executed who have since been shown to be innocent. If they were imprisoned for life then they can be let free. Obviously they've spent maybe 20 years in prison which isn't a good thing, but it is better than telling their corpse you made a mistake.

Basically, this.

[Unilisia]

Anyone given a life sentence should just be killed, since they're obviously not going back to society anytime soon

Same for people sentenced to 20 years I guess. Define "soon", lil' weasel...

and are wasting taxpayer money.

Dunno about the nanny-state you live in, but here inmates work and must pay for the food if they or their families have money/properties.

20 years isn't a life sentence. And the nanny-state I live in is the US, and the prison system here is a piece of shit.

[Ethel mermania]

Their behaviour went beyond the pale, rehabbing either one of them says the behaviour can be gotten away with. Society has the obligation to say "no, its just too much", and I am fine with that.

... So, can't we just throw them in prison for their entire lives?

Where life is apprpriate, sure. For example, I think its more appropiate punishment for kacynski (sp) (unibomber). I think for mason and madoff, death is the right choice.

[R Ev0lution]

... So, can't we just throw them in prison for their entire lives?

Where life is apprpriate, sure. For example, I think its more appropiate punishment for kacynski (sp) (unibomber). I think for mason and madoff, death is the right choice.

But what about people who've been sentenced to death who have since been shown to be innocent? Troy Davis comes to mind.

Safed phrased it perfectly: If new evidence surfaces that a man serving life in prison is innocent, he has a shot at appealing and getting out of prison. If new evidence surfaces that a man who's been executed was innocent, our entire society has the blood of an innocent citizen on its hands.

[Unilisia]

Where life is apprpriate, sure. For example, I think its more appropiate punishment for kacynski (sp) (unibomber). I think for mason and madoff, death is the right choice.

But what about people who've been sentenced to death who have since been shown to be innocent? Troy Davis comes to mind.

Safed phrased it perfectly: If new evidence surfaces that a man serving life in prison is innocent, he has a shot at appealing and getting out of prison. If new evidence surfaces that a man who's been executed was innocent, our entire society has the blood of an innocent citizen on its hands.

Pretty much every human society has committed atrocities far worse than the death of one man. It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal.

[Meridiani Planum]

No, it is playing God with people's lives, and even though I'm an atheist, I don't think that people should treat each other that way.

[Tubbsalot]

But what about people who've been sentenced to death who have since been shown to be innocent? Troy Davis comes to mind.

Safed phrased it perfectly: If new evidence surfaces that a man serving life in prison is innocent, he has a shot at appealing and getting out of prison. If new evidence surfaces that a man who's been executed was innocent, our entire society has the blood of an innocent citizen on its hands.

Pretty much every human society has committed atrocities far worse than the death of one man. It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal.

Pretty much every human society has seen far worse atrocities than murder, too, which is why it would be perfectly acceptable if you were murdered. It's only a big deal if you make it one.

[Unilisia]

Pretty much every human society has committed atrocities far worse than the death of one man. It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal.

Pretty much every human society has seen far worse atrocities than murder, too, which is why it would be perfectly acceptable if you were murdered. It's only a big deal if you make it one.

When the advantages outweight the risks, go for it. Pragmatic action needs to be taken. Not everywhere around the world, of course, because some prison systems work. But where I live, it needs to be revised.