If the punishment fits

[New Clearland]

So what are your thoughts on capital punishment? Do you think it is completely unjust or a fitting punishment for certain crimes?

I personally believe that it is a fitting punishment for crimes such as murder, terrorism, child rape, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and drug dealing.

[Galloism]

Not much to discuss here, but I would say it IS a fitting punishment in some circumstances (namely, murder, terrorism, child rape in some circumstances), but our justice system is no where near accurate enough to carry it out without mistakes.

[Aeuria]

Never been a fan of capital punishment, never will be. It doesn't work as a deterrent, costs more on average per prisoner than life imprisonment, and doesn't really have a basis for existing outside of a skewed sense of justice and possible closure for victims/next of kin.

I just don't see the point in executing prisoners. What's being accomplished? They've already been captured and jailed; that's where it should end.

[Sanctissima]

I'd say it's fitting for murder, terrorism and child rape.

Also adult rape depending on the circumstances.

[New Clearland]

Never been a fan of capital punishment, never will be. It doesn't work as a deterrent, costs more on average per prisoner than life imprisonment, and doesn't really have a basis for existing outside of a skewed sense of justice and possible closure for victims/next of kin.

I just don't see the point in executing prisoners. What's being accomplished? They've already been captured and jailed; that's where it should end.

If they were executed more quickly, it wouldn't cost so much.

And what is to stop them from killing other prisoners, killing guards, escaping, or influencing other inmates. If they are dead, they can do none of that.

What's really unjust is giving a murderer a home, free meals, free healthcare, and a right to live while they didn't show such mercy to their victims and while the victim's families suffer.

[Fauxia]

Kind of split on capital punishment. But I guess if you murder multiple people, or if you murder with torture involved or other factors, such as rape-murder, I support it.

[ZeroLabs Experimental Community]

Never been a fan of capital punishment, never will be. It doesn't work as a deterrent, costs more on average per prisoner than life imprisonment, and doesn't really have a basis for existing outside of a skewed sense of justice and possible closure for victims/next of kin.

I just don't see the point in executing prisoners. What's being accomplished? They've already been captured and jailed; that's where it should end.

I'm not too well versed in the costs of these sort of things. So can you explain to me how capital punishment per prisoner costs less than life imprisonment for at lest 50 or 60 or so years. It would seem that it would be cheaper to execute a prisoner than to pay for their needs for that long a time. Unless a single dose of lethal injection costs way more than I assume it does.

[Socialist Tera]

If there is solid evidence, murder and terrorism. It has to be concrete evidence. I don't want someone framed and killed by the state.

[Ifreann]

I'm against the death penalty in all circumstances.

---

Never been a fan of capital punishment, never will be. It doesn't work as a deterrent, costs more on average per prisoner than life imprisonment, and doesn't really have a basis for existing outside of a skewed sense of justice and possible closure for victims/next of kin.

I just don't see the point in executing prisoners. What's being accomplished? They've already been captured and jailed; that's where it should end.

If they were executed more quickly, it wouldn't cost so much.

The less protections there are against executing innocent people, the more innocent people will be executed.

And what is to stop them from killing other prisoners, killing guards, escaping, or influencing other inmates. If they are dead, they can do none of that.

If you're suggesting that people be executed because they might commit a crime then shouldn't every be executed?

What's really unjust is giving a murderer a home, free meals, free healthcare, and a right to live while they didn't show such mercy to their victims and while the victim's families suffer.

There's nothing unjust about that at all. If the state is imprisoning people it must treat them humanely, regardless of whether that upsets the families of the victims of someone who sold weed.

---

Never been a fan of capital punishment, never will be. It doesn't work as a deterrent, costs more on average per prisoner than life imprisonment, and doesn't really have a basis for existing outside of a skewed sense of justice and possible closure for victims/next of kin.

I just don't see the point in executing prisoners. What's being accomplished? They've already been captured and jailed; that's where it should end.

I'm not too well versed in the costs of these sort of things. So can you explain to me how capital punishment per prisoner costs less than life imprisonment for at lest 50 or 60 or so years. It would seem that it would be cheaper to execute a prisoner than to pay for their needs for that long a time. Unless a single dose of lethal injection costs way more than I assume it does.

Because there are appeals before the execution, which can take years.

---

If there is solid evidence, murder and terrorism. It has to be concrete evidence. I don't want someone framed and killed by the state.

How would someone be convicted of murder without solid evidence?

[Veusevvi]

The justice system isn't for revenge. It's for preventing crime... And capital punishment (even on the rare occasions when they kill the right person) doesn't do that, so: None.

[Socialist Tera]

I'm against the death penalty in all circumstances.

---

If they were executed more quickly, it wouldn't cost so much.

The less protections there are against executing innocent people, the more innocent people will be executed.

And what is to stop them from killing other prisoners, killing guards, escaping, or influencing other inmates. If they are dead, they can do none of that.

If you're suggesting that people be executed because they might commit a crime then shouldn't every be executed?

What's really unjust is giving a murderer a home, free meals, free healthcare, and a right to live while they didn't show such mercy to their victims and while the victim's families suffer.

There's nothing unjust about that at all. If the state is imprisoning people it must treat them humanely, regardless of whether that upsets the families of the victims of someone who sold weed.

---

I'm not too well versed in the costs of these sort of things. So can you explain to me how capital punishment per prisoner costs less than life imprisonment for at lest 50 or 60 or so years. It would seem that it would be cheaper to execute a prisoner than to pay for their needs for that long a time. Unless a single dose of lethal injection costs way more than I assume it does.

Because there are appeals before the execution, which can take years.

---

If there is solid evidence, murder and terrorism. It has to be concrete evidence. I don't want someone framed and killed by the state.

How would someone be convicted of murder without solid evidence?

There have been people who have been convicted on shaky and not properly investigated evidence.

[Aeuria]

If they were executed more quickly, it wouldn't cost so much.

And what is to stop them from killing other prisoners, killing guards, escaping, or influencing other inmates. If they are dead, they can do none of that.

What's really unjust is giving a murderer a home, free meals, free healthcare, and a right to live while they didn't show such mercy to their victims and while the victim's families suffer.

Yeah, you're right - because maximum security prisons are such wonderful places to live. Forever.

I'm not too well versed in the costs of these sort of things. So can you explain to me how capital punishment per prisoner costs less than life imprisonment for at lest 50 or 60 or so years. It would seem that it would be cheaper to execute a prisoner than to pay for their needs for that long a time. Unless a single dose of lethal injection costs way more than I assume it does.

Trials pursuing the death penalty have significantly higher costs to the state as there is, as you can imagine, a helluva bunch of red tap surrounding executing an individual.

Instead of crudley summing it up, here's information from the Death Penalty Information Center's website: Jack D’Aurora of the Behal Law Group, writing in The Columbus Dispatch, described the time put in by just one federal judge in Ohio reviewing a capital case towards the end of its appeal, including the lethal injection process: “Hearings are attended, at a minimum, by three assistant attorneys general, three attorneys for the inmate, the Lucasville prison warden, the director of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, counsel and other officials from the department, [the judge] and his two law clerks. These people all are paid by either the state or the federal government. Hearings can last from a few hours to multiple days.” The judge estimated that he and his staff spend 40 to 60 hours per month on some aspect of the death penalty. D’Aurora noted that recent cases took an average of 21 years between sentencing and execution date. "The cost likely is millions per case,” he noted. “Life sentences without parole would serve us much better, but we are fixated on a process that drains government resources," he concluded.

So in essence, the system in the United States is so poorly designed that even when these criminals are sentenced to death, it often takes decades of waiting on death row (which in California for example costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population). There are some 714 currently on death row in California which amounts to ~$64.2 million more annually than if they were serving life sentences without parole. And, as you mentioned, the cost of the drugs used in lethal injections themselves cost a small fortune and many states have trouble procuring a supply.

[Ifreann]

I'm against the death penalty in all circumstances.

---

The less protections there are against executing innocent people, the more innocent people will be executed.


If you're suggesting that people be executed because they might commit a crime then shouldn't every be executed?


There's nothing unjust about that at all. If the state is imprisoning people it must treat them humanely, regardless of whether that upsets the families of the victims of someone who sold weed.

---

Because there are appeals before the execution, which can take years.

---

How would someone be convicted of murder without solid evidence?

There have been people who have been convicted on shaky and not properly investigated evidence.

So someone, under your system, could be convicted of murder, but told by a judge that they'll serve life because the evidence against them isn't very concrete.

[Socialist Tera]

There have been people who have been convicted on shaky and not properly investigated evidence.

So someone, under your system, could be convicted of murder, but told by a judge that they'll serve life because the evidence against them isn't very concrete.

Yes, that is very true. The death penalty is only is there is enough evidence and witnesses. It is prevent people being framed.

[Ifreann]

So someone, under your system, could be convicted of murder, but told by a judge that they'll serve life because the evidence against them isn't very concrete.

Yes, that is very true. The death penalty is only is there is enough evidence and witnesses. It is prevent people being framed.

If the evidence against someone is that shaky should you not acquit them?

[Socialist Tera]

Yes, that is very true. The death penalty is only is there is enough evidence and witnesses. It is prevent people being framed.

If the evidence against someone is that shaky should you not acquit them?

Bad juries exist. Trial by jury is default in my country.

[Neanderthaland]

It's not that there's nothing one can do to deserve death, it's that we're not so infallible that we never falsely convict people, and an execution is a hard sentence to amend. Also, they tend to be expensive.

Outside of rare instances where someone is literally dangerous to keep alive, like a deposed dictator or something, there isn't really any reason to execute people.

[Genivaria]

Murder and rape are crimes against individuals, whereas terrorism and human trafficking can be considered crimes against society as a whole.
So I can accept capital punishment for the latter two.

[Ifreann]

If the evidence against someone is that shaky should you not acquit them?

Bad juries exist. Trial by jury is default in my country.

Appeals exist.

[Vassenor]

our justice system is no where near accurate enough to carry it out without mistakes.

This.

[Frank Zipper]

Fly tipping, tagging, having too loud a car stereo, stepping on lawns... that kind of thing.

[Old Tyrannia]

I don't object to the death penalty on the grounds that it is inherently immoral or undeserved for the worst of criminals- such as serial killers, child rapists and the like. I have no particular desire to see these people live long and health lives. However, as others have said, the justice system is imperfect and cannot be trusted to execute only those who are actually guilty. If a person is imprisoned for a crime that he or she did not commit, then he or she may be released if new evidence comes to light exoneration the falsely convicted. A person cannot be brought back from the dead if they are given the death penalty and turn out to have been innocent all along after it had been carried out.

An oft-repeated counter-argument to this is that in most developed countries there is a long appeals process that follows any death sentence, and condemned convicts may spend years on end on death row, during which time evidence exonerating them may come to light. However, this still doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of false conviction, and sort of undermines the other argument often brought up by supporters of the death penalty that execution is more cost-effective than long-term incarceration of criminals. Finally, there is something to be said for the argument that a lifetime of incarceration and the permanent loss of one's freedom is as fearful a punishment as death.

With all of this in mind, I remain deeply opposed to the death penalty, except perhaps under extraordinary circumstances. It might have been justifiable in times past when the resources simply were not available to keep dangerous criminals imprisoned indefinitely, but in the modern day it simply cannot be justified against the risk of the state carrying out the killing of a guiltless person. Besides, it seems to me inappropriate for a Christian culture to continue to carry out executions where they are no longer absolutely necessary. Other cultures might regarding seeking retribution as virtuous, but that's not consistent with Christian morality. The purpose of our justice system is to protect people rather than to exact retribution for crimes committed. Capital punishment is almost always about the latter, not the former.

[New Clearland]

I find it interesting that right now the poll shows that slightly more people support the death penalty for child rapists than for terrorists and murderers.

[Telconi]

So what are your thoughts on capital punishment? Do you think it is completely unjust or a fitting punishment for certain crimes?

I personally believe that it is a fitting punishment for crimes such as murder, terrorism, child rape, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and drug dealing.

Murder and rape.

As for costs, it's a two edged sword. I fully believe that people deserve an appeals process, and a separate jury deliberation for execution. However I believe that it can be taken to excess, and that the actual act of execution is needlessly complicated.

[Oldenfranck]

I'll add one to the others section, I think treason should be one.