What do you think of it?
I think it sould be used for murder cases because then they get life in prison and that costs tax payers money
so why sould tax payers pay to keep murderers alive

so whats your thoughts on it?

The way it is now it costs more to kill the SOB then to keep him in jail. Personally i think the justice system needs a Martha Stewart make-over. How it should work.

Arrested.
Taken too court.
Given fair trial. [truly fair]
Found Guilty.
Sentenced.
An hour to say bye to family.
Taken out back.
Shot Dead.
Put in the ground.

When in doubt imprison until doubt is gone.


If thats what happened i'de be all for it. If your just gona rot in prison the rest of your life why not rot underground.

Actually, it costs more to put a prisoner to death than it does to put him in jail for life. Due to the repeal process and the expense of holding a death row prisoner, the death penalty is expensive. Even if it was cheaper to kill prisoners, why should we? An eye for an eye leaves us all blind. Murder is not the right way to respond to murder.

You wouldn't rape a rapist, so why would you murder a murderer?

It wouldent be murder it be the right thing to do
this person killed someone so why sould they be given the plesure of life
when they took it away from somone

Because that murderer also costs money to not murder and therefore further hurts peoples lives even behind bars.
And i'm sure if given the chance many people would jump to rape the rapist.

I believe every person has the right to live, thus I am strongly against the death penalty.

What would you rather do: rot away in a prison cell for thirty years, or die and get it over with? A life in prison is a much worse punishment than death.

Proof to what she said: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Now OP, you'll have to change your beliefs and be against the death penalty, or at least come up with another reason to support it. But I must say, it's pretty twisted to do a cost benefit analysis on someone's life.

I'm against the death penalty because statistically speaking, innocent people have been put to death. Lots of info there: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

And another rational to nip in the bud is the one that having the death penalty deters crime. Read on that hear:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-abou...d-death-penalty

And if religion is your thing, it seems to me that the Christian thing to do is to forgive people for their sins.

I'm not sure where I read this, but with appeals and such, keeping a prisoner alive on death row (sometimes for twenty to thirty years) actually costs more. Alongside that, I believe that the death penalty should only be used on criminals that are known for escaping from prisoners and murdering others. Fortuneantly, such situations don't really apply here in the US, and probably not in most European countries, either.

EDIT: Need to read the topic better (looks at above post)

True but that depends on what you think the pupose of prison is. I Personally couldn't care less whether a child molester suffered or not so long as he [or she] is forever incapable of committing the same crime again. On the other hand some [peticularily the victims family] would want "vengeance" in which case sorry for using your quote against you but
I'm 100% for the dath penalty but in America and anywheee that civil rights exist its just not practical and probably never will be so long as our rights are protected or we invent 100% accurate lie detector so noone can be falsely put to death.

I'm strongly against the death penalty, and the idea that murderers should spend the rest of their life in jail.

I think murderers should get mental help while in a secure facility, up and until they are deemed (by a professional) fit enough to re-enter society without re-offending, and be monitored to make sure even a petty crime puts them back to where they started.

I truly and honestly believe premeditated murder is the result of someone being insane. I just don't think a sane person could do that to someone else. (And I realize the literal definition of insane is different than mine, I apologize, but I can't find a better suiting word.) I don't think because someone has a problem they should be sentenced to death, or have their life taken away in a cell either.

As for murder in self-defense, or murder in a panicked situation, I'm sort of divided on. I think people should face punishment for that, obviously, but (and especially if they know what they did was wrong), I don't think it should ruin their life either.

I think people should be given the chance to change, and given the help to change.

I imagine this would be more expensive than either life in jail or the death penalty, but really, how can we put a price tag on lives?

We do it every time we grocery shop sadly but thats a different debate.




I'de agree 100% except those proffessionals don't always make good judgement. When i ws in grade 4 a psychologist diagnosed me with severe autim because i was shy and good with numbers. 4 months later i went to a program or autistic children and it took 2 minutes for the teacher too say 'What quack diagnosed you?!'

Anyways my point is these professionals make mistakes and when peoples lives are at risk i can't put my trust in someone with 5 years of college.

I would imagine with peoples lives at stake they wouldn't hire someone who was just in college for 5 years and has no experience whatsoever. Just my thoughts.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, when we grocery shop we don't pay for our lives, we pay for convenience. You could survive growing your own food, even in the harsh winter months, but you don't to, so you grocery shop.

Not what i meant.

Buying things like plastic and other items indirectly kills people [slowly but surely] therefore we place our comfort which has a dollar value on it, Over other peoples lives.


Btw i'm a farmer and i do grow my own food

Let's just assume it is cheaper to sentence someone to death (not that it is); does this really change anything? For me, the extra tax burden is not my primary concern, but that of human life. Can you put a price on human life? I don't think whether they're innocent or guilty should matter; the fact still remains, the fate of another human being should not be dictated by another, I personally believe it's morally wrong. I also think it's morally wrong to put a price on human life, such as discussing the tax burden of keeping someone alive.

inb4 John Adams and me butt heads as usual

They can get their vengeance themselves. Of course, they'll have to pay for it. Perhaps in the same exact way...am I the only one to see a huge fault with this logic?

Zing.

Of course, but that's SO indirect that it is pretty much irrelevant. I mean, it's not as if I can be found guilty of murder if, while driving, I run over a piece of gravel which takes flight and hits somebody in the head at great speed.

Anyway, even setting aside all moral and ethic reasoning, if there's even a slim chance that an innocent can be put to death, that risk should never, ever be taken. You can compensate somebody for having unjustly served time in jail. You can't bring people back to life, though.

Usually people who are sentenced to death in some messed up countries don't even deserve to die.

Murder doesn't justify anything. Vengeance is for people in crazy medieval fantasy films. The criminal in question is going to suffer more in prison than being dead.

What if someone who is actually innocent is found guilty beyond doubt?




I just have to point out that "Rape The Rapist" sounds like a game show and "Many people would jump to rape the rapist" is the catchphrase.



I think it's perfectly possible for sane people to commit murder.

But should taxpayers have to pay the bill?

You make it look as if it cost 50% of one's income to keep one person in prison. Besides that, one can argue that for people who are serving limited sentences, too - should taxpayers pay for their maintainment while they're serving their time? No? Then who's going to pay the guards?

I agree with Mr Grieves on the topic of sanity and murder, however, I think the original point is defective to begin with. Whether the accused is sane or insane, it does not change the fact that our aim should be to rehabilitate them both. Of course the degree of rehabilitation required is going to change with each case, alas, I believe each person, no matter what they have been accused of should have the chance to rehabilitate. By this, in no way am I claiming it is possible for each inmate to rehabilitate, however, for that percentage that is able to, I think it's rewarding enough on it's own. I believe this for one simple reason; we're human. I've said many times nothing human surprises me and it's understandable that everyone makes mistakes and that's the case of some inmates; of course the severity of the mistake needs to be accounted for too, however, they do have the basic right to make penance. Even if we can rehabilitate a minute percentage of inmates, I consider it a reward worth investing in.


These are people we're talking about, not live stock. Of course the state should be responsible for providing for their well being, whether they're priests or criminals; you can not determine the value of human life over another both in terms of superiority and cost, it's immoral. If you can't understand this basic concept of morality, I don't understand how you can question the moral standards of a criminal; I find that ironic.

Dani also made a good point, the tax we pay does not go entirely to the welfare of prisoners; they are only allocated a minute percentage. Is a few dollars too much in the grand scale for you, when it comes to another human being?

To be honest, I think the article below should turn most people off to the death penalty.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-p...ly-innocent#cam

Oh, and on a side note, look at where all those innocent people got killed. The South, and mostly Texas. That's what happens when you liberally dish out the death penalty.

If, however, we had to keep the death penalty, I would want there to be one federal law about what constitutes it. I don't want someone in Georgia getting killed because he murdered two people (with the motivation being robbery) and then another guy in Illinois getting life after killing and mutilating 13 prostitutes. Both of those were real cases by the way (except for the Illinois part. I can't remember where that guy lived, but it was in a northern state).

Good point, sox. Though, I don't believe the percentage of innocents being killed should be the determining factor of why the death penalty is wrong. There are also many accused who spend a great deal of their lives in prison, only to be told that they have been wrongfully accused. You can't give 20 or 30 years of life back to someone who has served time, just like you can't give life back to one who has been executed. Therefore, although it's a good argument to use against the death penalty, I think the argument on morality itself is a lot stronger.

Everyone has the right to live. And just say you were wrong, then that person would have died for nothing.

I think it's sick.

/topic.

I don't think it's the only reason why the death penalty is wrong either. I just think it's a good way to argue it. Morality is kind of subjective. Some might see nothing wrong with killing a murderer, while others do. It's hard, however, to argue against innocent people being killed. There are always going to flaws in our court system. People are always going to be condemned for things they didn't do. So wouldn't you rather they be kept alive, even if it's in jail? At least that way they still have something.

serial killers, rapers... kill them all i'd say; but only when evidence is certain.

Definitely, I agreed with you on your point.

However, on the topic of morality, I think subjective is a broad way to describe the differences in moral codes; I think a better way to put it would be, "Morality is ever changing". From my personal study of morals and ethics, this is how I saw it anyway.

A good way to look at the change in morality over time for example is to consider a historical figure, let's look at Genghis Khan, he's now associated with a negative connotation and he's the 'villian'; however, during his lifetime, he was worshipped as a 'hero' and seen as great. He would not be viewed in the same positive light now and one reason for this is the shift of morality as well as the differences in the east and the west of course.

Criminals don't deserve to be killed. Do you want them to get away with it that easy?

Plus a chance of killing innocent people.

Murder does not justify murder.

"Plus a chance of killing innocent people."

didn't i say "but only when evidence is certain"



Murder does not justify murder. - i dunno, i think it does

"Do you want them to get away with it that easy?" care?

Just because someone has committed a terrible crime, doesn't mean they should lose their right to live. I don't believe any person deserves to die. The death penalty also devalues human life and personally I think it's barbaric. Murder does not justify murder because someone who would sentence a murderer to death is as bad as the murderer in my eyes. Taking away something so precious is simply immoral. And at what point would a case be judged 'certain'? Previously, many people have been put to death because it was 'certain' that they were guilty, only to later find out that they were wrong. It can't be undone and that risk shouldn't have been taken in the first place.

If you were wrongfully accused of a crime and sentenced to jail at some point in your life, would you really want people to have a care factor of zero like yourself to the fate of these people? I don't think so.

You may not care personally, but if everyone did not care, how fair would it be? What if it were you one day? or someone you knew? We can't all have this attitude.

Nazis had an efficient method, but it was rather cruel. *goes back to the movie The Pianist*
They tied a pair of people together, took them to a pier, shot one in the back of the head,
the other one drowned But as I said, a rather efficient method.

At such a point in time that a human murders another human, the first person forfeits their right to live. As such I am for the death penalty. If you are against it, below I cite, and talk about, murder cases (some of them were committed by "reformed" murderers).

A murderer has deprived an innocent person of their right to live, they should not be allowed to ever be allowed to enjoy any freedom at all after that point.

The only fitting punishment for the murder of another human being is execution of the murderer.

I am honestly shocked that some of you support the release of murdering scum. You make it seem as thou the murderer is the victim here, the real victim, merely a poor person who is unworthy of a second thought, the real victim of the crime being the murderer. Here is an example of those poor, poor, murderers who have done nothing wrong, and those evil, evil, victims who had the balls to get murdered (I mean, trying to help someone, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or being lured is such a horrible evil crime that the murderers should be allowed free after ridding the world of those horrible innocent non criminals, right? ).



The nerve of those innocent people! Daring to stop to help someone. And the nerve of those evil steak house employees! How dare they actually go about their lives as normal, working a decent job, and not harming anyone. The only fitting punishment for such evil crimes as these can only be death! And then the poor, victimized, abused murderers, should be allowed to go free. I mean, they are the true victims of the crimes. The nine people murdered, well, they should not even be worth a second glance, those horrible horrible innocent people.

Here is another case example (those who are for putting murderers back on the streets, please, read this). If you think there have never been innocent lives lost because the murderer (after being found guilty) was not executed, and instead left alive to go and roam the streets, free to do the same crime, over and over, until they were caught (and then, if those who are for reform-and-release had their way, again after that), please read the next case (keep in mind the poor victimized murderer who has already murdered one innocent, went to jail, then was set free to murder again).



That evil, evil innocent Benjamin Atkins. How dare he try to get the poor, poor, murderer released from jail. For that crime he was killed!

Now, in the above two cases who are the victims and who are the criminals? In both cases, the victims are those who got murdered, and the criminals are the murderers who did it. The only victims of the crimes are those whom the murderer killed. The only fitting crime for such scum is death (release is never, ever, an option).

Not convinced? Read on as I present more cases.



Now, Charles Rector, and Joe Atkins (above), are fine examples of "reformed" murderers. They waited until they thought they would not be caught, and then acted. Murderers are scum, they will continue to kill until they are caught (and never released).



Yet another case of another innocent person being murdered by a "reformed" murderer.

The only victims of the crime are those that can no longer speak for themselves. Why? Because they are dead. Murderers are not the victims of the crime.

~John

I am against the Death Penalty, and all for forgiveness. I still think we are way to harsh on first timers, or people who have made accidents when drunk. Also I don't think any human should have the right to judge over if someone live's or deaths. The added fustration if an innocent person is tried guilty. Though between the choice of death and torture I'd say death, mainly cause I myself am not that afraid of death. As long as whoever does it is truley sorry and vows never to do it of course.

You might be shocked that I supposedly 'support the release of murdering scum', but I'm just as shocked that you support the death of others. I do not support the release of "murdering scum", I believe they should be kept in prison, which is hardly release. I also do not see them as a victim at all, but neither do I see them as anything but human. If killing someone is such a terrible crime that cannot be repented for, why are you so quick to have those people killed, as surely this is murder also. Is this not hypocritical on your part? Furthermore, as said by Ghandi, "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." It could also be argued death itself could be freedom; you said so yourself that you don't want a murderer to be free. True, innocent lives have been lost to murderers, but whether or not a life is 'innocent' does not affect how worthy they are of being able to live. Also, have you even taken into consideration whether or not a supposed 'murder' could be innocent? If an innocent life is condemned to death, alas it is the same crime as a guilty murderer has committed.

to those commented at my post.

what do you suggest then? that the people come free after 25 year? don't forget that they took away that 'precious life'.
so the alternate option is 'lifelong imprisoning'

what does that result to?
either a better life (honestly, i just saw a reportage about prisons in belgium. They got better comfort then me!!!! (except that they don't have a computer)) or a very misserable life (for example, russian prisons).
in the russian prisons, you don't want to be for ever, i'd rather die then sit there for ever.

it's all just a personal look if you ask me.
In my opinion, life isn't 'precious' and a murder can justifie a murder

I suggest that murderers be imprisoned, yes. They won't be able to commit any more murder when incarcerated, yet they are still alive. Why should they die; what does one gain from killing a murderer? Revenge, disguised as justice? It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life. If you don't believe life is precious, do you not value your own? If a murder can justify a murder, anyone who sentences another to death should also be put to death. Furthermore, you said so yourself that a life in prison can be a worse punishment than the death penalty and so it would much more fitting.

Kept in prison for the rest of their life? I would be okay if they were kept in something other then what they are (exercise equipment, three meals, chats with family, walks, sunlight, books, television, learning programs), but they are not. And, I have to pay for this.

Basically, I am paying for a murderer because they killed people. That is not right. It is worse when I have paid their upkeep, they are released, and another innocent life is lost.

Yes, a life being "innocent" defines its value to live. A human who has never murdered, or raped another is innocent. An innocent life is a life that should be allowed to live. Murderers should be subjected to the death penalty.

The removal of a guilty murderer by the government where the murder(s) took place is not murder. It is the removal of trash by the legal governing body (a Judge and Jury in America, for example, is one such body).

It is my understanding that in the last 4 years there has not been a single innocent person subjected to the death penalty who has not been guilty. With the tools we have today to find if a person is guilty or innocent, the risk of finding the wrong man guilty is 0 (to my knowledge). This is not 200 years ago where one had basically nothing to find out the guilty from the innocent.

Have you ever thought of the victims of the crime as anything other then numbers on a page? Murderers are scum. They are the lowest of the low, and given the chance, they would kill, and kill, and kill, and keep on killing if they thought they could get away with it (or keep getting away with it). Life is a reward the innocent have been denied, why should the guilty be rewarded with it?

~John

Vapid generalisations flow so freely in this section of the forum.

If the tools society possesses to determine guilt are 100% accurate, why is it that, Herman Lindesy was convicted of murder in 2006, and exonerated in 2009? You have to accept that, for lack or a better phrase, the system still isn't perfect. Mr. Lindsey's case is not the only one "in the last four years" where a court has "[found] the wrong man guilty". Surely, anyone with the most tenuous grip on basic mathematics can understand that even if there are 999,999, or 999,999,999, or 999,999,999,999 other cases where the right man is found guilty of a crime, the risk of finding the wrong man guilty has still been demonstrated to be greater than 0, because 1/1,000,000 does not equal 0, nor does 1/1,000,000,000 or even 1/1,000,000,000,000.

Also, doesn't bestowing a person with the power to legally end the life of another inherently imply that their life is somehow worth more than the lives of other innocent people?

I agree with you but in America due to the expensive appeals process you have to pay more to kill the scum then too keep it alive. Unfortunately though removing that process would be like anally broomsticking its civil rights.


I used 'it' intentionally btw.

You know what you two remind me of? Two old, Southern White women, in the 1800's, sitting on the porch, and saying "Oh, Martha! Look at how ghastly it is!" ever time a Black person walks by. I'm not just saying that as part of my argument either. That's what you guys actually remind me of.

We refer to insects as it.

Murderers<Insects. simple.

Again, I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying what I think.

Yes i believe in the death penalty because if you kill someone you deserve to be killed

Frankly, guys, John is right--thieves and sometimes even sex offenders can be reformed, but murderers are very, very, VERY difficult to reform, if not impossible.

I would support a life sentence minimum for anyone convicted of first-degree murder.

I'm wavering towards the middle. I will be for it, but am currently against it. When they invent a lie detector that is never wrong, I'll be all for it.

Is it just me, or are a lot of you assuming all murderers all psychotic, serial killers?

If you fail to distinguish between, say, the Boston Strangler and a man who, in a state of uncontrollable grief and fury, kills a man who raped and murdered his wife and children, you are a fool.

Surely it is easier to rehabilitate a man who is driven to a horrific, uncharacteristic extreme by extraordinary trauma, compared a man who sits in his 1970's trailer, passionately sucking the lifeless fingers of the fifth woman he's strangled to death with a length of decommissioned power-line.

Well ffs I meant first degree murder.

That does not include "uncontrollable fits of rage".

Logic simply points to no.

(I'm not sure if anyone else shares this view, but if someone greatly damaged my life in a way that would make the death penalty open, I'd rather give him the long, grueling time in jail then suffer the sweetness of death.)