Death Penalty

[Pokerman]

The abortion thread got me thinking about one of my other favorite topics: The Death Penalty

The question is simple:

Do you believe in the death penalty as the ultimate punishment for certain crimes?

Note the poll has no "other". if you think there is even one circumstance that it's appropriate then vote yes. If you believe that no way, no how, not ever should the government put a criminal to death then vote no.

No middle ground.

As always, i want to hear your opinions, too.

 

[Andreina]

No, I dont.

 

[Skibum]

I find it ironic that people who are willing to kill (abort) an unwanted child, are often not willing to kill a violent criminal.

 

[Fly_On_Wall]

Nope

Death??? they got off easy.

there are much worse things then death.

 

[J.B.]

Well I'm sorry if you don't agree but...

There are certain crimes that do warrent the death penalty....

 

[Andreina]

I saw this coming up, but this is how I see it.

I know this is oxymoronic but I don't believe in capital punishment as a just form of punishment. I think these days the European Union countries, for example, live quite well without death penalty.

Being pro-choice does not mean that I would personally go ahead with an abortion but that I would grant EVERY woman the right to decide what happens with her body.

And I find it quite strange that people who are pro-life are trying so hard to fight for their cause that they plant bombs in abortion clincs and thereby killing others.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

And I find it quite strange that people who are pro-life are trying so hard to fight for their cause that they plant bombs in abortion clincs and thereby killing others.

Very few pro-life people do this, just as very few pro-choice people believe in infantcide or forced abortion (yes there are some pro-choice leaders who have publicly said that the Chinese have the right idea).

I voted yes for the death penalty and yes I am pro-life. It is hard to compare the death penalty to abortion as the criminal has done something to warrant that penalty, whereas an unborn child is as innocent as you can get.

While I believe that taking of a human life can be justified with regards to self-defense (yes, this argument can be made for the death penalty), that you cannot justify the taking of a human life just for convenience.

I do have problems with the death penalty however; lately we have had a number of people whose convictions have been reversed based on new DNA evidence exonerating them. Therefore I would say that the death penalty should be only for violent crimes resulting in death, such as murder, and then only if the evidence leaves no doubt as to the guilt of the person so condemned. This leaves out those death penalties for extreme cases of drug trafficking.

 

[WriterDom]

Life without parole. Build special prisons to house them. Give them a 8 x 8 foot cell with a cement floor, a cot, toilet, and sink. Let them out one at a time once a week to shower (alone). If they want, they can have a bible or a Koran.

 

[kotori]

No

No

(Wanna hear it again?)

No

 

[Weird Harold]

I know this is oxymoronic but I don't believe in capital punishment as a just form of punishment. I think these days the European Union countries, for example, live quite well without death penalty.

Considering that I know of at least one case where a person was convicted and later pardoned by an EU member later commmitted a string of murders in the US, I have a little trouble with the "living quite well without [the] death penalty" theory.

Whatever faults there might be in the application of the death penalty, there is one irrefutable fact: Not one person who has been executed ever escaped or committed another crime!

There are people in prison for "life" that should never, ever see the light of day again who are presented to the parole board every year for a review of their sentence. Sooner or later, some liberal, bleeding heart, parole board is going to decide that Charles Manson, or someone else of his ilk, is "no longer a threat to society" and set him free to do exactly what he has promised to do -- make up for lost time by making the Tate/La Bianca killing look like child care. Charles Manson should have died at least 20 years ago. Feeding and educating this animal is a waste of taxpayer dollars that could have been better spent defeating his appeals and paying the hangman.

(If you haven't figured it out, I voted YES!)

 

[Andreina]

give them life sentence without parole, put shakles on their feet and let them work in a field planting potatoes with their hands.... put them in a cell at nights.

Life can be so hard. Why let them go the easy way?

 

[LukkyKnight]

War is the death penalty

We can't reform the Taliban/Al Qaeda to live in the civilized world, so we bomb them. Talk about your death penatly. Ignoring the collateral/civilian casualty question, isn't this the same issue?

 

[MidnightAngel]

Life without parole. Build special prisons to house them.

This is one (but NOT the only) reason that I do believe in capital punishment. Not only the expense of housing a violent felon for the rest of his life, but then you get into the free legal services which are used/abused to file endless frivolous lawsuits because the food isn't good enough, etc, etc..

No criminal has ever escaped from a cemetary.

 

[lovetoread]

I believe in the death penalty deeply.

My only thing is that we wait too long to make them dead. I think if you are convicted and sentenced to death,you should die within a month or two.

If later it comes up that you were innocent,then your family will receive some sort of compensation.

 

[Andreina]

I believe in the death penalty deeply.

My only thing is that we wait too long to make them dead. I think if you are convicted and sentenced to death,you should die within a month or two.

If later it comes up that you were innocent,then your family will receive some sort of compensation.

let's say that tiger and you were married ( ) and he would be convicted of murdering someone and died 1 month after his trial on the electric chair or through whatever method. then they found out he wasnt guilty. you'd receive $10,000,000 or so... would that really compensate you for his life?

 

[J.B.]

I would just like to say.....

I agree with Lovetoread & Midnight... Especially the housing point... I do not want to pay for the food that is keeping a mass murderer alive.... sorry.

 

[bluespoke]

A man kills.

A state executes.

They're both killers.

 

[Weird Harold]

If later it comes up that you were innocent,then your family will receive some sort of compensation.

What sort of compensation could possibly be adequate for a wrongful execution?

This is why I believe that there should be some very strict standards for applying the death penalty. The legal system need some radical reforms before the death penalty can be applied as it should be -- for those cases where the criminal is a danger to society and undeniably the perpetrator. Mental illness that makes a person a danger to society should be no defense.

On the other hand, a person who killed family members in a fit of depression is NOT a danger to society and might not be a candidate for the death penalty regardless of the heinous nature of the crime.

The death penalty should be reserved for cases that are the equivalent of putting a mad dog to sleep to protect people from it's derangment.

 

[JennyOmanHill]

I do NOT approve of death being a punishment. I personally see it as a type of "reward" or an end to suffering. I believe a convicted criminal should continue to live a miserable life (maybe even watching endless infomercials!). Seriously, I see death as a release of physical and mental anguish, and if I were to face the choice of living imprisoned forever or death, death would be a blessing!

 

[J.B.]

A man kills.

A state executes.

They're both killers.

I'm not saying kill everyone who has killed or commited a crime....
If the man/woman has killed to save his family then this is concidered self defence...
BUT
If this man/woman has killed once, twice, three times or more & shows no intent of stopping or even remorse... Why would we keep this person alive?
In this case I think the sate is protecting it's people....

 

[Guest]

Yes.

For some crimes, there is no other appropriate option. It's not 'punishment', because the person can't possibly learn from it. It's retribution, certainly. It's wiping a vile creature from the planet, but it's not punishment.

Why should a victim's family have to pay to support these people who live fairly well in prison (they are, after all, ALIVE)... get college degrees, get married, have friends... when they snatched the life away from someone else? If someone has so lost touch with their humanity that they can commit such unfathomable crimes, then they've relegated them selves to animal status. Bad animals get put down. No rehabilitation, no therapy, just a bullet to the head.

 

[Calamity Jane]

That was me

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

A man kills.

A state executes.

They're both killers.

Yes, but they are not both murderers.

Unless you are a pacifist and do not believe that there is such a thing as justified homicide then you must allowed that a person or even a society can kill in self-defense.

I don't have a problem with the expense of incarceration of murderers since the same argument could be made for the cost of incarceration for lesser offenses. It costs just as much to incarcerate a thief as it does a serial murderer, so why not execute thieves?

What I do have a problem with is that people serving life sentences without a chance of parole can pose a danger to other lesser criminals and guards. Also, there is no such thing as an escape proof prison.

There are some people who pose such a proven danger to society, even incarcerated, that execution as self-defense is justified.

 

[Weird Harold]

I do NOT approve of death being a punishment.

Properly applied, the death penalty is NOT about punishment -- it's about protecting society. Whether the sentence is prison or death, it should NEVER be about "punishment" or revenge, the only proper consideration should be justice.

 

[MissTaken]

While there are many good arguements to both sides of the issue, I do believe in the death penalty. Most of my reasons have been listed above.

Repeat felons who have committed heinous crimes, who have been proven to be guilty on at least two occasions and for whom rehabilitation is out of the question, should be executed. As a statement in and of itself, I realize there are many loopholes.

Example: Arthur Shawcross. Murdered one, possibly two young children in Northern New York. He served several years in a less than max facility and was paroled on good behavior. He spoke to therapists and KNEW what to say to convince them he was remorseful etc.

Upon release, Arthur went on a killing spree downstate, murdering prostitutes. One of which he ate her lips.

Later, diagnosed with an untreatable disorder, XX syndrome.

IT is to no one's benefit that he serves a life term.