The death penalty

DeletedUser8950

I've been pondering this for some time, and here is a thread to debate the ethics of the death penalty.
I see several people who steadfastly oppose the death penalty, then hear about somebody like Jeffery Dahmer and seem appauled and often support the death.
Here in England the death penalty is banned, so rapists, necrophillics etc. are not killed, whatever the crime. I would like to pose a question:

Is the death penalty something that should be used at all, and if so, in what kind of cases?
 

DeletedUser

Send 'em to Texas!

Where the motto is:
Welcome to Texas, where if you kill someone we will kill you back!
 

DeletedUser8950

Send 'em to Texas!

Where the motto is:
Welcome to Texas, where if you kill someone we will kill you back!
But does the bible not say do not kill and do not judge? I thought the JW's have a strict no violence policy?
And does killing them solve the situtation, or cause more pain?
(I am not arguing from any point here)
 

DeletedUser9470

Send 'em to Texas!

Where the motto is:
Welcome to Texas, where if you kill someone we will kill you back!

i like what you say here blondie, that tends to be the way i talk.
the US is definately a country in a different time warp and i love to have a dig...

that aside death penalty is harsh and puts pressure on society.

is this a good thing?

anyone concerned by this would have to be scared that they might end up in that situation....

So those who cannot abide the laws of society should be shot or deported to Australia.
"...Bunch of English Rednecks..." - Robin Williams
 

DeletedUser

The worst thing about the EU justice system is that there is no death penalty. Im a strong supporter of death penalty myself and appaerantly Im not the only one. Here in Estonia everyone constantly complain about rapists and murderes getting away with not much punishement.

EU is in the middle of economic crises and prison system is costing us more and more, and yet they haven't managed to bring death penalty back to us.
 

DeletedUser

Agree with RAWDOG, life in prison is a much greater punishment than the death penalty. Anyway, with the appeals required for such cases it's usually more like life with a chance of execution. Also, we have to remember the possiblity of accidentally condemning an innocent person to death.

@eliel: That's because the EU, in it's constitution, makes opposition to the death penalty one of the organization's highest principles, so don't expect to get the death penalty back anytime soon, unless Estonia drops its membership in the EU. Read the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, Artice 2, Section 2: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

And:
 

DeletedUser

lol, i love it. There we go again with pro-lifers advocating the death penalty.
 

DeletedUser

Yep. Reminds me of a hyper-conservative fellow I came across once who believed abortion was immoral but advocated stoning homosexuals to death (he was a second-generation Nigerian). When I asked him, "So you're saying that nonthinking, unborn embryos deserve life more than sentient, living human beings", he answered with a plain "Yes." I'm not even going to get into everything else he believed in (dictatorship for the US, Palin for president, India should conquer the middle-east, Russian should be sold to oil barons, abolish minimum wage, etc).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser22575

Send 'em to Texas!

Where the motto is:
Welcome to Texas, where if you kill someone we will kill you back!

And they are even getting quite good there at apologizing when they find out they executed someone who was innocent.

Texas, just like several other states have had several whose convictions over turned because they were clearly not guilty based on DNA evidence.

So..when we are sure that those we execute are actually guilty...

And we are prepared to pay more to try capitol cases then it cost to keep them locked up for the rest of their life..

Then maybe the death penalty might be a consideration.
 

DeletedUser

But does the bible not say do not kill and do not judge? I thought the JW's have a strict no violence policy?
And does killing them solve the situtation, or cause more pain?
(I am not arguing from any point here)


I do not condone violence in any way.

And we do not have any part in the justice system of this world.

But the authorities are put in their place and are allowed to exist by God. Says the Bible. So there is a need for a form of justice in this world.

However, what is justice?

I do not want to bring the Bible in every discussion im in, but I must in this instance.
But the Bible has an accurate view of Justice.

An eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life.

If you take a life, then I do think that justice would be that you lose yours. Provided only when there is indisputable evidence that the person mudered the victim.

But God did allow imperfect people to judge those in a court case. Then I do think that we are to perform our own justice of what is right.

And for the record, i was making a joke when i said what i said about Texas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Prison for live, let 'em rot in their own ways.


correct! Let them rot there for their lives!

It's not a good idea to kill just because someone sinned, prison is enough. PS: Killing one human, means YOU taking the sins of that human, pretty hefty no?*searches for that bible line*
 

DeletedUser13682

I believe we should make prisoners work in jobs that nobody wants, make them pay off their visit to prison. Also, I believe that the stocks should come back. There's nothing more humiliating than eeverybody you know finding out that you committed a crime. I also believe in the death penalty for extreme cases. People who are too dangerous to keep, like people who have tried to escape multiple times, people who keep attacking the other prisoners and guards, etc. etc.
 

DeletedUser

I believe we should make prisoners work in jobs that nobody wants, make them pay off their visit to prison. Also, I believe that the stocks should come back. There's nothing more humiliating than eeverybody you know finding out that you committed a crime. I also believe in the death penalty for extreme cases. People who are too dangerous to keep, like people who have tried to escape multiple times, people who keep attacking the other prisoners and guards, etc. etc.


sadly, I kinda agree even if it's goes behind my religion thing>.>
 

DeletedUser

I kinda agree with that too, as long as the prisoners are kept working on public projects (roads, govt. buildings, etc) rather than being chartered to corporations and private interests. These people took from our society, they should have to give back. We used to use chain gangs on public projects but human rights groups have condemned it for being akin to slavery, although if the prisoners are being given adequate rest, food, water, and overall treatment I don't see any problem with it.
 

DeletedUser

I Agree, but some people ( As always ) will take it the wrong way. They try to find atleast 1 thing someone finds wrong, and makes it a huge deal.
 

DeletedUser

I Agree, but some people ( As always ) will take it the wrong way. They try to find atleast 1 thing someone finds wrong, and makes it a huge deal.
Omg, what's wrong with you?! Of course nobody is going to take something wrong, and it's wrong of you to think that. Wherever do you get these ridiculous notions!?

Anyway, umm, because of the uncertainty of determining guilt or innocence, the death penalty should be reserved for the dead, while the rest can serve out life sentences whilst providing them the opportunity to appeal should new evidence be presented that may, in fact, prove them innocent. You see, you can end a life sentence and provide some degree of financial compensation for an incorrect ruling, but you can't do crap if you already killed the guy.

Really, what do you do then, when you find out you put someone to death who was actually innocent? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?

Who's the murderer now?

The answer is, death penalty is murder. Claiming it is justified doesn't dismiss that it is still a murder, particularly considering the present track record for death penalties resulting in lots of innocent corpses.

And you can't argue that you need to fix the justice system before instituting the death penalty, because it's not merely the justice system that results in wrongful death sentences --- it's the jury, the evidentiary process, overzealous district attorneys, etc and so on. As long as there is the human element, there is room for error. As long as there are technological developments, there is room for new findings.

Besides, a life sentence is brutal. If I were in such a situation, I would "prefer" the death penalty over a life sentence. You think someone deserves to be punished for their wrongful act? Then why give them an easy out? Hell, you put Kevorkian in prison for providing assisted suicide, and yet you advocate just that with the death penalty.
 

DeletedUser22575

On paper at least we have a great justice system. A fair and impartial trial by a jury of your peers, a judge, defense attorney (provided free if you can't afford one) and a prosecutor whom are all three are officers of the court and dedicated to serving the principal of justice.

In reality our system has turned into a sorry piece of trash, and our judges are the best of the bunch, which often is not saying much.

When you get away from the high profile cases you will often find that:

Prosecutors are more interested a future political office than serving justice. So their primary concern is their win/loss recored and being "tough on crime", not if someone is really guilty or innocent. They often use the theory of the "best evidence" in their case presentation, discarding any evidence from it that doesn't fit in with the fairytale they are presenting.

And should new evidence be found later that proves your innocences, or at least presents a reasonable doubt of your guilt you best hope it is soon after your conviction.

Other wise guess what. Mr Prosecutor is not going to go to the appeals courts and say.."yes, it sure does look like you are innocent".

He is in fact going to go their and argue..."To late, the time to present new evidence has expired. You had your fair and impartial trial, you were found guilty by a jury of your peers, at this point guilt or innocence is irrelevant."

And in all to many cases the Appeals Courts have agreed with this argument based on precedence.

Defense Attorneys all to often aren't interested in guilty or innocent, but in a speedy resolution of the case as to make more money with the next case. So they are interested in pleading out cases to a lesser offense. Once Defendants realize that the right to a speedy trial is a pipe dream and in fact when dealing with the poorer portion of our population spend possible two years setting in a county jail before trial often agree to plea out especially with a deal that lets them out of prison before they would even go to trial.

By the way, they count this as a "win" and will cite to their next client how they had someone "facing 20 years and they got them off for only 5 years instead".

And Public Defenders. These people are in fact over worked, under paid, working with minimum support staff trying to defend someone against the Prosecution which has an unlimited budget paid by you the tax payer.

And they are often the bottom of the scale when it comes to lawyers, on the bottom rung of being on the way to a different career for numerous various reasons.

If you are lucky enough to get a good one it is still an up hill battle, even if you are in fact innocent.

Try as they might they don't have the time to give your case the time it deserves. They have to fight to get funds for testing of evidence to prove your innocence, to get police detectives assigned to your case specifically to try and prove your innocence, or to hire private detectives to interview witnesses on your behalf.

And this stacks on top of budgets for the Public Defenders office being under funded or cut on an ongoing basis. This situation will only worsen in our current economic situation. Which politician is going to risk demanding more funds for this and face being labeled as "soft on crime" when they can vote for something such as road improvements instead.

As far as that jury of your peers, those who are there after doing everything they can to get out of jury duty and failing. If you are lucky and they are not busy tweeting, surfing the Internet, or sleeping, a couple of them might actually pay attention. But don't count on it. And by the way, don't count on jury members sleeping as being an justification for an appeal.

As long as we have a judicial system where the rules are different state by state, and the prosecutors are only interested in their personal score card instead of justice, where potential jurors are in fact eliminated based on the race of the defendant, etc, instead of a national system of trials where the rules are the same our system will only get worse as our society and those citizens who it is composed of become more disposable.

Its very easy for some to sit back and yell "hang them high" ignoring what our system has become, and what DNA evidence is proving time and time again. We are sending innocent people to prison and death row.

It is easy to be judgmental about something you read about.

But, when the time comes that it is your Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, other relative, or best friend that is caught up in the system....remember where you stood in the past on this issue, don't be surprised or shocked by what the system is really like.

Just stand up in court and yell..."Hang them High". Stick to your beliefs about those "criminals".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

All of you who say that let them rot in prison, do you even consider the ammount of tax-payer money that is spent on keeping all those prisoners? Its a complete and utter waste of everyone's money.
 
Top