Death penalty?

[Mendax]

People say that they're against the death penalty because they want the criminal to suffer more, which they won't if they get a quick death. This doesn't really make sense. Nothing can be worse than dying because, once you die, that's it. All this thinking, breathing, laughing, talking, crying shit that is part of being alive goes out the window. Therefore, any punishment that takes all that away is the worst form of punishment. A person who is sentenced to life in prison over the death sentence and who does not feel guilty for their crimes sees it as a relief. And, most people who kill someone in a heinous manner don't feel guilty for their crimes. Therefore, we are giving them what they want by keeping them alive.

All just my opinion, of course.

 

[SirJude]

For.
Premeditated murder. Murder while committing a crime ie; Rape, Kidnapping or Terrorism. Murder of a Police Officer/Prison Guard.
Families of victims should have power of veto or at least have their opinions taken into consideration.
MUST have absolutely irrefutable evidence.

 

[Wonderwall]

For, but as many others have said only in exceptional circumstances. And thats assuming the Justice System in Australia could handle that burden which I seriously doubt.

 

[scrapple]

Absolutely for it. I just read a book about serial killer Randy Kraft, who murdered over 60 young men. There is absolutely no justification for keeping this pig alive. None.

 

[Shepherd 2]

Only for serial killelrs who are guilty beyond a doubt.

Shep+

 

[Beachguyj]

An eye for an eye, If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

[frankfrank]

Serial murder in the 1st degree

The current Gov. Perry of Texas is one of the most prolific mass murderers in U. S. history.

 

[scrapple]

frank, I think the families of the victims of the murderers would disagree.

 

[SoulSearcher]

frank, I think the families of the victims of the murderers would disagree.

Justice and revenge are two different things.

 

[blackbeltninja]

I'm absolutely against it, I would rather have 10 criminals walk away free than to have the state murder 1 INNOCENT person, just to gratify the urge to seek revenge.

It's an interesting viewpoint, this one. What if the 10 criminals each walk out and kill 1 innocent person? That's 10 innocent people who would have died instead of just the one innocent accidentally put to death by the state. Hell, even if they only kill 2 people between them after they're released the numbers are still skewed.

I'm a believer in the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few; as a result, I believe in the death penalty. Does "life" mean life, or does it mean parole eventually?

I do believe the process needs expedition, though- none of this sitting on death row for 20 years rubbish. It should be 6 months max from verdict to carrying out the sentence; preferably 6 days.

I realise that a death penalty doesn't necessarily decrease the crime rate, as some JUBbers have pointed out. Perhaps it would if we got on with the executions and so many people didn't live 20 years on Death Row? Additionally, getting rid of the bad ones will lead to less prison overcrowding, and possibly fewer prisons.

Let's get rid of the lot of them, quickly and efficiently. Vote -d- in 2010.

-d-

 

[theFallenGod]

Definitely for ...

Murder (excluding accidental and self defense)

Rape (violent crime)

Child abuse/molestation


There is absolutely no reason that any of the above offenders should be given free room and board (at the expense of the taxpayer) for their entire lives when they have committed so heinous and despicable of a crime.

 

[Sam Blum]

Absolutely for it. I just read a book about serial killer Randy Kraft, who murdered over 60 young men. There is absolutely no justification for keeping this pig alive. None.

Except our own sense of our humanity, which is, I would hope, a corner stone of Justice. The question is a philosophical one that goes to notions of what it is to call ourselves civilised and social and communal. It asks us to decide not only our limits for the behaviours of others in miriad and unforseeable circumstances, but also to put boundaries on our own behaviour in all manner of circumstances - ethically, morally, physically, emotionally. It is those thoughts and ideals and the following actions that keep us aspiring to clearer thoughts and philanthropic greatness with strong hearts that civilise us and allow us to call ourselves communities of humanity - not baying for blood.

And as a rape survivor and the survivor of a murdered friend, I would not want the blood of either of the criminals that committed those acts on my hands, ever. It always surprises me to hear of others speaking on behalf of apparently all survivors or victims of crime when the call for state sanctioned execution goes up. I wonder if the righteous in Iran and such like feel as vindicated and pure as they call for boys in love with each other to be put to death, or for a woman raped to be executed and so on.

And nobody is 100% provable to have committed a crime that cannot be disproven as time moves on and we develop new diagnostic equipment to analyze crimes and their participants and players. Let's not be ready to throw away life for easy results and to kid ourselves that the world of people will ever be a safe place for humans.

 

[SoulSearcher]

It's an interesting viewpoint, this one. What if the 10 criminals each walk out and kill 1 innocent person? That's 10 innocent people who would have died instead of just the one innocent accidentally put to death by the state. Hell, even if they only kill 2 people between them after they're released the numbers are still skewed.

Remember, my stress was not so much on the unprosecuted, but on the innocent men who are too often murdered by the state. It's easy to say that we should expedite their murder, but I'm not ready to give that much power to the state.

I'm a believer in the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few; as a result, I believe in the death penalty. Does "life" mean life, or does it mean parole eventually?

When it comes to justice, it is not about the many or the few, injustice to one is injustice to all. Who speaks for the dozens who were innocent but were murdered by the state, because they were poor, they couldn't hire good representation, because they were black, because they were mentally ill? It's not about anybody's needs, its about justice.

Additionally, getting rid of the bad ones will lead to less prison overcrowding, and possibly fewer prisons.

The prisons in the US are not crowded because there are too many criminals who would otherwise be put to death, its overcrowded because more than half of the prisoners have committed non violent victimless crimes, mostly drug related. Prisons themselves have become profiteering endeavours with increased privatisation, the US has more people behind bars than any other country on this planet. It has nothing to do with death penalty.

Let's get rid of the lot of them, quickly and efficiently. Vote -d- in 2010.

Quite a sentiment you hold toward the sanctity of life.

 

[Looking4Fun2009]

I'm against it and I voted that way in the poll, my reasons for being against it are various and have been mentioned by some posters already. There's always the chance of putting an innocent person to death, death to me seems like an easier way out than living a miserable life in prison, and in my opinion if we sentence someone to death for a crime they've committed, we're no better than they are.

Definitely this. I'm totally against the death penalty, I know why some people might be for it, in the case of really evil crimes, e.g. paedophile's raping kids, the most deranged psychopaths, sociopaths, etc, but, death is an out to them, prison, IMO, and, when it's done right, is a far more effective punishment - it makes them suffer for their crimes, and, in the case of paedophile's, it'll be torture for them, as they won't be able to act on, or carry out, their sick fantasies. Death is the easiest option - you pull a switch, a few minutes later, they're gone, but, the suffering that has been inflicted on the victim, whether it's a child, woman, man, whoever, whatever, lasts, and, in some cases, may never go away. Why let the the one who caused the suffering get off so easily?.

Not to mention, the amount of innocent people that have been put on death row, and executed, only for it to be revealed later that they really weren't guilty, and someone else was.

To me, the death penalty is not a good thing, and, it makes us no better than the people we want gone.

Everyone should take a look at the following site about why the death penalty isn't good:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty

 

[SoulSearcher]

As for tax payers footing the bill, I don't mind. I'd rather my tax dollars go for that than this ridiculous "War on Drugs" started by the Reagan administration. There went billions of dollars flushed down the john. Those laws turned a lot of people into criminals that shouldn't be behind bars.

Not exactly a waste though, the war on drugs meant that it gave us a pretext to constantly interfere in Latin America, and to justify supporting death squads, etc, against leftist groups who were opposing US dominance and support for right wing governments in the region. It also became the reason that more than half of the US prison population are there for victimless crimes, mostly drug related, and that has brought in billions of dollars for the prison industrial complex at the expense of the taxpayer, and today, it leads one of the wealthiest lobbying groups, that continue to criminalise our youth so that more profits could be made from it. Very soon, most of our prisons would be privatised and profit making endeavours.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Remember, my stress was not so much on the unprosecuted, but on the innocent men who are too often murdered by the state. It's easy to say that we should expedite their murder, but I'm not ready to give that much power to the state.

When it comes to justice, it is not about the many or the few, injustice to one is injustice to all. Who speaks for the dozens who were innocent but were murdered by the state, because they were poor, they couldn't hire good representation, because they were black, because they were mentally ill? It's not about anybody's needs, its about justice.

Fair enough, but if the 10 criminals go free and murder an additional 10 people, then what? Surely the potential of 10 people is worth the risk of condemning one man? Where is the justice for the 10 people murdered by repeat offenders who weren't executed because we didn't want to condemn one man accidentally?

The prisons in the US are not crowded because there are too many criminals who would otherwise be put to death, its overcrowded because more than half of the prisoners have committed non violent victimless crimes, mostly drug related. Prisons themselves have become profiteering endeavours with increased privatisation, the US has more people behind bars than any other country on this planet. It has nothing to do with death penalty.

The Wik reckons 3300-odd people currently sitting on Death Row; and a third of that number executed since 1976 (33 years). Surely that's a prison or two's worth of prisoners who are taking up space waiting to be executed. It's maybe not enough in the grand scheme of things to make a significant difference to overcrowded prisons, though.

Quite a sentiment you hold toward the sanctity of life.

I'm tired of hearing stories of people getting paroled and murdering/raping/robbing again, frankly. In fact, I'm tired of stories of people murdering, raping and robbing in the first place. Let's get some deterrents out there, for one, and let's help justice to be done and to be seen to be done. Some guys need more than a slap on the wrist and some need more than a few years in lock-up to get the message across.

I stand by my original statement - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and what the many need is justice and for dangerous people who don't get how society works to be briskly removed from it. What are the stats like for rehabilitated dangerous criminals, anyway? If more than 1/5 go on to repeat an offence, as far as I'm concerned that's enough evidence to terminate every man jack of them.

Do you think there would be more crime if there was no punishment at all? If yes, surely it stands to reason that any sort of punishment decreases crime, and surely it follows that "increasing" the punishment - getting rid of bad eggs pronto - would decrease it further. Wasn't this the principle of the 3-strikes even for minor offences in New York in the late 80s/early 90s? Show them you're not fucking around and you're not putting up with anyone's bullshit any longer and after the first few stinkers are disappeared the rest start to think "hang on... he wasn't kidding..."

I'm writing of course from the lawless and distant shores of the 3rd world and the Dark Continent. It might seem all out there and whatever to you, but this is the real world for many of us. Perhaps I might think differently were I in your neck of the woods. And of course, the converse might also apply. Our rape stats, sad to say, are 1 in 3 for women here in .za and needless to say we have no death penalty. It seems a little sanctimonious to me to burden 1 in 3 women with rape because we don't inadvertantly want to execute one wrong guy.

-d-

 

[SoulSearcher]

Fair enough, but if the 10 criminals go free and murder an additional 10 people, then what? Surely the potential of 10 people is worth the risk of condemning one man? Where is the justice for the 10 people murdered by repeat offenders who weren't executed because we didn't want to condemn one man accidentally?

Your scenario is irrelevant to my argument that the state should not be allowed to murder, because it has and will murder innocent people. Longer sentences and life in prison is enough to safeguard society from repeat offenders.

The Wik reckons 3300-odd people currently sitting on Death Row; and a third of that number executed since 1976 (33 years). Surely that's a prison or two's worth of prisoners who are taking up space waiting to be executed. It's maybe not enough in the grand scheme of things to make a significant difference to overcrowded prisons, though

.

Again, we have more people behind bars than any other country in the world, and the people on death row make up about 0.0165% of our overall prison population.

I'm tired of hearing stories of people getting paroled and murdering/raping/robbing again, frankly. In fact, I'm tired of stories of people murdering, raping and robbing in the first place. Let's get some deterrents out there, for one, and let's help justice to be done and to be seen to be done. Some guys need more than a slap on the wrist and some need more than a few years in lock-up to get the message across.

Studies by our own justice department and by many other agencies show that murder by the state is NOT a deterrent. Life in prison is NOT a slap on the wrist.

I stand by my original statement - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and what the many need is justice and for dangerous people who don't get how society works to be briskly removed from it. What are the stats like for rehabilitated dangerous criminals, anyway? If more than 1/5 go on to repeat an offence, as far as I'm concerned that's enough evidence to terminate every man jack of them.

Death penalty is nobody's "need", justice is, and if an innocent man is murdered, its a miscarriage of justice. You obviously hold a different definition of what justice is. "Briskly" removing people from society does not require killing them, that's why we have prisons. And if our laws on drugs are reformed, we'd save billions of tax payer dollars and our prisons would not be overcrowded.

Do you think there would be more crime if there was no punishment at all? If yes, surely it stands to reason that any sort of punishment decreases crime, and surely it follows that "increasing" the punishment - getting rid of bad eggs pronto - would decrease it further. Wasn't this the principle of the 3-strikes even for minor offences in New York in the late 80s/early 90s? Show them you're not fucking around and you're not putting up with anyone's bullshit any longer and after the first few stinkers are disappeared the rest start to think "hang on... he wasn't kidding..."

No one is suggesting that criminals be set free!!! And no, not all forms of punishment decreases crimes, and death penalty is one, which across Europe and the US has shown to have no impact on occurrences of crimes.

I'm writing of course from the lawless and distant shores of the 3rd world and the Dark Continent. It might seem all out there and whatever to you, but this is the real world for many of us. Perhaps I might think differently were I in your neck of the woods. And of course, the converse might also apply. Our rape stats, sad to say, are 1 in 3 for women here in .za and needless to say we have no death penalty. It seems a little sanctimonious to me to burden 1 in 3 women with rape because we don't inadvertantly want to execute one wrong guy.

Perhaps thats why you show so little regard or empathy for the innocent who are murdered by the state. Afterall, in your neck of the woods, the voices of certain strata of society never quite reach any ears.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Perhaps thats why you show so little regard or empathy for the innocent who are murdered by the state. Afterall, in your neck of the woods, the voices of certain strata of society never quite reach any ears.

Oh dear. I do hope you're not actually saying what I suspect you are. Perhaps you'd like to come right out and just put it unambiguously so we're all on the same page.

Still, my empathy lies with the 26000 murdered and 76000 raped here every year by "certain strata of society" as you so eloquently put it. Far as I'm concerned, you could accidentally put 1000 people to death provided you managed to do some considerable damage to those offenders at the same time.

What is the point of keeping someone locked up for 50 years, anyway? If you have no intention of letting him out again ever and he'd going to die there, let's cut to the chase and achieve the same result. Frankly, from the taxpayer's perspective, I'd rather see my my taxes spent on something which has a tangible outcome - new roads, or more schools, for example - than keeping some murderer on three squares a day and free healthcare. Gads, some of the taxpayers don't even get that guarantee, so why should the people we've removed from our society?

-d-

 

[scrapple]

It's interesting to see everyone almost equally divided on this issue.

 

[levenshulme31]

Justice demands punishment.

Punishment, yes. revenge, no.