The death penalty revisited

Why is the death penalty being so unaccepted in the "civilized" world?

I mean is it not right for a man who has planned and committed a murder to get the death penalty? An eye for an eye...

This is where i come from:

In Finland it goes like this

1. You kill someone when you are 14 yrs. old. You get no charges. (Don't give me that bull, 14years olds are totally capable of planning and committing murder for a specific reason)
2. The same person turns 15 and kills someone. Now he gets convicted as a young person doing a crime which equals to a maximum of life in prison = 12 years. He is a young person so he will get with half = 6 years. He behaves well so he gets out on parole after 3 years.
3. The same person now aged 18 is free. Lets say he does a crime again. Murders someone cold-blooded. He gets life in prison as a young person = 12 years.
3. The same person, after good behaviou in prison gets out on parole after serving 6. years. He is now 24 years old. He decides to kill someone. He gets life in prison without parole = 12 years.
7. He is now 36 years old and klills someone cold-blooded. Life in prison.
8. He is now 48 years old and klills someone cold-blooded. Life in prison.
9. He is now 60 years old and klills someone cold-blooded. Life in prison.
10. He is now 72 years old and klills someone cold-blooded. Life in prison.
11. He is now 84 years old and klills someone cold-blooded. Life in prison. He dies in prison.

So how much is a man's life worth? Apparently 11 pother men's lives.

THIS IS JUSTICE FOR YOU?

Imagine those 11 ppl. being your mom, dad, sisters and brothers. Grandparents and cousins. Would you feel even knowing one man has killed everyone who is in your near family, paying only his life for all theirs?

Originally posted by above
Why is the death penalty being so unaccepted in the "civilized" world?

Well theres the old saying, two wrongs dont make a right? What justice are you doing when your committing the exact same crime the guilty committed? Its also highly amusing when staunch rightwing "christians" support the death penalty when the bible stictly states that nobody has the right to take away the life of another.

The death penalty doesnt make any sense. It doesnt set an example for real justice. How can you call it civilized or "sense" for that matter when we "kill" because another person "killed".

THIS IS JUSTICE FOR YOU?

This is another argument I dont get. You really think killing another murderer is justice as opposed to letting them live in a hole for the rest of their life thinking about what they did? In my opinion death is an easy escape from crimes for killers, especially pathological killers. Death is a route for them they choose to go, so putting them to death doesnt do any justice really. Maybe it saves some pennys as opposed to keeping the prisoner alive, but its not real justice.

SG

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Do you agree with Obama for seeking the death penalty for those enemy combatants that are about to go on trial?

I believe in capital punishment but at the same time acknowledge that sometimes a life sentence is a crueler punishment for some individuals.

Either way, justice served depends on whose side one is on or ones belief's.

We live in a society where we must obey certain rules. One of the most basic ones is do what you want as long as you do not infringe on someone others right to do so.

If you plan and commit a murder, you have lost your right to live. You have taken one life, you will pay one life. I don't mean execution per se, but rather lock him up in a basement cell, give him water and bread few times a day until he has suffered enough and decides to let go.

A man who has nothing to loose and decides to murder must suffer more then the victim who had planned a full life for himself before getting slaughtered.

I believe you are factually incorrect about your country's penal proceedings.

Life imprisonment means that the convict will stay in prison until the end of his or her life. Helsinki Court of Appeal decides on the conditional release of prisoners serving a life sentence. The sentence may be terminated also by a pardon issued by the President of the Republic. For more information on presidential pardons, see the website of the Ministry of Justice.

source

12 Years is the minimum amount of time required for parole. Which would never be granted in the scenario you mentioned (a serial killer). The article also states:

A convict prisoner is usually not conditionally released until the prison sentence has been served in full

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Do you agree with Obama for seeking the death penalty for those enemy combatants that are about to go on trial?

No I dont. I dont agree with him and any other use for the death penalty.

I believe in capital punishment but at the same time acknowledge that sometimes a life sentence

You believe in killing for the sake of killing. Murder is murder, killing is killing. We can all put signs and the word "justice" over what is just more killing, it doesnt change that fact.

Either way, justice served

How can you call it justice when your supporting murder yourself? How can you call it justice when your just allowing a pathological murderer to escape his crimes and a life of accountability? If somebody uses murder as a tool of satisfaction, I really cannot understand how using murder on them will do any justice, or make you any different.

One would figure that civilized humans are above the acts committed by the uncivilized.

SG


[edit on 19-11-2009 by Southern Guardian]

In general, most of these pro life types come to their senses and get very pro killing when it comes to them and theirs.

People need to stop using quotes to "prove" their points all of the time.

"An eye for an eye makes the world blind" is a prime example. Nothing is black and white, but shades of grey, blue, yellow, etc. EVERYTHING is different, and everything deserves a different perspective based upon the information given.

If someone murdered my father with a knife, chopped up his body and ate it, then it is obvious the killer is a loon. I would say death penalty since he

1) Intentionally killed someone
2) Useless to society
3) Lacks any signs of change

But, if a drunk driver kills my father, and shows great remorse and signs of change, then I would still be for punishment, but not on the same level. Maybe a year in prison, extreme rehabilitation, community service, teaching sessions, etc etc. Tally up the fines and revoke his license for a bit too. Before he can continue his life normally again, everything would need to be checked.

See the difference? A person can kill someone else, but it is the circumstances in which it has happened what matters.

Absolute ideologies have no bearing in this world.

I would say if you rape someone you get whacked. There are many more crimes that are deserving of the ultimate punishment. Those that disagree never had a loved one raped, tortured and or killed.

I suppose these lovers of monsters would love to spend time with Gacy or Bundy huh? We will see how blind you are after spending some time with these "gentile souls"...

For me, the problem is not with the death penalty itself, because I strongly believe that certain crimes deserve death. The problem is that if the justice system makes a mistake, that is a *big* mistake they made by executing an innocent person. I think the death penalty should be used, but the burden of proof should be even stronger than a criminal court case. "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal court, but for the death penalty, I think it should be "Guilty beyond ANY doubt".

reply to post by DragonsDemesne


I was about to post something similar, so I'll just add to that. I agree that people could debate the issue on whether killing someone for killing someone else is right or wrong, but to be honest that is a diversion and completely irrelevant (aside from a psychological study).

The problem is this: we can never be 100% sure that an accused murderer committed the crime.

Yes, that's right - even with forensic evidence and police testimony. There have been many cases where forensics have proven someone guilty and subsequently overturned years later, sometimes after the person has been executed. Ditto for "witnesses" and corrupt law enforcement officers looking to appease the blood-baying public by 'getting their man', regardless if he/she was innocent or not.

If one innocent is executed, then it is a failing of the most extreme type and equates to worse than murder committed by the public. The system cannot afford to be incorrect when dealing with citizen's lives. Will those who murdered someone by false conviction be tried for murder themselves? Of course not, nor manslaughter for that matter either. On that basis we cannot and should not allow the death penalty, no matter how much we'd like dish out the same treatment to someone who murdered an individual close to us. End of.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

bible stictly states that nobody has the right to take away the life of another.

You need to reread your Bible, especially Exodus and Revelations. The Bible demands that murderers be executed. And before anyone jumps in about Christ's forgiveness...read Revelations. If have not accepted Christ you are condemned to Hell...the ultimate Capital Punishment.

I really can't say I agree with the death penalty, in fact I am totaly opposed to it, but I do feel a sentance of life in prison should mean life in Prison.. I beleive in rehabilitating criminals, and dealing with the root causes that drive some into lives of crime.

Breaking the law should result in some form of punishment, not letting them off with a slapped wrist over and over again.. for me the curent methods just create the criminals of tomorrow and do nothing to prevent crime or protect the rest of the population.

We don't need Victorian laws but we do need the laws we have to mean something, I look at the legal system in the UK and feel it has been castrated by the current bunch we have in power in the UK.

Interesting to note the laws of Finland, I am in the US. It is hard to explain laws in US regarding juveniles and adults since states have their own laws regarding this issue. It is up to the judge whether a juvenile is tried in juvenile or adult court with the respective sentence. In my own opinion, depending on circumstances of who a person is, his specific attorney and atty connections with state government officials determines the outcome of a trial, which probably would be a jury trial. I know there are laws, as I stated before, but many trials are not tried by the court system such as jury, but tried before it is ever taken to court.

Also, to get on topic, in many cases I have no problem with capital punishment because I don't believe prison is punishment enough. There is a life in prison, maybe not the one on the outside, but they do not get bread and water, they get meals. In Federal Prison, they are allowed to get jobs outside the prison.

One murder case in a nearby town included three people who planned this murder of two of the threes adoptee parents. One person turned state evidence and was released, two went to prison, one died in prison and one studied and got two degrees while in prison.

I base a lot a things about law on what I have seen happen and what I have experienced. Much is simply not justice prison or not.