What are your thoughts on the death penalty?

Let's say you and everyone in a country you live in had a vote on having death penalties laws in their country. People will forum groups before the vote; to support or not approve the death penalty in their country. They would make signs, post on forms, hand out fliers, ect. Some will make really strong cases to gain your vote. I would like to play both side of the coins here to get you thinking before you answer my question. One reason is the over crowding in prisons in America. On the other hand a lot of prisoners are making progress in their lives. Numerous prisoners build many items in prison for companies to sell. There are many people who are unemployed and could be doing those jobs as we speak. Please join in and give your 2 cents. Maybe you know someone in prison. You might of read an article or seen the news of a criminal doing something terrible. Everyone's views are different. "Remember! Keep it civil!"

Spending the rest of your life in a cell seems like more punishment than being gently euthanized, and we're spending way more money on way more ridiculous things than what it costs to house people anyways.

The problem of overcrowded prisons could be alleviated with the release of or at least an end to the prosecution of people for non-violent drug crimes, which make up the majority of the incarcerated populous...


Manufacturing should go to people that need jobs, not to imprisoned slaves who do it for pennies on the dollar.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by alaskan]

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Thank you for the thread! Quite an interesting subject here. I'll give my honest opinion about the topic.

Numerous prisoners build many items in prison for companies to sell. There are many people who are unemployed and could be doing those jobs as we speak.

This is quite an interesting point. In my own view, the punishment should be equal to the crime committed. If one murdered another, then that person should sentenced to death in return. This point here though, instead of dying, they could work for the rest of their lives creating products.

I am very unsure. I feel as if I should stick with the punishment equals the crime ideology for the time being.

Perhaps other comments in this thread will sway my opinion! I look forward to reading them!

Kind regards

I personally don't think that the government is wise enough to use the death penalty option . Just think of all the things they get wrong and we want to trust them with the task of executing its citizens ?

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


I used to be strongly in support of the death penalty. I am now opposed to it.

Too many opportunities for the police to either accidentially or purposefully mishandle/abuse evidence for my liking.

Frankly, I don't trust the state and prefer that they be unable to make life/death decisions in the realm of criminal justice. Life in prison without possibility of parole works just fine for me.

I've never been a fan of state sponsored or allowed death, abortion or death penalty.

Personally, life breaking rocks seems way worse in my opinion and much cheaper (and a bargain on gravel and stone for my yard) due to the safeguards imposed against killing an innocent person.

I say give it up and think of something to GAIN from that person's life. If they are bad enough to die for their crimes, at least they can benefit us rather than eating up more money and being sweetly and kindly put down.

Mining seems to be a dangerous profession, perhaps they can work there. Pretty hard to escape from a mine shaft, and if there is a cave it... OOOPS. Sorry, guess nature did the job for us and we got some cheap coal out of the deal.

Peace
KJ

reply to post by Hitotsumami


Like an eye for an eye. I could dig deeper in people who support and don't support the death plenty. There are a lot of people who believe these prisoners are being used as slaves in these prisons.

I am 100% for the death penalty but ONLY in cases in which the accused is 100% guaranteed guilty. In other words, if they are on video murdering someone or have multiple witnesses or have bodies in their fridge and under the basement floor then we should not waste time and money feeding the scum and whack them within 30 days of conviction.

If there is anything less then 100% known guilt, then imprisonment with chance for appeal.





[edit on 30-6-2010 by infolurker]

I am against it. Because innocent people can and do get convicted of murder, and in our country with our governmental and police corruption there is too much potential of someone being framed and executed.

Although I admit to being torn. There are humans who are irredeemable, and too dangerous to be left alive. Usually, however they are world leaders and they are unlikely to be convicted of their crimes anyway, as they have friends in equally high places.

So, life in prison no parole for me, rather than the death penalty.

reply to post by infolurker


Good point but you do realize that all court cases are suppose to be a 100% certainty of guilt to obtain a conviction or the defendant must be found not guilty .

I do understand what you are saying , I just wanted to point that out .

I also used to be in support of the death penalty, but as of late I have been questioning both its efficacy and its morality. Even if one commits a crime, of any degree of heinousness, can he not claim some kind of basic human right, apart from any constitution, apart from any man made document, to live?

The human species is the most intelligent on the planet, yet we still kill people as punishment? Why is criminality not treated with the same scientific rigor as biology? There must be some underlying cause to the crime, especially one that would warrant a death sentence, and surely we stand to gain more from finding this problem as well as possible solutions than simply slaying the criminal...

Sometimes? Yes. No doubt in that case. And she's been out for a few years now. :shk:

I think that today we are in much better shape to apply the DP. Our science has advanced dramatically. In slam dunk cases like this. Yes. DP. Saves the taxpayer $500,000+/yr for these types of inmates.

reply to post by infolurker


I am somewhat inline with this belief.

If it was 100% provable, and especially heinous such as involving children, elderly or invalids, desecration of remains involved or mass murder 'crazy' types (dahmer, manson.)

Some guy who got mad at his cheating wife, or the kid who got teased by a bully, despite premeditation, is not a candidate IMO.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Wolf321]

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by infolurker

 

Good point but you do realize that all court cases are suppose to be a 100% certainty of guilt to obtain a conviction or the defendant must be found not guilty .

I do understand what you are saying , I just wanted to point that out .

Not true, it is "guilty beyond a "reasonable doubt". In other words the jury decides based on evidence and testimony that the "guilt" is most probable.

reply to post by intrepid


Just how do we pick and chose which ones are ok for the DP and what ones aren't ? How would such a regulation governing the use of the DP be written and who would it be left to to interpret ?

Or would we hold a referendum for each case ?

Remember to find a person guilty one has to have 100 % certainty of guilt to convict as it stands right now , that means the person is 100 % guilty as far as the law is concerned , there by opening the person up to this notion of a DP when its proven 100 % .





[edit on 30-6-2010 by Max_TO]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I agree with you.
And a person serving a life in prison sentence, unjustly, at least has hope and chances to be found innocent of the crime(s) that got him/her into prison.
There's no coming back from a death penalty that has been completed.

reply to post by infolurker


You are right , but is beyond reasonable doubt not the same thing ? Just what is reasonable doubt ?

And once a person is found guilty by court is that person not seen as 100% guilty ?

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


I once read a prominent sociologist's thesis on the death penalty wherein he stated that one of the reasons society considers certain crimes to be "heinous" is because we execute people who commit them.

In other words, we execute people to reinforce certain standards of conduct. Hence, we also consider some crimes to be so inconsequential, almost acceptable, as a sort of "cost of doing business" societally as to be tolerable, or "petty." The most extreme demand the most extreme negative reinforcement.

jw

Am definitely against capital punishishment. Years in prison is a fitting sentence without parole.

Although I am not religious, the bible clearly states....Thou shall not kill.

Four walls for life is punishment enough. Time to think about the greivious crimes they committed.

Plus, murderers are twice as likely to be killed by other inmates.

Why waste precious tax dollars (Jury and Judge) on a death certain to happen anyways?

A death sentence can cost upwards of millions of dollars. Let them waste away at 35 k a year. Much cheaper.

If someone killed my family member, why give them the easy out? Let them suffer for life.

Just found this ...

beyond a reasonable doubt
adj. part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reason- able doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure." By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than "preponderance of the evidence," used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil (non-criminal) case.

dictionary.law.com...

I believe you to be right , to be found guilty does not imply the case has been proven 100 % But rather proven to the certainty of the judging body.

I will say that it sure as heck is one big grey area open to a wide range of interpretation



[edit on 30-6-2010 by Max_TO]