Time To Get Rid Of The Death Penalty, Worldwide

[West]

I find it shocking that some countries still implement the death penalty. These are my reasons for objecting to it-

1) It's barbaric.

2) It's uncivilised.

3) The state should never have the power of life or death over it citizens.

4) It gives perpetrators of crime no actual punishment, ie, 30 years in a prison with a tough regime and time to reflect on what they have done.

5) Miscarriages of justice will happen.

6) It's just revenge.

7) Humans should have enough empathy with and compassion for another human being that would make killing one unthinkable.

8) In the US relatives of the victim watch on as the perpetrator is put to death. Whats that about? Its just nauseating.


In my view the death penalty shows a real lack of compassion and humanity in a society.

 

[Jarhyn]

I find it shocking that some countries still implement the death penalty. These are my reasons for objecting to it-

1) It's barbaric.

2) It's uncivilised.

3) The state should never have the power of life or death over it citizens.

4) It gives perpetrators of crime no actual punishment, ie, 30 years in a prison with a tough regime and time to reflect on what they have done.

5) Miscarriages of justice will happen.

6) It's just revenge.

7) Humans should have enough empathy with and compassion for another human being that would make killing one unthinkable.

8) In the US relatives of the victim watch on as the perpetrator is put to death. Whats that about? Its just nauseating.


In my view the death penalty shows a real lack of compassion and humanity in a society.

I would say the right time for a death penalty is when someone has been either incarcerated humanely for public safety and escapes, or rejected incarceration here and been accepted by a foreign government and returns, or when no foreign government will take them. At some point people who are a danger and who seek to continue to be a danger, people who refuse to be polite and social, need to be removed from polite society. If they don't accept this action, then what other existence is there for them?

 

[fast]

No room for exceptions? Nay, we gotta kill a few here and there. Some crimes just beg to be dealt with harshly.

 

[TV and credit cards]

4) It gives perpetrators of crime no actual punishment, ie, 30 years in a prison with a tough regime and time to reflect on what they have done.

I don't know about this one, save for the individual that pleads guilty and wants to go fast. People sit on death row for I would guess fifteen years appealing. It must be agonizing. Which in itself is inhumane.

I suppose if mom took him out, that would be fair.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about a middle ground:

I support it for those who are a danger to keep:

1) Those who have managed to commit serious crimes while already serving a life sentence.

2) Those whose comrades are likely to do things like take hostages to free them and who would have gotten a death sentence under our current laws.

 

[Jarhyn]

4) It gives perpetrators of crime no actual punishment, ie, 30 years in a prison with a tough regime and time to reflect on what they have done.

I don't know about this one, save for the individual that pleads guilty and wants to go fast. People sit on death row for I would guess fifteen years appealing. It must be agonizing. Which in itself is inhumane.

I suppose if mom took him out, that would be fair.

Yeah. Retribution isn't right, fair, or good for anyone. What we, as a society, should be shooting for is correction. I honestly believe that no non-offender has a right to more than an offender, but I also believe offenders have a right to contribute to society if they still want to, to take measures to kill the old self who offended with time and experience, and that they deserve every right to GTFO of normal society if they don't. If they forgo those options, then I'm a strong supporter of persona-non-Grata: shoot the bastard on sight.

 

[gmbteach]

An interesting thread. A couple of thoughts or questions:

1. What about the offender who is released and commits the same horrendous crime - such as rape of a child?
2. What about the offender who states blatantly that they enjoy doing what they did and would do it again - whether it be murder, rape, kidnapping, sexual molestation?
3. What would you do with an offender whom you physically observed doing obscene things to another human being or creature?

Would you want these people out in our society? If so, where? I certainly do not want them near me.

I honestly believe that some people are wired wrong, and cannot be rehabilitated. It costs an insane amount of money to incarcerate these people.

I agree with the death penalty being delivered - WHERE THERE IS NO SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT THE OFFENDER IS GUILTY.

I have read the stories of Mr X who was executed only to be exonerated later. Yes, mistakes happen. This is why the length of time an inmate is on Death Row is so extensively long.

As I stated - yes the Death Penalty should exist - WHEN THERE IS NOT DOUBT in anyone's mind that they have the right perpetrator.

 

[Unbeatable]

No room for exceptions? Nay, we gotta kill a few here and there. Some crimes just beg to be dealt with harshly.

Why?

 

[DBT]

There are some offenders who should never be released back into society. But the death penalty, if used by the state to rid society of its bad members, becomes a matter of expediency and not justice, and a bad example of how to deal with people who are a problem. A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society.

 

[Togo]

An interesting thread. A couple of thoughts or questions:

1. What about the offender who is released and commits the same horrendous crime - such as rape of a child?
2. What about the offender who states blatantly that they enjoy doing what they did and would do it again - whether it be murder, rape, kidnapping, sexual molestation?
3. What would you do with an offender whom you physically observed doing obscene things to another human being or creature?

Would you want these people out in our society? If so, where? I certainly do not want them near me.

These are all arguments to keep someone locked up. They don't offer any reason to kill them rather than keep them In jail.

It costs an insane amount of money to incarcerate these people.

So you're arguing to kill them on cost grounds?

It costs an insane amount to keep them in death row over multiple appeals. Cheaper than life imprisonment, but not that much cheaper.

As I stated - yes the Death Penalty should exist - WHEN THERE IS NOT DOUBT in anyone's mind that they have the right perpetrator.

That would cover most of the famous miscarriages of justice over the last hundred years, and almost every case where evidence was manufactured.

The point is not how convinced someone is guilty, but whether there has been any serious attempt to investigate other suspects - which is at it's lowest in the situation you describe.

Having the death penalty also increases the chances of acquittal. Surely letting murders and child rapers go free is undesirable? It's very hard to convince a jury to convict when the death penalty is a possibility, unless the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[dystopian]

An interesting thread. A couple of thoughts or questions:

1. What about the offender who is released and commits the same horrendous crime - such as rape of a child?
2. What about the offender who states blatantly that they enjoy doing what they did and would do it again - whether it be murder, rape, kidnapping, sexual molestation?
3. What would you do with an offender whom you physically observed doing obscene things to another human being or creature?

Would you want these people out in our society? If so, where? I certainly do not want them near me.

I don't understand your questions.

1. That offender goes back to jail, so he isn't out in society.
2. Then keep them incarcerated on the argument that there is a high chance of a repeat; thus not out in society. Alternatively, force them wear monitors and control their movements. Someone who can't leave the house without a squad car right on top of him can't really be said to be out in society either.
3. Is this a serious question? What the hell does 'obscene' mean? Perfectly legal sex acts will be considered obscene by many people; so what? Assuming the 'obscene things' are legal, I wouldn't "do" anything with the offender. Why would I?

I honestly believe that some people are wired wrong, and cannot be rehabilitated. It costs an insane amount of money to incarcerate these people.

No it doesn't. It costs more to execute them than incarcerate someone for life; this has been well documented.

Besides, money should never be an argument when we're talking about killing or keeping someone alive, no matter what they may have done.

As I stated - yes the Death Penalty should exist - WHEN THERE IS NOT DOUBT in anyone's mind that they have the right perpetrator.

Aside from the fact that getting 100% certainty like that is all but *impossible*, it wouldn't be a convincing argument even if it were possible. A society that executes criminals lowers itself to their level. Arguing that it's okay because we're just doing to them what they did to some of us doesn't work; an eye for an eye is a simplistic and primitive morality that may seem tenable from the perspective of an individual interacting with another individual, but which shouldn't be adopted by a society at large. Society and its laws need to be better, *more* moral than its constituent parts; not equal to or less.

It comes down to the fact that there are only two positions one can take to justify the death penalty: as a form of revenge, or to prevent further crime by the people to be executed. However, if the point is to prevent further crime, then the death penalty just isn't necessary. Lifelong incarceration works just as well to prevent said crime, and doesn't involve depriving a conscious being of their existence. Some death penalty apologists try to circumvent this by saying that there are cases where a death row prisoner would need to be kept isolated from other prisoners for their own (or other's) safety, and that that is inhumane. However, this is a non-argument since executing them is clearly more inhumane than simply isolating them; especially when either would be done against the prisoner's will. Not to mention that there are plenty of ways for a properly run prison system to physically isolate prisoners from each other without preventing social interaction and the inhumane nature of solitary confinement.

So, there is no rationally valid reason that establishes the death penalty as necessary, or even desirable; which leaves you with the 'revenge/punishment' justification, which isn't convincing and lowers us to the criminal's level.

 

[gmbteach]

I hear all your arguments and you made some valid points.

What I may ask you is this:

What if someone in your family was the victim of a crime such as murder or rape? How could you guarantee that they would be incarcerated indefinitely? Would you be able to forgive them enough to see them live? Would you be happy to see them out in society again? And how would you feel if they did to someone else what they did to you?

Just food for thought. Put YOURSELF into the picture rather than seeing it from outside the issue.

I think some of you may think differently if it was someone you love that is/was on the receiving end of a vile hideous act.

 

[Hickdive]

I hear all your arguments and you made some valid points.

What I may ask you is this:

What if someone in your family was the victim of a crime such as murder or rape? How could you guarantee that they would be incarcerated indefinitely? Would you be able to forgive them enough to see them live? Would you be happy to see them out in society again? And how would you feel if they did to someone else what they did to you?

Just food for thought. Put YOURSELF into the picture rather than seeing it from outside the issue.

I think some of you may think differently if it was someone you love that is/was on the receiving end of a vile hideous act.

I would want revenge, but revenge is mine; the state applies justice which is quite different. It is not for the state to dispense revenge on my behalf.

That being the case justice is necessarily blind. Seeing the issue from the outside i.e. being blind to considerations of the personal, is precisely what justice should do.

 

[dystopian]

What if someone in your family was the victim of a crime such as murder or rape? How could you guarantee that they would be incarcerated indefinitely? Would you be able to forgive them enough to see them live? Would you be happy to see them out in society again? And how would you feel if they did to someone else what they did to you?

The answers to all of these questions are *irrelevant* to whether or not we as a society should employ the death penalty.

Just food for thought. Put YOURSELF into the picture rather than seeing it from outside the issue.

I think some of you may think differently if it was someone you love that is/was on the receiving end of a vile hideous act.

Like I said, irrelevant. If you're trying to argue that we should be pro-death penalty because 'what if they killed someone we cared about?', then you might as well argue for the return of blood feuds. Besides, you've gone and proved my point for me: that there is no rationally valid reason for the death penalty. It's purely about revenge; and that just isn't an acceptable way for a civilized society to act.

 

[bleubird]

I see the death penalty as a manifestation of the Judo/christian idea that there is an supreme judge.And,we are his/her agent.Hell is the ultimate punishment.Right?

 

[Playball40]

I'm on gm's bench here. For most instances I cannot and do not support the death penalty, for many of the reasons you stated. However, people like Willy Crane? Sorry, I do not feel any empathy for his execution. I WILL say that if certain crimes guaranteed these individuals would NEVER be out, I may change my position. But until then, no.

 

[Togo]

I hear all your arguments and you made some valid points.

What I may ask you is this:

What if someone in your family was the victim of a crime such as murder or rape? How could you guarantee that they would be incarcerated indefinitely? Would you be able to forgive them enough to see them live? Would you be happy to see them out in society again? And how would you feel if they did to someone else what they did to you?

Just food for thought. Put YOURSELF into the picture rather than seeing it from outside the issue.

I think some of you may think differently if it was someone you love that is/was on the receiving end of a vile hideous act.

Probably, but since my position isn't based on what I feel, why would that matter?

Let's say that I got so emotionally overwrought that I took up a big machete and tried to chop the guy to pieces in the high street. Is that an argument for making machete slaying legal? You might not think so, but you'd probably feel differently if you were the guy on the murderous rampage, right?

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm on gm's bench here. For most instances I cannot and do not support the death penalty, for many of the reasons you stated. However, people like Willy Crane? Sorry, I do not feel any empathy for his execution. I WILL say that if certain crimes guaranteed these individuals would NEVER be out, I may change my position. But until then, no.

You're coming at it from the wrong direction. Nobody who opposes the death penalty is asking you to feel empathy for Willy Crane. It's not for his sake that I am against it; it's for the innocent people that will necessarily be killed as a result of the practice. As long as that possibility remains--and it always will--and there are viable alternatives for the Willy Cranes of the world (life in a small room), I see no reason to take the risk of making a lethal, un-correctable error, other than gratuitous bloodlust.

 

[Keith&Co.]

3) The state should never have the power of life or death over it citizens.

I think you need to narrow that down a bit.
Soldiers that represent the state have the power of life or death over non-citizens when the conditions of deadly force are met. Save lives, protect national security, threats of grievous bodily harm.
Cops that represent the state have the power, for a slightly different list of deadly force conditions. You can't really expect a beat cop to gain control of a situation by threatening "Put down the gun or we'll incarcerate you with no foreseeable chance of parole!" Or, if you're the one that's been taken hostage, do you want the SWAT team to have guns or writs?
And if someone's on Death Row OR in jail for 357 life sentences, the guards can shoot either of them if they're going over the wall.

So the state HAS the power of life or death. What would be better would be something along the lines that in the course of punishing someone for a crime, the state should not use the non-immediate possibility of future crimes as a threat to justify deadly force. Something like that.

And two of your conditions confuse me.

4) It gives perpetrators of crime no actual punishment, ie, 30 years in a prison with a tough regime and time to reflect on what they have done.
6) It's just revenge.

It sounds like you want them to suffer more... Isn't that revenge/

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm on gm's bench here. For most instances I cannot and do not support the death penalty, for many of the reasons you stated. However, people like Willy Crane? Sorry, I do not feel any empathy for his execution. I WILL say that if certain crimes guaranteed these individuals would NEVER be out, I may change my position. But until then, no.

But it cannot be based on the crime, the outrage we feel.
As long as we don't have a perfect system of determining guilt, we will convict innocent people, even of the worst crimes, over time.