The Death Penalty

[The Helper]

I've said this before. I wish they had mind wipes like in Babylon 5 and the people are forced to serve humanity as priests or whatever. Killing is just wrong especially when the majority of them are blacks in the US - and life in prison just costs us a fortune. Mind wipes are no drain and they could be a positive in society - if only it were so.

 

[Rheias]

> Death penatlys should only be used when you are 99% sure and all the evidence points to 1 person

That will never happen, you'll never be able to say he is 99% guilty. You can say that with the current evidence there is 99% he did the crime, but that's still very far from being almost sure he did it.

The goal of rules is to scare people. The question is, how far would you go to make people scared. Saying "he should die/live becuase that is how he'll suffer more" shows that you don't know what punishments are made for. They are made to let the people know if they'll do something, they'll get punishment. In theory, if someone did a crime there is no need to arrest him, he did it, end of story. However, if you'll put him in jail, then people will know not to do what he did - fear.

Now, as I said the death pelanty doesn't only encourages people to kill, by letting them know it's ok, but is also inhuman. You do not kill someone else, especially if you are ought to look after him.

Following the death penality's logic, the executers of the criminal should be executed too. And guess who are the executers? The goverment, that kills with death penalties more and more people.

 

[Wiseman_2]

the death pelanty doesn't only encourages people to kill, by letting them know it's ok

That's duff logic in my eyes. Are you saying the criminal sees the executioner as legally comitting murder? Realistically, the criminal is more likely to see himself in the position of the condemned, executed for his crimes.

On whether or not execution should go ahead based on the evidence, I will use 2 Case Studies.
The first case is the Oklahoma City Bombing, which took place on April 19th, 1995. It claimed 167 lives outright and injured 850 more. A rescue worker later died after being struck on the head by falling debris.
Timothy McVeigh was convicted on 11 counts and recieved the Death Penalty. He was executed on June 11th, 2001. The evidence against him was overwhelming, including the testimony of 2 fellow conspiritors.
Furthermore, McVeigh did not deny his lead role in the bombing, but instead, during the trial, he instructed his lawyers to use a necessity defense, arguing that his bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building (the target) was a justifiable response to what he believed were the crimes of the U.S. government at Waco, Texas, during the 51-day siege of the Branch Davidian complex that resulted in the death of 76 Branch Davidian members.

The Second Case is that of Kenny Richey, convicted in 1987 of murdering two year-old Cynthia Collins by arson in 1986. He was on death row for 20 years. In recent decelpoments, it was announced on December 19, 2007 that Richey is to be freed and will return to Scotland immediately after accepting a plea bargain involving pleading no contest to involuntary manslaughter, child endangering and breaking and entering, and being sentenced to time served, with the murder and arson charges dropped. A no-contest plea is not an admission of guilt, but is treated as such by the courts.
During his 20-year incarceration, grave doubts arose about the entirely circumstantial evidence that convicted Richey, particularly the forensic evidence.
The decision to overturn his conviction was based on dodgy evidence and an incompetant defense, among other factors. He was retried and again found guilty. Legal wrangles continued, however, and in August 2007 another retrial was ordered. This was when Richey agreed to the plea bargain, which would leave him a free man.

As you can see, these are two compeltely different cases; however, the evidence regarding them is what is important. In Case 1, the evidence was overwhelming and the act of terrorism was not denied by the accused. In Case 2, on the other hand, the evidence was flawed, and the innocence of the accused has always been atested to (though he wasn't exactly a model citizen).

In my opinion, the death penalty should be restricted in use much further, and only for more heinous crimes. The evidence in all cases should be rock solid with no cracks.
Else, a life conviction is the other option. Like DDR said, prisons are too cushy to be considered a serious alternative (paticularly in the UK, but I won't go into that right now). An alternative? Tougher prison systems, though not to the extremes seen in the far east, while still maintaining the sense of punishment. Another scheme is a possible Tent City, such as this one.

I also think Estonia's proposal, mentioned by Sooda, is a good idea. A chance for freedom for the innocent, and a way of getting rid of those who know themselves guilty if they wish it; for this to work, prisons must toughen up.


And to think I could have spent the time used writing this mini-essay to do my school coursework

 

[darkRae]

I agree and disagree.
(I'm gray; not white nor black)

At some point, Death Penalty can scare off people from doing crime (like what Death note does, but that's just Anime and cannot always be real)

But death penalty is just inhuman, taking someone else's life while there's a chance for him to regret his mistakes and become a good man. (but this case is rare )

"I don't care if he betrays me 20 times, I'll still trust him 21 times."
--Mahatma Gandhi

We can give people another chance.
But of course, the culprit won't just be freed that easily, he will have to make up for his crime, and therefore needs to be imprisoned.

Just make jail-life as nasty as possible while within the limit of humanity
so less people want to commit crime and stay there.

And some might argue that keeping them alive on this earth, in a cell filled with filthy inmates for decades until they meet their death would be a much worse punishment than a quick, painless death.

I agree with this one.
Just make sure he doesn't escape due to the amount of stress caused by prison-life.

 

[esb]

>he will have to make up for his crime,

you can't make up for a life.

 

[darkRae]

Hmm... you're talking about a murderer?
Well................................................I dunno
(in that case, enslave him, forever)

 

[DM Cross]

I agree with Hannibul:

"An eye for an eye"-law made by Hannibul

Allow me to finish the entirety of that quote, as made by a man named Ghandi.

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.

 

[Rheias]

An eye for an eye, aye? And I thought we lived in modern days, where the law is (somewhat) reasonable. An eye for an eye and the system collapses, as Seth said.

Let me give you an example. Say someone gets very ill, and he is most likely to stay in a coma for the rest of his life (not sure, but most likely), can someone decide whether he should die or not? No, no one can becuase one can't decide if someone else should live or die, no matter what he did.

 

[ArmedCitizen]

If you look at this from a none-emotional point of view the death penalty is a perfectly fine exercise, even with the occasional innocent deaths.

We have 6 billion people on this world. One dieing won't matter. Two dieing won't matter. A million dieing would be only a slight blow, it might actually benefit humanity.

Why are we being hung up on killing off the worst of society? It would only benefit us. If we take out the bad good will have to become better to survive.

 

[esb]

I agree with ArmedCitizen

Now I know someone will say "what if it's you or your family" etc., then you don't do something worthy of the Death penalty in the first place.

The problem with DeathPenalty is all emotional and mental.

 

[DM Cross]

If you look at this from a none-emotional point of view the death penalty is a perfectly fine exercise, even with the occasional innocent deaths.

We have 6 billion people on this world. One dieing won't matter. Two dieing won't matter. A million dieing would be only a slight blow, it might actually benefit humanity.

Why are we being hung up on killing off the worst of society? It would only benefit us. If we take out the bad good will have to become better to survive.

Why?

Because people thinking like that are the ones who eventually sit in a room while people in governments decide if it's right to kill them

Because you're not God. You've no right to judge anyone or if they should live. Thus, you don't.

 

[esb]

What if I was to say God doesn't exist?
Why does God get to choose who lives or doesn't? I thought he loved us, yet he kills us.

 

[DM Cross]

What if I was to say God doesn't exist?

I would disagree with you. But that's a different topic then one available, so we won't discuss it

Why does God get to choose who lives or doesn't? I thought he loved us, yet he kills us.

Really? Because I thought our government was supposed to love and protect us. Yet you're trying to state they get the right to kill us?

Sure. That makes sense

 

[Miz]

What if I was to say God doesn't exist?
Why does God get to choose who lives or doesn't? I thought he loved us, yet he kills us.

A world without Death, is a world of chaos...

Anyway

Really? Because I thought our government was supposed to love and protect us. Yet you're trying to state they get the right to kill us?

The state has the right to kill if you were proven guilty for a crime to that extreme... Yet I do not support it, I will just deal with it. If you do something you will have to deal with what happens afterwards, Besides most judges won't sentence you to death unless its completely proven that you are gulity

Yet, I feel that only the high courts such as State courts or the Supreme court could only sentence people to death...
As well people vote on judges, you don't just get picked by the mayor or w/e
So if you think a judge made a incorrect decision don't vote for them to be judge

 

[ArmedCitizen]

You've no right to judge anyone or if they should live. Thus, you don't.

I don't, yes, but the judge does and I think he/she has every right to. To become a judge you need to have extensive knowledge of the law, which includes understanding rightful punishments. If they decide that a crime was worthy of death, I support it. (Most of the time.)

Sure the judge might make mistakes but in the long wrong, it doesn't matter. One life can change the world, but with it gone we just move on.

 

[SilverHawk]

If you look at this from a none-emotional point of view the death penalty is a perfectly fine exercise, even with the occasional innocent deaths.

We have 6 billion people on this world. One dieing won't matter. Two dieing won't matter. A million dieing would be only a slight blow, it might actually benefit humanity.

Why are we being hung up on killing off the worst of society? It would only benefit us. If we take out the bad good will have to become better to survive.

That, my friend, is a tragic leap down the path of corruption. The fact of the matter is, impartial systems are not impartial. Judges, police, and governments are not machines - they, like all others, are subject to bias, prejudice, self-interest, and all of humankind's other vices. However, we obviously have to compromise somewhere, or we would live in a world where no one is punished because we say no one is fit to punished, thereby causing chaos. That said, the matter of life and death transcends this - we simply cannot compromise on a matter of this importance. It may be horrible to imprison an innocent person for 10 years, but that must be sacrificed so that we can have a system that is at least moderately effective; but, conversely, bestowing death upon someone is irreversible - it is the ultimate wrongdoing. And, that power is one that should not belong to anyone who isn't perfect, including judges, police, and government.

 

[ReVolver]

Ok let me explain.. Killing = Bad

Hitler killed millions of Jews in WWII, what happened? He lost the war and made Germany corrupted.

Stalin killed millions in USSR, what happened? The USSR collapsed.

 

[SilverHawk]

Killing = Bad

Though I do agree with you, it's important to remember that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

 

[ReVolver]

In history we learn from our mistakes right? So if a country needs to kill to keep order, it's going to eventually end up as a revolution and the country itself will collapse (USSR,Austria-Hungary,ect)

 

[DM Cross]

I don't, yes, but the judge does and I think he/she has every right to. To become a judge you need to have extensive knowledge of the law, which includes understanding rightful punishments. If they decide that a crime was worthy of death, I support it. (Most of the time.)

Really? Judges are now as good as executioners? That's funny. I always pictured Judges as those who determine guilt. Not those who kill people.

What then is the difference between a judge and a murderer with good intentions?

The road to Hell...

The state has the right to kill if you were proven guilty for a crime to that extreme... Yet I do not support it, I will just deal with it. If you do something you will have to deal with what happens afterwards, Besides most judges won't sentence you to death unless its completely proven that you are gulity

Yet, I feel that only the high courts such as State courts or the Supreme court could only sentence people to death...
As well people vote on judges, you don't just get picked by the mayor or w/e
So if you think a judge made a incorrect decision don't vote for them to be judge

I love how people keep saying that a life isn't important. I think you would all sing a different tune if that life was yours. Or your mother's or father's. It's not the same though, right?

Wrong. Killing for justice is but a short step away from killing in general.

"The state has the right to kill you" There's tomorrow's "famous last words"

If we convict people for murder, why is it okay for the government? Answer? It's not.