What do you think about the death penalty

Post Reply New Topic

There are some crimes that deserve the death penalty - torturing someone to death, for example - but in practice, the state is not 100% perfect in convicting the actual perpetrator of the crime in death penalty cases. If the state executes an innocent person, that makes me a party to murder.
In addition, it just costs way too f*****g much.

I think its wrong, because it gives the government the power over life and death and conditions people into accepting that role.

I am not advocating prison violence just to "save money", I am advocating that people who commit heinous violence deserve to be victims of violence. Unfortunately, the way the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the US constitution is interpreted, ultraviolent criminals are treated far more humanely that their victims and have more rights than victims or victims loved ones(in the case of murder). I also think that prison violence is far more terrifying to criminals than even the death penalty and serves as a deterrent to crime.

I hear what you are saying, but I don't trust the "rehabilitation" perspective of our criminal justice system, either. I am sure that the victims of repeat offenders and their families would probably share my view. Our system is geared toward letting guilty people go more often than falsely convicting the innocent. You do not have to prove your innocence. Someone else has to prove your guilt. And with recitivism rates consistently higher than 50% for violent offenders I think the risk of the guilty going free and walking among us must be quite high, since statistically it appears they are likely to re-offend. But it is the way our justice system is set up, and I am not sure there is a better way.

I suppose that one could argue that any government with armed forces already has the "license to kill." And although capital punishment is still legal in some states of the US, it isn't used that often. There are far more criminals serving life sentences for blatantly disregarding the lives of others than there are in line for capital punishment.

Take Scott Peterson for example(google him if you don't know who he is or what he did). He's on death row in California, yet recently he's been moved into solitary confinement for his own protection because there are inmates who conspired to kill him. I consider this move to be spoiling Mr Peterson at taxpayers expense. If other inmates get the chance to kill him, the blood will not be on the states hands but he will still have died violently just like he killed Laci Rocha and their unborn son Connor.


Furthermore, increasing numbers of killers have BEGGED judges to sentence them to death because they are afraid of what other prisoners will do to them and with good reason. They'd rather die humanely at the hands of the state then have their lives made into a living hell behind bars, or be murdered just as brutally as they did to their victims. Aren't you glad that Dahmer was brutally murdered for his crimes instead of being humanely put to death?

Not really, though I suppose if my son was one of his victims I might be. But I am glad that he will never be able to kill another human being.

I once met someone who's father was killed by a man who had spent 20-some years in jail for murder who was released at a parole hearing. Stuff like this makes my blood boil. She will never again have her father and her children will never know their grandfather. Her mother is a widow.

Our system seems often to be more concerned about the rights of the offenders than the rights of the rest of us to live. I once knew a woman who's ex-husband was a defense lawyer. For him it was a big power trippy game. He reveled in getting guilty people free because he thought it proved him to be superior to the prosecuting attorney. She said her ex's lawyer friends were all just like him. It sickened her so much she left.

Justice should not be a game, and the guilty should not walk free. But this seems to be an ideal and not a reality.

For me, capital punishment isn't just about "punishment." It's also about protecting society from people who pose a permanent threat to it.

You are speaking in a manner that sounds more sentimental, than rational TBPH.


But I will tell you this: I am 100% opposed to the insanity defense for murder. If a killer is insane, that should be no reason not to have him/her given the same punishment as if they were mentally competent to stand trial.

Also, I believe that killers who are involved with violent gangs/organized crime definitely should be executed. Because if they are allowed to live the rest of their lives behind bars they will be protected by their fellow gang members and continue to help run their criminal enterprise operating on both sides of prison walls.

Sentimental in what way?

I think in principle it's appropriate for certain crimes but have came to the belief that I don't trust the government with the power.

Punishment as a whole is a terrible way to deal with the crime issue. It is far more practical to prevent people from turning into criminals. By giving them a healthy society and not denying chances and potential to people. you can reduce the need for punishment.

You have implicitly denied free will. No matter what material circumstance we are raised up in there is still a potential for evil doing. Human will is freer than the wind and is not determined by material circumstances. It never was and it never will be.

ruveyn

I never implied to care about free will.

The truth of the matter is that most people would rather not be illegal evil doers (because the illegality is a hassle). Most evil doers would rather be legal evil doers. Sociopaths with good opportunities have a bright future in politics or in becoming CEOs. Sociopaths without good opportunities have no choice but become
serial killers.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 08 Sep 2012, 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wow. And I thought that I was too much of an idealist! There are criminals out there who have pretty much had everything handed to them. To assume that people are only criminals out of a sort of necessity because they have been mistreated or denied their potential or the basics in life seems a little naive to me.

It is all about reducing the probability for crime. It is impossible to set it to 0%, but that does not mean that with better opportunities it won't be reduced. (In fact, the link between better education and less crime is a proven one). A lot of times crime is but a symptom of a stupidly organized society.

They always have a choice. Humans have free will.

If there is no free will, then there is no point in administering punishment or reward.

ruveyn

This is a false dichotomy. The alternative to the death penalty isn't 'letting repeat offenders go,' it's life in prison without the possibility of parole.