what's your take on corpral punishment/death penelty?

Question

personally I think it's a flawed system, there are several cases where people have been exicuted and evidence found later to clear them, and people who have been sitting on death row for years, finally released because of new evidence....how can anyone find enough evidence to actually kill someone, unless they have actually confessed.....We should not be exicuting anyone until our system is fail proof

oops, yep I meant capital...sorry

Answer 1

Its wrong . people who are accused of crimes who dont have the money to defend themselves by hiring good lawers run a very high risk of being put to death if they cant prove their innocense. There are many cases like that. Its better to see 100 criminals go free than to put an innocent man to death , that would be murder.

Answer 2

One problem is that the death sentence can be approached in a few different ways.

For example, it can be viewed in terms of how well it deters future crime (i.e., as a solution to the problem of crime). One stance says that a dead criminal commits no more crime; however, since most criminals don't think far ahead or think they're too smart to get caught, the possibility of the death sentence doesn't stop them.

--

You can also look at it in terms of how it is implemented (which is what you are describing in your question): The death sentence cannot be perfectly implemented, therefore innocent people are hurt by it, therefore we should not practice it at all.

We also see a disparity in who receives a death sentence: The poor (because they can't afford a good lawyer) and non-Caucasian populations seem more likely to get the death penalty in crimes of the same severity, which means the sentence is not being applied fairly.

Other people, however, see the "imperfections" as acceptable, just as it is acceptable to approve a new drug that can help millions, despite the fact that a few people (in the thousands, or maybe only hundreds) might die from using it. The benefit to the bulk of people outweighs the harm to a few.

--

Another way to view the death penalty is "idealistically" -- i.e., not issuing a death sentence for certain heinous crimes diminishes the value of human life by saying the life of the culprit was worth more than the life of the victim.

--

Another way is to view it "emotionally/just" -- i.e., the grieving family will not be able to find closure nor feel that justice was done unless the punishment fits the horror of the crime that was committed.

--

So depending on which one of the angles (or maybe some other angle!) you prioritize, the death penalty can seem to be anything from cruel and unnecessary up to just and morally mandatory.

This is why the issue gets very heated.

I think most people will agree that the system is flawed, simply because the punishment cannot be taken back, it's implemented unevenly, and we don't always have all the facts right. Still, it doesn't negate the other types of arguments one can make for or against capitol punishment.

Answer 3

Not only is it a flawed system, but knowing that it is flawed and not doing anything about it should be a crime in itself.

If we as a society can put one innocent person to death then we have committed the most heinous crime possible. I say this because a death penalty, once carried out, can never be reversed.

You said. "We should not be exicuting anyone until our system is fail proof" (sic). As long as humans are involved there will always be errors in judgments. Judges are not God and can't know the truth of all matters.

In my opinion the punishment of death should be left to God and only God.

Answer 4

I'm assuming you mean capital punishment...

Thou shalt not kill. Pretty simple to me. All human systems have flaws. That's why we're "only human." So, we'd better not go around killing people we arrest, because the wrong people get the death penalty sometimes. There have been lots of cases where DNA evidence clears someone, and sometimes it's happened AFTER they already killed him.

Answer 5

I agree with you but it also is annoying how they put them on death row for like 30 yrs even when they do confess why can't they take the confession and execute within that month it would help the tax payers and the other people on death row so they would have more time to review there case and find if they should be exonerated or put to death. our whole legal system sucks .

Answer 6

Dead men tell no tales. One can never punish by killing. Once you kill them they don't live any more to rethink and correct themselves. If the law is thinking about other potential criminals who need to learn a lesson by observation, it should understand ultimate punishments never keep humans away from any prohibitions.
The dead feel no more, so they are not punished................but those of us who remained behind get the punishment of witnessing a savage and irrational jurisprudence only intent on using the right vocabulary and grammar but never the right courses of action for a globe very much in need of human stability
.

Answer 7

i beleive that public hanging should come back in fashion. why spends millions upon millions very year on criminals that have been on death row for who knows hoe many years. if they find you quilty. your guilty. that it. give you a year of applleds. and that is it. why should american tax payers paid for three meals a day, a place to sleep, area for exercirsise, a library, a school, and everything else for people like charles mansion (who has works published and art sold, movie made of him), Peterson ( also has book published and movie made of him), and several others people on death row.

Answer 8

I think you mean capital punishment.

Killing someone to show that killing is wrong is flawed logic.

Answer 9

corporal punishment is a spanking. death penalty is very different. did you mean capital punishment?

Answer 10

no some criminals need to be put to death.if they admit to the crime i.e.childrape or murder or rape in general