death penalty right or wrong?

Question

i would like particularly to hear from americans, do you agree with the system in the usa? and for the people of britain would you like to see it introduced here for murderers, rapists, paedophiles and drug pushers? surely now they can not make mistakes in accusing people if they now have the use of dna, if applicable in crime, in killing an innocent person!

do you not think that criminals use that excuse of "oh i was abused when i was young" and then evryone thinks that is enough to let them off or be lenient to them

Answer 1

Yes, the death penalty should be brought back in, but the justice system needs to be overhauld too. After they have been convicted and sentenced, if in one of their many appeals, it is found that didn't do it, the judges need to admit their mistake and set the innocent free. For the people who say what the innocents that are executed, that is pretty rare, and usually a some type of evidence tampering or something has happen by some overzealous cop. The average time for someone to sit on death row is 10 years, they don't get killed the next day, it's not China, who by the way, execute more people every year than any one else. The whole prison system needs a complete overhaul as well. Bring back the chain gang, bring back breaking rocks, bring back hard labour. For hardend criminals and repeat offenders, build underground prisons, no daylight, solitary confinment, gruel 3 times a day. Criminal should have no rights, NONE. If we serverly stiffened the penalties and followed through, crime would go down, abolish the young offeneders act, name and shame, prosecute the parents, if your old enough to do the crime, your old enough to do the time. Bring back corporal punishment, public floggings, increase fines to 100 times what they are now. Don't prosecute the public for stopping crime, or defending themselves, praise them. Promote community action, and patrol groups. Make the punishments for serious crimes so servere that they will remember it for the rest of their lives, and if they commit serious crime again, then they beyond redemption and should be executed.

Answer 2

I'm British and in two minds...

First of all, yeah, the evidence can be wrong, but thats not all... If you've killed someone isn't killing them letting them get an easy-ish way out...I think locking them up for life and letting their concience eat away at them, or at least some sort of punishment for life.

Then again, people are committing so many crimes because the sentances and punishments are too light, and lenient...There is no deterrant. We need to start coming down harder on these people..

Yeah, they can easily make mistakes...I know its a film, but 'The Life Of David Gale' is an excellent film to watch when thinking about mistakes and death penalties. Or even 'Let Him Have It'.

Hope the opinion helps.

Answer 3

The Death penalty is wrong, and DNA evidence is not always 100% accurate. To give the authorities a free hand to convict and kill on a number of offences, all on the strength of evidence to complex for the average member of the public to truly understand (its not CSI here people) is a chilling thought and a good few steps down the line to a police state.
You may be for it now, but if DNA were to give 99.8% accuracy, you just wait until you fall into that 0.2% and get fried for a crime you didn't commit.

Answer 4

The death penalty ("pour encourager les autres") and as a public display of vengeance is VERY popular in the USA.

In Europe it's a dead letter. Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights forbids the death penalty under all circumstances (and under the Human Rights Act 1998, any UK law to the contrary is abrogated).

While Parliament is sovereign, the death penalty can't be restored -- and Albert Pierrepoint brought back to life -- without quitting the European Union and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg). An impossibility, whatever the UKIP say.

Answer 5

I think it is wrong. I have a wonderful university lecturer who gave a fantastic speech on the difference between short term and long term goals but used a funny analogy. We all came away with what we already knew but it was just the way that it was put to us that REALLY made us appreciate the concept. I think, as well as many others I hope, that a re-education of many of the core foundations of societies around the world is strongly required but only in certain aspects. We cannot take for granted that different cultures exist for very good reason and within mult-cultural cities/areas this issue becomes increasingly difficult to cope with when the idea of re-education arises. Yes, it is more energy and time consuming but the power of knowledge is the only thing that has helped us survive through out the history of the world, even if it was by developing weapons or words.

Answer 6

I'm British and against it. Apart from all the stuff about wouldn't it be awful if you executed the wrong person I have two main objections:

1. It's incredibly hypocritical. We decide it's illegal to commit murder on the basis that it's wrong to kill other people, so how can it be right that the punishment for killing someone is to be killed? For me that puts society in the same league as the murderer.

2.More importantly itt's a total cop out. Yeah okay you have the major awful scary stress of being put to death, but then it's done. And we're all gonna die eventually. Much worse to be denied your liberty for the rest of your natural life and know you will die behind bars. That's what I call a real punishment. But of course that means life has to mean life. Unfortunately here in the UK 'life' normally means about 12 years which is ridiculous.

Answer 7

UK
The problem with what you ask is there are too many bleeding heart liberals who are not prepared to dish out the right punishment that fits the crime. I'm all for life meaning life in jail, but there also has to be some consistency when it comes to personal crimes like burglary or assault. Most of these scum bag drug taking, sh*t for brain idiots will never change so bang them up for a minimum term for each crime, not consecutively, and NO to reduced sentences for admitting what they have already done. Talk about rewarding bad behaviour!! But to get back to your questions, I agree in principle as long as there is enough time to make sure this is the right perpetrator!!!!!

Answer 8

I agree people should be punished for any crimes they commit, but I don't think the death penalty is the answer. Personally, I really don't know what the right answer is. Those people should not be in society and any aggressive behavior has to be dealt with. There are many dangerous illnesses that we still don't understand, but does that mean we just get "rid of" that person? I feel it's not up to us to make that decision; concerning life or death.

Answer 9

The only way someone can be put to death is if it is done in a humane way that is quick and with minimal suffering. All it shows is that the worst you get is having to wait to die and when you do, your dead within a few seconds with no torture or real sacrifice made on the part of the accused. I say no because death is the easy way out for these people, we need something that will make them suffer until the day they die of natural causes so that every minute of their life, they are being punished.

Answer 10

My problem with the death penalty is that people use it as a punishment- for revenge. I think that's wrong. I think we should use capital punishment, but only when we as moral men realize that the criminal in question is nothing but an absolute detriment to society, and is completely incapable of contributing in a positive way. Also, I think the firing squad was, and is the best, and most humane means of execution.