If execution is good... Why would we kill murderers?

Question

Isn't it sort of like rape is bad but raping a rapist is good? Stealing is bad but stealing from a theif is good. So should we change laws to reflect this? So regular citizens can get more involved in this process? I see many law abideing citizens would pay to watch the execution of Saddam perhaps they could pay more and administer these judgements themselves? We could have made a mint off selling the pretty school teacher off to these moral people so they could rape her for her crimes? Could we as people be more hypocritical?

The deterent defense of murdering muderers is not valid and that is obvious to all.

I do love that hypocracy our executions are humane... So do we give brownie points to murderers who kill there victims humanely?

So if a murderer used a lethal injection we would have to admit he was a "good" murderer?

Albannach: there is plenty of space available to show me the flaws of my thinking and I am so looking forward to reading it.

Carole: at the rates our civil liberties and human rights are erodeing Coventry could become overpopulated.

soobee: impressive arguement I must admit and it would be even more impressive if execution was a deterent but I don't think there is anything at all to back up such a claim but I do agree that a life of punishment is a better sentence and much more moral.

takeemout01 A free society is a more dangerous one a humane society would also be more dangerous...yeah I would take my chances. I would choose not to live in fear. Regardless of how safe we try to make ourselves each murderer had a first time and no society is risk free.

Carole I admit that I wasn't completely serious with wanting a lawless society but a free country is always more dangerous than a tolitarian society and Patrick Henry said it best when he said "Give me liberty or give me death" feeling the same way as he did I think it supports my position on life in prison as opposed to death as punishment.I find your idea very interesting but then again maybe too much so to be punishment. I am sure that the male to female ratio would be a concern but there are plenty of women and I'm sure prostitution would be a huge success in such a territory.

Answer 1

I have basically presented the same argument many times. Society punishes murderers by murdering them? Very hypocritical. Saddam should rot in a tiny jail cell for the remainder of his pathetic life. Zero freedom, zero perks. 4 walls..nothing else. Killing him lets his off too easy...

We have a serial killer (Paul Bernardo) here in Canada in prison for life. What the hell did our prisons do? Locked up in a cell for 23.5 hours a day. Then, prison officals let him have a computer, TV, books etc. What the hell? He raped and killed 3 teenage girls and he gets a computer??? Again, he should be made to suffer for the rest of his life....no perks, no rewards...NOTHING!

For those that argue execution is a deterant, as the person below me has stated, the various death rows in the US seemed to be quite full and everyday murderers continue to murder. What is the deterant? The threat of execution doesn't appear to be working....

Answer 2

Capital punishment works. Why? Because after a thorough and lengthly court process and appeals, the murderer is put to death and cannot murder again. It also used to be quite a deterrent before the appeals process and hypocrasy of the court system slowed it down. Now we have more murderers then ever. As far a citizens doing it themselves, why would we when we have lethal injections? Lethal injection are far more humane than the victims deaths. They didn't even know what was coming and they are almost always hurt and put through torture before they are killed.

Answer 3

I agree, I think the death penalty is not the way to handle it. Either murder is bad and should never happen or it's only OK for the government to murder - neither really works for me.

I think we should section off a big piece of land that we don't really use in this country and make that Coventry. Anyone who does not wish to live by the rules of our society can be seperated from it by going to Coventry and go it alone. There they can work out their own system or perish or learn why it is important to live by the rules of society. If they wish to return some day, great - but 2 strikes and you are out.

I think this system is humane, cost effective, and has a real chance of teaching the only lesson they need to learn to be able to successfully function in our society.

Peace!

To respond to you:

I don't think this is for civil liberties issues. We are talking murderers, rapists and thieves, as you talk about in your question. We are talking about humanely removing these people from society without spending money to keep them or behaving criminally ourselves.

If you could imagine the kind of society Coventry would be, you might imagine that in a world made up of only society's misfits and violent creatures with absolutely no law to restrain them, it would be very difficult to stay alive. And given that, what percentage of men vs. women do you think they would wind up with? I mean now, men who abuse their wives get put away for good, until they learn the reason not to abuse their wives or anyone else. The wife doesn't need to be driven to killing him herself because the system doesn't work for her.

I don't think we'd have to worry about population issues, but we would have to section off a large area - town or county size, maybe.

I think it is completely feasible - radically different? Not so much. Australia was originally set up as a penal colony, as was America. The only difference is that we don't spend time and money trying to rehabilitate them or get them to work for us, we just cut 'em loose. Take what you can carry and best wishes to you - bye.

Answer 4

do you mean if execution is bad? i think you're trying to say that it is hypocritical to kill someone for having killed someone else and i will answer that statement;
execution is not meant to punish the criminal, but to deter others from becoming criminals, to send a message to society at large that such behaviour is completely unacceptable
it would be hypocritical to condemn a person to death for their crime alone, but a person is condemned for symbolic reasons, not punishment
it is wrong to kill, but it is perhaps even more wrong to allow a killer to go without accusation and condemnation; what message does society get if a killer is not condemned? i think the greatest punishment we can imagine is death, so it is applied to the greatest crimes; also, society wants to ensure these individuals are never free to repeat their crimes, and death is the only way to ensure this
i do not agree with the death penalty, but i do not think it is hypocritical; i think it is weak and shortminded; i think expulsion from society and isolation for the rest of their natural days is the best way to deal with murderers. don't allow them to speak to or tob e spoken to by another human being for as long as they live, completely isolate them so that no-one can ever again be victimised and so that they cannot be victimised

Answer 5

The system, the government should be better than the people. We should say, he is a horible man those were horible things, but were going to lock him up for the rest of his life and force him to watch the footage and bring him out once a week to get spit on. But instead, they're going to kill him so his image can get resurected at some later date and bite us in the butt.

People dont want justice they want vengence. And unfotunaly every government is made of highly flawed people.

Answer 6

Execution is saved for the most dangerous of criminals. There is a two pronged reason for it. 1) It stops the killer cold in his tracks from ever killing/torturing anyone ever again. 2) If done in a timely manner (which it isn't in the USA) it acts as a deterrent for others who may be considering murdering someone.

Answer 7

to those who say put them behind bars for the rest of their life I ASK what happens when an earthquake, tornado, whatever happens to that facility and these monsters are able to get free. you want them coming into your house and raping and murdering your family. I TOUGHT NOT.

Answer 8

I agree. Life imprisonment then. Oie

Answer 9

Get real. Your entire premise is, at best, is specious and horrifically flawed.

Answer 10

Great point.