The Death Penalty?

Question

ok in my own opinion i am against the death penalty in fact im actually against prison altogether,

do u think the death penalty is justified under certain circumstances?
if so what are these circumstances?
if not what is your argument to support this opinion?

Answer 1

I am still stunned by the against prison statement. I would be curious as to your solutions dealing with crime if there is no prison.

Intellectually, I am against capital punishment. However, at some deeper level, if I were to hear that Charles Manson had been executed, I would probably nod and feel he got what he deserved.

Society needs rules and people to obey the rules to exist. Some people go beyond the rules and prison is used to either reign them in or keep them segregated from society if the can't be reigned in.

However, some people are just so far beyond the pale that they forfeit the right to live. Then it becomes a case of what to do with them. Do we waste the lives of people who have to watch Charles Manson and waste our resources to keep the man alive, or do we realize that he won't ever reconcile with society and end his life?

I don't think a crime of passion deserves death. A premeditated taking the life of another to satisfy whatever sick urges they have, like the men who can only get off by raping children and then killing them so there are no witnesses, I feel deep down that person has forfeited his right to dwell in the land of the living. It is time to send that person to his eternal reward.

The Bible's prohibition is actually to not commit murder. State sponsored executions where there are checks and balances are not murder. They are executions. And we don't do it for an eye for an eye reason.

It is pure sophistry to claim that since we don't rape rapists, we shouldn't murder murderers. What, we catch you speeding through a neighborhood, are we supposed to have the cops speed through yours to teach you a lesson? Drivel.

Experts say there is no deterent quality to executions.
Actually, there is one. No executed murderer has ever committed another. And as stated earlier, some crimes are so far beyond the pale that justice demands it.

Answer 2

In theory, I am not against death as a penalty for particularly heinous crimes. However, I do not feel our (or any) government/justice system can be entrusted to mete out this penalty competently, fairly, and without error.

Since the penalty of death is irrevocable, and to err is human, I don't feel the death penalty should ever be applied if there is any dispute that the defendant committed the crime. This would include the defendant entering a Not Guilty plea.

The only cases where I would be comfortable with the death penalty being applied is where the fact that the defendant committed the crime is not in question, but rather why. For instance, the murder of 6 people on the train by Colin Ferguson in 1993. The fact that he killed these people was not in question, but rather the trial was about his mental state.

If such a defendant is proved to be mentally impaired, send them off to the hospital for life, otherwise, death. Even if a mistake is made in a case like this, the fact remains that ultimately the defendant is irrefutably the perpetrator of the crime.

.

Answer 3

Believe it or not, there do exist people who are a danger to society, who cannot be reformed, and are a threat to everyone that comes in contact with them for as long as they continue living. There are also people for whom a lifetime of imprisonment is much more cruel than simply killing them.

I have known people of both stripes. And you have undoubtedly heard of some of them too. Prisoners who beg not to be released because they know that they will commit crimes again and don't want to. Suspects who commit 'death by cop' rather than be taken to jail.

I not only think it is not wrong to kill these people, I think it is wrong NOT to kill them. Society benefits in the former case, and the individual wishes it in the second.

The list of possible exceptions just goes on from there. Even if killing a murderer is not a perfect deterrent, is it not worth it if it outright prevents even a few crimes from happening in the first place? And in a more general sense, aren't there hundreds of things that governments do that private citizens can't, making the whole argument that governments shouldn't do what people aren't allowed to do a little specious?

In short, the issue is a lot more complex than its critics sometimes make it seem. It even happens that I largely agree with what those critics are trying to say. But there are very few things that are completely black and white... given the right set of circumstances, even the most apparently immoral of acts can be the BEST thing to do.

Answer 4

There is a bit of circular logic to the death penalty. Murderers are put on death row for killing, yet our punishment is to kill them. By that logic, doesn't that make us murderers as well?

Someone in support of the death penalty would say that a murderer killed an innocent-- we have convicted the murderer, therfore he is guilty (not an innocent) and we have justification for killing.

This moves the question into an ethical realm- how can anyone justify taking away life?

In my honest opinion, I believe that the whole justice system is a little strange in this country, but it's mainly due to the massive amount of people, the available resources, and the lack of any new insight for how to deal with it. I mean, if we don't have prisons, the death penalty, etc...what do we do?

Answer 5

I am for the death penalty in the US as a punishment for repeat violent offenders that are unable to be rehabilitated. It would seem some people are unable to conform to societal norms and work within the limit of the laws. Especially one should be put to death if they kill a cop (I am not a cop), but it shows a total disregard for the thing that helps to hold society together.
I guess your statement raises another question. Why would one be against prisons? They (the offender) have already proved themselves willing to conduct unruly behavior. So why would we want more people just running the street doing whatever they want with no repercussions?

Answer 6

The death penalty has a very important position in any judicial system. It may not act as a deterrent, but it will certainly prevent that particular criminal from hurting anyone again. If you have cases of serial killers, or guys with multiple convictions for terrible crimes, these people are often completely impossible to rehabilitate. So, instead of feeding and housing them for years, releasing them, and having to feed and house them again, and again simply execute him.

I'm not suggesting that it should be used for habitual jay-walkers. But guys with violent tendencies. And I'm not talking about first time criminals either, just in case of an innocent man being convicted. But the way I see it, if you have two murder convictions, plus some other assorted crap, then you can't possibly be innocent of all of it.

So, I'd say having it as a last resort to protect the populace is very important.

Answer 7

In certain extreme circumstances, the Death Penalty is the only humane response to a confessed and properly adjudicated heinous offense. The alternative is for the prisoner to be put in a cage for life, with no possibility of returning to society or having any kind of a meaningful existence. The problem with this is that it is extremely difficult for those two conditions to be met.

Many Native American tribes believed that crazy people were touched by GOD and should be venerated, but that people who killed without remorse were born with no soul and had to be put out of their misery as quickly and painlessly as possible. There are people who are dangerous to society. They cannot or will not help themselves, and their actions present a real threat to the community. Regardless of your personal beliefs, we live in a society that has put together a set of laws for our mutual safety and well being. You are certainly entitled to challenge those laws and try to change them, but you should really begin by offering viable alternatives.

How would you protect the rest of society against those who do not consider your life to hold any value at all? How would you protect us against those who have no concept of personal property or personal sanctity? There are individuals in this world who do horrible things and do not regret doing them. Given the chance, they would do them again. We either have to remove these people from the general population,or from the world. Which alternative is more humane? We may need to seek wisdom from our Native American Ancestors.

Answer 8

It would keep murderers, rapists and molesters from repeating their crimes. Prison punishes, it does not rehabilitate > actually, it serves as school for criminals. People leave prison with a new understanding of how to not leave evidence and more sophisticated techniques of committing the crime of choice. The term institutionalized means that some people have adapted to prison so well that they cannot function on the outside. Some of them will kill, rape molest or torture to return. Death is the only way to stop them, so.........

Answer 9

the death penalty can never be logically or reasonably justified in the current judicial system.

think of it this way, we say people should be murdered if they commit crimes that measure up to such a punishment, like killing another person brutally. This is based on the whole 'eye for an eye' biblical principle and while inticing is logically inconsistent.

Why aren't rapists sentenced to rape? Torcherers sentenced to torcher? Child molesters sentenced to molestation?

If we kill convicted murderers than we need to torcher convicted torcherers, otherwise, the death penalty remains an illogical and unreasonable means of commuting a criminal sentence.

Answer 10

Yes I believe in the Death Penalty. And prison too. I work in the corrections field and trust me certian people NEED to be there.