No doubt a controversial question – this goes in to moral ground that other Your View lists have not so far. The question is whether the death penalty should be used or not. I have my own strong views on this topic and I am sure you all will too!
When answering this question, be sure to give us your reasons for your answer – it gives us a chance to debate!
Should the death penalty be used?
My answer is yes – forget rehabilitation – the death penalty meets out justice – if a person commits a heinous crime, such as murder, they should be executed. They should not be placed in to a prison at the expense of the people they have endangered.
If you support the death penalty,
and only one single innocent person is killed,
and killing an innocent person is murder,
then you become murderers,
So, you also derserve to be killed.
Death penalty paradox.
your retarded
I am amazed that you could have deduced that from a five line phrase about a person you have most probably never met before. Truly stunning.
My answer is NO–forget rehabilitation. Let them rot in jail for the rest of their miserable lives, and throw away the key. But killing someone, or allowing the government/judicial system to kill someone, even if the person “deserves” it, makes us all killers and solves nothing.
Most importantly, the death penalty is NOT an effective deterrent. The only functional use it has is to give closure for the family of the wronged.
I think murderers and rapists and others like that deserve the Death Penalty. It is retribution for the crime they purposely committed. However, I would exclude people if there is no defining proof that shows that that person did it.
I have a strange view on this….normally I don’t think it should be used but if I hear a story about, say, a parent killing their child or some other person that makes the story heartbreaking, I think it should be considered. Normally I think that no one has the right to decide whether a man should or should not die by exeuction — no matter how serious or disgusting his crime is. The more someone that is against it (like me) gets into it, the more he realizes that there are certain exceptions that everyone would agree upon. People have a similar view on abortion. But hey, I guess that’s another “Your View:”
I say no; As long as human beings administer our justice system, mistakes will be made….I can’t remember who said it but it goes something like this “better to let 10 murderers go free than to condemn an innocent man”….
The arguments I’ve heard for the death penalty always include deterrence, this is bull*****, well covered on Jamie’s last list; same principal as the CCTV cameras…
In Canada I know of two or three people who would be dead now if we had the death penalty, and they didn’t do it….(god forbid I should live in Texas; I wouldn’t sleep at night)
On a personal note I believe that as a society it is our responsibility to tend to our failures, (how many serial killers come about because of child abuse for example), that said I do believe in punishment and our namby-pamby court system sucks the big one,,,,
phunniemee: don’t forget that killing a person is not the same as murdering – justice allows killing – but not murder – murder is unjust killing. The point of the death penalty is not to rehabilitate – it is to punish justly.
I think that the death penalty is a fair punishment only if it is carried out in a humain way. This is a big topic in the US, some people believe it is cruel to use lethal injection (most common way of execution). There is another way of thinking about it, who are we to decide when some one dies? Why should the goverment repeat the crime which a murdered just commited? Isn’t that just as bad as murder? But then again, why pay for a criminal to stay alive if we can kill them for much less? I am sorry if i conterdict myself but this is a very complex issue.
jfrater: The point of contention, then, is IS there such a thing as a “just killing.”
jfrater; you just made my point – Justly – there is no guarantee that the punishment will be just, again we are human, we make mistakes.
With the death penalty as I’ve seen it administered, it begins by only executing serial killers with iron-clad evidence, then they add cop-killers, then they add etc, etc, etc,,,,,
Speaking to Mom424′s point about such mistakes made, I urge people to watch Errol Morris’ The Thin Blue Line for an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Blue_Line_%28documentary%29
(It’s also a fantastic film.)
If you kill you should be killed, whether it be a crime of passion premeditated or not. You do it once then you are likely to do it again. People who are capable of it should not have the right to go on living.
I totally agree with Jamie. Why should the taxpayers pay for food and shelter for criminals? Sitting in jail for the rest of their lives doesn’t help any body. They aren’t being rehabilitated they’re networking with other, more dangerous criminals. They’re learning how to do things they may not have had knowledge of before they went to prison. And some of the most deadliest gangs and gang leaders are incarcerated, but have access to the outside through others. Just because they are in jail doesn’t mean they can’t pull off hits on people. Once you have killed someone I think you have lost the right to live yourself. Furthermore, if there is undeniable proof that a murderer/rapist committed a crime, I think they should be put to death faster. Get ‘em outta there.
toolnut (et al.): Using the financial/burden on taxpayers argument is unfair and short-sighted. As long as our court system is tied up with non-violent drug offenders and other people who don’t need to be put in jail, we have no business killing people to reduce prison costs.
Over 200 people a year who sit on death row are acquitted after evidence is reexamined and proves their innocence. It makes me wonder how man innocent people we’ve condemned.
dreamcatcher; tons,,,,
To me there isn’t even two sides to this argument; those naysayers must think about how they would feel if someone very close to them was egregiously murdered; would want their death to be in vain? Absolutely not! Why should someone who values life as little as a murderer be allowed to live himself? If life is so unimportant that it can be taken away so brutally and abruptly, then why not return the favor? In jail murderers receive 3 full meals per day as well as shelter and a place to sleep; they may be in jail, get some enemies, fight some battles, but most likely they will be alive, snickering inside about how they took a life away and still get to live theirs.
phunniemee: I agree with you; and in fact, the financial burden to kill someone is much more than it is to keep them locked up for life. That being said, I believe this is the ONLY argument that people against it can use that has merit.
jfrater; I agree there are just killings. They happen all the time, the sniper in the school, shot dead to prevent other deaths, the armed bank robber etc. Now if they hadn’t had to kill him and he was caught instead, I would argue against execution for the reasons I’ve already stated….
I have no problem with death as a punishment but I think capitol punishment shouldn’t be used for the following reasons. 1. Money! Millions are spent in the required appeals, and this means the offender ends up costing the rest of us more than just locking him up for life. 2. I think death is the easy way out for the offender, I think making them live the rest of their life in a cell without parole ends up being ‘more punishment’. Lock yourself in the bathroom for a week and see how much you like it then try to imagine it for month or 12 or life. 3. DNA is proving we still don’t know how to reliably determine who is guilty or not all the time so not using the death penalty at least allows a partial correction for the person wrongly convicted.
My views on this issue were drastically changed about 10 years ago when my mother was raped and stabbed to death. They caught the guy through DNA evidence (it wasn’t the first time had had done something like this). The crime occurred in a state without the death penalty, so as far as I know, this guy is still alive. Prior to this event, I was anti death penalty and used many of the same facile, naive arguments made by other posters. Now, I feel like any piece of ***** who victimizes a weaker, innocent person should die a slow painful death. Don’t underestimate the importance of closure.
jfried620: That’s the reason we have a court system and a judicial branch of the government. One person, or even one family, ESPECIALLY when they are in an unstable emotional state from the egregious loss of a loved one, should not be relied upon to make decisions regarding the life (or death) of any other person. We (as a country, as a group of responsible citizens) relinquish that decision to the hands of (what we hope to be) competent court officials, knowing that we (in an emotional state) cannot make such decisions without bias.
If we ignored that and let the families who have had havoc wreaked on them make all those tough decisions, we’d have a system of vigilante justice, which would be bad for society as a whole.
The argument that once you kill someone, you lose your right to live is a very simplistic one. What then of other state sponsored killers in military areas? Or in self defence? Or while under the influence of drink or drugs, perhaps even ones you have not taken voluntarily? Even limiting it to those murders one ‘in cold blood’ is problematic. Surely someone who kills in completely cold blood should be in a mental institution in the first place?
The reducing costs argument is utterly irrelevant. Either permitting a state(I mean nation, I’m Irish not American) to kill it’s prisoners is morally justifiable and permittable or not. The financial burden of keeping a prisoner is not a justification morally, even if it does have practical benefit to the state in terms of additional funds being available.
There is also the possibility of people being wrongfully convicted of a crime, what moral status does this hold? Surely if someone claimed to have shot a completely innocent person in good faith then they would be tried for manslaughter? This alone is a reason almost powerful enough to condemn the death penalty.
Whether or not a killing is painless or humane seems a bit of a side issue to me. There seems of a paradox between saying ‘we will end this person’s existence’ and saying ‘but we will not hurt you in doing it’. There is little worse than death, pretending otherwise actively undermines the value that should be placed in life.
There are innumerable arguments on both sides of the debate and ultimately it will boil down to whether someone is comfortable with living in a nation which permits the killing of unarmed prisoners. Given that I live in a safe, well off country I would say no. If I lived in a different less stable country my feelings may change.
The whole issue raises further issues on the nature of personal identity, accountability, whether a state takes precedent over certain individual rights in certain situations and many others.
Also, just as a little aside, it is strange how many Americans oppose state and federal interventions in economic areas but are perfectly willing to have their state murder (yes, execution is murder, pretending otherwise is just not having the stomach to admit that you are seeking to justify murder, and yes I can think of situations where I would justify it easily) prisoners.
Basically it would need to be proven to me how you can justify a state killing an unarmed prisoner in cold blood while simultaneously condemning it in wider society.
vesselman: thank you for sharing that with us – it sums things up perfectly I think.
Thanks jfrater. This is not an abstract issue for many of us.
Vesselman, I am horrified to hear what happened to your mother and I feel terrible that I have to disagree with you.
But surely you can see that there is a completely valid question to be raised regarding whether it is alright to kill someone in any situation where is there is a strong legal framework? How do we square our abhorrence of any killing with permitting our state to kill it’s prisoners.
I respect your honesty in talking about this, I can have no idea what it must be like to have that happen. Please appreciate that I would be disrespecting you not to voice my disagreement.
vesselman;leaving the whole death penalty debate aside there is a great documentary that may help you
“Forgiveness: Stories For Our Times” produced by CTV and no it is not a lecture, just stories of hope…..i couldn’t find a link directly to it, just the Canada AM interview and blurb
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070525/forgiveness_murder_070525/20070525/
vesselman; I too would want to kill/have killed anyone that killed or harmed my family…that is a personal feeling and you should not feel guilt because of it…that’s why society as a whole administers justice and not the individual…
People, for the past 17+ years I’ve worked in a maximum security state prison. I’ve walked among our monsters. They talk about things so vile in a way like you and I would talk about the weather. I would say a majority of the “lifers” would actually prefer the death penalty. Despite all of the talk about the “three hots and a cot”, prison is definitely not a pleasant place. To them, death would be a release. A lifetime in prison is serious punishment.
I started my career as a seriously pro death penalty person. Now, I’ve completely changed my position on the subject. I do believe in justifiable homicide though. Shooting someone who is a immediate danger to society is absolutely justified: the sniper, school gunman, hostage taker…. BUT, state sanctioned executions do NOT fall in that category. The person is in custody and is no longer a threat to society. If the police have someone in custody and beat the hell out of them, wouldn’t that be an outrage? It’s the same thing if the state has someone locked up and executes them.
Lock ‘em up and throw away the key.
Well, as far as I’m concerned, there are just some people that cannot be rehabilitated. They have spent their whole lives living in a certain mindset that causes them to manipulate and hurt others, and this mindset can’t simply be undone. Many of these people are harmful to society; they rape, they murder, they steal…putting them in jail for the rest of their lives is causing more harm to the society, financially. The cost of life imprisonment without the posibility of parole is estimated to be about 3.01 million dollars over the course of 50 years for a single individual. ($34,200/year for 50 years, at a 2% annual cost increase, plus $75,000 for trial & appeals)So even imprisoned, these people are still a drain on society. Now, once it’s realized that these individuals 1) can never be allowed to exist in society because of the danger they pose to others, 2) can never be rehabilitated, and 3) can never contribute anything of value to the society from inside the prison system, I think letting moralistic values of life and death trump the greater moral responsibility to the society is irresponsible.
The cost of executing a individual is estimated to be about 1.9 millions dollars ($60,000/year for 6 years, at
a 2% annual cost increase, plus $1.5 million for trial & appeals). Society will take a hit either way, but for every person given the death penalty instead of life without parole, the taxpayers are saving over 1 million dollars over the course of 50 years, which is money that could be used to fix and improve any number of government programs that people depend on, like the education system, or health care, or could be used to stimulate the economy. It may sound cold blooded, but the needs and rights of the many outweigh the needs and the rights of the few, so long as the few owe a debt to the many. That’s my take on it.
If the person was in jail for life, let them go crazy and they die from being crazy. They kill themselves!!!
Oh, my source on the above statistics: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
for murderers the victims of those familys want them dead but cant legally kill them. thats where the state comes in, in the name of justice of the tax paying citizens that pay for the courts systems, and the execution itself. rapists and child molesters deserve the same fate, as does treason offenders, and dessertion in certain cases. although rotting in jail would be horrible, the wait for your inevitable death must be the most psychologically traumatic pain you can infict on a person. in jail you have your entire life to not know when your gonna go. deadlines are always scarier.
SlickWilly:
Your thinking on the issue is a strange synthesis of Capitalist placing of monetary profit (in this case to the state) as that of the highest value with an extreme left view that what is good for that state is more important than the rights conferred on an individual by that state. Surely the reason we value a state is the benefit it permits individual citizens to enjoy? We can argue that when people violate the laws and customs of that state they throw away their right to these rights but then we allow the possibility that the state can violate the rights of individuals in the right situation. Then it becomes a very gray and messy area trying to determine when and where it is permissible…
Not sure I have given a good exposition to my argument above there but I am sure you get the gist of it at least.
SlickWilly: “I think letting moralistic values of life and death trump the greater moral responsibility to the society is irresponsible.”
I imagine the Nazis thought that they had a moral responsibility to society that trumped ‘moralistic’ values of life and death.
When reason trumps morality hell follows.
SlickWilly; I don’t believe that rehabilitation works very often either. Dollars don’t count, sorry that there is a cost to maintaining society, jail is just one of many,,,
Moral responsibility to society? Locking them in jail protects society the same way killing em does….again just because I do not believe in the death penalty does not mean that I do not believe in punishment or that I believe the current justice system is good, c’mon 10 years for violent rape/murder?
moralist values of life trump moral responsibility….? moralistic values of life are what prevent me from being one of those guys in jail, and what our society is based on…..that and money….lol
I think what most people don’t realize is this -
a recent study concluded that it is MORE expensive to put someone to death than it is to keep them in prison for life. The resources spent on lawyers and appeals go way up for prisoners on death row, and many people spend years and years on death row.
In addition, it is also true that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent.
Another recent study found that around 80% of people on death row never finished high school. This was often due to social problems, drugs, and severe learning disabilities. There are many people on death row who have unusually low IQs, but since they did not qualify for the insanity defense and/or are not legally retarded, they are sentenced to death. There are also many repeat offenders on death row who spent time in prison, where they were exposed to dangerous drugs rather than weaned off them. When an 18 year old goes to prison for selling *****, there is a good chance he will come out of prison addicted to heroin.
As for the moral issues – I haven’t even really worked out my own feelings about the death penalty. I believe that if someone I loved was murdered, I’d want revenge. I’d want to shoot that person in the face myself… but the government should be about justice, not revenge. And I can’t really see the justice in the death penalty. There is no reason to implement it, logically, BUT revenge.
I am deeply disturbed by the fact that innocent people have died due to the death penalty. As far as I am concerned, until it is a PERFECT science, it should not be allowed.
I am also very troubled by the amount of learning disabled people who were addicted to drugs at the time of their crime. No, drugs are not an excuse, but it would be ridiculous to say that they do not alter your brain chemistry and cause one to do things they would never do in an unaltered state. Sure, as a white kid growing up in a nice neighborhood it was easy for me to avoid hard drugs. Would you really say that the young kids who live in terrible neighborhoods, join gangs to protect themselves, and endure abuse in their homes and on the streets are entirely at fault when they fall to crime and drugs? Not everyone has the brains and drive to make something of themselves out of that situation, and many of them don’t even realize it is a possibility. I know I am sounding totally soft hearted and naive to some of you, but it is more naive to assume that there isn’t a reason that drugs and crime are so much more of a problem in poor neighborhoods.
We read about horrific things that people do to each other all the time, but the court rarely takes a close enough look at those reasons.
Personally, cost doesn’t come into it for me, but I did want to mention that it is often more expensive to sentence someone to death. Is it seriously important to save money when we are talking about killing someone?
I hate to disagree with some people on this topic, but the death penalty is *not* considered murder. By the strict definition, murder is an unlawful killing, distinguished by two criteria: 1) the element of “malice aforethought” (an intention to cause death, or to cause serious injury knowing that death will probably result, to which the laws of our country [the U.S.] adds: (a) Intention to cause grievous injury and death resulted; (b) Conduct with a “depraved heart” showing lack of care for human life; (c) Intent to commit any felony whatsoever ), and 2) the lack of lawful justification.
Gov’t sanctioned executions are not considered murder because they fail to meet condition #2. Most people try to spin the death penalty into equating with murder because of the negative connotations that the colloquial meaning of the word implies, rather similar to the way creationists justify question evolution because, in lay terms, it is “just a theory.” The death penalty is not considered murder under any informed circumstances.
I think that bringing in arguments about the cost of of execution vs. jail are bogus. You are missing the point-this is not an issue that can be debated rationally. People who commit these crimes are predators. They are beyond redemption. Most people who commit these crimes eventually get out of jail. Do you want someone who did this and is “rehabilitated” to live in your neighborhood? Maybe get a job at your kids’ school? Carry the wife’s groceries out to the car?
SlickWilly; I know that, I do not consider the death penalty murder or even in most cases undeserved. I just don’t believe that as a civilized society, that execution is the way to go….
Slickwilly – I suggest that you find some statistics somewhere other than a pro death penalty site. I am not accusing them of lying to prove their point, but they are certainly ignoring the most recent studies on this. Many prisoners on death row are there longer than lifers live. Perhaps society is becoming more reluctant to put people to death, thus leaving them on death row longer.
My information comes from a state prosecutor in my family. She gets these studies for obvious reasons. As a prosecutor in a death penalty state, she has to keep up on the latest information on the death penalty, or risk misusing it.
SlickWilly: The death penalty might not be considered murder by definition, but would you say that even the CHANCE of putting an innocent person to death constitutes something that doesn’t fall under the heading of a “lack of care for human life?”
even retards and schizos should be put to death if the punishment fits the crime, if you are unfit for society then you get no sympathy. ***** that. drug addicts deserve the same *****, your are willingly changing your brain chemistry, deal with your actions, and if you are mentally unable too, oh well then they should not be in any part of our society
rational, are you seriously suggesting we should kill mentally disabled people because they are unfit for society?
Wow.
I used to believe in the whole “an eye for an eye” thing, but I’ve since changed my views. I don’t think I or anyone else has the authority to determine that someone deserves to die. Murder sucks, for sure, but killing the murderer (assuming you can prove beyond doubt that they are indeed guilty) isn’t going to bring back the victim. It’s harsh but it’s the truth.
Killing people to show people that killing people is wrong? It just doesn’t make sense to me.
vesselman: I completely agree. There needs to be legislation put in place to ensure that rapists and murderers NEVER see the light of day again. But this doesn’t mean that they should be killed. They need to spend the rest of their tortured, miserable existence behind bars with no hope of release.
rational; retards and schizos? Geez aren’t you a smart fella? We’ll be sure to give your argument the thoughtful consideration it deserves….
whooosh,,,whoosh (sound of toilet flushing)
mom424 there has to be reprecussions even in a civilized society, and please tell me you feel the same way when a tragedy happened to your family, if it were up to me id say the family get the gun to pull the trigger on the son of a *****. were still human, and only animals people, were not above that.
my answer is yes! I don’t know if any of you have been in a prison or even seen any shows. These *****ers are playing pool, watching tv, and eating a full meal while some family is grieving and crying their father, mother, son, daughter, friend. Prisons are overwhelmed with murderers, and because there’s no space we let repeat offenders like rapists go free. Let the killers die and put more of these disgusting human beings in prison. To the person that hurt me, I would be so much more happier if he didn’t go free just living life, while I stay locked in my room and I’m afraid. Put the felons and prison, and execute the murderers – once you rape, torture, and kill a child – you have officially stopped being a human being or even an animal. Let’s get rid of these ‘things’ that hurt so many around us.
touchy subject. I say yes to the death penalty but with a different speculation to reasons. Kind of alot for me to go into right now and I am a bit stressed out as it is so I will leave it at that for now.
mom424 how are you going to insult my intelligence when you know nothing about me? if you have something constructive to say then say it, insults are the lowest form of argument. and just for a quick example on dateline the other night a retard killed and raped a little girl… hmm lets let him walk because hes not mentally there, your right
rational; see post #26, #4, In fact read all the comments before you spout,,,I believe in punishment…
SlickWilly:
When debating the moral nature of the Death Penalty, we are also debating whether or not it is legally justifiable. It is logically prior to the legal definition you offered. We are actually debating whether or not it is justifiable in the first place. Offering a legal definition of murder which permits executions is hopelessly circular. Lawful justification exists no doubt, we are debating whether it should exist in the first place.
Also your second point about the rhetorical nature of the terms execution/murder is valid, but unfortunately it is the reverse of your explanation in many ways. It is just as reasonable to point out that pro-death penalty exponents seek to create a rhetorical and logical gap between the two terms to lend credence to their opinions.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever read Unspeak by Steven Poole? It is an excellent book on just these issues of language in public discourse.
rational: 12 thousand+ years years of human civilization begs to differ.
i dont feel like reading 51 comments im sorry, i rather just start off reading the last 5, or 10…. im not a housewife who can spend all day reading every comment on every forum on this website, pardon me i actually have to work 12 hour days, pay my own rent and all other living expenses
rational
‘Retards’ ought to be in care if they are dangerous. They lack the intellectual faculties to acknowledge what they have done is wrong in many cases. Your style of posting and seeming lack of thoughtful arguments are what invite personal insults.
Rational;
because calling people retards and schizo’s is offensive and unnecessary,,,and if you’re willing to execute someone with the mentality of a 6 year old then you know not of what you speak
12 thousand years my man will all be crumbled in the next few hundred, so are we really that smart? i mean psychologically speaking we still all have primal urges were not super-beings if we were then there would be no murderers, or any of the other ills plauging our societies in this world
Also, Rational
I read all these comments and it took around half an hour with half my attention on a football match at the same time… umm, really, grow up.
Rational – no one is suggesting we let him “walk.” As for insults being the lowest form of argument… Well if you sound like an immature kid, you will be treated like one. Just a life lesson for you.
Lex- Agreed! Many violent criminals prefer to be “inside”, it’s easier than trying to make it in the real world. I say again, if you hurt an innocent, you’ve crossed a line and you give up your place in society forever. If a dog bites a child, it is usually destroyed. Why not apply the same logic?
To everyone else: There was a really interesting discussion going on here. Can we all just agree to ignore rational, as he most certainly isn’t?
I’m more interested in what people have to say about the argument at hand.