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.
rodders – by killing them we are saving $ and keeping prison guard safer, eh?
jfrater – i agree. it is a punishment, not ment to do anything else. eye for an eye and all that. amen.
I should make it clear that life without possibility of parole is an acceptable alternative in some situations, and we should not overlook it for the death penalty in every situation. There are just cetain situations that I feel can only be justly balanced by the option of the death penalty. Alot of people oppose the death penalty from this heuristic in them that says “Ohhh…..killing BAD!” While it is distasteful, in situations where there is more of a benefit from disposing of a career miscreant than keeping him around and confined, it should not be discounted on such simplistic, infantile grounds.
In my view the death penalty is deserved for rapists, and murderers, but it should all be looked at individually.
If a wife murders her husband who has beaten her and/or raped her.. teh ciscumstances are understandable.. isn’t that a crime of passion, I’m not really sure sorry.
For people who intentionally kidnap, rape and torture and them kill children for example.. well I’d kill them myself if i could.
Why have them locked up, released in 5-15 years to carry on their lives. Prison is a free bed, free food and in some cases even free education? IS that justice?
rodders – by killing them we are setting a standard and boldly stating we will not tolerate it at all.
i dont think that any homeless guy who want a clean room, hot shower, and three meals a day should be able to think, hey, all i have to do is rape someone ( insert kill, child molest, ect.) and i get to be protected, fed, clothed, bathed, and kept alive!!! sweet….
only if the punishment is immediate.when sentenced to death the offender should be dragged out back and shot in the head and a bill for the bullet mailed to his or her family.
maybe the death penalty isn’t for every situation. thats why there is a twelve person jury who all have to agree.
I guess what it comes down to, for some of the people posting, is that they believe the “eye for an eye” urge is a reason to be pro death penalty.
I absolutely believe that “eye for an eye” is a natural human response, I would not condemn a parent for murdering someone who murdered their child, but I would prefer that people place more value on making an effort to forgive. I am not religious, but I think Jesus had it right when he encouraged turning the other cheek.
I do not think that an “eye for an eye” mentality belongs in our government. You killed someone, so we will equally punish you by killing you is exactly that. Justice is when a soldier goes to war because Hitler is killing Jews (just an example, all historical questions of how much the average soldier knew, etc aside). Eye for an eye is the USA going into Iraq, and just as the occasional innocent person is executed under the death penalty, we know that Iraq was in no way responsible for 9/11, and the american people were duped because they were angry. Perhaps this is a convoluted example, but I’m just trying to express the danger of a government seeing “eye for an eye” as a way to conduct itself.
RXL – yes yes yes. maybe not the bill part but other than that i am totaly on the same page. it should be instant.
and for all the “what about if they are innocent” nay-sayers.
they were proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and 12 random people agreed that they should die using all of todays technology and equipment. case closed.
Punishment equals Justice equals Revenge.
I’m not even sure that it is the place of our _government_ to do any of these things.
It is the place of government to protect the citizens. As hg8057 said way back: …the person is in custody and is no longer a threat to society.
The cost of prison is a cost of society. Dirt roads may be cheaper than highways, but not what we want from gov’t.
But to address the views of Jamie and others who want justice and closure: Let the wronged party be the one to pull the switch or drop the knife of the guillotine. Taking a life is traumatic, be it a warrior or an unlucky driver. A wronged person should not farm out revenge to the state.
Personally, I think that I would forgo killing for revenge and hopefully would find another way to deal with the grief and anger.
Thoughts?
longball – In terms of safety, I agree it is an issue. For example, there was a case in Israel where police caught a suicide bomber before he blew himself up, and faced with the option of taking him into custody of killing him, they chose the second option. In this case, and others like it, I agree death is the only reasonable alternative. However, for criminals already in custody, let’s say vicious child-killers, I still don’t see the point in killing them. Yes, it seems to balance the equation, but in such extreme circumstances surely a life in solitary is worse for them. Also, for most criminals, even relatively serious ones, there is mitigating circumstances and hope. Surely you do not believe that we should write off all those who commit crimes as lost causes?
Deuteronomy 19:21- Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
nelia – the war in iraq isnt just about 9/11 retribution. there are alot of other factors involved, it isn’t eye for eye. it may not be justice either but thats not my call. that an opinion.
what is just? webster says
1. Honorable and fair in one’s dealings and actions: a just ruler.
2. Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
3. Properly due or merited: just deserts.
4. Law Valid within the law; lawful: just claims.
5. Suitable or proper in nature; fitting: a just touch of solemnity.
who can decide any of these. all opinionated i believe( except #4 which laws are chosen by us)
RXL – lol.
longball – i don’t think your average homeless person is going to rape someone because they want a hot meal. they might steal, but unless someone is predisposed to find rape and murder acceptable, they are not going to do it for a bed. You will also find that it is nearly impossible to find a serial killer who had a happy childhood. Sure, more people who have unhappy childhoods do not go out and murder people. This is why I find the idea that someone can be sane by the definition of the legal system, and still go out and do these things ridiculous. Their brain is damaged in some way. Even if they are intellectually aware that what they are doing is wrong, they don’t have the capacity to care enough to resist their urges. This is off topic, as I’m not using it as reasoning against the death penalty, but I find it interesting in general.
I think that only the victims of a crime have the right to “turn the other cheek”. The survivors of a violent crime can’t usurp that right. Who speaks for the dead? Would you forgive your own murder?
Now, Now Slick; Did I ever say killing was bad? and no-one has satisfactorily answered my concerns about human error, even 12 guys together make mistakes now and then. Also punishment based on vengeance instead of justice is a scary thing, ends up as frontier justice, yep we’ll just lynch em all. I still contend that we as a society are responsible for the monsters we create.
rodders – yes. i do think they are all lost causes and i would gladdly pull the trigger.
nelia – then we are all insane. i agree with you but i dont think it should save them, it should just be added in to the package.
stevenh: To quantify justice as revenge is oversimplifying the situation. The state acts on behalf of the society which it governs. Whether or not someone believes the person should die for his crimes, it is an objective issue. If the state determines that the person has violated the rules of the society in which they live, and metes out punishment equal in severity to the crime, that is justice. Is it revenge to put a child molester in jail for 15 years? Your semantics says yes, but the truth is, no, it is not revenge, it is justice. If said child molester gets out 15 years later, rapes a few more children and then murders them, and he then gets the death penalty, is that revenge for the crimes committed after the first incarceration or is that justice for all the crimes committed when taken in context of each other?
Longball – Suggesting our legal system is infallible is very dangerous. If people, and our government, truly believed that, there would be no appeals process.
I think to a certain extent, the government should be able to protect us from our base impulses. I imagine if someone murdered my sister, I would flip to pro death penalty in a second. That said, I don’t think I would be in a position to look at it objectively anymore. There is a reason vigilante justice is not the way we do things in civilized society. The wronged person can’t be the one making the decisions about the punishment, because they can’t look at it in an objective way.
Mom424: I wasn’t talking to you specifically. But it is scary that a lot of people believe what they do based on these flawed emotions they have and their unreliable intuition rather than objectively examining the situation. There are certain values that society has that people cling to in their effort to understand. Certain people take specific values and ignore other ones because it conforms to their little simplistic view of the world. Instead of objectifying their inherently subjective values, it would do some people good to realize that the situation is far more complex and encompassing than they realize.
Slick – I don’t think us anti death penalty people are in anyway suggesting that a child molester or murderer should get out after 15 years… the fact that some sentences are not tough enough is a totally different issue. That is the court failing to protect the people. There are ways to do that without killing, however.
vesselmen – killing the person usurps the right of the victim as well, it assumes that they would not forgive. It is possible that I would forgive my own murderer, there is no way to know. I forgave my rapist, however, because of the circumstances.
As far as human error goes, it does happen, and should be taken into account. I’m not saying the justice system is perfect; far from it. The way the death penalty is meted out in this country is flawed, and I oppose it. But the concept of the death penalty is a logical one and is productive so long as measures are taken to maximize its efficiency.
Final question longball, as I can see you’re sticking by your convictions. If, in a scenario where you were found guilty of a crime, say – causing the death of a child by dangerous driving (or vehicular homicide) due to a momentary lapse in concentration, are you a lost cause?
Nelia: You are misrepresenting my argument. And yes, I agree, there are ways to fulfill justice without killing, but there are certain cases where the death penalty is the only just punishment.
rodders. i dont know. honestly. but how many people get the death penalty because of vehicular manslaughter? i did intentionally and it was proven, then yea. i’m a lost cause, by all means, please kill me. and i would prefer a quick death.
Slick – You brought up an argument used for the death penalty. Whether you meant it or not, the argument that violent criminals get out of prison to early and commit more crimes, and therefore they should be put to death, IS often used by death penalty proponents. I was simply addressing an issue I saw in your post, I’m sorry for my implication that you were using that argument to further your point. What I saw was not necessarily what you meant. I did not mean to “misrepresent” YOU and make assumptions about what you believe, I was just making a point. My apologies. As for post 140, am I right in believing you are against the death penalty in the way it is used now, but believe in the theory and would support it if it was 100% accurate?
slickwilly – i will agree to that statement. our system may be flawed. and if it is it should be fixed. but fixing it isn’t necessarily removing the death penalty (not for you , for everyone). the death penalty is and has been a just punishment for as long as there have been crimes
My last observation on this subject(unless provoked of course).
My sister and I have been having this same argument for twenty plus years. My sister lives a much more black and white existence than myself, I see shades of grey…
I also can separate what I feel from what I think, just because I would personally want an offender dead does not mean that I believe in the death penalty….
When we were younger we almost came to blows; there is no winning this argument….
By the way, we no longer discuss this particular topic
It is not for the state to engage in the business of killing its citizens. Gvernment is there to protect the borders, protect the citizenry and foster an environment where rule of law is sacred.
Punishment of the public is of course but terminating a citizens right to live is barbaric.
Slick:
Nelia is correct. If the molester is released and then commits a crime it is a failing of the system that released someone who is a danger to society.
I view prison not as punishment, but as a way to ‘isolate the bad guys’, and protect society. It is up the the laws and the courts to make that protection As Long As Necessary.
By the way, I do not think that prison should be a comfortable place. Perhaps not the basement of the Bastille, but also not what I’ve seen in some new reports (Though I do realise that conditions vary very widely in the countries of LV readers.)
if you cant come to an agreement run away, a apt defence.
dad242; It is not a defence, but a fact..I could argue all day about it, again separation of feeling and thought…some people cannot
ps; you provoked me
dastex – the state doent chose to kill its citizens. that is left to the people, specifically the 12 jury members
stevenh – so we should pay to keep these criminals alive just in case they make a recovery, to isolate them. what happens when we run out of room? no way. impose the death penalty swiflty in all capital punishment cases, if found guilty and that what is decided to do by the jury
mom424 – the provokation was intentional. i like what you have to say.
thanks dad…..
I think that this is a pretty easy choice. No one should have the ability to choose who lives and who dies. If someone kills a person, and then is sentenced to death, isn’t the person who administers the poison, or whatever method is being used, killing someone also? It seems to me like they should be charged with the same crime. Some people have said that if one of my family was killed, my viewpoint would change. However I really do not think that it would. If the murderer in this example was killed, then it would tear that family apart as well, and it just becomes a vicious cycle. In other words, let them die in jail. It seems to me that spending the rest of one’s life in jail(maybe 50 years) is a lot worse than just being killed. Say NO to the death penalty!
longball:
The reason we’re running out of room (if true) is a more fundimental problem of the society in which we live.
Visit http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html
The USA – that bastion of justice is in great company:
… During 2006 25 countries, 91% in China, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, and the United States alone, executed 1,591 people…
WOW – stats that make me proud to be an Americian.
The death penalty should be eliminated only because by doing so we would free up thousands of hours and millions of dollars of various federal courts considering the details of hundreds of death-penalty convictions. Did you know that the Us Supreme Court alone regularly consumes up to twenty percent of its time considering the merits of various d-p cases? It’s apalling! We should eliminate the death penalty and allow the courts to focus on cases that have more merit.
Like Mom – I have to abandon this board. At this point, I think I’ve covered all my bases, and anything more would be repeating myself. I don’t think, at this point, there is any changing each others’ minds, but I hope I’ve given people valid points to think about. I’ve certainly gotten some. I’ve also forgotten to eat today, so I think I need to take 5 from intense debate
I enjoyed discussing this with people who are able to talk about it in a reasonable manner, and major kudos to listversers for not descending into squabbles (or most of you anyway).
I’ve emailed my aunt, and if she has useful info that is accessible to the public and on the internet, I’ll post it here. I hope the link I posted earlier is helpful.
Nelia:
You should check out this list: http://listverse.com/entertainment/10-recipes-with-3-ingredients-or-less/
Bon Appetit
Sephiral: In assessing your arguments against the death penalty, I have come up with 4 main arguments you make.
1) Use of the death penalty opens up the justice system to human rights violations.
2) Use of the death penalty opens up the justice system to executing innocent persons.
3) Use of the death penalty raises to light the difficulties in assessing motivation in an individual for their crime.
4) There is nothing worse than death and society in general has an abhorrance to “killing.”
The first three are valid concerns. It is not an issue of one’s base ideas about how “abhorrant” killing is, because this issue is and should be irrelevent to determining whether or not to administer the death penalty; it is not a moral issue about killing versus not killing, it is an issue of providing justice and security for the individuals in society. As I said, the death penalty is a serious punishment, and it should be strictly regulated. One should only qualify for the death penalty if there is no doubt that the person committed the crime. If a criminal violates another person’s right to life, it should be considered that he lose his right to life as well, not in an eye-for-an-eye, vengeful way, but by the standard of our society meeting out punishment that is proportionally severe to the crime. Those people who are most in danger of violating others rights should lose their own so they can be kept from harming harmless individuals.
To believe that acting humanely in all situations is the ideal, I’m of the opinion that this is a naive viewpoint. Certain situations are just inhumane, no matter which way you look at them. It is important to take into account mitigating circumstances and determine whether it is more inhumane to the majority by allowing the person to live than it is to the guilty individual by removing him permanently from that society.
Looking at the financial argument in terms of placing a monetary value on human life is also an agenda-driven, biased way of looking at it. You are trying to argue against me by saying that I’m trying to place a finite value on something you consider has infinite value. I think, firstly, that is incredibly arrogant way to look at it, because this idea is symptomatic of the belief that human beings are the most precious creatures on the planet simply because we’re the most advanced. Secondly, I’m not in anyway putting a value on the life of a person, I’m saying that according to the statistics I have at hand, it just costs less money to execute a person than confine them for life, money that could be used to help those people that deserve to be – and will benefit from being – helped. I don’t think human life has any extra intrinsic value because it’s human.
SlickWilly: If you want to use the tumor metaphor, here we go. Leaving a tumor in a person can prolong the problem. Leaving a violent offender in society can prolong the problem. Excising (that is, removing) the tumor from the person can solve the problem. Excising the violent offender from society (that is…removing the violent offender from society by putting him/her in prison) should also then solve the problem. Using your own terms, death is not a necessary part of this argument.
As far as the discussion about the death penalty being a deterrent goes, it is not. People murderously kill for three reasons: profit, compulsion, and passion. If anyone can offer an example of a murder that falls outside of those three types, I would like to hear it. People who murder for profit are not going to be deterred by the death penalty, because people who murder for profit do it based on the assumption that they will not get caught. People who murder in a crime of passion aren’t thinking rationally, and aren’t going to be deterred from killing someone because they aren’t processing rational thoughts. People who murder because of a compulsion (these would be serial killers, *****ual offenders, etc) aren’t going to be deterred by the death penalty because they are mentally unbalanced. If look at people like Jeffrey Dahmer, he obviously knew what he was doing was wrong (he tried to cover up his numerous murders), but still did not stop. The argument that the death penalty works as a deterrent just falls flat.
For further argument, look at Texas. Texas has enacted the death penalty more than any other state, and Texas (I believe this is still the case) also has the greatest number of people on death row. If the death penalty were truly a deterrent, fewer murders would take place in Texas than in any other area. The state presents a microchosm of the ineffectivness of the death penalty worldwide.
And finally, I completely agree with what nelia has been saying throughout: the judicial system should not act as a means for revenge. I think everyone here agrees that violent offenders cannot be a part of our society. But that is why we have prison, it is not sufficient argument for putting someone to death, no matter how sick and evil they are. Death is not a punishment for an evil crime. It is revenge based on the wronged party (however broad you want to define that) trying in vain to seek retribution for an offensive act. Killing them is not the answer.
Stevenh/Nelia: I’m *not* arguing against that point, geez, quit creating strawmen to defend against. If you have a contention with something I said that is consistent with the aim of my post, let me know. Otherwise, it just demonstrates a lack of credibility.
my final say, like mom and nelia, i get tired of repeating myself. -
stevenh – i am proud to be an American and if Oregon goes all anti-death penalty i will gladly change residence to texas! i wonder what the percentage of population in the other countries who have abolished the DP who commit violent crimes are and get away with it is? you site didnt say that.
phillip – would retaining them in prison cost more than killing them???? and what cases have more merit than murder, rape, and child molestation???? please tell me?
phunnieme: It is naive to think that a person can’t do damage to society once incarcerated. Some of the largest, most violent gangs in the whole *world* are run from behind the walls of some of our most “secure” institutions. My simplisitic *****ogy about cancer and criminals still remains valid. If you don’t remove a malignant tumor from the body, it will still damage the system from it’s confined position. It may not spread, but it will continue to degenerate the body it is scourging.
We also know the death penalty is not a deterrant. Not once in any of my posts did I use that as example of why the death penalty should be used. Also, you seem to have an inability to realize that the death penalty is *not* about vengeance or revenge, though some of its opponents will characterize it in that way to make it easier to argue against.
Slick – I resent your aggressive reply. As I JUST said, I did not intend to attribute points to you that were not meant. I simply saw that in your post, and replied to it. Yes, I read something into your post that wasn’t there, and I apologized for that. How much more from me is it that you want?
NOW it is meal time.
Though I misunderstood you, it is still an argument that comes up in death penalty debates, so I do not regret bring up another issue in the debate. I was under the impression that looking at all sides of a debate was a valuable thing.
Try reading my apology before attacking me again, otherwise you show a lack of credibility.
P.S. Like mom, I was provoked
SlickWilly: (First of all *ahem* there are 3 Es in my username. /pedant)
My response to you was only that first bit. Up in the 90s-120s comments range (when I started writing the response, then left for tea), there were people talking about it being a deterrent. jfrater’s main argument (if I’m reading his posts correctly) seems to be that the death penalty is a just punishment for an evil crime. My argument is that there cannot be a line drawn between a “just punishment” for an evil crime and revenge, if that just punishment is to respond to the crime in kind. A life for a life is, in my mind, revenge. THAT’s what I was responding to. I hope that’s clearer.
the court system is so flawed
I know a person who went to jail for having fireworks. Not the big explosive ones, the popper-crackers and bottle rockets.
I also know a person who walked free after being tryed for DUI on a busy street nearly crashing into many things.
how the hell is that right?
how does that make sense
the death penalty is very important because people could just kill ofter people and only get a maximum sentence of life in prison and to me that is not right
Hey guys, I never get tired of giving my opinion, its just that there has not been/nor likely will be (surprise me)an argument that counters my two main points….human error and our propensity for taking things too far and “our responsibility for the monsters we create”
By the way I think Bundy is a poor example (I’m a crime buff) of society’s ills being the cause of his behavior, His family life was not ‘that’ bad, and his parents appeared to have made an effort to engage him…(I think the molestation thing bogus, I’ve read tons about it)…a bad seed
There are many better examples and the correlation of broken homes and child abuse is too strong to be ignored. Personally I believe you must be born with the kink, and then environment dictates whether you become a murderer or a talent agent….
note I said in most cases….
1) I am Very proud to be American.
2) I am not always proud of all of the policies of the various states or of the federal government.
3) I totally agree with Mom424 and Nelia – It’s time for dinner (6:45 EST)
G’nite all
I’m a firm believer in the death penalty for those who do wrong. Like if you kill someone you should die yourself.
My biggest hate in all of life, is rapist, child molesters. I believe they should have their balls removed, and rot in prison. Murders should just be sent to a secluded island and kill eachother.
My answer is yes. An eye for an eye. If you commit a grave crime, then you must pay the consequences. Unfortunately, this ultimately solves nothing, and some people actually prefer death over incarceration, but I don’t see why people’s taxes should be used to pay for the food and shelter of rapists, killers and pedophiles. I’m not sure if those 3 actions can all end with the death penalty, but I’d say they should be.
I realise that you have to have prisons for the lower-end crimes, but I don’t see why we should overpopulate prisons, and have to pay more to house more people who doesn’t deserve to live. I think that any premeditated murder, any rape, and any pedophilia (which would probably go under rape) should be punished with the death penalty.
I don’t see killing a murder as an act that would classify me in the same group as it would him, that of killers, considering I am eliminating a life that isn’t worth and doesn’t deserve living. If anyone has ever lost someone through premeditated murder, or had a loved on raped, I would find it utterly bewildering if they would not want the culprit killed.
Definitely pro-death penalty.
Just think about how much money we waste keeping these killers, rapists etc alive. How many people do we put in danger (guards, staff, medical personel) keeping violent offenders safe. Is it worth it?
The death penalty is a good thing but because of people and their lawyers and blah blah blah it takes alot of moneys to kill an evil person. If you know 100% they are guilty then too bad, you die now. I’m not going to feel bad about killing some person who killed a bunch of other people. They are sitting in jail sucking up resources.
I think the death penalty is a good idea! If we just put the killers in jail, there will be no room in jails for the other people who should be in there. The death penalty frees up jails and, not only does that but also equals the score. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Also, it provides closure and when you have seen the person who killed someone close to you, you will want them dead.
Nelia: Grow up. I made a point, you tried to argue my point by pretending I was making a different point. Whether or not the point *you* made is one some pro-death penalty people are making is irrelevant. You presented it as a rebuttal of my statement. That is called “drawing strawmen” and it is a logical fallacy in a debate. Looking at all sides of the debate is a logical thing. I do realize that you admitted your error, and my comment was more directed against stevenh. I like how you tried to spin my attack on your credibilty against me. The fact is, you muffed up, not me, so matter in what convoluted way you want to look at it, you are the one whose credibility suffers, not mine.
Im torn on this subject, on one hand, serial killers are truly sick human beigns and shouldn’t have the chance to be able to re-enter society, but when you use capital punishment like the death penalty, then we all kill the person that is killed. penn and Teller made a good point on their show Bull*****, if the goverment kills a person on death row, then we being citizens killed him too.
Hey Slick; I like arguing with you, and we seem to do it without any nastiness….How come?
Maybe its because I agree with you for the most part, lame-o arguments…ie; how would you feel if your mom/sister/brother was murdered?,,or Its cruel to kill people, yeah so what? And locking ‘em up forever is any less cruel?
Keep making us think…….
A classic example is the Tookie Williams case, in 2004, he was fatally injected using a 3 drug cocktail, I am a citizen of the united states and since i am one, i killed him.
And sometimes we don’t kill these people peacefully, like the law says we have to, when you use capital punishment, the inmate has to be knocked out, in some cases they are fully awake.