The death penalty to be brought back?

I didn't ask for odds. I asked which situation you found preferable. And you didn't answer the question.

YoSoyJu said:

I didn't ask for odds. I asked which situation you found preferable. And you didn't answer the question.

Doesn't stop you from answering my question though does it? I would rather neither situation to arise, but these things do happen. Which is why I was wondering if anyone knew any kind of statistical data that showed us the likelihood of an innocent man being condemned to death.

That kind of data is impossible to gather as it would require knowing that the person is innocent or guilty.

YoSoyJu said:

That kind of data is impossible to gather as it would require knowing that the person is innocent or guilty.

This is a very good point, we have evidence of people being put to death and then found out to be innocent (apart from this accounts I'm not sure if there is anything statisitcal that has been produced) but there will also be a population who were truely innocent and put to death who were never found out to be innocent, which as you rightly say would mean there is no data available on this group.

I think the death penalty should be allowed in Australia. Only those who have committed crimes serious enough should be considered for the death penalty, otherwise they should stay in jail for a lot longer than what they do now. What I classify as a "serious" crime is murder/manslaughter, rape, child molestation, torture, grievous bodily harm with intent, attempted murder and whatever else serious I may have missed. Of course, whether or not they deserve the death penalty would be dependant on just how many people they hurt or killed.

In Queensland, the life sentence is only fifteen years, prisoners can be granted parole even before then. Fifteen years is absolutely nothing compared to the pain and suffering the family and close ones of the person who was either killed or raped would feel. Why call it a "life sentence" if all they're going to stay in there for is not even two decades? Unless the person convicted has prior illness or is 70-90 years old I doubt they would die that soon. Jail is practically a 'haven' in some aspects. Prisoners are clothed, fed, provided health care and even given a roof over their heads. Even homeless people don't get half as much as that, the most they ever did wrong was probably spend their money on things they shouldn't.

In the event an innocent man or woman is executed, it just goes to say how messed up our justice system is right now. Why were they convicted in the first place? Convicting people of crimes should be more thoroughly thought out than it is now. If the death penalty was enforced, the justice system would probably need an overhaul. Heck, maybe overhauling it would void the need for the death penalty. In all honesty, the ratio of innocent people likely to be executed to the sheer number of murderers and rapists being let out of jail right now is probably minimal. Yes, it's a sad thing if the innocent person gets executed and it shouldn't have happened in the first place. However, in my opinion it is far worse to allow someone who has murdered many back into the community; not all murderers reform or even feel remorse for their actions. What would the views on the justice system be if a murderer or rapist was released and ended up repeating whatever they had been locked up for?

CRAZY CHEATS said:

What if that person is going to take another life?
As I mentioned, life isn't forever in Ireland. Someone can go on a mass killing spree, go to jail for 20 years, then do it again, and repeat the process repeatedly. Some people not only deserve to die, they need to die.

Then put them in prison until they die instead of killing them. I don't care what treatment they get, were safe. That's what it's all about. It's better than putting ourselves on the same level as them.

Vindicator said:

In all honesty, the ratio of innocent people likely to be executed to the sheer number of murderers and rapists being let out of jail right now is probably minimal. Yes, it's a sad thing if the innocent person gets executed and it shouldn't have happened in the first place. However, in my opinion it is far worse to allow someone who has murdered many back into the community; not all murderers reform or even feel remorse for their actions.

Thank you for actually answering the question I posed earlier. Now, let me ask you this, wouldn't the state in the case of executing an innocent person be the same cold, remorseless killer? And remember that it is your money that allows the state to operate. You may not be throwing the switch, but you are a part of it. Part of killing an innocent person. Can you live with that?

And by opposing the death penalty, you are partly guilty if an already convicted murderer does it again.

Your beliefs are irrelevant as to whether a convicted killer kills again.

But when the state executes someone, everyone who has paid one cent in taxes has paid for that person's death.

So what? You've never paid taxes before?
And saying it's the taxpayer's fault is like blaming a firearm for killing someone. The government decides what to do with the money, and if they use it for executing someone, innocent or not, it's hardly the tax payer's fault.

And passive belief may not, but any kind of activism or petition signing is placing part of the blame on you.

A. I never said it was their "fault," only that they paid for it. They are a part of it.

B. Even activism doesn't make you culpable in any fashion as one can, like me, hold the beliefs that it is wrong to execute anyone, but a life sentence should mean the person dies in jail.

You're saying that by paying your taxes, you are "part of it" if any of that money is used to execute an innocent person, yet you claim that actively taking part in banishing the death penalty does not bite back if a murder (who would be dead, had the law still been around) murders again. How does that work?

My main problem with life sentences really being life is that is simply not fair. As has been said before, prisoners are fed, clothed, even provided with healthcare to some degree. And that's fair enough, except there are people on the streets with hardly anything, and while sometimes that is their fault, I still don't see why convicted murderers, rapists, and generally unpleasant people are treated better than people who are simply unfortunate.

CRAZY CHEATS said:

You're saying that by paying your taxes, you are "part of it" if any of that money is used to execute an innocent person, yet you claim that actively taking part in banishing the death penalty does not bite back if a murder (who would be dead, had the law still been around) murders again. How does that work?

I just explained it above; feel free to read it as often as you like.

CRAZY CHEATS said:

My main problem with life sentences really being life is that is simply not fair. As has been said before, prisoners are fed, clothed, even provided with healthcare to some degree. And that's fair enough, except there are people on the streets with hardly anything, and while sometimes that is their fault, I still don't see why convicted murderers, rapists, and generally unpleasant people are treated better than people who are simply unfortunate.

Because it is the right thing to do. It is right to treat everyone well and make sure they have what they need to live as painless a life as possible. That right should be afforded to murderers just as much as anyone else.

Now, poverty is a completely different discussion. Short answer is they should be helped, but the fact that poor and homeless people exist takes nothing away from the fact that we should treat prisoners with dignity and respect, just as we should everyone.

We should yes, but surely homeless people should be helped before we give high living standards to the convicted?

And I still don't understand

A. I never said it was their "fault," only that they paid for it. They are a part of it.

B. Even activism doesn't make you culpable in any fashion as one can, like me, hold the beliefs that it is wrong to execute anyone, but a life sentence should mean the person dies in jail.

You're just picking and choosing.

Let me try this one last time...Let's say I advocate for the elimination of the death penalty and for all murder to have a mandatory life without parole sentence. Now, let's say I have so much power and influence that I have a direct meeting with lawmakers. Now, how am I at fault if they say that there is no more death penalty and a life sentence is only x years?

On the other hand, the state can not execute anyone without money. You pay taxes to give them that money. Therefore, you have a part of the action. I admit it was a pathos-filled argument, but it is not the same as what you have insinuated.

Now, are you advocating that we treat our prisoners, those the state has essentially taken hostage, poorly until the homeless problem is dealt with? Surely you see this is an asinine "solution" that solves no problems and only creates more.

If the murderer is in for life, then yes, activism is fine.

Now, let's say you were to abolish the death penalty, and a murderer was put back on the streets, where he killed again. Because you effectively put him back on the streets, you are as much to blame for the death of an innocent then tax payers are for paying for the slight chance of executing an innocent person.

Now, are you advocating that we treat our prisoners, those the state has essentially taken hostage, poorly until the homeless problem is dealt with? Surely you see this is an asinine "solution" that solves no problems and only creates more.

First of they've only "been taken hostage" because it's their own fault.
I don't mean taking away toilets, I mean shave off unnecessary stuff, such as TVs as deserts (not sure if they have them, but it wouldn't surprise me) and pass on the savings to helping the hopeless.

YoSoyJu said:

Vindicator said:

In all honesty, the ratio of innocent people likely to be executed to the sheer number of murderers and rapists being let out of jail right now is probably minimal. Yes, it's a sad thing if the innocent person gets executed and it shouldn't have happened in the first place. However, in my opinion it is far worse to allow someone who has murdered many back into the community; not all murderers reform or even feel remorse for their actions.

Thank you for actually answering the question I posed earlier. Now, let me ask you this, wouldn't the state in the case of executing an innocent person be the same cold, remorseless killer? And remember that it is your money that allows the state to operate. You may not be throwing the switch, but you are a part of it. Part of killing an innocent person. Can you live with that?

Some executions wouldn't be considered as remorseless in my opinion, it depends on how the person was executed. Though if the person was innocent regardless of the method of execution, it could and probably would be viewed as remorseless. As you stated the state would essentially be the same as a murderer in the terms of ending the life of an innocent.

To answer your second question, yes I could live with the knowledge of knowing my tax contributions assisted in the execution of an innocent person, even if that person was related to me. I would certainly lose some level of faith with the justice system if that was the case, evidence should have been more thoroughly looked over or perhaps it wasn't gathered correctly. On that token, the family of the one who was wrongly executed would also have contributed in the execution of their loved one, whether they wanted to admit that or not. It would be contradicting of my opinions to say I couldn't live with that on my conscience, sure the situation wouldn't be something I'd be happy with, yet I would have to learn how to live with it regardless.

I don't consider someone who has been imprisoned by the state as a hostage, if they committed the crime they deserve to deal with the consequences; whether they are preferable or not. In saying that, I don't exactly agree with giving criminals equal rights, though as a human they should be treated with similar rights. I just don't see it as fair that a person who murdered many gets the same human rights as someone who has not committed any serious crimes. Why should someone who spent their recreational time abusing the human rights of others receive what they were essentially taking away? The only right a prisoner has lost is the right to freedom, what about those who were murdered, maimed, psychologically effected etc, where is their justice when a convicted murderer gets to walk free because his or her life sentence was fifteen years?

Either make "life sentences" actual life sentences or allow the death penalty.

Edit: My typing is full of spelling errors today.

« Last edited by Vindicator on Feb 22nd 2011 »

Well I guess both ways are the easy way out then really. But bringing back the death penalty in my opinion makes us as bad as them. They murdered somebody they're idiots. If we do the same thing, are we setting a good example? I suppose we're stopping other murders from happening. But if the murderer is in the wrong, us punishing them by killing them is abit hypocritical isn't it?

And I love how the government pays people who kills others and give them medals to reward them for doing so. Alot of things are hypocritical.

I for one agree that the death penalty should be brought back everywhere, a life for a life, but anyone on death row should be given a through investigation and spend atleast half a year in prison before dying. It should also be quick and painless.
But only for those who kill, no other crime should be given death, no matter what magnitude they did that crime. I believe the people who did terrible crimes but never killed another should be doing that slave labor. But under the circumstances that they agree to it and will be able to lessen there stay. In America I think life is 60 years so if people wish to lesson their stay then labor should be an option.

I support the death penalty. A life for a life. If God is real then death is probably the worse punishment, if they believe in God then they know they are in for real Hell. If he doesn't and they don't believe it is still a perfect punishment in my opinion.

I don't support Slave Labor unless the soecifc prisoner wishes to do it. Forcing it upon them makes us no better than them.

Vindicator said:

I just don't see it as fair that a person who murdered many gets the same human rights as someone who has not committed any serious crimes.

Look at your words: "human rights." They get human rights because they are humans. They lose their societal rights because they are taken out of society. Do you honestly believe that these people are somehow less than human?

« Last edited by YoSoyJu on Feb 25th 2011 »

YoSoyJu said:

Vindicator said:

I just don't see it as fair that a person who murdered many gets the same human rights as someone who has not committed any serious crimes.

Look at your words: "human rights." They get human rights because they are humans. They lose their societal rights because they are taken out of society. Do you honestly believe that these people are somehow less than human?

Thank you for bringing the social rights into the equation, I was unaware if social rights were separate from human rights, it seems perhaps they were. To answer your question; no I do not believe they are less than human, though they do have monstrous habits or tendencies that would make them appear less than human. You could call my opinion on that confused or even unsure. In that case, if they've lost as much as their social rights, they should get the bare minimum of human rights at least. Being human their entitled to that, even if they've murdered many, and not many people would agree, yet if they were in the same situation perhaps then they would.

My opinion on the Death Penalty still stands, however my opinion on their treatment during their sentence has become slightly more; lets say fair or humane.