Death Penalty

Death Peanalty, are you for or against it.

I am for the death penalty. The reason I am for it is that Americans spend over $100,000 each year on one inmate. It is much cheaper to give them the death sentence than to sentence them to life in prison. $100,000 is more than many Americans make in a year. I am not quite sure about the income of people in other countries. We pay too much much in taxes allready and don't need to spend more on inmates. If there is a credible witness to someone that has murdered I think that they should be tried and if found guilty executed.

I also think that those sentenced to death and are on death row should not sit there for over 20 years but should be executed much faster, at least within a year.

What are your thoughts on this?

Rofl. You think the death penalty is better than normal prison just because America can make more money that way, rofl-again. Think of it, you are being jailed, America needs to save money so they decide to kill you instead what would be your reaction?

could you elaborate, please?

and i mean come on, if a cult leader of 200 people convinced his followers to commit a massive group suicide, and he is found guilty for doing what he really did, then that deserves the injection, big time.

Im against the death penalty because:

1)Whats the point of having another life gone, since the victims dead.
2)No matter how much life you had, you cant pay back that victims life.

And yeah I agree with gba_dude, What if American prisons decided to exchange your life for money, How would you feel?

And here are my points for supporting gba_dudes post:

1) There are some things which money cant buy, and that includes a persons life.
2) How would that persons family feel if his/her life is taken away because of money-related stuff

« Last edited by skyline specialist on Aug 7th 2007 »

I am for the Death Penalty, but for most, the Death Penalty is BETTER than being in prison for the rest of their lives. I would like the people who did those crimes to suffer for it an be in prision for the rest of their lives. It may cost more, but it is worth it.

here here!

if a wild lunatic went on a raping/homicidal spree that lasted7 hours and killed at least 30 people and raped 18 pre-pubesent girls, shouldn't he suffer?

Yes in some cases the death penalty is more than they deserve, but, why do all of them constantly appeal when their execution date is set? There have only been about three people that wanted death for what they had done, the rest of them are scared of it. They might say that they would rather die than spend the rest of their life in prison but then why do they appeal as many times as they can to get a reduced sentence to life without parole?

Second of all, most of the families of the victims want the murderer to die. They would be glad to see them dead, knowing that the person that killed their loved one was dead too. Also, for those that get life sentences. They get to watch TV whenever they want, get a book to read whenever they want, are given three hot meals a day, and given time for recreation and work. They don't have to worry about much now do they?

What I said about the money was just another reason that I support the death penalty, not the only reason.

They have a chance of being raped in prison, and most do not want that. They need to suffer.

Some murderers out there believed their victims deserve to suffer... so "they need to suffer" isn't sufficient enough a reason to warrant capitol punishment.

But for all we know, solitary confinement inmates die in "accidents" all the time, but people couldn't care less. The system physically exists to strike fear into would-be offenders to protect the ones they may harm, actually enforcing such a rule obviously causes problems. As far as we're concerned, what happens to the convicts after they're convicted aren't really relevant as long as they're far away from society where they could only harm each other.

On 08-Aug-2007 Fwank said:

Some murderers out there believed their victims deserve to suffer... so "they need to suffer" isn't sufficient enough a reason to warrant capitol punishment.

But for all we know, solitary confinement inmates die in "accidents" all the time, but people couldn't care less. The system physically exists to strike fear into would-be offenders to protect the ones they may harm, actually enforcing such a rule obviously causes problems. As far as we're concerned, what happens to the convicts after they're convicted aren't really relevant as long as they're far away from society where they could only harm each other.

Problem with been convited and send to prison is that if they somehow worm their way out of it through appeals and other such stuff then they have the chance to kill again, I'm afraid I can't find what I'm looking for but I know there was a case where a murderer was let out and 2 days later had killed again.

On 09-Aug-2007 super craig said:

Problem with been convited and send to prison is that if they somehow worm their way out of it through appeals and other such stuff then they have the chance to kill again, I'm afraid I can't find what I'm looking for but I know there was a case where a murderer was let out and 2 days later had killed again.

That's why there's 'life without the possibility of parole'.

Two huge factors that need to be taken into account when debating this issue:
1. Is the death penalty worse than life without parole? Some people say it's a good life in jail. Besides the fact that you can't be let out. This may infringe upon "natural human rights"- There is no pursuit of happiness in jail. Once you strip someone of their rights, you strip him/her of their humanity. But then again, you strip a person of his/her humanity when you take away their life. Life is one of those three things all people are supposedly guaranteed, no?

2. Is the death penalty really "fair"? An increasing number of people believe it's immoral to go with "eye for an eye" punishment.

As for me- I'm sick. I'm not a nice person. If people fall out of line in such a perverse way (this is assuming the murder wasn't in self-defense or an accident), I say torture them into their death. They did something horrible. They destroyed a family by eliminating one person. They failed to think of all the people that may have been attached to the victim emotionally. They brought shame unto their own family as well. Show them how badly they screwed up by torturing them, then eliminate. My post is pretty crappy quality for this argument because I've never had to argue it in high school, and this is one of the few (the other being abortion) issues where I have a solid stance.

However, if the crime was truly an accident (murderer was completely unaware that they were harming someone with their actions, I have to say I support letting them go. Throwing people in jail for manslaughter is ridiculous if you ask me. Same with self-defense: If a guy with a knife is trying to kill someone who knows some type of deadly self-defense techniques, the victim isn't to blame. He's acting in his own defense, it isn't necessarily to kill the other person, but if that is the goal reached, so be it. If you had to kill someone or be killed, you wouldn't pay attention to the law. You would feel that adrenaline and defend yourself.

On 10-Aug-2007 Cross Stinger said:

That's why there's 'life without the possibility of parole'.

Thats all very well and good, provided of course that the sentence carries that, which it might not do the judge may simply misread the case or something like that. Plus people who are in jail can still kill, they can still arrange for killings to take place outside, whereas if they were executed then this couldn't happen.

« Last edited by super craig on Aug 10th 2007 »

On 10-Aug-2007 Simple Theory said:

Two huge factors that need to be taken into account when debating this issue:
1. Is the death penalty worse than life without parole? Some people say it's a good life in jail. Besides the fact that you can't be let out. This may infringe upon "natural human rights"- There is no pursuit of happiness in jail. Once you strip someone of their rights, you strip him/her of their humanity. But then again, you strip a person of his/her humanity when you take away their life. Life is one of those three things all people are supposedly guaranteed, no?

2. Is the death penalty really "fair"? An increasing number of people believe it's immoral to go with "eye for an eye" punishment.

As for me- I'm sick. I'm not a nice person. If people fall out of line in such a perverse way (this is assuming the murder wasn't in self-defense or an accident), I say torture them into their death. They did something horrible. They destroyed a family by eliminating one person. They failed to think of all the people that may have been attached to the victim emotionally. They brought shame unto their own family as well. Show them how badly they screwed up by torturing them, then eliminate. My post is pretty crappy quality for this argument because I've never had to argue it in high school, and this is one of the few (the other being abortion) issues where I have a solid stance.

However, if the crime was truly an accident (murderer was completely unaware that they were harming someone with their actions, I have to say I support letting them go. Throwing people in jail for manslaughter is ridiculous if you ask me. Same with self-defense: If a guy with a knife is trying to kill someone who knows some type of deadly self-defense techniques, the victim isn't to blame. He's acting in his own defense, it isn't necessarily to kill the other person, but if that is the goal reached, so be it. If you had to kill someone or be killed, you wouldn't pay attention to the law. You would feel that adrenaline and defend yourself.

I know its weird to think about it and I don't particularly think its a good reason against it but what about the murderers family? I mean most of the time their families won't know what they are up to and would have done anything to stop them from comitting the crime and if you use the death penalty then aren't you destroying the lives of 2 families rather than one?

Another problem with the death penalty is that you can't release someone if they are later found innocent. I know with advancements in forensics and the like that it is now more likely that the right person will be found, but it only takes one mistake and you have killed an innocent person.

Just today I heard on the news that a Scottish man on death row (I think it was America but I'm not sure) has had is case overturned after 20 years. Now what would have happened had he been found innocent after he had been put to death? Nothing could have been done, what would you tell his family "Sorry but we screwed up, turns out he wasn't guilty, my bad".

I think yes,If they killed a Person,No if they did something that doesn't include killing people.

I find it fair if they kill someone and they get a dath sentance becasue if they kill a life then they should lose their life.whatever goes around comes around

« Last edited by Raikiri on Aug 14th 2007 »

Come on now, you should know better than to post such brief opinions on D&D... don't make me eat it, edit it instead.

Your reason fails Raikiri.

The murderer takes a life, and is sentenced to death himself. Later, he is placed in the electrical chair. Now, to kill the man or woman in question, someone needs to activate that electrical chair don't they? Let's say a prison guard steps up to activate it. Once the murderer is dead, wouldn't that make the guard a murderer also?

What you are trying to say, is that death can be justified depending on the laws which we men have put into place. Do you really think that just because one higher authority has permitted it, a life can be taken? Is the death penalty not just another method of murder? The results are the same after all.

On 15-Aug-2007 Cataclysm said:

Your reason fails Raikiri.

The murderer takes a life, and is sentenced to death himself. Later, he is placed in the electrical chair. Now, to kill the man or woman in question, someone needs to activate that electrical chair don't they? Let's say a prison guard steps up to activate it. Once the murderer is dead, wouldn't that make the guard a murderer also?

What you are trying to say, is that death can be justified depending on the laws which we men have put into place. Do you really think that just because one higher authority has permitted it, a life can be taken? Is the death penalty not just another method of murder? The results are the same after all.

I heard somewhere that to stop the exictutioner (spelling) from been classed as a murderer they have several buttons to press, and they don't know which of the ones was the one that activates the chair, so they don't technically murder them. That could be a load of rubbish but thats what I've heard.

On 07-Aug-2007 gba_dude said:

Rofl. You think the death penalty is better than normal prison just because America can make more money that way, rofl-again. Think of it, you are being jailed, America needs to save money so they decide to kill you instead what would be your reaction?

the death penalty is a way to bring justice and closure to families that have had losses in their lives that should not have happened. the people on death row for the most part are mentally unable to be in society without causing harm to people.as we all know the prison system is way overcrowded and yes it is causing us lots of money to keep them there. but what else is there? any solution to fix the overcrowding? it's the people themselves. if people stayed away from the crime and the gangs and the drugs then the system could be used for the murders,rapists,pycopaths and every other crazy a-hole that has to kill . that will never happen. why would someone who has goals in life get put in prison? it's the people who want the easy way in life that end up in prison.

I am fully in favour of the reintroduction of the death penalty. Please note that the reasons below are strictly in a British context. I don't know how things work in other countries.

In the old days, when my parents were young, a child who misbehaved at home would be smacked by his parents. If he misbehaved in school, the teacher would cane him. If he was caught breaking the law, a police officer was permitted to give him a clip round the ear. That child learned the difference between right and wrong, and knew that if he broke the law, he would be punished.

Now look at the modern day. It is illegal to smack your child, teachers can't do anything ore severe than issue detentions (and they need parental permission to issue after-school detentions), and anybody who even touches anybody else without permission will probably get sued. As a result, there is nothing to teach children the difference between right and wrong, and there have never been any real consequences for wrong-doing. This, I suspect, is one of the main causes of the ASBO society in which we now reluctantly live.

The other issue is with the prisons. Criminals - every one of them a fetid piece of law-breaking scum - are suing the British Government for millions of pounds every year because of the atrocious conditions in which they are forced to live. Because of the overcrowding issue, criminals are being released after ridiculously short periods of time, and it has been known for people to serve a shorter sentence for rape and murder than for robbing a bank. The "human rights" of criminals are often protested for, but what about the rights of their victims? What about the rights of society, the innocent people who the law exists to protect? In my opinion, criminals - rapist, murderers, paedophiles, drug dealers - should not have any rights beyond the right to exist, and even that is debatable in more serious cases.

Bringing back the death penalty would solve all of these problems. There would be a definite deterrent to prevent young people from breaking the law, the overcrowded prisons would suddenly have a distinct lack of rapists and murderers, and innocent people could feel safe in the knowledge that the various monsters of the country are being dealt with in a decisive and just manner.

« Last edited by Pandaemonium on Aug 26th 2007 »