Death Penalty

[RahxephoN]

well death penalty aint the path to choose cause i think of death penalty as a way of revenge....but a life in prison is much worse cause like this they will have the time to think of what they've done or if they dont care their pumishment shall be to die in a cell alone....

[Vampyrelord]

no arguments there. that should be common knowledge to ppl - but wasn't it u that said these are the things that should be controlled?

exactly. We should rise above this. Those who are not are the criminals.



"We should rise above this, you cannot build a civilized nation on this kind of savage attitude."

u finished my argument urself, that yes, it is normal ppl, but in majority of the cases the murderer "should get what he deserves"

Umm...no offence, but that made no sense whatsoever!

Executing criminals for revenge is barbaric. Most criminals are not mindless killing monsters and they do not deserve to be butchered just to satisfy a bitter and twisted sense of "justice" (even more so since often the wrong person is convicted and sentenced).

[Neve]

Once a person commits a crime, they "forfeit" all rights they already had. that should be the case, if not a definition of a crime already.
Any reason why this should be the case? To look at a criminal as a dirty object is a very easy thing to do, but you must remember that criminals are still people with feelings and wills of their own. Very few people commit a murder under the impression that they are in the wrong when doing such an act - most people have reasons of their own, and they believe they are doing right. These people do not deserve to be treated as objects and simply disposed of, but educated in the error of their ways and reformed. Simply killing them is both an extremely lazy and infinitely cruel way of dealing with the problem.

If there is no reason at all for the killing, the criminal is most likely mentally unstable, and it would therefore be cold-blooded murder to enforce the death penalty due to their mental instability.

[Decado]

Umm...no offence, but that made no sense whatsoever!
Executing criminals for revenge is barbaric. Most criminals are not mindless killing monsters and they do not deserve to be butchered just to satisfy a bitter and twisted sense of "justice" (even more so since often the wrong person is convicted and sentenced).

lolz... i thought u might find it hard to understand.
apologies.
i merely meant that there seemed to be inconsistencies in ur arguments against: "wat ppl deserved" & "the death penalty"

Lol, the crim's aren't butchered when undergoing the death penalty these days. and i never said i was for it, it's totally debateable - so i'm just leaning towards that side a bit. The arguments i presented were b/c some statements in the thread, such as the one i just mentioned: "Most criminals are not mindless killing monsters and they do not deserve to be butchered just to satisfy a bitter and twisted sense of "justice" " as u mentioned before, seem to be invalid b/c of the reason i gave before.

Also, it's not like they killed the person accidentally - that'd be manslaughter, so there's no death penalty there. There was an intent to kill which won't make them "mindless killing machines" but a cold blooded murderer nonetheless.

Obviously the death penalty is harsh for murders such as where the person can't prove that it was self-defence even if it was. So in these cases there shouldn't be a death penalty. Only for severe crim's, ie: serial / mass murderes.

i understand all ur arguments so far and morally, the death penalty does seem wrong. Also, it IS better to let the person rot in jail for the rest of their life than to kill them off quickly.

I just wanted to mention in my other posts that killing crim's doesn't always make normal ppl as bad as the criminal. if that makes sense :face82:

[M-50]

well death penalty aint the path to choose cause i think of death penalty as a way of revenge....but a life in prison is much worse cause like this they will have the time to think of what they've done or if they dont care their pumishment shall be to die in a cell alone....
How is life in prison worse? They get so many amenities like money to buy fags, have food and drink, and get clothes. If they were outside of jail, they probab;y would not have the amount of stuff they have in the prisons. They would dprobably not have food all day.
Also if you are in jail you get £2.50 for 'learning how to play' an instrument. And you can do that twice a day. So for 1 hour of the day, for doing absoloutley nothing you got £5. Why should you? It is your fault you are in jail so why should you get paid for it?

[Vampyrelord]

How is life in prison worse? They get so many amenities like money to buy fags, have food and drink, and get clothes. If they were outside of jail, they probab;y would not have the amount of stuff they have in the prisons. They would dprobably not have food all day.
Also if you are in jail you get £2.50 for 'learning how to play' an instrument. And you can do that twice a day. So for 1 hour of the day, for doing absoloutley nothing you got £5. Why should you? It is your fault you are in jail so why should you get paid for it?

Sorry but I don't believe a word of this. Show me some reliable evidence.

Life in prison is pretty awful, especially a high security one. British prisons have very high suicide rates and there are alarming cases of prisoners being abused. Life outside prison is infinetly better. Life in prison is bad enough that it might not be life at all, time from your life that has been taken from you. To suggest that they would have less outside of prison than they would in prison is utterly ridiculous.

[M-50]

Sorry but I don't believe a word of this. Show me some reliable evidence.
Life in prison is pretty awful, especially a high security one. British prisons have very high suicide rates and there are alarming cases of prisoners being abused. Life outside prison is infinetly better. Life in prison is bad enough that it might not be life at all, time from your life that has been taken from you.
Well for one I know about life in prison because I have been there as a solicitor defending a client, and he told us as part of his case that he gets at least £10-30 a day depending on how he spend his time. About the £2.50 part I searched thetimesonline.co.uk as the article was in the times newspaper. I will try again and get proof on that. But about your point of suicide rates and them being high, I dunno about that. I searched it and found this from the bbc website.
''A total of 105 people killed themselves in jail in the year to April, up from 74 the previous year.''
Considering that out of 6500 inmates at least, 105 people dying is not so bad. Comparing that to Southampton had 26 people killing themselves it seems kinda okay. Not that I am saying it is alright for people to commit suicide.
To suggest that they would have less outside of prison than they would in prison is utterly ridiculous.
Not really. Quite a few offenders go into prison for robbing and mugging. If they had enough why would they do that? If they had enough they would not go to prison for muggings, would they? Also if they have more outside of prison, why do something that will land you in prison?

[Vampyrelord]

Well for one I know about life in prison because I have been there as a solicitor defending a client, and he told us as part of his case that he gets at least £10-30 a day depending on how he spend his time. About the £2.50 part I searched thetimesonline.co.uk as the article was in the times newspaper.

Please provide a link.

Not really. Quite a few offenders go into prison for robbing and mugging. If they had enough why would they do that? If they had enough they would not go to prison for muggings, would they? Also if they have more outside of prison, why do something that will land you in prison?

Life in prison for a murderer is much worse than it is for a mugger who will get a few months in moderate security rather than 30 years in a maximum security cell.

People commit crimes for a variety of reasons, but a desire to go to prison is not one of them.

Plausible reasons might be that they are unable to find a job, lack work ethic, feel resentment or are naturally violent people.

[M-50]

Please provide a link.
Life in prison for a murderer is much worse than it is for a mugger who will get a few months in moderate security rather than 30 years in a maximum security cell.
People commit crimes for a variety of reasons, but a desire to go to prison is not one of them.
Plausible reasons might be that they are unable to find a job, lack work ethic, feel resentment or are naturally violent people.
Okay the link is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3237067.stm
If they are natrually violent people then why are they in prison, they should be in solitary confinement.

[Fect]

Even though I'm no longer Mod, check out my thread up top for reasons why I got mad at the Debate Forums!

Some prisoners go back to Prison because after being in prison, in their own little world, they are unable to assimilate back into society successfully and go and commit another crime to get by and get caught, being back behind the bars they know and love.

[zaffy04]

i think that they should be put to death becasue if they are paroled they are on the streets again commiting crime so they may as well kill them and there would be half as many murders

[M-50]

That is exactly my point. ^^. If after they come out and commit other crimes then prison has had no effect upon them. Prison is supposed to rehabilitate prisoners so when they come out they are good. Not so that they go out, commit crimes then get chucked back in again.

[Vampyrelord]

That is exactly my point. ^^. If after they come out and commit other crimes then prison has had no effect upon them. Prison is supposed to rehabilitate prisoners so when they come out they are good. Not so that they go out, commit crimes then get chucked back in again.

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. Why? Because murderers get life sentences as a matter of course. it is usually uncommon for them to actually serve life unless they are seriously sick and dangerous, but will commonly serve 25-40 years and are not released until they are deemed to be no longer a threat (usually because they are broken old men).

A great many murders are committed by people under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and rehabilitation in prisons can sometimes be effective at getting people off these substances. Some murderers have killed their partners in a fit of rage for having an affair, and they get anger management therapy.

The problem with your line of thought here is that it revolves around the idea that murderers are demonic, evil people who just want to cause as much harm as possible and kill as many people as possible. It is unreasonable to assume that after 30 odd years in a high security jail they will jump at the chance of killing again.

The Death Penalty has never been linked to decreased crime rates. In fact, crime has been falling since the Death Penalty was banned in Britain, 40 years ago.

[M-50]

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. Why? Because murderers get life sentences as a matter of course. it is usually uncommon for them to actually serve life unless they are seriously sick and dangerous, but will commonly serve 25-40 years and are not released until they are deemed to be no longer a threat (usually because they are broken old men).
A great many murders are committed by people under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and rehabilitation in prisons can sometimes be effective at getting people off these substances. Some murderers have killed their partners in a fit of rage for having an affair, and they get anger management therapy.
The problem with your line of thought here is that it revolves around the idea that murderers are demonic, evil people who just want to cause as much harm as possible and kill as many people as possible. It is unreasonable to assume that after 30 odd years in a high security jail they will jump at the chance of killing again.
The Death Penalty has never been linked to decreased crime rates. In fact, crime has been falling since the Death Penalty was banned in Britain, 40 years ago.
Sorry I guess that I did not make myself clear in the post. I meant that for some people after they go to prison they come out and recommit crimes. I was not talking about murderers then.
About your points that murderers

it is usually uncommon for them to actually serve life
Isn't a life sentance a minimum of 10-25 years anyway? So they do actually
commonly serve 25-40 years
in prison.

The Death Penalty has never been linked to decreased crime rates. In fact, crime has been falling since the Death Penalty was banned in Britain, 40 years ago
I can't get my head around that. After the death sentace was revoked less people commited crimes? Is that recorded or unrecorded?

[Vampyrelord]

Sorry I guess that I did not make myself clear in the post. I meant that for some people after they go to prison they come out and recommit crimes. I was not talking about murderers then.

In other words, it was irrelevant to the debate.

Isn't a life sentance a minimum of 10-25 years anyway? So they do actually

I don't follow your reasoning here...in what way is serving 10-25 years serving life? Life means life, 10-25 years is the minimun at which they can apply for parole.

in prison.

Obviously.

I can't get my head around that. After the death sentace was revoked less people commited crimes? Is that recorded or unrecorded?

I'm not saying that banning the Death Penalty and the decrease in crime are connected (there are always other factors), but it is a simple fact that crime is currently decreasing, and is lower than it has been pre-Death Penalty. Crime has decreased pretty steadily since then.

[Reefern86]

Here's my take on the whole thing...The death penalty shouldn't be banned, but it shouldn't be used often. (I wrote a paper on this, but i don't feel like getting into it that much.) Basically the Death penalty should be used in any case where there are more then 2 deaths, or has caused deaths at SEPERATE times (example kills dad...month later kills sister), caused by the same convicted person. These indaviduals are no longer what would be normally considered "sane", so in my oppinion a Death Sentence is actually more humane then life inprisonment.

[M-50]

...in what way is serving 10-25 years serving life? Life means life, 10-25 years is the minimun at which they can apply for parole.
That is what I was trying to say. If you get put in prison for a life sentance and after 10 years you can apply for parole and get it, you are not serving a life sentance. Even if you are only eligible for parole after 25 years, you are still not serving a life sentance. You are serving 25 years and whatever else until you get parole. In my opinion a life sentance should be until you die in prison.

[M_Ghey]

It all becomes simpler, or, at least, as simple as it can be, if you use logic. This is the way I think of it. What is the worst possible crime? Murder. What is the worst punishment? Death penalty. Worst punishment equals worst crime. Of course there are factors like self defense and such, but there are always exceptions like that.

[Cheryl]

Death penalties are in place to serve as a warning to other people, simple as that. They should not be banned, though they should not be readily issued out as punishments. It really all boils down to the severity of the crime.

[tortuegenial]

Death penalties are in place to serve as a warning to other people, simple as that. They should not be banned, though they should not be readily issued out as punishments. It really all boils down to the severity of the crime.

If that what the death penalty is really for then the US has a pretty messed up way of securing their society, how can they kill people just to deter other people away from crime? Secondly there is no substantial evidence, or significant statistic that correlates the death penalty with reduced crime.

Here's my take on the whole thing...The death penalty shouldn't be banned, but it shouldn't be used often. (I wrote a paper on this, but i don't feel like getting into it that much.) Basically the Death penalty should be used in any case where there are more then 2 deaths, or has caused deaths at SEPERATE times (example kills dad...month later kills sister), caused by the same convicted person. These indaviduals are no longer what would be normally considered "sane", so in my oppinion a Death Sentence is actually more humane then life inprisonment.

So are you basically saying that insane people have no right to live?

The death penalty should be banned for moral reasons, especially in the US because they regard right to life the most important thing, and it should be banned because the death penalty is itself Unconstitutional according to the 8th Ammendment that states that no "cruel and unusual" punishment shall be inflicted.

[M-50]

If that what the death penalty is really for then the US has a pretty messed up way of securing their society, how can they kill people just to deter other people away from crime? Secondly there is no substantial evidence, or significant statistic that correlates the death penalty with reduced crime.
So are you basically saying that insane people have no right to live?
The death penalty should be banned for moral reasons, especially in the US because they regard right to life the most important thing, and it should be banned because the death penalty is itself Unconstitutional according to the 8th Ammendment that states that no "cruel and unusual" punishment shall be inflicted.
Actualy what Reefern86 is trying to say I believe is that when a person has committed murders, then they are not sane and they should be killed. Not other insane people like the mentally retarded.

[Vampyrelord]

Actualy what Reefern86 is trying to say I believe is that when a person has committed murders, then they are not sane and they should be killed. Not other insane people like the mentally retarded.

If someone is not sane then it is not there fault and killing them amounts to murder. The Death Penalty is intrinsically wrong, because even if we ignore the countless innocent people who are executed, we can never make a judgement about someone else's right to life, even if that someone has killed another.

[M_Ghey]

That's why there is a jury and a judge to determine if a suspect is sane. If not, the death penalty should not apply, i agree. But if a suspect is decided to be sane, and has commited murder, death penalty is the answer.

[M-50]

we can never make a judgement about someone else's right to life, even if that someone has killed another.
Why not? If they murder someone why should they not dies? For example if someone assassinated george bush, I would say with 99.99% probability that the assassinator will die, either by the death penalty or someone killing him. Also take saddam, he is dying because he killed thousands of people.

[Vampyrelord]

Why not? If they murder someone why should they not dies? For example if someone assassinated george bush, I would say with 99.99% probability that the assassinator will die, either by the death penalty or someone killing him. Also take saddam, he is dying because he killed thousands of people.

*sigh*

In my opinion, and in yours, Saddam killing all those Kurds and other people was wrong. However, in his opinion it was not wrong. Many of the people he killed were killed for doing what he considered to be wrong. Therefore, if we kill him for doing something we consider to be wrong, we are no different to him.

[Mighty Aramir]

death penalty should exist, the only pausible punishment for taking someone elses life is death. But on what criteria do we judge what is right and what is wrong, religious? ideological? all this thoughts are insufficient, and for being human, they're imperfect, judgement of the privilege of life, or the punishment of death, should be decided without a preconstructed ideology, but with a THINKING mind, and common sense (the least common of all), in order to succed in persevering our so called justice. I believe that rappers, murderers, and other scums which feed upon our taxes, shoulde be priven from its right to live, for a life as a parasite of society impedes the society to advance.

[tortuegenial]

death penalty should exist, the only pausible punishment for taking someone elses life is death. But on what criteria do we judge what is right and what is wrong, religious? ideological? all this thoughts are insufficient, and for being human, they're imperfect, judgement of the privilege of life, or the punishment of death, should be decided without a preconstructed ideology, but with a THINKING mind, and common sense (the least common of all), in order to succed in persevering our so called justice. I believe that rappers, murderers, and other scums which feed upon our taxes, shoulde be priven from its right to live, for a life as a parasite of society impedes the society to advance.


I think your idea of justice is a bit misconstrued, what you and a lot of other people are talking about is simply revenge, "an eye for an eye". This is the wrong way to build up a society, it will simply lead to endless killing.....as has been shown throughout history.
This is why the forefathers of the US built the country's Constitution on moral grounds. This is also why the preservation of life is one of the most fundamental aspects to American Society, and to any civilized society for that matter.
The prison system has been built so that it is fit for criminals who have committed all kinds of crime. So for example a theif receives a punishment that isn't as harsh as say a rapist or a murderer.
A murderer gets stripped of the right to have rights once he/she has been put in prison for life, yet the person still obtains their right to religion and relationship and connection with life but not to a community the society nor the country.
The death penalty is therefore cruel and an unjust way of punishing anyone.

[toxxin]

I'd have to say I almost agree with Mighty over there. The death penatly shouldn't be over used, however it still should be used to prove a point to society that certain things will not be tollerated. Honestly, there are a bunch of hard criminals out there who have it easy in prison (not all criminals, and not all prisons...). Jail is a roof over their heads and a free meal a day. A lot of people take jail lightly. We need a more harsh penatly for certain crimes to strike fear into these people to detur them from killing, raping, ect.

Look at children in school today. A lot of them have no respect towards teachers, authorities, or other classmates. Why? There is not a harsh enough penalty to punish them. They get detention, or suspention. Wow, lets punch out a kid and get a day off of school... Kids were kept more in line when teachers had access to the strap. Since striking was outlawed, kids KNOW they can get away with anything. Criminals too, the death penatly would be that factor to detur people from such horrible crimes.

[tortuegenial]

I'd have to say I almost agree with Mighty over there. The death penatly shouldn't be over used, however it still should be used to prove a point to society that certain things will not be tollerated. Honestly, there are a bunch of hard criminals out there who have it easy in prison (not all criminals, and not all prisons...). Jail is a roof over their heads and a free meal a day. A lot of people take jail lightly. We need a more harsh penatly for certain crimes to strike fear into these people to detur them from killing, raping, ect.
Look at children in school today. A lot of them have no respect towards teachers, authorities, or other classmates. Why? There is not a harsh enough penalty to punish them. They get detention, or suspention. Wow, lets punch out a kid and get a day off of school... Kids were kept more in line when teachers had access to the strap. Since striking was outlawed, kids KNOW they can get away with anything. Criminals too, the death penatly would be that factor to detur people from such horrible crimes.

I think this is a very backwards way of doing things and teaching people principles on morality, on what is right and wrong.
This is what people do when they don't have the capacity to think properly. Everyone should have realized by now that human beings have a sense or notion of right and wrong and if they haven't realized this aspect then they should be taught because they at least have the capacity to learn.
If say for example you punish a kid very harshly because they did something wrong then they will only associate punishment and pain with that certain action that they did, but they won't necessarily realize what is wrong about what they did, this is also why people should have just punishments, in school and also in the courts.
On the other hand if a kid in school does something wrong it is better to teach the kid and make them realize what it is they did wrong and why it is wrong at least in their respective society. Same thing for a criminal.
As there is no real practical way of administering this method when it comes to criminals, I think more energy should be spent at making schools better and teaching kids morality instead of if you do a bad crime you will get a harsh punishment. I think if indeed you carried out this method in the long run you will have more crime and less understanding of justice and how to treat people and live in a civilized world or soceity and not a barabaric one.

[toxxin]

So are you saying all these criminals don't understand that what they're doing is wrong? Thats a very ignorant statement...

Plus you mention teaching principles on morality. Well, making an example out of someone with the death penalty should be a lesson learned.

[Vampyrelord]

its against the bible, it should be against the law.

Firstly, it is not against the Bible, the Old Testament is full of commandments to kill those who break Hebrew law.

Secondly, the law should not be based on the teachings of a religous text, FOR SO MANY OBVIOUS REASONS.

Thirdly, this post is just one line of you expressing your opinion with no evidence or detail and is therefore spam, which will be deleted.

[tortuegenial]

So are you saying all these criminals don't understand that what they're doing is wrong? Thats a very ignorant statement...



No, this is not what I said or meant, I was saying that about punishing kids.
I was bringing the point that more interest and energy should be spent in safeguarding and protection rather than in punishment as a means of discipline. There are several ways of coming about this when planning a society.

Plus you mention teaching principles on morality. Well, making an example out of someone with the death penalty should be a lesson learned.

Think for 2 seconds!
Do you really beleive what your saying here.....?
I mean seriously?!?!?!
If this was indeed the case and if this was a legitimate and moral way of doing things and was the State's or Country's intention, then there are much more practical ways of doing this. If you do not consider it cruel and punishment yer might as well advertise the death penalty and other punishments more widely.

[toxxin]

I wonder if we're even battling the same point here, I know I jumped between criminals and kids in school, I was making a point and didn't mean to bring the death penalty to school :P

What I meant by the statement of teaching principals on morality is enforcing the death penalty upon extreme immoral crimes. For instance, a gunman claims a family, and is sentenced to death. I see now how my statement earlier came across NOT how I had meant it...

[Mighty Aramir]

I agree with toxxin, lets say someone comes up and kills a whole family, just by doing a few years at jail they get out and what? no lesson learned.
when you're a kid and because of something you did, youre just sent to your room it makes no sense, you know that if what you did is what you like to do, you WILL do it again, therfore making the time in your room just wasted time.
A punishment that is severe enough to teach why is wrong and the consecuences of doing it, makes you get the idea more promptly

[tortuegenial]

I wonder if we're even battling the same point here, I know I jumped between criminals and kids in school, I was making a point and didn't mean to bring the death penalty to school :P
What I meant by the statement of teaching principals on morality is enforcing the death penalty upon extreme immoral crimes. For instance, a gunman claims a family, and is sentenced to death. I see now how my statement earlier came across NOT how I had meant it...

Well I had no intention of bringing the death penalty to school either. I was merely making an analogy of the long-run effects of punishment on an individual.
I'll stick with the criminal case, what I'm indeed saying is that instead of putting energy into punishment, more energy and interest should be put into societal and community safeguarding and up-bringing. This way people will learn to be self-disciplined as is the case in other Western civilized societies.
Enforcing the death penalty as a means of showing moral principles in the US, that regards the right to life as it's paramount principal, is in itself contradictory. Both logically and Constitutionally.

A punishment that is severe enough to teach why is wrong and the consecuences of doing it, makes you get the idea more promptly

How will they get the idea if they'r dead. Yer have to do something that is disciplinary and at the same time protects society.

[ExitHeart]

The death penalty can go both ways for me,

It's wrong because of the fact that the person on death row is forced to wait out the few remaining days of their life within a prison just awaiting death. By subjecting people to capital punishment I feel that we are becoming exactly what the convict is, a murderer.

On the other side, capital punishment can be a good thing, financially however. A lot of our tax money goes into prison facilities supporting all forced residents lives. They may have little freedoms within a prison but they are well taken care of, free food and shelter basically. By killing off prisoners instead of serving life sentences we are able to save money on such people and use it for better things such as schools.

I'm not gonna say money is a good reason to kill a person however. I believe that we have the right to live, and to know the very date your going to die is truely a frightening idea.

[Mighty Aramir]

How will they get the idea if they'r dead. Yer have to do something that is disciplinary and at the same time protects society.
The idea, which i tought was obvious is not for the offendant, its to show the society that under an structured way of life (or the desire to have one) certain actions CANNOT be forgiven. A life taken not only affects the victim, it affects all of the people that cared for him/her, traumatizing them permanently, affecting their lifes and their minds, I have personally seen someone close to me fall under that circumstances, how their life periodically diminished and how the fell deeper and deeper into a depression, which she unfortunately never could overcome, which ended in her suicide. And what happened to the criminal who took her sons life? he was out of the prison 10 years later, being feed by the same taxes she paid in order for this kind of things not to happen. And now I have to see that bastard (excuse the expression), stay in jail once again for the same charges. did anything change? did prison changed him?
You judge!!

[tortuegenial]

The idea, which i tought was obvious is not for the offendant, its to show the society that under an structured way of life (or the desire to have one) certain actions CANNOT be forgiven. A life taken not only affects the victim, it affects all of the people that cared for him/her, traumatizing them permanently, affecting their lifes and their minds, I have personally seen someone close to me fall under that circumstances, how their life periodically diminished and how the fell deeper and deeper into a depression, which she unfortunately never could overcome, which ended in her suicide. And what happened to the criminal who took her sons life? he was out of the prison 10 years later, being feed by the same taxes she paid in order for this kind of things not to happen. And now I have to see that bastard (excuse the expression), stay in jail once again for the same charges. did anything change? did prison changed him?
You judge!!

This is why the American society is continually having to debate on what justice is or should be. Throughout history it has been learnt that revenge is not the proper form of justice, revenge is what was used years ago in barbaric societies, and this is what principally the death penalty is; a form of revenge.
This is also why I say more energy and time should be put into other forms of discipline particualrly. Because I don't think your example for instance is just, and yet I don't think it just if the criminal were put on death penalty.
In this case for instance I would vocate for stripping the criminal's right to have any rights in the society. I think the prison system should be changed but not in a way the death penalty should be enacted more frequently.
If anyone truly believes in the Constitution of the United States and on what grounds it was founded i.e. a true believer in the country's forefathers and a true Patriot, you would be against the death penalty because you will find it to be Unconstitutional.

[toxxin]

Focusing on a more positive upbringing sounds nice, but thats not up to the law to enforce, thats up to the parents. Even still, murderers and rapers are still being produced. No matter how well a society can try to change or mold itself into something positive, there will always be that number of killers and raping running aorund. But a "positive upbringing" isnt the topic on debate, its how we deal with the people who are already murdering and raping people.

Having said that, there are STILL crimes out there that are sick and should not be let go, nor taken as simply as "jailtime". You mentioned safeguarding as well. Wouldn't putting violent and dangerous criminals to death BE safeguarding?

You also mentioned that its illogical to put a murderer to death, because that in turn is wrong. In reality, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, and the law will have to get at LEAST as tough as the criminal, to maintain justice. Thats why police officers carry firearms.

[Abe]

I'm not for the Death Penalty, but it all really depends on what the person did and if you are sure the person did it.
I think the death penalty should only be used when the crime is very bad and that we are sure that the person is guilty, because you wouldn't want an innocent man put to death for doing nothing.
Some crimes don't deserve the death penalty and instead of putting the person to death you should make the person spend the rest of his life in jail.
So if the crime is bad enough and you are pretty sure the person is guilty I don't mind using the death penalty.

[Mighty Aramir]

In this case for instance I would vocate for stripping the criminal's right to have any rights in the society. s in the Constitution of the United States and on what grounds it was founded i.e. a true believer in the country's forefathers and a true Patriot, you would be against the death penalty because you will find it to be Unconstitutional.
Taking away a criminal's rights also removes his right to live, and the fact of being rightless, leaves him on the possibility of just living a bit longer, having no rights can make anyone who identifies them target of insults, injuries, and even being beat to death. And what happens to the offendants? nothing, because theorically, (and according to you). They just hit a sack of bones and flesh, which has no right to defend himself legally. So imagine, the subsequent chain of mass murders that would take place. And dont say people dont have to kill them, because when a single person is tempted to kill, he might resist it, but to try to convince the masses to stop what they're doing.... only in movies

[tortuegenial]

Taking away a criminal's rights also removes his right to live, and the fact of being rightless, leaves him on the possibility of just living a bit longer, having no rights can make anyone who identifies them target of insults, injuries, and even being beat to death. And what happens to the offendants? nothing, because theorically, (and according to you). They just hit a sack of bones and flesh, which has no right to defend himself legally. So imagine, the subsequent chain of mass murders that would take place. And dont say people dont have to kill them, because when a single person is tempted to kill, he might resist it, but to try to convince the masses to stop what they're doing.... only in movies

I specifically said that a person in prison loses the right to have rights IN THE SOCIETY, within prison it's a different case...
"A prisoner retains, for example, the constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, to be free of cruel and unusual punishments, and to treatment as a “person” for purposes of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws…when a man is hung or sentenced to death, there is an end of our relations with him.
Although death like expatriation, destroys the individual’s “political existence” and his “status in organized society,” it does more, for, unlike expatriation, death also destroys “[h]is very existence..."
This is also why I said there needs to be more discipline and structure within the prison system.

[Mighty Aramir]

Yet again I must say, why do we have to feed a parasite for society? If someone is doing nothing but holding development down, and also injures someone on the way, life as a parasite is too luxurios for them

[tortuegenial]

Yet again I must say, why do we have to feed a parasite for society? If someone is doing nothing but holding development down, and also injures someone on the way, life as a parasite is too luxurios for them

I think people are losing my train of thought or I might not be very clear.
The death penalty itself violates the very paramount principles that the US was founded by, namely, Liberty and Freedom and the Preservation of Life.
The death penalty as I previously noted takes away a person's freedom to exercise their religion or beliefs and constitutional rights and speech, for example free from cruel and unusual punishments. This is different from social and political rights, for example, the right to vote.
The death penalty also takes away the very chief value which is the Preservation of Life. If the US really considered this value in high regard they would under no circumstances violate such a rule.
For these reasons we have to continue feeding a 'parasite to society' because even if it indeed held development down, they are what the country is founded on and thus are more important than anything else.

[toxxin]

tortuegenial, I disagree not only with your views on the death penalty, but also with your information on the USA and their "freedoms" and "preservation of life". Take another listen to the US national anthem. You will hear about a country built on the foundation of war. It speaks of a nation enforcing peace and freedom by bloodshed.

So explain again how you think the US shall deal with its criminals who themselves spill the blood of others, taking away the freedom and rights of their fellow citizens?

[tortuegenial]

well fine if thats what you believe ur entitled to your own opinion but I had a bit more higher regard of the founding fathers and morality that the US came to be form.....maybe ur right, maybe the US will always remain barbaric and uncivilized because thats how they came to be.

[M_Ghey]

If people truly think that the US was built on freedom and presercation of life, they are pretty much wrong. A US History teacher told me once that the US was atually built on greed and savagery, since the people who found the new land wre looking to get rich and not promote freedom.

Anyway, in my opinion, death penalty is absolutely logical AND fair. Worst crime equals worst punishment. So a murderer gets the death penalty. How much more fair can it be?

[Kimochi]

yea.. they deserve death penalty.. their kill their victims... o they have the right to take their victims lives? no! so they get what they deserve fer taking ppl lives away.. so their lives are to be taken away..
i say its fair.. totally fair...

[Mighty Aramir]

About USA, its quite senseless and polarized to say they respect and promote the preservation of Life, otherwise why to they bomb a country, why do they torture their prisioners, and all this is all right as long as it doesnt happen to them, what kind of ideological tought is this?????? How can you expect equality in a society's way of life, if equal punishments arent applied to similar offences.

[Soul-Slayer]

K. Death Penalty's are a right to have.

Let's look at a situation.

A: A man steals a T.V, correct, later he get's found out, and put too jail for how much? 3-5 Years, 10 at most I think, anyway, as soon as he get's out, would'nt he steal again, only this time in a group. If there were death penalty's then this world would be at peace.

[Vampyrelord]

K. Death Penalty's are a right to have.
Let's look at a situation.
A: A man steals a T.V, correct, later he get's found out, and put too jail for how much? 3-5 Years, 10 at most I think, anyway, as soon as he get's out, would'nt he steal again, only this time in a group. If there were death penalty's then this world would be at peace.

Sorry, but that's total trash.

Firstly, killing all the criminals you catch is hardly "peaceful". It's deeply immoral, socially divisive, unjust and stupid. That's what happened in Middle Age Europe, and we all know what a great peaceful utopia that was, don't we...

Secondly, not all criminals re-offend by any means, and those that do re-offend do so because they are treated so badly, not because they are bad people. We are what our experiences make us.

Not only that, a large proportion of burglars are just young kids (aged 15 to 20) who later grow out of it. Are you really saying stealing a tv means you don't deserve to live? I'm sure you've broken the law at least once. I know I have. No one's perfect.

Your line of reasoning seems to divide the world into intrinsically "good" and "bad" people, which is perhaps the most childish way of thinking imaginable.

[Soul-Slayer]

K. Okay so maybe stealing a TV, doesn't deserve a life taken away, but I was just using that as an example, like, if someone kills another person, and they put them to prison, wouldn't another person see, that, "Oh, this guy got put too prison so it's nothing to worry about, I can just kill that guy that I hate, and do the time." So, in other words, if one guy has done it, the other one would think it's okay, and do the same. K. I've spoken.

[Stinger]

K. Okay so maybe stealing a TV, doesn't deserve a life taken away, but I was just using that as an example, like, if someone kills another person, and they put them to prison, wouldn't another person see, that, "Oh, this guy got put too prison so it's nothing to worry about, I can just kill that guy that I hate, and do the time." So, in other words, if one guy has done it, the other one would think it's okay, and do the same. K. I've spoken.

Well nobody reasons like that, it's not like you "just go to prison," being imprisoned for along time is a really harsh punishment. Imagine that you, for twentyfive years, will only be able to walk around in the same small area. That would be quite hard wouldn't it?

And when you use the "final solution" it is final, if it later shows that the one found guity really were innocent you can't commpensate him/her in any way since that innocent person is dead.

[silentyas]

As inhuman as it may look like, I believe in death penalty
For a start it's a fact that some people need to punished
So some punishement like fines are made
other people need harsher punishments, so the spend time in prison
As you can see the punishments are getting higher with the crimes, so we will reach a point that the highest punishment is needed and death sometimes is the best solution even for the one who is taking the punishment

[Kurt W.]

Well, it's hard to say if death penalty is right or not. I think, that there are people who deserve to die, but their guilty must be confirmed in 100%, that no innocent human will be killed. It's really hard...

[Soul-Slayer]

He has to be proved guilty 100% though. Kurt. W is right.

Anyway, a death penalty how inhuman it is, it must be done. And don't worry, sometimes people realy do come out of jail and do a crime again.

[II Xion II]

I believe the death penalty is 100% wrong. It is based on a principle known as lex talionis (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) and is as barbaric as the Inquisitorial tortures. Still, people who commit such capital crimes should be deemed a danger to society and locked away for the rest of their lives. I believe in a little Eastern concept known as the Law of Karma, and I believe that it is not the place of man to be judging others, when they have not yet judged themselves.

[Rukongai]

I believe that the death penalty is needed because without it some of the more dangerous criminals (like Saddam Hussien) can't get out and go on a killing spree of vengence also if we sent all of them to prison they would be pretty full because you would only keep putting the most dangerous criminals in and at one point a lot of them are going to get out.
Also i do believe that it has to be proven 100% without a doubt.

[Xferox 02]

The only state that still use the electric chair in the U.S is Kansas, most state only have 2-3 laws that lead to death role, but theres over 75 federal laws that can result in the sentence of death

[M-50]

I believe the death penalty is 100% wrong. It is based on a principle known as lex talionis (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) and is as barbaric as the Inquisitorial tortures. Still, people who commit such capital crimes should be deemed a danger to society and locked away for the rest of their lives. I believe in a little Eastern concept known as the Law of Karma, and I believe that it is not the place of man to be judging others, when they have not yet judged themselves.
But would you still be saying that if in the future (God forbid it never happens) that the person who murdered a relative of yours, is let out of jail? I doubt it.
If we did put everyone who is a danger to society locked away for the rest of their lives, it would cost us the taxpayers a lot of money just to keep them alive, when there are many other people who need that money, or many other organisations like charities that could use that money. For example (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_rm_fs.stm?news=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&nol_storyid=6249817&checkedBandwidth=bb&checkedMedia=ram&subtitles=hide&alreadySeen=1
or this one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4116900.stm
or this one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/6249509.stm)
all these people would have not been a risk to society as of now if they had been given the death penalty for trying to kill people.

[Xferox 02]

as long as the death pennalty dosent violate the 8th amendment of the U.S constitution wich clearly state that death sentense's process cannnot be crusual or unussual, although the supreme court never clearly identified what crusual punishment are but there alotta details, lol im not gonna get into it cuz its gonna take me 2 hours just to explain the first section. some country use excution for DUI ( drinking under influence) thats called cruel and unssual punishment

[hobbes24]

someone has prolly mentioned this but:
should killing be legal?
not much of a point, but people kill people and it shouldn't go unchallenged
i don't favor any side because i don't have to and i agree with civil rights.. if the punishment is laid down.. it wasn't the state's choice to kill the person who obviously thought it was a fair trade or who just sees himself as a superior
America isn't the place for them if they think it is within their rights to infrige on civil liberties.. they can go live in a wonderful place where there are a lot of people like them
not that simple tho is it?

[BrokenImage]

I think it is dumb, why kill someone? What is the purpose in it. Although i am also athiest and belive in nothing after death.

But you take a person thats killed say a hundred people. Killing him in return.. one man will not make up for that no matter how dangerous he is to society. I figure make him really pay, screw with his mind, manual labor. Take everything hes ever known and rip it apart piece by piece. Torture maybe. Take everything hes ever loved from him and then kill him. The lethal injection is too easy for convicts.

[Vampyrelord]

I'm actually opposed to the Death Penalty from a utilitarian point of view - there is no evidence that the death penalty reduces crime (in the UK the homicide rate is lower than it was when the death penalty was used) and the chance of it being abused vastly outweighs the slim chance of any benefits.

[Mighty Aramir]

But the benefits are not created in death penalty itself, the changes happen at home, at the way a kid is raised, the values that he is being teached. All that influences the rresults.

[Rain]

It's a stupid idea.

If killing someone is "Justice" that means every person who has done the terrible crime of murder is Captain America.

Killing criminals just brings us down to their level.

[malfuncti0n]

The death penalty is a touchy subject, however personally i'd see it as more humane then being stuck in a cell for the rest of your life. I know that if i had to choose between life imprisonment or the death penalty, i'd take the death penalty. But thats just my opinion.

[bindi]

Im definately against the death penalty
although i think it would be a great punishment if all proven rapists and peodophiles were castrated...
personally i think that the death penalty is the easy way out as well

[UraharaTenchou]

depends on the situation though.
but sometimes a person is wrongly judged, and death penalty is something that is very, cruel (couldn find any words)

those who is for death penalty, i guess u think it's the sentence he deserve.
those who is against it, i guess u think it's too heavy a sentence.

in any case, both the families of the victim and accused, is changed forever. therefore, i would impose no death penalty, unless, it's too serious

[Asaki Mika]

depends on the situation though.
but sometimes a person is wrongly judged, and death penalty is something that is very, cruel (couldn find any words)
those who is for death penalty, i guess u think it's the sentence he deserve.
those who is against it, i guess u think it's too heavy a sentence.
in any case, both the families of the victim and accused, is changed forever. therefore, i would impose no death penalty, unless, it's too serious

Death penalty is only a law made by man. God is the only one with full authority to take one's life. And accordingly, as what is stated in the 5th commandment: " thou shall not kill." And that is the law! God's law! Then why should we break it only for a man-made law?!

[hobbes24]

not that it matters just thoughtfuel
but i think the word is translated to murder or something like that
and i think death penalty is less punishment.. not to pay them back.. and more the world would benefit from his/her nonexistence and allowing him/her to continue dwelling where he/she infringes on the rights of others is.. well.. not very intelligent and not fair to the people around him/her
prison seems like timeout where the person will think about the chance he/she will be given again to live without infringing upon the civil liberties of others.. i won't say its not punishment, but isolating them from normal society seems more what is being done.. or just getting them out of the way.. or both.. whether or not victims wish the worst upon the criminal and want vengance

[Xkavanger]

I for one think the the death penalty is horrendus... it is much too big of a deal to kill a human being the same as you... I know in manyy countries that the death penalty comes with the prosecution of bringing drugs to that country.

I for one have seen fellow Australians being sentenced to death, To me, that is an outrage and too much.

Schappelle Corby was spared and so was another criminal who had smuggled drugs... but some were unforunate. It's sad to see that their lives will be cut short by just a mistake they had made in their lifetime.

Even so, the penalty of being jailed for "Life" is practically facing the same penalty as death.
Judges should be more conciderate and think of proper justice to come with the crime.

[itsupthere]

The killing of fellow human beings would be distasteful to any sane thinking person. I agree that the death penalty is sickening to a certain extent, however in some cases it's just a waste of resources to keep certain criminals alive. Mass murderers deserve to die, or at least suffer for what they did. Can anyone disagree with me on that?

The whole concept of dying because you broke a law(which keep our society in place) is frightening, and I am also frightened by the idea of it. What if I was being executed instead of Saddam Hussein? Of course I wouldn't want to die. Nobody would really want to.

It's ill-defined at the moment. We are only just reaching the state in our evolution where we can think logically about such grave matters. Give it some time, and I'm sure we'll find a great solution to it.

[Mighty Aramir]

Death penalty is only a law made by man. God is the only one with full authority to take one's life. And accordingly, as what is stated in the 5th commandment: " thou shall not kill." And that is the law! God's law! Then why should we break it only for a man-made law?!
Im sorry, but religion and law do not mix, religion tends to have the idea that if they are challenged in some sort that obstacle is to be destroyed and if not excluded, if you dont believe me look at the Inquisition, The Crusades, look for Galileo Galilei, for Copernico..... When a faith dependant institution is in power, whether it ba a church, a ministry, or whatever, they require that the same blind faith they have imposed continues to go on, that way the remain in power, so anything that defies that sense of reasoning that, dogma, is to be put apart and be excluded... The same root of the word hell, means excluded, to be set apart...therefore, when you leave that circle of faith the mayority of people rely upon, youre discriminated, and called a sinner just because you dont think the same way, because you dont follow the same stream...and the only way for you to be saved from that discrimination is to convert yourself and follow blindly what they say....
Thanks to god, revolution ocurred, the religions state of honor was taken away, for a secular government to be proposed, enteringg this so called age of reason, where things happen for a reason, and anyone has the right to inviestigate, to choose what they want for their lives and for themselves, the same reason we were kicked out of the garden of Eden.... When this kind of freedom is given to people, laws must be impossed, for there must be a balance between chaos and order for this world to work, therefore, laws were based on very simple statemets, if you dont want to die dont kill, if you dont want to be robbed dont rob, if you want to be helped, help first....The agnostic principle of divine retribution (note that devine doesnt mean exactly a god or religion, read what is agnosticism first), if you do goo things,, good things will happen to you. And in this world nothing happens just because, you must make yourself the ideal, stand up and make the choice if you want to be harmful to others, or a source of good, and help society advance. Therefore, parasites as such be eliminated, a perfect engine doesnt work while its dirty, once you take away someone's life, you become worthless than a person, and when law gets his hands on you, a 10 year vacations, with feeding and a bed included, its too much of a luxury for a scum like that. Why do i have to feed this parasite? Why do i have to feed and give shelter to someone who just smashed all of a litlle girls dreams and ilusions, and turned her life into a living hell, just cause he felt like raping the poor kid??
Does it sound reasonable to you??? place yourself in their shoes, imagine you're a 5 year old little girl, playing calmedly on the park, when some sick old man, offers you a candy, takes you to a bush, and just like that rapes you....
Imagine yourself walking down the street, talking with your mom, on the cellphone, its a cold yet nice night, then someone puts a bullet in your chest and steals all of your belongings, and just leaves you to bleed to death...
And this people whether go around unpunished, and if caught they just spend 10 years doing nothing, and being fed by the taxes your family pays. Seems fair?? seems reasonable?? you judge

[Guy]

I am a definite supporter of death penalty. If a criminal has done something horrendous such as raping and killing someone with no regret whatsoever, then yes, death penalty it is. It is not murder, for it is trialed by court and jury. Death penalty also serves as an example to fools who might commit the same crime in the future.

Spending time in jail is alright, actually. The criminals get three hotmeals a day, the country actually have to spend money to ensure the criminals' welfare. Think about it. If I were a homeless person, starving to death and freezing every night, and my country has no death penalty, I'd commit some horrendous crime to net me a life sentence. Now, instead of going hungry and freezing every night, the whole city will have to pamper me to ensure my welfare and survival in prison!

[Xkavanger]

I am a definite supporter of death penalty. If a criminal has done something horrendous such as raping and killing someone with no regret whatsoever, then yes, death penalty it is. It is not murder, for it is trialed by court and jury. Death penalty also serves as an example to fools who might commit the same crime in the future.

Spending time in jail is alright, actually. The criminals get three hotmeals a day, the country actually have to spend money to ensure the criminals' welfare. Think about it. If I were a homeless person, starving to death and freezing every night, and my country has no death penalty, I'd commit some horrendous crime to net me a life sentence. Now, instead of going hungry and freezing every night, the whole city will have to pamper me to ensure my welfare and survival in prison!
No way... no one deserves to die... even mad maniacs such as those who have slaughtered people for the fun of it. I for one think that they deserve to go to a Mental Hospital for criminals.. I'm sure it won't be pretty for them.
But the death penalty is for animals that have no way of surviving things like cancer. Humanity is a whole different thing.

[Guy]

Mental hospitals are too good for them. Just read mine's and Mighty Aramir's posts. Those creeps commit horrid crimes and yet they still get three hotmeals a day, while people like me and you have to pay money to ensure their welfare! That is certainly pampering criminals.

[Xkavanger]

Mental hospitals are too good for them. Just read mine's and Mighty Aramir's posts. Those creeps commit horrid crimes and yet they still get three hotmeals a day, while people like me and you have to pay money to ensure their welfare! That is certainly pampering criminals.
lol.. you're evil.. but no... how severe must you commit a crime to recieve the death penalty?... forget the laws and all.. I'm asking you directly

[Guy]

I don't think death penalty should be the only punishment, if that's what you're saying. If the crime is heinous enough, then yes, it should death penalty. I consider all of the following crimes heinous enough for death penalty: tricking and then raping a 5 year old, murder in the first degree without any regret whatsoever, and war crimes committed against humanity.

[Xkavanger]

I don't think death penalty should be the only punishment, if that's what you're saying.
Wow... so practically... something like torture then death? Is that what you're saying? o_O

If the crime is heinous enough, then yes, it should death penalty. I consider all of the following crimes heinous enough for death penalty: tricking and then raping a 5 year old, murder in the first degree without any regret whatsoever, and war crimes committed against humanity.
I for one think that Rape and murder should not be under the death penalty status... it is much to high of a degree to have them sentenced to death.. obviously.. people can change.. give them jail for lets say 30+ years... its just to much
and as for war crimes committed against humanity... if you're thinking of something that Saddam had done.. then I agree.. he deserved the death penalty. He has caused too much pain and suffering for what was then his 'country'. So in that status... death is not an option... just give them that sentence

[Guy]

Wow... so practically... something like torture then death? Is that what you're saying? o_O

Um... I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying...

I for one think that Rape and murder should not be under the death penalty status... it is much to high of a degree to have them sentenced to death.. obviously.. people can change.. give them jail for lets say 30+ years... its just to much

Not everyone changes, and it infuriates me to know that people who raped and murder others are getting well-fed everyday and enjoying the good life. Read my examples of "if I were a homeless man" for more details.

and as for war crimes committed against humanity... if you're thinking of something that Saddam had done.. then I agree.. he deserved the death penalty. He has caused too much pain and suffering for what was then his 'country'. So in that status... death is not an option... just give them that sentence

Lol, glad we agree here. :face82:

[Xkavanger]

Um... I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying...
Ahh... my fault.. I didn't type the whole sentence T.T
I was meant to say... you prefer to torture them first then give them the death penalty?
Not everyone changes, and it infuriates me to know that people who raped and murder others are getting well-fed everyday and enjoying the good life. Read my examples of "if I were a homeless man" for more details.
Yesh... thats true... then I will add to that...
When they have finished thier sentence... and have not changed... the MUST attend rehab and stay there until they are fully brainwashed :p
after that.. keep an eye on them and put them on a good behaiviour bond and give them a babysitter as such to keep watch...
Lol, glad we agree here. :face82:
yes ^ ^... I hated Saddam.. thank God he's gone... but when I heard that he was to be sentenced to death "in one month" I actually was sad.... he was a dude who once lived and he was leaving this life o_O

[Guy]

Ah, no, that's not what I meant. I meant that I don't think the only punishment should be death penalty, only under very severe circumstances.

[Xkavanger]

Ah, no, that's not what I meant. I meant that I don't think the only punishment should be death penalty, only under very severe circumstances.
So what do you want to include?... if not only the death penalty?
I don't quite see where you stand >_>

[Xferox 02]

different country have different method of death penalty, china shoot you in the back of your head, thats the one i know. oh yeah irq hang you, and U.S you either get injections, electric chair ( only one outta 50 states use that) or hang.

[Xkavanger]

different country have different method of death penalty, china shoot you in the back of your head, thats the one i know. oh yeah irq hang you, and U.S you either get injections, electric chair ( only one outta 50 states use that) or hang.
Hmmm I dunno about the US ones... they sound like the ones in Old Movies.... But I've seen the Injection being done as well as being gased in a room with toxic gas...
But I say this is really torture before death.... whatever happened to our humanity these days? =\

[Shinomori]

Hmmm I dunno about the US ones... they sound like the ones in Old Movies.... But I've seen the Injection being done as well as being gased in a room with toxic gas...
But I say this is really torture before death.... whatever happened to our humanity these days? =\

How is the injection torture?

You get a muscle relaxant so you don't feel any pain, THEN they administer the killing dosage.

It's not painful, you can't even feel it.

Our humanity has, in fact, taken a step forward. Think of how humane this is in comparison to such things as hangings or the electric chair.

[Xkavanger]

How is the injection torture?
You get a muscle relaxant so you don't feel any pain, THEN they administer the killing dosage.
It's not painful, you can't even feel it.
Our humanity has, in fact, taken a step forward. Think of how humane this is in comparison to such things as hangings or the electric chair.
or even death by gunning down.... in in a pit full of armed gunman... I forgot what that's called <_<
That is still done in Indonesia... T.T
Some countries just don't get it no offence... I'm ashamed to call myself Indo T.T

and so yeshh.. I agree with you

[Guy]

So what do you want to include?... if not only the death penalty?
I don't quite see where you stand >_>

Um... imprisonment and fines? Lol, what else?

Hmmm I dunno about the US ones... they sound like the ones in Old Movies.... But I've seen the Injection being done as well as being gased in a room with toxic gas...
But I say this is really torture before death.... whatever happened to our humanity these days? =\

You're dealing with people who have raped, killed, committed crimes against humanity, and you're still worried about them feeling pain? You actually sympathize with these lunatics? Wow... you must have a big heart (and no, that's not sarcasm. I'm actually trying to understand how you feel).

[Xkavanger]

Um... imprisonment and fines? Lol, what else?
Dude.... they're about to die.... money is of no use to them... and imprisonment comes with the package
You're dealing with people who have raped, killed, committed crimes against humanity, and you're still worried about them feeling pain? You actually sympathize with these lunatics? Wow... you must have a big heart (and no, that's not sarcasm. I'm actually trying to understand how you feel).
LOL I get that a lot... thank you ^ ^
Yes... I sympathise them... but unless they are sicko's or psycho's like in the SCREAM movies... carry on with the sentence...don't heed and waste time... slice off their head if you need to ehehehehe

[Guy]

Dude.... they're about to die.... money is of no use to them... and imprisonment comes with the package

Lol, just trying not to sound too harsh.

LOL I get that a lot... thank you ^ ^
Yes... I sympathise them... but unless they are sicko's or psycho's like in the SCREAM movies... carry on with the sentence...don't heed and waste time... slice off their head if you need to ehehehehe

Yes, that's what I mean. I have no sympathy for murderers and rapists. I am not saying stealing a loaf of bread deserves death penalty, but I am saying serious offense against humanity does deserve death penalty.

[M-50]

or even death by gunning down.... in in a pit full of armed gunman... I forgot what that's called <_<
That is still done in Indonesia... T.T

Don't you think that they do this because of a reason? Like mabye the person was a serial rapist, a serial killer, or even worse a paedophile? They just don't go round killing people for no reason. At least not that I know of.

[satansown]

death penalty??? man as far as i think its of no use .. cuz the majority of cases who get death penalty r mass killers .. n these ppl r basically maniacs who dunt care whether they live or they die n majority of em bcum killers cuz of psycologhical problems caused by sum major problems in their life .. so 2 give these ppl a death penalty its like u freein them of wateva troubles they hv .. its more like a gift 2 em. penalties are sposed 2 make ppl suffer n repent 4 wat they hv done

[Blekblek]

Simple or naive as it may seem, especially coming from a country with such high crime statistics, I can't condone the death penalty. With my beliefs, I think that people's actions will come back to them down the line, whether it's in their current life or the next. I know this doesn't suit most people, but it is my opinion, after all.

I wish there would be less emphasis on being so damn humane in jail, though. I'll never forget listening to a report on the radio where health inspectors of a prison were concerned that the prisoners suffered from dry skin. I mean, WTF. I don't exactly think that prisoners should be tortured and whatnot, but they could at least earn their keep in the case of the less violent-crime ones.

[SolBeowulf19]

I'm on the fence with this one. I am for it when it comes to heinous crimes and i begin to believe that the person deserves to die for it. "An Eye or an eye, as it were." However, "An eye for an eye and the world goes blind." I'm against that reason as well for the fact that no human life is really worth anything, not even another one, because I see lives as having infinite worth. Also, the Death penalty is the easy way out . I mean, what's worse, living in prison all of your life with no chance of getting out, or staying on death row for a while until you go and get killed. You may never get time to regret or really even "think about what you did." Still, I do still believe that some people do things to deserve, but, then again, i am not one who is in a position to judge anyone else as deserving of death. I don't believe anyone is.

[JuyoAtaru]

I agree to a certain extent. The death penalty is sickening. I live in Canada, where we have prison for life. That works best, I believe. Man made laws should not interfere with God's rules. If God said "Thou shall not kill" then we shall not kill.

[K0N]

the scariest part of the death penalty is that of the death row not actually is the killing part...when u die u jz die like that, its different from waiting for the day that u actually die...ur in the cell n as days past ur getting closer n closer to ur death n that is actually the part that makes ppl crazy...n the real torture is to wait till ur death that u actually know when is it...this is the purpose of the death penalty n of coz to finish up the criminal...they torture u mentally instead of physically....
well yeah we really do need death penalty...it is to deter someone from crime, if the most punishment criminals get is life imprisonment it wud not actually deter anyone from acting crime coz the most punishment is imprisonment, if there is death penalty one wud think twice before they did anything stupid...

[gretti]

I agree to a certain extent. The death penalty is sickening. I live in Canada, where we have prison for life. That works best, I believe. Man made laws should not interfere with God's rules. If God said "Thou shall not kill" then we shall not kill.
actually, the original Hebrew word is the word for "murder" not "kill". so now you have to define what murder means to you.
anyway, to what i believe. and since i am a Christian, this is what i believe:
i think the death penalty is wrong. i am not saying that the criminals should get away with what they did. there has to be a punishment. but we do not have the authority to take a life. by killing someone, you are saying that they are beyond God's grace, and they cannot change for the better. how do we know that? sure, it may seem to us that a certain person may change, but after they've spent fourty years in solitary, how do we know that they will not cry out to God to change their life? by killing them, we are making the assumption that they are pure evil and have no hope of turning themselves around. but are we perfect? we cannot assume just because someone has done something worse than we have, that they cannot be reformed with God's help. because with God, all things are possible.
if you are not a Christian, you may not agree with this, but that is where i stand.
~gretti

[Guy]

actually, the original Hebrew word is the word for "murder" not "kill". so now you have to define what murder means to you.
anyway, to what i believe. and since i am a Christian, this is what i believe:
i think the death penalty is wrong. i am not saying that the criminals should get away with what they did. there has to be a punishment. but we do not have the authority to take a life. by killing someone, you are saying that they are beyond God's grace, and they cannot change for the better. how do we know that? sure, it may seem to us that a certain person may change, but after they've spent fourty years in solitary, how do we know that they will not cry out to God to change their life? by killing them, we are making the assumption that they are pure evil and have no hope of turning themselves around. but are we perfect? we cannot assume just because someone has done something worse than we have, that they cannot be reformed with God's help. because with God, all things are possible.
if you are not a Christian, you may not agree with this, but that is where i stand.
~gretti

Actually, the Bible told Christians to respect their authorities, honor thy father and thy mother. If your country has the death penalty, abide by it. If we sentence someone death, it doesn't mean they are going to hell. Only God can decide that. W/e, I haven't really read the Bible thoroughly, so this might get countered easily.

[gretti]

Actually, the Bible told Christians to respect their authorities, honor thy father and thy mother. If your country has the death penalty, abide by it. If we sentence someone death, it doesn't mean they are going to hell. Only God can decide that. W/e, I haven't really read the Bible thoroughly, so this might get countered easily.
a) what does obeying my father and mother have to do with anything in this case?
b) i never said that i think that America is stupid for having the death penalty. i didn't insult anyone. i just stated my opinion on that subject. the Bible allows for people to disagree, as long as you first obey the Bible, and then obey your authority, and always respect both.
c) the Bible says that "I (Jesus) am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except though me." so basically, if you are a Christian, you believe that anyone who hasn't accepted Jesus as Lord is, unfortunately, going to hell. unless, of course, you are a Catholic who believes in purgatory, and that you can get out of purgatory and into heaven by your living relatives paying money (which, by the way, has no Biblical evidence backing it up). that is why i am against the death penalty. i don't want anyone going to hell, and if they haven't accepted Jesus yet, i don't want them dying. no one should have to live though an eternity in hell.
again, this is from a Christian perspective. if you have a different religion, you will probably have a different opinion (or at least different supporting info).
~gretti

[hasuke]

Not everyone is Christian. Also, old testament god said "an eye for an eye" sure, Jesus changed all that, but still.

This is a non-religious government act. Honestly, if you've raped a load of women and/or kids, murdered countless people, done loads of heinous crimes, etc

I personally feel you DESERVE to die. I don't think it's fair that these filth get thrown in prison for life, in their safe little cells, to slowly "rot away" while our tax money pays for them. It's just a bit fucked up. Kill them off, get em out of the way.

They gave up their rights as a human being the moment they committed a crime bad enough to warrant life in prison.

[hobbes24]

doesn't matter what "your" definition of murder is. the translation from what ive heard comes closer to the word murder than kill.. as translated in the english language.. this still really doesn't matter to me or lend to any point in my mind or nebody elses i dont think..
and im not really sure if its the translation at all..
nobody knows what happens after they die
we don't know what hell is and we can't understand it
how can you understand everything and tell people that theyre going to hell if at the last instance of their life they decided jesus didn't exist? we don't know and saying that is kinda narrow-minded because nobody knows what happens after you die (anybody thats sill living anyway)
whether or not you exist in heaven or hell in the end might even be your decision.. and don't think everybody would choose heaven cuz if youre thinking along those lines u've missed the point completely
putting a person back in society when they've already proved their apathy towards other people's freedom is kinda infringing on the freedom of others
edit: gretti below: what i meant was that the definition of murder in english was supposedly closer to the meaning of the hebrew word than to kill. the definition coming from the english language, not just anybody's made up definition. not trying to be mean btw, really
idk.. i guess i just get frustrated when support for a ceratin standpoint is given as "because i'm a christian"
and u understand where i was going with the society thing tho right.. i didn't mean that u said it, but there is a conflict when thinking of not wanting a person to die because they would go to hell and keeping them alive to further damage society
get what im trying to say?
and the whole thing on hell was just thought fuel
something for people to think about
----------------------
edit:
being a christian doesn't mean that you understand everything
i think i already mentioned it.. and what i had said before was just for thought, but im not sure if it was understood.. so, .. dang this really doesn't matter, but what i was trying to say was that the idea of the word kill as translated from the original language (so the idea of this word from the original usage) comes closer to the word murder as defined in the english language as opposed to the word kill .. (language and the limits it puts on your mind is messed up lol)once again this is just an idea that doesn't lend to the topic except maybe through that not many people understand the word hell (i don't) and i guess claiming a complete understanding of anything is kinda narrow-minded (ununderstanding is better connotated)
because you "believe in the bible" doesn't mean that you understand it
"the great divorce" (CS Lewis) might help in understanding what i said about hell..
sry about the redundancy

[gretti]

keep in mind when you are critisizing me, i SAID that this is from MY Christian perspective, and you don't have to agree with me if you don't want to. i'm just stating what i believe.

mmk, to what hasuke said when he stated that people who have commited these heniouse crimes deserve to die, i would have to say that i agree with you. but how do you come to that conclusion? how do you determine what crime is "bad enough to warrant life in prison"? is it just your personal opinion (that may happen to be shared by others)? if this is so, then what is right and wrong all depends on the individual who is in power's personal beliefs and opinions. as you can see, this may become a problem if a corrupt person came into power and decided that everyone who has ever had an overdue library book should die, because it shows that they are unresponsible and a burdon on the human race. laws cannot be based on popular or personal opinion. they must be based on an unchanging statute of morals. if you want me to explain where the morals came from, i can (or just read the first chapter of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. i'm sure he will do a much better job than i can). just because i believe that someone deserves to die does not give me the authority to kill them.

@ hobbes24: actually, it does matter what your definition of murder is in order for us to have a real debate about something. if your definition of murder is killing any living thing in any manner, whether it be a leaf or a bug, and mine is the intentional taking of a human life, the debate will be pointless. we cannot even begin to debate the topic of the death penalty if we both believe that murder is wrong, but have different definitons. first rule of socrates' cafe, define your terms.

nobody knows what happens after they die
we don't know what hell is and we can't understand it
how can you understand everything and tell people that theyre going to hell if at the last instance of their life they decided jesus didn't exist? we don't know and saying that is kinda narrow-minded because nobody knows what happens after you die (anybody thats sill living anyway)
if you are a Christian and believe the Bible, you know what is going to happen after you die. call it narrow-minded if you wish, but upon actual study of the Bible, you will see that what Christianity is is a call to excellence. a call to love and reach-out to other people, not to condemn them to hell. Jesus said Himself "I come into the world, not to condemn it, but to save it."

whether or not you exist in heaven or hell in the end might even be your decision..
could you please give me some supporting evidence for this statement.

also, i NEVER said that we should put these criminals back into society. they should stay in jail, even if they do end up changing into a good person. what they did must have consequences, and even if the change, they are not exempt from this rule.

~gretti

[paige_]

I personally think that death penalty is wrong. We have no right to pass judgement of death to other people. We are not gods. We are only humans like them. If you punish a murderer with killing him, wouldn't you be commiting one too? Okay, so they deserve to be killed because they killed somebody but is it for us to judge?

[Guy]

What, and is it really fair that the victim's family members have to pay to support a heinous murderer's welfare?

Take this scenario: A country made death penalty illegal. On that same day, someone shoots the politician who advocated that law to death. Now, that murderer has nothing to fear! He's not gonna get the death penalty. He never has to buy food again. He never has to worry about finding shelter during storms. Now really, is that fair?

[Kyouka Suigetsu]

Criminals indulge on society's understanding. People who rape and murder for kicks shouldn't be given any mercy. They forfeited their rights as human beings when they decided to act like animals. After all, justice seeks to give a punishment to the offending party equal to their wrongs. While rape might not be murder, some say it's worse, it still destroys lives. One who doesn't respect the lives of others shouldn't expect their life to be valued in turn. Plus, humanity as a whole benefits when such negative factors
are removed from the equation.

The only problems I see is that sometimes innocent people end up getting executed as well. The solution to this is technology, which within this century should reach heights that severely lessen the probability of this occuring. Another issue is that people view the death penalty as the final solution to harmful induviduals. I have no problem with society killing such people, but it isn't making any progress when it doesn't combat the conditions that turn people into monsters. That's my two cents on the subject.

[Toutaku Chuuei]

i think the death penalty is wrong because even though they took another person's life, if you give them the death penalty then won't you be sinking down to their level? i mean regardless of what they did it is still wrong to kill anyone.

[Hollow_Man_ct]

I highly agree with the death-penalty.

Reasons:

-The death penalty is used to rid society of the more unhuman parts, it cleanses society and does not disturb it.
-If you all fear the death penalty so much, THEN DON'T DO THE GOD DAMN CRIMES IN THE FIRST PLACE, if people think with that mentality it should well reduce the number of crimes, hence it is used as an intimidation weapon as well.
-There is one thing I wish to add though, It should be used as the MAXIMUM punishment, so for minor crimes, prison, for major crimes, long prison, for uber crimes, hang the mutha.

there are some people who are just unforgivable, and they don't deserve to be amongst us and disturb our peace.

If you are saying that I am merciless, take a look at the crimes those people who hang have made to deserve it and then think over if it is right or wrong.

[Lisa.]

Whenever I think of death penalty I feel weird, we shouldn't allow such things... death isn't a way to punish someone, life sentence in prison is.

[Mega Boast]

If you think a guy can be able to kill and innocenct person..and then would live in a place until he dies is not enough punishment...i would thing do to him what he/she might of done to someone else..It might be harsh but they shouldnt kill in the first place

[Vampyrelord]

-The death penalty is used to rid society of the more unhuman parts, it cleanses society and does not disturb it.

Ah, I see, state sponsored murder to eliminate subhumans. Sound familiar anyone?

http://jude.bloomradio.com/noiseblog/holocaust.jpg
http://www.bodhicitta.net/holocaust.jpg

-If you all fear the death penalty so much, THEN DON'T DO THE GOD DAMN CRIMES IN THE FIRST PLACE, if people think with that mentality it should well reduce the number of crimes, hence it is used as an intimidation weapon as well.

This is completely illogical. The death penalty has no deterrent effect because people do not commit crimes if they think they are going to be caught.

Besides, the thought of life imprisonment is hardly rosy, is it? It's probably just as bad, you lose your life either way.

-There is one thing I wish to add though, It should be used as the MAXIMUM punishment, so for minor crimes, prison, for major crimes, long prison, for uber crimes, hang the mutha.

What if you get the wrong guy? I am actually opposed to the death penalty on utilitarian grounds, because there is no evidence of a deterrent effect and the certainty that innocent people will be executed outweighs the remote possibility that any good will come of it.

there are some people who are just unforgivable, and they don't deserve to be amongst us and disturb our peace.

What, it's not as though serial killers in prison are taken for long doggie walks or something. They're behind bars for ever and they cannot "disturb our peace".

If you are saying that I am merciless, take a look at the crimes those people who hang have made to deserve it and then think over if it is right or wrong.

But you are not guaranteed of getting the right person. If we were always 100% sure of getting the right man, no possibility of the wrong guy, then this argument would hold. However, in the history of the death penalty countless innocent people have been sentenced to death, because some people have a twisted concept of "justice" and revenge.

At least with imprisonment you can release the guy if he is proven innocent at a later date.

[Guy]

This wasn't directed at me... but I'll interfere, if Nathan doesn't mind.

Ah, I see, state sponsored murder to eliminate subhumans. Sound familiar anyone?

http://jude.bloomradio.com/noiseblog/holocaust.jpg
http://www.bodhicitta.net/holocaust.jpg

Nothing to say about that.

This is completely illogical. The death penalty has no deterrent effect because people do not commit crimes if they think they are going to be caught.

Besides, the thought of life imprisonment is hardly rosy, is it? It's probably just as bad, you lose your life either way.[QUOTE]

But it is true that people will fear and know that the law is absolute. Look at Japan and Singapore; they both have death penalty laws, and their countries have very low crime rates. The people there both respect and fear the law.

[QUOTE=Nathan]What if you get the wrong guy? I am actually opposed to the death penalty on utilitarian grounds, because there is no evidence of a deterrent effect and the certainty that innocent people will be executed outweighs the remote possibility that any good will come of it.

Mistakes do happen, that I admit, however, there is a trial to go through that lessens that probability. The law requires (at least in the US) that all suspects can have a lawyer, even if they can't afford it.

What, it's not as though serial killers in prison are taken for long doggie walks or something. They're behind bars for ever and they cannot "disturb our peace".

Oh yes they are. Think about it; several kids join Al Qaeda because Al Qaeda bribed them into thinking that by joining terrorist organizations, they will never starve on the streets again. Now, let's say these kids bombed a building, killing a whole bunch of innocents. These kids are caught; no death penalty. What happens? They live in prison for the rest of their lives. They never have to scrape food from garbage anymore; they never have to fear about not finding shelter for that night. Seriously, is it fair, considering that they murdered so many people?

But you are not guaranteed of getting the right person. If we were always 100% sure of getting the right man, no possibility of the wrong guy, then this argument would hold. However, in the history of the death penalty countless innocent people have been sentenced to death, because some people have a twisted concept of "justice" and revenge.

At least with imprisonment you can release the guy if he is proven innocent at a later date.

Even if you prove he was innocent later, his reputation is still screwed, and nothing can be done about the lost time. Maybe some people would still want to live, but I know I wouldn't if that were the case.

[latara]

The purpose of prison is to make sure that society can't be harmed, by first removing threatening people, and secondly educating/bullying/punishing them so that they no longer want to harm society (i.e. people) by repeating whatever crime they've done.

If there is a person who has committed a crime that warrants the death penalty, there is no difference between killing him and imprisoning him forever, except perhaps, things like money, taxes. As long as a criminal can no longer greatlyharm society (as in murder, rape, etc), it does not matter what happens to him.

Which basically means it's a country's right to choose whether or not it would prefer to give out life sentences... or death sentences for the really bad crims. Personally, I think a death sentence would be easier on the criminal, but then, that's just me.

[Henri-kutsu]

Luckily, in Canada we do not have the death penalty. I think the death penalty shoul;d be abolished, through out the world. Instead of a death penalty, the muerders should have to be slaves.

[Artemis]

Same here in Aus.
We got rid of the death penalty some time ago. I think around the same time we got rid of the White Australia Policy. Or maybe before?...

People who deserve the death sentence, don't deserve the honour of dying anyway. They deserve to rot in their prison, and accept the fact that the 'state' can even control whether they die or not.

sound cruel, but i don't really like the death penalty either.

[Vampyrelord]

Luckily, in Canada we do not have the death penalty. I think the death penalty shoul;d be abolished, through out the world. Instead of a death penalty, the muerders should have to be slaves.

I agree with this. Throwing somebody in prison is enormously expensive to the state. Compulsory convict labour for government initiatives would mean they would benefit society, and the prisoners would not go mad with boredom rotting away in a cell. Obviously though, their treatment must remain fair and humane.

The issue with the death penalty is that of uncertainty:

Are we certain the man is guilty, given that once a man is executed, that is the end of him?

Are we certain that the death penalty reduces crime, given that there is no consistent evidence to support it?

Are we certain that executing murderers is just, and not lowering us to his level?

I take a utilitarian stance on this issue. There is no evidence that the death penalty reduces crime, and the certainty that innocents will be executed thus outweighs the chance that any good will come of it.

[leprousharry]

Essentialy, I'm against death penalty.

I think slavery of all prisonners (without exception) is a good way to finance the prisons. After all, the criminals made the choice of not respecting the social contract, though they sould repay their debt in a way or another. For those who made heinous crimes (murder at 1st degree, rape or anything of that kind), it's simply life-long, with no way out.

I live in Québec (Canada), and we frequently see rapists getting out of prison after few years, pretending they are sorry and following therapy that cost society millions of dollars. Few months after, we learn they have done it another time.

[M-50]

Like the people before me have said why should villians (rapists, murderers etc) be sent to jail? But unlike the others I dont think they should be slaves. I think that they should just be dropped somewhere in the middle of nowhere and left for nature to takes it's course with him/her.
All the rapists/murderers just get a 'life sentance'; which first of all is not a life sentance because they get locked up for a max of 25 years, but usually 10-15; they get three square meals a day, every day for their sentance duration which costs the taxpayers a lot of money. Prison food costs more to make than school dinners do! Prisoners get lots of amenities like the television, phones, ciggarettes, alcohol, computers and so on which all cost the taxpayer their hard earned money. Prisons are now more overcrowded than ever before because of the vast amount of crimes commited and to deal with that they are not having as severe sentances as should be delivered unto the criminal. This leads to the domino effect, when the criminal sees that he/she did not get a long sentance for their crime, they will go out and do it again because they know that they will not get a long sentance. Others who live like them/ who are similar will see what sentance they got and they will not feat it like they should and so on. The prison's are releasing prisoners earlier just to get more in. Prisoners get a whole room to themselves. Why? They should be share with others.
Then again to prevent all of this from occuring, from wasting a few billion pounds of the taxpayers money, just let the criminals out in the wilderness to die. Take them all in a plane and chuck them into the atlantic ocean for them to die. Take the nastiest, vilest, dirtiest pieces of **** in the planes. Take all the rapists, paedophiles, murderers and let them die. Why should we, the victims, have to pay for them to live?

[Artemis]

I remember a story i think in Sydney (a city in Aus).

And there was a convicted man that refused to leave the prison even though he served his time. Apparently he was better off in jail rather than the free world.

He was protected from enemies, he was given a place to sleep, he was given rights in the prison, he was given 3 meals a day, he had a group of friends in the prison.

It looked like he had it made.
I'm not sure what happened. The news didn't really cover the story in full, pfft...media.

But that shows that even though prison is a good way to prevent felons from hurting the public, they're treated better off than some innocent, law-abiding citizen.

I mean the prisoners in Aus have a health plan! Some people can't even afford to pay their bills, but they don't go out and rob a bank. Where as someone who doesn't deserves as much, gets free dental and physical once a year!

injustice in the judicial system.

[Vampyrelord]

Like the people before me have said why should villians (rapists, murderers etc) be sent to jail? But unlike the others I dont think they should be slaves. I think that they should just be dropped somewhere in the middle of nowhere and left for nature to takes it's course with him/her.
All the rapists/murderers just get a 'life sentance'; which first of all is not a life sentance because they get locked up for a max of 25 years, but usually 10-15; they get three square meals a day, every day for their sentance duration which costs the taxpayers a lot of money. Prison food costs more to make than school dinners do! Prisoners get lots of amenities like the television, phones, ciggarettes, alcohol, computers and so on which all cost the taxpayer their hard earned money. Prisons are now more overcrowded than ever before because of the vast amount of crimes commited and to deal with that they are not having as severe sentances as should be delivered unto the criminal. This leads to the domino effect, when the criminal sees that he/she did not get a long sentance for their crime, they will go out and do it again because they know that they will not get a long sentance. Others who live like them/ who are similar will see what sentance they got and they will not feat it like they should and so on. The prison's are releasing prisoners earlier just to get more in. Prisoners get a whole room to themselves. Why? They should be share with others.
Then again to prevent all of this from occuring, from wasting a few billion pounds of the taxpayers money, just let the criminals out in the wilderness to die. Take them all in a plane and chuck them into the atlantic ocean for them to die. Take the nastiest, vilest, dirtiest pieces of **** in the planes. Take all the rapists, paedophiles, murderers and let them die. Why should we, the victims, have to pay for them to live?

10-15 years in prison is a damn long time you know...and for your information, some peodophiles and murderers serve around 40-50 years. Either way, by the time they let you out, you're probably too old to cause any harm.

That aside, it's a terrible waste to leave capable people in jail, and an even worse waste to kill them, especially given all the uncertainties we mentioned earlier (you know why we banned the death penalty in this country? Because a woman was hanged for shooting her boyfriend. Yes, she was guilty, but what the jury didn't know was that he regularly beat and abused her, causing her to miscarry their baby).

Dropping someone in the sea or whatever ("letting nature take it's course") is not just a clear death sentence but utterly barbaric. You want corpses being washed up on the beach every week? Disgusting. Seriously, if you're going to kill them, do it quickly and cleanly, like execution by firing squad.

An organised compulsory labour initiative would mean that these people would work for the benefit of society, rather than being a continued burden on them, and we wouldn't have to think of inventive ways to kill them or anything savage like that.

[M-50]

True say but what good would they do in the long run. Our economy would be helped by criminals, do you think our citizens would want that? They complain on the smallest 'inhumane' thing and yet these people would allow other people to have slaves in essence? I think not.
Also in the news today, Lord Shaftesbury's killers were given just 25 years for killing him because his wife wanted his money! Killing someone for something as trivial as that? That deserves more than just a few years in prison. albeit that the killers will be in their late 60's early 70's if they serve their full sentences.
There wont actually be corpses washing up on beaches every week, because there are sharks there that attack anything that has blood on it. I realise that it does seem barbaric to just let them die, but given the alternative, put them in jail so they can live peacefully for their sentence with most probably nothing wrong happening to them, I personally would kill them. The reason why I actually said that was so the criminal would 'feel' the pain the has caused while dying. In prison, okay he might get raped but that wont cause him/her to consider, 'I caused this pain to so and so'' whereas if he were left to nature or chucked in the ocean, he/she would feel genuine pain, cold, hunger, thirst and maybe even remorse. They would die feeling pain, they would know what it felt like when they were inflicting such pain upon their victims. Death by firing squad, injecting a poison into their bodies after they had been given pain killers, does not inflict any pain whatsoever upon the criminal at all, it merely gives them a way out.

[Vampyrelord]

True say but what good would they do in the long run. Our economy would be helped by criminals, do you think our citizens would want that? They complain on the smallest 'inhumane' thing and yet these people would allow other people to have slaves in essence? I think not.
Also in the news today, Lord Shaftesbury's killers were given just 25 years for killing him because his wife wanted his money! Killing someone for something as trivial as that? That deserves more than just a few years in prison. albeit that the killers will be in their late 60's early 70's if they serve their full sentences.
There wont actually be corpses washing up on beaches every week, because there are sharks there that attack anything that has blood on it. I realise that it does seem barbaric to just let them die, but given the alternative, put them in jail so they can live peacefully for their sentence with most probably nothing wrong happening to them, I personally would kill them. The reason why I actually said that was so the criminal would 'feel' the pain the has caused while dying. In prison, okay he might get raped but that wont cause him/her to consider, 'I caused this pain to so and so'' whereas if he were left to nature or chucked in the ocean, he/she would feel genuine pain, cold, hunger, thirst and maybe even remorse. They would die feeling pain, they would know what it felt like when they were inflicting such pain upon their victims. Death by firing squad, injecting a poison into their bodies after they had been given pain killers, does not inflict any pain whatsoever upon the criminal at all, it merely gives them a way out.

I don't really understand your argument here. You claim that a "mere" 25 years in prison (they'll be in their 70's when they're released) is not suitable punishment, yet if they had been sentenced to 50 years you would complain that it would be a huge cost to the taxpayer.

There is no point in keeping people in prison once they are old and harmless. Despite your claims about wonderful prison life, living in a maximum security murderer's prison is certainly NOT. The suicide rate is astronomical, and life for the prisoners must suck (crap food, crap living quarters, very little to do all day, next to no visitors, etc). Seriously, 25 years in prison is an awful trial to go through, it's pretty much the best of your life taken away.

The issue of severity of punishment is not one that can be easily discussed. You say that murderers and paedophiles deserve painful deaths - that's a matter of personal opinion. And you seem to be forgetting, WHAT IF THE WRONG PERSON IS CONVICTED? It happens far more often than death penalty advocates pretend.

To summarise, your simple arguments that:

a) The death penalty is cheaper

and

b) Decades in a maximum security prison is not good enough punishment

can be respectively refuted in that:

a) It's not much cheaper - people still spend 10-15 years on death row. The amount saved is microscopic in terms of relative government spending, and the possibility that innocents may be executed outweighs this "benefit&quo