I see both sides and I honestly have no idea how I feel about it
I am totally against all forms of death penalty for various reasons:
1) Judicial error: Multiple people have been freed from death row after they were proven innocent due to new, modern investigation methods. There is an organization ( The Innocence Project) who have investigated many old criminal cases and freed people who were in prison for crimes they did not commit. Often DNA-checks proved them innocent. Read here: http://funadvice.com/r/br18oc878dj
That argument alone should be strong enough to make anyone against death penalty.
If a person is put into prison erroneously, then you can still free him and compensate him. If a person is put to death erroneously, then what? You dig him out and tell him you're sorry?
2) Morale: If you kill a murderer, that makes you no better than he is.
3) Partiality: It has been proven that - for a similar crime - men are punished harder than women, poor people are punished harder than rich people, uneducated people are punished harder than well educated people and people from minority groups are punished harder than others. If you look at the death rows, you'll find that most of the people waiting for execution in the US are poor, uneducated male members of minority groups. Even though many murders are committed by other people. It is highly unfair.
4) Purpose: To me, the purpose of punishment is to make sure the criminal person understands that he has done wrong and is forced to contemplate his behavior and is given a chance to better his ways.
Of course, for some people this is hopeless. Some people remain dangerous and cannot be trusted around other people ever again. And society needs to protect its weak members from these aggressive members.
But still, most of them - when given some sort of education and a chance - they will try to become valuable members of society. Even for those ho need to put away for the rest of their life - if you give them a chance to do something good, to craft something, to contribute to society by that, most of them will.
There are so many things wrong with the death penalty, I'm not even sure where to begin.
I guess, let me start with effectiveness. While killing someone for committing a crime would lower the number of people in our prisons, I don't think this is a good way to handle criminals. Many people are convicted wrongfully, and killing an innocent would be a legitimate possibility. As well as this, consider the families of the victims of the crime. If your son was killed, would you feel better if that killer got off with death? I personally would want to know that the b.astard was suffering in prison for the rest of his or her life.
I'm now going to go into methods of death and issues.
Electric chair: Not cost efficient, doesn't always kill the criminal, high pain level and inhumane because of the level of psychic terror.
Firing Squad: Messy, not cost efficient, again with psychic terror.
Lethal Injection: This one is interesting. The lethal injection method consists of three syringes. The first paralyzes the criminal so that he or she cannot attempt an escape. The second is a barbiturate-- which is illegal for a citizen to possess in the US-- that mildly sedates the killer. The third is a potassium solution which kills the criminal. The problem is, if the criminal is paralyzed, how can one know if the barbiturate is working to numb the body of pain? The potassium solution is excruciatingly painful without a numbing medication. Another problem is that a surprising number of people do not die very quickly from this method. People have been known to live up to five days, without medication numbing the pain. On top of all this, the lethal injection is incredibly expensive for each person that is killed via it.
I'm against the death penalty but with exception in extreme cases, like Serial killers that proof is self evident, without any shadow of doubt, to be repeat killers. Such as in the case of John Gacy where bodies of young boys were found buried in his home. And for the same reason I'm against the death penalty for any other reason ....as Rotten Sheep posted "Judicial error". As long as life or death lies in the hands of legal finace and loop holes...What evidence, witnesses can or cannot be introduced, etc basedon legal manuevering skill rather then fact, and can sway a verdict short of the "whole" truth has proven.... it does imprison innocent people and put them on death row. Only years later and after the fact were proven innocent. Which then, the families of victims who sought an eye for an eye, now realize the real attacker was running free (till caught, maybe) while they themselves sought to put an innocent person to death in a vandetta for their loved one. There is just to much corruption and exploitation within the legal system here in the U.S for the death penalty to exist accept for the blatant repeat murderers who will never be rehabilitated. And it is because of Judicial exploitation and law changes that in the case of Serial killers they can appeal and downgrade senteces without a death penalty to a point of possibly finding the loop hole that can set them in an enviornment free or lesser institution where they have the opportunity to kill again and do.
I wrote this awhile ago:
You can't just kill someone for killing someone. The death penalty is the most asinine thing in existence. It's saying "Even though murder is against the law, we're going to murder you for doing something against the law."... Does that even make sense?
The death penalty is a way to keep our jails having more vacant space. People assume that when an individual goes to jail, he or she becomes an animal and no one cares if he or she is "put down". They become one of the smallest minorities. You can't assume that once someone is in jail, they become an animal. There are around 10,000 people (roughly) in the U.S. that have been wrongfully convicted.
By promoting the death penalty, the state is putting a price on life. This being said-using this logic-murder should be completely legal as long as you have a good reason for it. Anyway, we shouldn't focus so much on killing off so called "criminals". We need to find a way to truly rehabilitate them or to prevent the problem. ... I really don't understand the hypocrisy between the laws and the power.
i am for the death penalty, as far as i am concerned- as soon as you violate someone elses civil rights by committing a violent crime- your civil rights should be forfeit.
when we put someone to death for committing a murder, we are not 'murdering them' we are PUNISHING them for their crime. so the statement to the criminals would be- IF YOU COMMIT A MURDER- YOU WILL BE PUT TO DEATH AS A PUNISHMENT.
the high costs of seeking the death penalty are from court hearings and political red tape, as far as i am concerned if you get convicted and sentenced to death by a jury of your peers- BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT- you leave the court room and are placed in front of the firing squad- bing bang boom- end of story.
if it were up to me i would place anyone with a life sentence AND WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE- on the death list- no questions- violent offenders dead.
our prisons would be for the ones that could truly be rehabilitated- those that are non violent.
our prison system is seriously clogged up and needs a serious enema and flush all the violent crap away.
The main difference is enlightened self interest. Animals kill each other with impunity because there is no agreement or expectation of mercy from each other. Most people do not want to be killed. We give up the right to kill other people in exchange for our government and society protecting us from being killed by other people. When someone murders someone they violate this social contract. We also have social contracts prohibiting other things we consider crimes.
Humans also have the ability to feel empathy for other species. The lion or tiger feels nothing but satisfaction when they dine on a gazelle. Humans can imagine and vicariously feel the terror or pain of animals and livestock. This explains why most Americans have no problem killing chickens, cattle, and pigs for food but are horrified with the prospect of killing dogs, cats or horses for food. Since we see cattle, pigs and chickens as mere livestock we rationalize their slaughter. We consider dogs, cats and horses companion animals so we have empathy for them.
The real hypocrisy is within us all, we kill thousands of animals daily, and that is legal. So there is basically no boundaries that we haven't crossed all ready. When does killing become illegal? When we kill other humans? pets? exotic animals? The morals are lost when we kill other species right? Well, we kill for food daily, and I would just call that natural selection, But what makes humans so righteous, and special that we make laws for? Killing a human shouldn't be outlawed, that's my opinion, nevertheless criminals that have had their chance, and wasted their life.
Killing a person is wrong. It does not become right because that person killed someone or whatever. Plus, some criminals prefer dying than living in prison, and I wouldn't want to give them the satisfaction of an easy end. Justice implies that one must pay for one's misdeeds.
I wouldn't mind, however, if the norwegian system became widely adopted. I think it would be better for a society to turn a criminal into a productive member of it than just plain and idle retribution, since that system has shown, time and time again that it works. At least in Norway.
I know you all think that just because someone has killed someone else, doesn't mean they have to die, but that's not the only reason the death penalty exists. The prisons are over crowded and so they don't have the room or money to keep everyone locked up until they die naturally. Have a think about it before you start pointing out morals, would you rather the sick and twisted die already rather than paying tax to keep them fed and clean in a cell that is in better condition than a poor innocent homeless person's cardboard box?
The death penalty is murder. It's butchery plain and simple. And when the justice system actually condones it? That makes me sick. What give them or anyone the right to take another human being's life?! No. It's egotistical arrogant Bull. Solving murder with murder is just too archaic to be used in a society as advanced as ours. Killing someone for killing someone makes you just as bad as the person. It's simple when you are objective about the whole thing. Murder is murder. And officials should not be this horrible.
Wow that is really a tough call. If I had to choose, I'd be AGAINST it because deep down that is how I feel about it. On the other hand, some people have done things so terrible that they are beyond comprehension and even though I'm against the death penalty, it does'nt bother me if a serial killer gets sentenced to death especially if they are a child molester too ( I really hate them. Worse than murderers in my book) But anyway, if I can't be on the fence about it, I'll go with against.
The problem with this argument is that it is more expensive to execute a prisoner than to imprison them for life. An innocent person in prison can be exonerated and released but death is rather final so convicts can not be executed without being doubly sure that they are guilty and that they have had every opportunity to make a good case for themselves.
To me the only justification for violence is self-defense. Since it is not necessary to execute convicts to defend ourselves against them I can not justify it. The purpose of our criminal justice system should not be revenge or retribution, it should be rehabilitation when possible and removing the criminal from greater society when it isn't.
I would see nothing wrong with it, but of course, it all depends. To me, I think it's all about the crime, and if prison will actually be beneficial. I would prefer death penalty, myself, if I was in the situation, rather than spending my life in prison.
You have a point, but what gives anyone the right to decide that gives people life? What ever happened to neanderthal times when we could kill each other? There was no power over anything, things were much more simple. easy, and better back then.
As for the first part, that's why it takes 25+ years on death row before they are killed to make sure they are without a doubt responsible. But I agree with your opinion on the methods.
Yeah, the first part is purely opinion, with little previous research. But I did extensively research lethal injection.
community thinks thats legal to stop the worst kind of crimes
I feel it is underused.
An eye for an eye.