Death Sentence... yes or no?

[Chaos]

So lets talk about the death sentence which is still being used in several countries... (such as the US)

i personally think that it shouldnt be used because killing someone is not the right solution. that basically makes the government a murderer too in my eyes. no matter what he has done nobody should have the right over someones death.
it is a lot better for criminals to simply stay in prison and think about what they have done for the rest of their lives than just killing them because that isnt really a punishment then is it?

+ i dont know if this is true or not but i have heard that it is more expensive to kill someone with the death sentence than just leaving him in prison for several years. if that is true then this is another reason why the death sentence shouldnt be used. because then the money of normal people is used to kill someone. that shouldnt be done.

what do you guys think?

[mamatz]

I think the opposite way. The criminal should pay the price for what they do. Imagine if someone kill your beloved one and he/she do not get a death sentence instead he/she go to jail for the rest of the life, what do you feel?
The criminal might escape from the jail and kill another person that you love, do you still think the criminal deserve to live?

[Cromell]

I believe that rotting in the prison for the rest of your life is a way more severe punishment than death.

I also strongly believe that no human has the right to kill another. And the fact that someone killed is no excuse for further killing.

There are many people alive that should have died. And even more are dead, even though they deserved to live. What gives us the authority to decide who should live and who shouldn't? I don't know.

[Viper718]

Ok, I think the death sentence should be used in very extreme cases, but otherwise, no. Life sentences all the way.

Think about this; a person is sentenced to life in prison. There is a high chance that this person will be beat and even possibly raped in prison for a large portion of their life. They are also caged, like an animal. This is a terrible punishment, especially if the former happens. A death sentence is almost like letting them off easy (unless you believe in divine judgement, but that's for another debate. Let's assume there is no divine judgement). If a person is made to pay for their crime with their life, then the way they should have to is living out the rest of that life, miserably, in prison.

Now, in very extreme cases, though, I do believe the death sentence should be used, like if someone kills a large number of people, or hurts the ones I love... (I am vindictive, so I'd want them dead, but that doesn't mean it's right).

[Chaos]

Now, in very extreme cases, though, I do believe the death sentence should be used, like if someone kills a large number of people, or hurts the ones I love... (I am vindictive, so I'd want them dead, but that doesn't mean it's right).

I get what you mean by extreme case that if the person killed hundreds or something that you want him dead.
But when you say "hurts the ones i love" then thats not really extreme... as in... it will be extreme for you but from a general point of view it wouldnt be.
but then again if you would only get the death sentence for extreme cases like you said... how do you define the word extreme? crimes dont just have to be killing... they can be many other things too... i think it would be very hard to differentiate from all the different crimes for which ones you would use the death sentence and for which you wouldnt.

[Shadowed Luminous]

So lets talk about the death sentence which is still being used in several countries... (such as the US)

i personally think that it shouldnt be used because killing someone is not the right solution. that basically makes the government a murderer too in my eyes. no matter what he has done nobody should have the right over someones death.
it is a lot better for criminals to simply stay in prison and think about what they have done for the rest of their lives than just killing them because that isnt really a punishment then is it?

+ i dont know if this is true or not but i have heard that it is more expensive to kill someone with the death sentence than just leaving him in prison for several years. if that is true then this is another reason why the death sentence shouldnt be used. because then the money of normal people is used to kill someone. that shouldnt be done.

what do you guys think?

Yes the Death Penalty should be used

No matter what he has done ? How about Murder ? Mass Murder ?
Gen-o-cide ?

How is killing not a punishment ? Do they suddenly decide that they would rather not live ? What if they just don't give a darn what they did ? What if they are just sitting in jail regretting the sole fact they were caught and can't kill anyone else(Until they escape, or some lawyer finds some flaw in the trial that sets him free to slap a death sentence of their own on someone completley innocent ) ?(Which in some cases is not even close to a lifetime)

You know why the Death Penalty is so expensive ? The system

For life sentences, no one cares

Throw them in prison upon the sentence and release them if it turns out that they are innocent.

The Death Penalty is another matter. People have to wade through all manner of red tape , trials, and tribulations that have been imposed over the years to get it through. All that stuff that was so carelessly tacked on costs money.(Money that did not need to be spent)

Now if we would cut the nonsense the death penalty would be real easy and more importantly real cheap.

But when you say "hurts the ones i love" then thats not really extreme... as in... it will be extreme for you but from a general point of view it wouldnt be.

Yeah , I think they might disagree with you

Rapists sound nice to you ? Does Child rape sound extreme ? What about horrible life changing assault ?

Theese are generally things that people would find extreme

There is a high chance that this person will be beat and even possibly raped in prison for a large portion of their life. They are also caged, like an animal.

Caged Animals do not have toilets, a bed , free time out in the yard , or for that matter clothes to enjoy. ( If I remember right some people even make a living trying to make sure jail inmates are treated well)

And the chance of them being beaten or raped would probably drop if they entered some sort of clique ( Neo-nazi's, black panthers , what have you)

[Chaos]

How is killing not a punishment ? Do they suddenly decide that they would rather not live ? What if they just don't give a darn what they did ? What if they are just sitting in jail regretting the sole fact they were caught and can't kill anyone else(Until they escape, or some lawyer finds some flaw in the trial that sets him free to slap a death sentence of their own on someone completley innocent ) ?(Which in some cases is not even close to a lifetime)

if you kill them then they dont have anything to worry about anymore... thats not a punishment but a ticket to freedom for any murderer or mass murderer or whatever.
and about someone not feeling any regret... a human will always be a human and therefore he wont be able to NOT feel anything...

Caged Animals do not have toilets, a bed , free time out in the yard , or for that matter clothes to enjoy. ( If I remember right some people even make a living trying to make sure jail inmates are treated well)

thats a matter of where you are in prison... you dont want to be in prison in the middle east or china... i have seen a prison in the middle east and believe me... they fucking torture you in there and they will make sure you feel like shit for the rest of your life no matter what you have done. this is what i call punishment.

[Raider]

I can say that i´m personally against it most of the times, not because of the value of human life, (People who commit crimes where the death penalty is considered have little value to begin with) is because when it comes to the question, where do you suffer the most, well i suposse a life in prison can be very discouraging.

But it´s all about perspective, if member of my family or one of my dear friends was murdered, tortured or raped i know i would think differently... i would like to see that person, sit in front of him, and watch the life fade away from him or her.

[mamatz]

But it´s all about perspective, if member of my family or one of my dear friends was murdered, tortured or raped i know i would think differently... i would like to see that person, sit in front of him, and watch the life fade away from him or her.

Yes you got my point over there..... The criminal should pay the price of what they have done......The dead sentence to the criminal will give a society a lesson that whoever commit a big crime will pay the price....

[BreatheDeep]

I'm for the death sentence, people like: Charles Manson,Gary Ridgway,David Berkowitz and there are many others. Also those are the ones who are still alive and only doing life, I really think we should just put a bullet in their head and be done with people like them.

[Tsuki no Hana]

Ok, I think the death sentence should be used in very extreme cases, but otherwise, no. Life sentences all the way.
Agreed ^^

I think it's good to have around ONLY if the crime is severe enough.. Such as murder and whatnot, but even then.. They have to make sure what happened to lead to murder. Make sure their are no mistakes in punishing the murderer.

Although, mistakes do happen, so maybe a life sentence would do.. >_>;

[Shadowed Luminous]

if you kill them then they dont have anything to worry about anymore... thats not a punishment but a ticket to freedom for any murderer or mass murderer or whatever.
and about someone not feeling any regret... a human will always be a human and therefore he wont be able to NOT feel anything...



thats a matter of where you are in prison... you dont want to be in prison in the middle east or china... i have seen a prison in the middle east and believe me... they fucking torture you in there and they will make sure you feel like shit for the rest of your life no matter what you have done. this is what i call punishment.


They don't have anything to worry about OR hope for. they can't be parolled and they can't cause any more damage . In your scenario , all they need to escape is some hotshot lawyer to find one tiny mistake in the trial, and then BAM , more murders ,and more raped people for the freed villain . Sorry for not bringing up any examples of this, but plenty of murderers claim they don't regret killing their victim . If I remember right, people even claim that theese people have a problem with their brain that enables this situation.

and it would be lovely if we all shipped our criminals to middle east crud holes to get raped and tortured for the rest of their lives, but that's not the case , it's not even plausible . What about people who live in places like America, or europe ? Places where you can get parolled , from having 3 square meals a day, a roof over your head , a personal guard force, and other such conveniences ?

[aboyokayak]

The purpose of prisons is to reform criminals, not just punish them. Punishment that does not lead to reform is pointless. Admittedly many prisons do not have the best track record in this regard.
I believe that death sentences should be used on criminals that have demonstrated that they will not reform. This could include repeat offenders, criminals that do not demonstrate remorse, or criminals that will not be allowed back into society (most life sentences). Life sentences just clutter prisons and increase the amount of money that needs to be spent on them.
As long as there is a several year wait period between the handing down of the death sentence and its execution, for appeals and whatnot, i believe that the death sentence is completely valid.

[Dazrix]

The reason why reformation is a hard task in prisons is because prisoners become institutionalised. Meaning they find it difficult to live in an environment that isn't 'caged'. Imagine being in prison for 20 years... Now imagine if you were in prison back in the 90's and being released today.... the gap in technology and social expectations/acceptances are completely different.

I find alot of you who are anti-death sentence to have the stance of Vash the Stampede.. heh, I used to be like this once.. But then I realised something - when people commit a minor offence (theft, vandalism, assault.. yes I said assault, like a fight at a pub that remains, just a fight - no brutal stabbings etc..) they deserve to be put in prison and 'reformed' for a period of time.. But do they deserve to be bashed and raped by the more severe prisoners who don't care about what they do anymore, simply because they know they're there for life? Hell no they don't deserve that. But if you don't start putting bullets in peoples heads (metaphorically) then your jails get completely filled up, and putting lesser criminals in with larger ones becomes a reality..

It may not cost as much to put someone into a cell for life, as opposed to killing them.. But it certainly does add up when you're needing new jail's to compensate for the large mass of prisoners you're stock piling...

I'm mixed on this one... In Australia we had the Sam Sheperd case, which is what had Australians remove the death penalty, where an innocent man accused of murdering his wife was found guilty, despite how much he faught, and was put to death. Later was his son cleared his fathers name, by finding the actual murderer... Movie and all about it...

However, thats the only reason I'm against the death penalty, is because if you get it wrong - it's a rather large mistake....

[Kai]

I'm a firm believer in death penalty.
Some people will always re-offend, so they should be disposed off.
We don't want their offspring. There's enough trash on this planet already.

[Sharado]

I say, why not? If someone is prepared to go out and take a life in cold blood, why should they still have the right to live their life? An eye for an eye sounds fair, doesn't it? Even if it's not a realistic argument and isn't a solution, it still comes back to the point mentioned above.

Look at life sentences, what's the point? To live the rest of ones remaining life in jail? There are people in jail who live much better lives than those "on the outside". They have perks that some people may no be able to afford (ie. Internet, TV, etc etc). Taxpayer money (at least in Aus) is being used to support these people, which is a complete waste.

If a mass murderer goes on a rampage, gunning down as many people as he or she can before they are caught, for no reason except to inflict as much harm as possible, why should they get the right to live the remainder of their lives in prison, while their victims lose their lives?

If it were to come back, it should be a last resort for punishment and have an extreme set of criteria that must be filled before it can be considered as punishment (in other words, make sure that there is beyond reasonable doubt that the punishment fits/will fit the crime). There are innocent people who are found guilty of crimes when they clearly shouldn't have been, and by all means they should have their rights protected, if they are actually innocent. The only problem with that, is that everyone says they are innocent, regardless if they actually are or not.

On the flip side, and as contradictory as it sounds, everyone deserves the right to live their life. Nobody should take that away, however, that can also be said about the death penalty too. The judicial system can be just as bad as a man or woman who takes a life. Granted, their reasoning can be at two completely different ends of the scale, but the end result is the same. Someone loses their life.

There will always be pros and cons for the death penalty, depending on where you stand on the issue, one will outweigh the other.

There are the good, there are the bad, but as for me, it wouldn't bother me if the death penalty was reinstated or not, just as long as if it was, there is beyond reasonable doubt that the punishment fits the crime.

[sethsilver01]

I always have a hard time thinking about the death penalty. Mostly because I have an anger problem and there are some people that simply deserve to die. So, yes, I approve of the death penalty.

But nothing is ever as black and white as courts make it seem.

You could kill the most deserving person in the world and still be put to death in some countries. Even if killing the person saved countless lives.

Than again, murder is subjective. If I kill a tyrant then I will be praised by the people that thought of him that way. I would be a savior. But one man's tyrant is another man's supreme leader. Even Charles Manson has friends.

[Sayuchan]

death sentence, though we dont like it but is the only way to deal with certain crimes. the rehabilitation thingy is simply nonsense. its like letting a murderer get away with what he has done. its not about the future, its about dealing with what he has done and to make his punishment an example for others so that the offence isnt comitted again. The death sentence would obviously not put a stop to murders but will help in reducing them. but this isnt the main purpose of capital punishment, its just a side affect. the main purpose is to do justice. to equalize the events so nothing goes unaccounted for. If thats not done then you can well convict the government for injustice than murder. And capital punishment through a legal process doesnt make a government a murderer. unless a killing be for justice, its a murder. so i dont see any point which you can use as a basis to call the courts or government a murderer when they are just taking a life of the one who took someone elses life just for the sake of justice. but in the end it depends on how you define justice. a friend of mine says he will not even kill someone even to save others. he will let him kill others. but then that would make my friend a murderer. so i understood his point of view but it wasnt valid no matter how you think about it.

[Cromell]

@Sayuchan

Death sentence has been used ever since humanity knew the concept of punishment. It was present in literally every civillisation, throughout centuries. And it never reduced the amount of murderers.

What really works with reducing crime rate is not the severity of punishment, but the certainty it will be executed. The fear of imminent punishment scares off far more efficiently.

Still, I agree that there are cases where death is the most reasonable and logical punishment.

[Sayuchan]

@Cromell.
Certainty that the punishment will be executed AND the severity of punishment both go hand in hand. for a society to flourish you need both suthorities and the nature of punishment to be strong and appropriate. you miss one, you lose floursihment of a society unless people are by nature very nice and honest but then again that can only happen in a dreamland or an anime.

as for "it never reduced the amount of murders". i do not agree. seeing as how human psychi works, if there never had been a capital punishment the murders would have been far greater in count. its simple to assess. if thousands of murders still happen whilst the capital punishment is there, what do you think will happen if a less severe punishment is put in place of capital punishment? naturally there will be less fear and thus greater crimes.

coming back to the reality. if authorities can catch criminals for rehabilitation then they can catch criminals for capital punishment as well. but then again if there is a capital punishment law enforced in the country the criminals will do more to escape from authorities than they would incase of rehabilitation.

there should be a thread where we can discuss as for what kind of crimes the capital punishment shall be used.

[Cromell]

I disagree. Murders happen BECAUSE murderers does not fear the punishment. And believe me, spending 25 years of solitude is far worse fate than quick death. And I mean prisons, not hotels for criminals. Personally, I'd throw the bastards into a dungeon and just let them rot. Cheaper that way. Anyway, if one does not fear being punished, they will commit crime. Of course, the punishment MUST be adequate to the crime, you won't punish a murderer with a money penalty.

Again, I don't think that the lack of capital punishment would increase the rate of murders. Here in Poland there was no death sentence for over 20 years and the crime rate is actually lower than in the US (I mean states that use the death penalty).

Then what would drop the amount of murders? 1.Rising and educating people that would create a society that is more aware of the consequences of violence. We are creating monsters ourselves. Of course, we cannot completely get rid of psychopaths that will kill no matter what. 2. Making sure that less crimes go unpunished. If people are aware that their crimes will be judged, most of them will refrain from commiting crimes. 3. Making prisons a real punishment.

Let me make it clear. I'm not against death penalty. I'm against thinking, that it will fix the problem. Because it won't. There is much more to be done and what I mentioned is only a small part of it.

[wyntta]

Okay; imagine the death sentence is commonly used for stuff like mass murder and sexual assualt etc: there is a possibility that someone could be framed. The government or police could theoretically pull a few strings and have that anti-gov campaigner (or whatever else tickles their liking) set up and given the death sentence. The worst thing: even if evidence proving the set-up scheme was uncovered, it'd likely be too late and the innocent person would already be dead.
From a selfish perspective; I would not want the death sentence in my country because on the off chance that I am falsly accused for some horrible crime, I wouldn't want to die without first proving my innocence.
So no to the death sentence.

[Cromell]

Well, you've got a point here.

No court is flawless and it seems nearly impossible to avoid sentencing innocent people and letting criminals free. It just happens from time to time. Still, they are far more accurate than in the past.

The toughest part about death sentence discussion, is that we have to talk both about statistics and human lifes.

Anyone feels competent enough to decide who lives and who dies here?

I'm certainly not.

[Sayuchan]

i dont know what made you think that i dont agree to that. Ofcourse "fear" is the nemises of crime. i only said the certainty that the punishment will be executed matters as much as the severity of punishment does. so all i was trying to get at is; to produce fear the authorities and the nature of punishment Both shall be strong and appropriate. and no by appropriate i meant for a murder a life imprisonment is not the right punishment, wasnt it obvious seeing as the thread's title is about whether a death sentence is a yes or a no?

you can only understand the horrors of spending your life in a prison for 25 years WHEN you actually do spend 25 years in a prison. but that is not the case with death punishment (DP). DP produces a strong fear in your mind instantly. In DP there is no hope that one day you will be released, or that something will happen and you will be able to escape the prison, most importantly you know you will be punished to death before you know it. just think about it for a minute or google it. provided that a person knows that if he commits a crime he will be caught and punished for sure, which one do you think will have a stronger effect on his mind?, the thought of death sentence or the thought of life imprisonment?

if you want me think logical then all i can say for polish people is that they must be really nice.

you arent even emphasizing the greatness of capital punishment thats whats pushing me to write all this.

yeah education, authorities and punishments. three imprtant factors in controlling the crimes.

[tangerine]

newbie alert ... rushing in head-on :p

average, and probable base "business" mind-set is to think : "is it more positive than negative?"

in other words ... if some "dolphins get caught/users lose all data/additional updates are needed", are we still getting the tuna/product/service to the (important, paying, reason-for-us-to-be-in-business) customers/constituents/public?

in other words, ... Yes, it may go wrong, but hopefully that is in the minority ...? :icon_scratch:

[Garrett]

In a world where penology is big business, to remain objective you should not allow financial questions to supersede the actual debate of whether or not killing is right as a punitive measure.

First you examine the nature of the crime, Can the individual be restrained from re offending. Was it random, psychological, were they coerced, intention, merit of proof, the mental faculty of the individual. Many many factors have created strange circumstances and can always occur in an unexpected way.

Next comes cost of punitive measures on a Social scale, there is always a chance a system in place can and will be abused do you accept that no system in infallible and retain the death penalty and hope that it does not malfunction and take an innocent?

Who has the right to execute, is there a monopoly on lethal force? does someone profit from the death, weather or not the person is guilty or innocent? That is a rarely examined fact. Penology is big business.

Life in prison / death penalty are not deterrents to many types of people in many states of mind. Including some law enforcement officers who have had to use lethal force for self defense. Just something to consider.

Rights of the prisoner, rights of the afflicted, rights of the incarceration institution, which can profit from HAVING prisoners and cost cutting which can lead to a much more punitive environment.
We also know that deterrents do not work on people who are Desperate, Crazy, already accused, Unjustly persecuted, unaware of their own actions, aware of their actions but believe they are protected by law in their line of duties-soldiers for example, then there are those who commit crimes as punitive measures of their own, those who have been falsely accused then having to resort to actual crimes to avoid the death penalty and or incarceration and most disturbingly those who commit crime in ORDER to be executed. Ref, Death by Cop.

Repeat offending is cited as something most people are born to do rather than an affliction or disorder brought on by their immediate environment.

Try to get a job as a paranoid schizophrenic, or a soldier with PTSD, or a cop who accidentally shot the wrong man, or as a prisoner who was accuse falsely convicted and has to live with it, or the repeat offenders who become institutionalised and commit crimes to reenter penal facilities.

These are just a few ideas. Not my opinion. My opinion is that the death penalty has too much social cost, to the people who do not know for sure, to the executioners state of mind, to the people who might abuse it to cut costs on their prison profits and then there are the people who seek to die without blame for various reasons.

While criminals are alive, there is a chance that the wrongly convicted might escape, which i think merits the chances of real monsters escaping as well, and there is the chance that those who would commit crimes with intent to die would not commit due to the nature of facing a lifetime of the same environment that Penal facilities make into small version of hell for their own bottom profit line. At the expense usually of the prisoners.
The death penalty is a polar opposite end to the reason a modern prison is meant to exist, to reform. If you want to see something that would make any of your head spin look at the Nordic Model for Penology.

http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No54/No54_21VE_Laine.pdf for one.

http://coe.csusb.edu/programs/correctionalEd/documents/WhatWorks.pdf

Halden is a working example if you don't want to read those http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiZUvDMdnik

Its quite amazing what a kind word can do, if it is exploited, then fine, at least they tried. Better to hope and stand by being your own best example than do onto others without it solving the crime itself.
Crime will happen, as long as there are insane, desperate, wrongfully accused, heinous and confused individuals out there. If you kill them all then half of the curable people who could have done amazing things are gone.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18422_5-people-who-changed-world-from-inside-prison.html Imagine if some of them had died.
That is right, no Windmill killing.

A final challenge I want to see some kind of proof that killing prevented killing even MORE than in a country that does not practice the death penalty.

There are nations that refused to extradite prisoners the us to this day simply because of its penology practices, not limited to the use of the death penalty.


I would like to say that I have seen no person who, for better or worse would not have suffered better alive for their crimes, than served less dead.

It is better to risk saving a guilty person
than to condemn an innocent one.
--Voltaire

[Feldt Grace]

So lets talk about the death sentence which is still being used in several countries... (such as the US)

No matter what he has done nobody should have the right over someones death.


what do you guys think?

If someone kill someone , he should die
If someone rape someone he should be castrate...
"Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" Thats the only output. But sometimes ppl must give last chance to someone. That's my opinion.
If you disagree that's your problem. .

[Lockon Stratos I]

I guess noone here has taken into consideration the laws of nature. Capital punishment is usually administered in cases of most hideous crimes - mass murders, rapes, pedophile rapists etc. But at the same time, the people who are against it, shout out loud that we should not be worse than animals. And truly, taking the capital punishment off the charts would be below animals. In nature, even amongst the herbivorous animals, the unit that does not kill to survive, but cause of some mutation, or mental illness, is instantly disposed of by the members of it's own kind. I could give you specific examples, but I would diverse.
Point is, that's only natural for crying out loud, to dispose of those who pose threat to society. "Kill only to survive" - that's the basic law. Ones who break it, deserve to die, for they are indeed lower than animals...

[Feldt Grace]

I guess I have to admit you're right...

[Cromell]

What you speak of is a natural selection and is about survival of the fittest, strongest and most flexible. In animal world, the weak die of hunger, by predators, and rarely by their own kin. They are not a "threat" to their species, they simple are unable to procreate.

Now, in human society, it won't work that well. By your logic, we should kill off the disabled, mentally challenged and sick people simply for the sake of society.

Yes, there are cases when capital punishment seems to be the only appropriate punishment. No, capital punishment will not make the crime rate fall. Yes, some extremely wicked people should be stopped at all cost. And no, we shouldn't be so eager to decide who lives and who dies.

I hope this makes any sense o_0

[Garrett]

I find most people who refer to the unwritten laws of nature could not last more than 2 days IN nature.
Humans are choice makers and aware beings that can be tricked, coerced, infected, inspired and driven to kill. Even as good men.
If you kill a person you kill a symptom and do not solve the problem.

Imagine a child pushing a button on a some high risk machinery leading to the death of a worker. Would you kill the child?

A soldier shoots another soldier, win or lose who is right?

A person with no mental faculty to understand who or what consequences commits a crime, it could happen to anyone.

A person is wrongfully accused. Nature is unfair, so I suppose those people would not mind if they were accused wrongfully becuase Death for Death and all that.

The Greeks idea that the only thing you have a right to was 'anatomy and property' That is defense of yourself and what you own, denotes most of what passes for modern law. Barring the rather grotesque Singapore for example, a far worse offender of the death penalty than even the US. Death for having or using in a quantity a plant with a narcotic effect. Death.

We could kill only to survive, but then that justifies the poor man stabbing someone on merit of requiring the resources of whoever they attack.

Humans ARE survived more because we do NOT kill everything unless there is something causing it, there nothing natural about a serial killers irrational need to add ritualism or justification to their deeds.

We are past nature now, we have something better. Being insane, hungry, poverty stricken are natural conditions which lead to murder often.
But what of profit, glory, insanity, greed and cruelty as motivators?

Humans no longer have NATURAL reasons to kill and thus are removed from many things in the natural order, such as the laws of nature which we already disobey through use of technology and abuse of the environment.

A woman defends her children against a person trying to kill them for food. That is the law of nature.

A man murders another for fun. That is not. You can not apply the law of nature to a being so far outside of nature that we have entire rituals and systems designed to give deaths so unnatural that we have becomes something else entirely. Both have death, this is wrong. It needs to change.

There are too many mistakes made under the death penalty and penalties in general to risk blaming it on nature when there is almost nothing left of nature in modern crimes.
When those crimes occur, they are crimes of passion, desperation and fear. Things we should be able to stop in a modern society.

We are above this now, We do not need death on purpose in society, we are humans, technologists. We should FIX it.
Starting with ourselves.
IF I were forced to Blame nature for unnatural crimes, then I would remove as much of nature from the equation as possible. Including the natural urge to murder instead of isolate and cure.

[Bradleybill]

If you pesimists had seen what I saw you would change your mind about giving a mad dog mercy. Just think of a sweet girl with her eyes,nose and mouth superglued shut and buried alive. I saw here face when they dug her up. She had fought hard to stay alive. She didnt want to die. To top it off the creep had another captive at his house. She would have ended up the same way. He also was living with his sister and had kids with her. You tell that poor little girls parents that he should have shown mercy. If thats the way you think then your and idiot. When a person kill on purpose then he or she gives up the right as a human and should be consided and mad dog and put down. Its time people grow up and realize that the world is not a nice place and sometimes you have to do something to protect the weak from the mad dogs out there!

[Garrett]

Law of nature would let that man get away. I think it is optimal to allow them to live/ live with consequences.

Death is easy, and mercy and being made to live with consequences is far worse. IT also give people a change to prov innocent and try for the cure.

Besides often a cure is also the punishment. Ever seen an asylum for the criminally insane? Or a pedophile farm? Loss of freedom is far worse than death.
Justifying death as an expense saver also ignore that the expense is also invested long term research on prevention.

I agree to death as intervention- that is protecting the weak/everyone/yourself that is not the discussion, this is talking about people who have been caught, disabled and confined.
Besides what if you get the wrong person? Or the person was made to because of extenuating circumstances? *ie I has THEIR family held hostage? What do you do to that person?
Mad dogs are mad, A person in that state is not always the criminal.

Kill the desperate, the weak, the fooled, the coerced, the allowed and the stupid and you give up all hope of finding a way to stop the rest that WILL happen in the future.
Deal with a symptom or deal with the cause. Part of learning that cause and stopping it for good is containment not destruction.

What is to stop people in authority/with monopoly on force becoming the Mad Dog and using it against citizens? Then the Justice becomes a weapon to be used against the rest.

[Cromell]

@Garett - you seriously think a sociopath would be bothered with "living with consequences"? We are talking about beings that don't care about human lifes. Death punishment is only a failsafe mean to prevent such people from hurting anyone else.

Capital punishment should be used wisely and as rare as possible.

I'll agree that we need to deal not only with symptoms but also with the causes. This will require A LOT of work, educational, psychological, social, and such. A healthy society will have less chances to give birth to a monster...

[Lockon Stratos I]

Seriously, Garret, have you ever listened to YOURSELF, and the utter NONSENSE you're babbling out?

"law of nature would let that man go away", my ass. You say that most people referring to the laws of nature wouldn't last there long - same goes for you, I would guess. You don't know shit about life, you have absolutely NO IDEA how it is, being on both sides of the survival fight. Get a grip man, and reconsider yourself.

Of course, law is not flawless, but in very obvious cases, when you catch the man in the act - kill on the spot, that's what I say...

[Garrett]

Naturally I have already said that a person caught in the act is a different matter, if you prevent something or there is a risk that the person can not be contained then killing is necessary, when someone is captured- WHEN, then what you do with the contained person is my issue.

If a sociopath is about to kill someone in the street, and you can save a life immediately, then that is fine- that is not the ordered, thought out, contained and deliberate execution.
Kill in defense, that is fine, once the person cannot harm anyone, such as when isolated or contained, then what you do with them is a different matter.

I do not say a sociopath will be bothered living with consequences of their actions towards others. They will however know that they are contained and imprisoned. That is a consequence they in their selfishness will think about.
They do not care about others but they will care about their circumstances. Impulses denied etc.

Lock seems to think that before execution that no sociopaths got away with what they did becuase natural laws would account for that. I do not believe that is true, If we rely on eye for an eye punitive measures to dissuade those who will not be dissuaded for any reason- regardless of what those reasons are then then we prevent Nothing.

Punish those who will do the crime and people some of them, WILL do the crime. Relying on deterrent punishment is not and has not eliminated the problem. We need to learn from them and find another way.

Again, i am talking about people who have been caught, not acts of war or people killing without any alternatives such as self defense.
Lock. Self defense is not the issue here, after the fact execution is.
Self defense in the moment is not the same as executing someone who is a disabled threat.
You can not choose when you will need to defend yourself, you can choose when how to proceed with someone who is incarcerated. I have seen killing does not stop more killers. Time to study them, long and exhaustive as it may be so that we can get past killing as a reaction for lack of anything smarter to do.

[Feldt Grace]

If someone kill someone , he should die
If someone rape someone he should be castrate...
"Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" Thats the only output. But sometimes ppl must give last chance to someone. That's my opinion.
If you disagree that's your problem. .
I was changed my mind. Death sentence... NO WAY! :/
*stupid girl*

[Cromell]

Lockon, calm down. This is no place to argue which one of you has a better understanding of life. Also, watch your tone, you may express your opinions but don't be offensive about it.

Also, Garett was at least partially right about murderers and such getting away from the law of nature. Why? Because people of violence are stronger physically (while, usually, weaker psychically). The law of nature favors subjects with better survival instincts.

By the way, killing someone on the spot is probably the dumbest idea ever. Why? Because we would have to rely on the judgement of a stressed police officer, that might see something much different than it is in reality. Simple example: policeman walks into a room and sees a lying body and a person over it, with blood on their hands and bending over that body. "OH MY WORD HE KILLED HIM" policeman thinks and shoots a person that was actually giving him first aid. Pretty much unlikely, yes, but we have courts to minimize the risk of such misunderstandings.

So, the next time you feel so eager to have people killed, think a bit.

@Grace - care to elaborate? It's a debate section, after all.

[Garrett]

I know what you mean about the Policeman walks in scenario, but that is more a summery execution scenario than what to do with incarcerated felons.
It is also true even if you see a man attacking a woman, IN the process of attacking, and you kill him you might never learn that she had just for example, poisoned his children. Assumptions should not be allowed to kill. Even though it might be natural to react defensively you also do not know who you are defending in that case.
It is an interesting thing to note that even a self defense scenario could be the end result of a provoked attack as well.

I just simply feel that if you have neatralised a persons ability to harm, that is enough already. You do not have to kill a disarmed, disabled and contained offender.
Also there is much to be learned from the containment process. Learning is costly and expensive, as is containment. but it has to be better than just reacting and dealing with the problems defensibly.

I just want to explore any alternatives for dealing with people who have been caught, rather than the reasoning behind heat of the moment acts of self defense, that may or may not be justified.
Because of the complexities of dealing with summery execution and process execution I elect to discuss the plight of imprisoned people.
This includes supposedly how state sponsored execution is beneficial compared to incarceration as a solution or prevention.

On a side note, Do not worry Crommel. Lockon might have good reasons for being emotional about the issue and I do not mind if he or she just wants to express anything. I think it helps to be reminded of how some people think on the subject and contribute.
I personally would like to know of the experiences he or she might have had which created a sense of entitlement to voice such an opinion.

Lockon if you are still reading I am completely willing to listen to any case examples or personal accounts which might have affected your world view. I am not here to win or criticize you, I just want to understand.

And Feldt I would like to know why the sudden change. Was it the possibility of someone being wrong fully accused? Or maybe the potential injustice of someone who cannot account for their own actions? I am just curious not trying to make a point.

Also Crommel i think the Killing on the spot is less for On the spot assessments of situations, than it is for people who absolutely for a fact know that a person is about to harm another and have it in their power to prevent it.
For example a person turns around pulls a firearm and starts shooting, indiscriminately and someone will die if they are not stopped- THAT is a situation you might have to kill in order to stop- regardless of the shooters state of mind, risk to others must be stopped first.

Now if that shooter was arrested and was in jail, I would NOT condone the death penalty as he would have been stopped and incarcerated already.
I hope I have clarified my ideas on that.

Another interesting idea to explore is deterrence, if we had a perfect all provided for environment and everyone could do what they wanted and be happy, I still think there would be elements of human nature that would predispose people towards acts of violence and irrationality anyhow.
How does one account for that and NOT be justified in the death penalty, becuase if it IS an incurable Just is condition of being our species then maybe there is something to be said for the reasoning of the death penalty.
I just do not think we have explored that far enough into the science of behavioral to discover if curing the human condition is possible.

Suppose we were cured of the need to do thing that often result in the death penalty, is that a good thing? An important question for one such as myself who believes there has to be another way to deal with the problem.

[Cromell]

It's C-R-O-M-E-L-L, by the way.

Also, I do mind if ANYONE gets emotional during a debate. I don't want any offensive posts here. Lets keep things civilized, shall we?

You see, Garett, one of the advantages of death penalty is that the society does not have to pay for detention of murderer. It's a simple logic, really: "why do our tax money have to be spent on some criminal, while our schools don't have enough money to educate properly, our hospitals don't have enough money to cure people, etc" Detention costs a lot - a small family could live comfortably for the monthly cost of detaining a single prisoner. Following this, there is no surprise so many people don't want to pay for keeping the worst lot in whole society. Few bullets or a syringe of poison is way cheaper.