the death penalty-should it be legalised?

OK - i'm coming from a psychological / law background uni degree.

From what most people have said about their reasons for being against the death penalty - it seems almost all have taken Beccaria's idea of justice - that a lifetime in prison is better than a quick death. This way a person can think about what they have done, and others can see the pain that the person goes through whilst they are in prison. This person also cannot be called or thought of as a martyr.

I have to say, that i both agree and disagree with this idea - I agree that it is a terrible miscarriage of justice if an innocent is put to death - but looking at the state of prisons in most countries today - it seems that this "punishment" that is talked about really isn't "punishment" at all. These people get fed. They have a bed and a roof over their heads. They are allowed visits by their family and friends. Fair enough they don't live the life they used to live, but they are living a better life than many people who are "free" and not in prison.

I have heard some prisons where the inmates are allowed a tv in their room, along with playstations. I feel that if a person is committed to a long jail time, and people use the argument that this "punishment" teaches them a lesson, then this punishment should be in all essence punishment - these criminals shouldn't be living off the backs of taxpayers.

Secondly, the idea that "the murder count doesn't go down in the countries that use capital punishment" - is quite an interesting one. I counter this by saying - most capital punishment doesn't deter possible criminals because it is carried out months and sometimes years after the person has been sentenced. There are two things that need to be tied up in the minds of would be criminals and they are certainty, and swiftness of punishment. If capital punishment is to be brought back in countries, that punishment needs to be carried out within 2 weeks of the person being sentenced. Otherwise it is useless as criminals do not connect that crime with that punishment. What is the point of having the death penalty if the accused spends 2 and a half years launching appeals?

I would have to say that i am more for capital punishment than against it. I know that this was a rather long post, and i am sorry for having to go on like that, but i believe that if you have a position on an issue, you should state why you feel that way.
 
on what are you judging your opinion of whether loss of freedom is a severe enough punishment?experience or guesswork?i've read a few accounts from prisoners that say the loss of liberty is by far the worst thing about prison.for me it certainly would be the worst thing that could happen.to lose my ability to decide what i do sounds like hell to me ,even with a playstation.
are you saying that although a wrongful death penalty is a terrible thing it is worth the risk for the benifits of the death penalty.
have we ever had swift justice in history?and when we did was there less crime,i'd guess not(but am prepared to be corrected.looks like this one could run)
 
Originally posted by Charles Gunn
how does the death penalty give the victims rights beyond revenge.a murderers greatest succes could be to lower you to their level.
do they suffer more on death row than a life sentence.death penalty has an end.
the bulger case is not a great one to use for an example as the whole thing has been changed by its high profile nature.you can't take the circumstances of this one unique case and say murder = us vacation.its not great but i personally think its a damn site better than killing 2 young kids.society itself is just as much to blame for what these kids did so why shouldn't we pay.we've created the environment where this event can occur.............

(throws bone back)
Click to expand...

I agree that something like the Bulger case is exceptional. The perpetrators I believe were 10 years old at the time. There must be time for them to grow and understand the enormity of what they did. At the age they are now, 18, I think there should be time for them to understand and accept their part in a human tragedy. I would hope they carry that with them for the rest of their lives. But I do think that they should be released to get on with their lives. I only hope that they make a better job of their adulthood, than they did of their childhood!
 
Originally posted by Charles Gunn
on what are you judging your opinion of whether loss of freedom is a severe enough punishment?experience or guesswork?i've read a few accounts from prisoners that say the loss of liberty is by far the worst thing about prison.for me it certainly would be the worst thing that could happen.to lose my ability to decide what i do sounds like hell to me ,even with a playstation.
Click to expand...

OK first off - the first one - i'm basing some of it on experience, and the rest from studies and books i have read. Most people that commit murders (and for the time being i will exclude those people who are mentally ill) spend their time in jail either feeling extremely remorsefull for what they have done, or just basically going about their regular days. For those people that do feel remorse, it is a terrible time for them, but usually those people are released from jail when their sentences are reviewed. The other bunch - due to the fact that they don't care whatsoever about what happened do not feel as greatly punished.

I agree with you that freedom is indeed a terrible thing to lose - but if you have commited a serious crime there must be some sort of punishment.

Originally posted by Charles Gunn
that although a wrongful death penalty is a terrible thing it is worth the risk for the benifits of the death penalty.
Click to expand...

What i am trying to say is that in some cases the death penalty is justified, and for all the other cases, the punishment i.e the prison sentence should indeed be a prison sentence - people should be placed in an environment that shows them that what they have done is wrong. Alot of the people i have seen just think of prison as a place where you get free board and free food. Alot of criminals who are released from prison commit another crime just to go back into that environment because everything is provided for them. If punishment is to serve its main purpose - which is to deter, then it needs to fulfill its role - and that is to be thought of as a place where people don't want to go.

Originally posted by Charles Gunn

have we ever had swift justice in history?and when we did was there less crime,i'd guess not(but am prepared to be corrected)
Click to expand...

We have had swift justice in history - not so much during this century, but from the 1100-1500's justice was much more swift than it was now. It seems the more complicated the law gets, the more complicated it is to decide the best punishment for law breakers.
 
so i guess i just come back to the question whether we kill the odd innocent person for the greater good(if indeed it is)?
can swift justice ever be fair justice?if not are you saying the death penalty doesn't work?or again are the negative aspects of swift justice worth the greater good it may provide?
i disagree that punishments main purpose should be to deter,it should also include some attempt to reform.
finally in what cases do you believe the death penalty justified?
 
the wrost kind of crimes i can think of is the murder and defiling of innocent little children e.g sarah payne. also the beating up of old people really angers and upsets me. they are just helpless to their attackers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom