The Death Penalty: Yes or No

[Flannen]

You guys all brought up very good points. 🙂 And believe me, the fact that there is a good chance of the person executed being innocent is a very good reason to not believe in it. On the other hand, would you prefer this "innocent person" to live in shame and confinement their ENTIRE life? Personally, in that instance, I believe that they would prefer death. Death, while knowing that they are innocent and will, depending on their faith, go to "a better place". 😀

I do see what you're saying here but I honestly don't think that an innocent person charged with a crime would consider dying better than living, no matter what the conditions were going to be. Personally I would spend every minute and my last breath trying to prove that I was innocent. And if there was later evidence to prove that you hadn't done it, and you'd only been imprisoned you could get your life back if you're dead, you obviously can't.

But, theoretically speaking, what if our plan wasn't flawed? Everybody who was sent to prison was guilty. Everyone who was sentenced to Death was guilty. Would you still be against it?

Yup. 'An eye for an eye makes the world blind'. What you have described above puts the taking of another life in black and white and it would not make the world better place.

Whether somebody is "mentally ill" or not doesn't matter. In fact, it makes them MORE dangerous since they cannot be reasoned with. Yes, it's very unfortunate. But we don't win wars by going easy on everybody.

Besides, would that mentally ill person really need to live? They're ill, they don't understand what they're doing, and they don't understand life. IMO, it would be a blessing to stop them and not make them live their life like that. 🙂

I'm actually quite shocked by this, to the point that I'm struggling to form a response. Mentally ill people do not deserve to die whether they kill or not. People with mental illnesses don't not understand life, they struggle to identify themselves within it and they should be helped to do so, not taken out of it.

The way I see it, the family would be GLAD that the offender was executed. Maybe they would grieve. But in the end, they'd be happy that they'd never again have to live in fear wondering who the offender would kill next. Not have to continue being disappointed. Not have to be reminded of their failure of a son/sibling.

Personally, if this sort of thing ever happened to me I can safely say I still would not want them put to death. Nothing would be able to fill that void. Knowing that said person had in fact also lost a life would make the whole thing even more awful than it already was. Or are you suggesting the offender's own family would want them killed for it?

Also, once again referencing the episode "Billy": Billy's family was GLAD to see the last of Billy. Somehow I imagine that the same would happen to the RL family. 😀

Well every family, every person is different. And Billy wasn't just your run of the mill killer that affects our own society.

Is it really MURDER though? By definition, murder is "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice".

That would be the technical term but I consider taking the life of someone against their will is murder.

You try not to get anybody killed you wind up getting everybody killed."

That's all good and well in a fictional, fantasy world where you're talking about demons and apocalypses but it just doesn't have the same resonance in the real world.

And I reiterate what Kean's already said, it is not our job, or the job of anyone on this earth to decide who lives and who dies.

Also for me, the fact that the death penalty does not have any deterrent effect whatsoever makes the whole thing really pointless.

It is an interesting topic to discuss though 🙂

 

[Kean]

I'm just wondering guys, has anyone seen The Life of David Gale? Fantastic film that deals with this topic, it's worth a look at.

 

[Allie]

I agree with the Death Penalty in certain situations. IMO if you have a sociopath, who has no chance of feeling the pain, or caring. If there is no way that they could hurt because of what they did, then yes I think they should put to death. Why hold someone who has no conscious? Our tax money goes to paying for these people's "life in prison", I think we could use that money to help people that deserve it. There are plenty people starving in the world, that that money could go to. There are 50 million better things that I want my money going to. I know this is controversial, so like I said this is just my opinion. And I respect others opinion for or against. 😉

 

[Flannen]

I'm just wondering guys, has anyone seen The Life of David Gale? Fantastic film that deals with this topic, it's worth a look at.

Yes! It's an awesome film! Sorry can't give you any more karma the moment. But I agree, it does certainly make a good case for why it's ridiculous.

 

[TheGrandmaster]

I agree with the Death Penalty in certain situations. IMO if you have a sociopath, who has no chance of feeling the pain, or caring. If there is no way that they could hurt because of what they did, then yes I think they should put to death. Why hold someone who has no conscious? Our tax money goes to paying for these people's "life in prison", I think we could use that money to help people that deserve it. There are plenty people starving in the world, that that money could go to. There are 50 million better things that I want my money going to. I know this is controversial, so like I said this is just my opinion. And I respect others opinion for or against. 😉

Actually, as believe someone has already mentioned, the process of appeals that it takes to actually condemn someone to death costs more than a life in prison. Because it is such a big deal there are several stages of appeal, and the costs of lawyers and judges etc the death penalty costs more than feeding and looking after a prisoner for the rest of their lives.

I'm just wondering guys, has anyone seen The Life of David Gale? Fantastic film that deals with this topic, it's worth a look at.

I haven't seen this film, but two that I have seen are ' The Green Mile' and 'Dead Man Walking'. These both illustrate the brutality of the death penalty, as well as being great stories.

 

[Kean]

I haven't seen this film, but two that I have seen are ' The Green Mile' and 'Dead Man Walking'. These both illustrate the brutality of the death penalty, as well as being great stories.

I haven't seen Dead Man Walking but I can say without a doubt that The Life of David Gale makes the Green Mile look like a Disney movie. It's also a true story.

The Shawshank Redemption is also amazing in how it handles the matter of surviving for years in a prison convicted of a crime you haven't committed. But mostly it highlights how being alive allowed the truth to finally come out.

 

[Professor Walsh]

To make ourselves judges of who deserves to be in the world is a dangerous game. Think about the Jews, the Romani, the homosexuals, people with various genetic syndromes ...

 

[Allie]

I am talking about sociopathic serial killers. With their admittance, because they are proud of the lives they ruined, and other sufficient evidence, I agree. With a sociopath, they are incapable of learning or feeling the injustices they have done. And will only do them again given the chance. Examples, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, and Ed Gein, just to name a few. When there is no doubt, and no chance of them seeking redemption, then yes they should be the perfect canditates for the death penalty. The henious crimes these men have executed, the hundreds of people killed by their hands, if they weren't sociopaths and could possibly feel the guilt of their actions, then yes let them rot in prison knowing what they did. But if they are incapable of feeling guilt and pain for the lives they so brutally ended then what is the point?

 

[Professor Walsh]

But if they are incapable of feeling guilt and pain for the lives they so brutally ended then what is the point?

Then, for me, the principle in itself becomes the point. I do not think that a state should ever take civilian lives.

 

[Buffy Summers]

I myself I am one of the people who are against the death penalty in an form. Of course, you are an American, and have probably been brought up being told that the death penalty is a fair punishment for those who have commited henious crimes, and I would not be surprised if you had not heard much of the other side of the argument.

Let's keep comments such as these out of our arguments. Aside from the fact that you are incorrect, jumping to conclusions about and frankly insulting another poster because of their country of origin is not appropriate.

You advocate the USA's version of the death penalty, so let me ask you what you think of the methods used by some middle eastern countries, such as stoning a woman to death for adultery? It would stop them reoffending, and would provide a detterent to others who may offend, so by your logic this is also a good practise?

That's false logic - you're comparing apples to oranges in that statement.

 

[Allie]

Also I had a thought, if we did execute sociopaths, as I stated in my last post. Maybe their bodies could go to science, and maybe we could find a way to treat sociopaths, so maybe there would be a more humane approach that would work.

 

[Chris2]

You guys all brought up very good points. 🙂 And believe me, the fact that there is a good chance of the person executed being innocent is a very good reason to not believe in it. On the other hand, would you prefer this "innocent person" to live in shame and confinement their ENTIRE life? Personally, in that instance, I believe that they would prefer death.

I've been beaten to the punch by multiple posters on this, but you have to consider that someone unfairly imprisoned for life can later have their name cleared and be released. If they've been executed, that is obviously no longer possible.

Death, while knowing that they are innocent and will, depending on their faith, go to "a better place". 😀

The idea that they will go to "a better place" depending on their faith suggests that the afterlife they get is the one they believe in, and I can't support that at all. For example, I don't believe there's any kind of afterlife, and if I'm actually correct, then nobody is going to a better place, including the people who really really believe that they will.

Whether somebody is "mentally ill" or not doesn't matter. In fact, it makes them MORE dangerous since they cannot be reasoned with. Yes, it's very unfortunate. But we don't win wars by going easy on everybody.

Besides, would that mentally ill person really need to live? They're ill, they don't understand what they're doing, and they don't understand life. IMO, it would be a blessing to stop them and not make them live their life like that.

Well, mentally ill people "need to live" in the same way that anyone else does - because they presumably want to be alive. Having mental problems of one sort or another doesn't make you incapable of experiencing pleasure, and getting some sort of enjoyment out of life (making it better than being dead). Also, I don't think it's helpful (or advisable) to look at law enforcement as a war.

But, theoretically speaking, what if our plan wasn't flawed? Everybody who was sent to prison was guilty. Everyone who was sentenced to Death was guilty. Would you still be against it?

I'd still oppose it on principle, yes.

 

[TheGrandmaster]

Let's keep comments such as these out of our arguments. Aside from the fact that you are incorrect, jumping to conclusions about and frankly insulting another poster because of their country of origin is not appropriate.

Looking back it seems I was wrong about this and I didn't mean it to be offensive in any way. I did use the word 'probably' however, and I feel this shows that I acknowleged that I was jumping to a conclusion when I wrote it, and realised I was wrong when WO informed of the reality of her environment. I can only apologise for any offense I may have caused.

That's false logic - you're comparing apples to oranges in that statement.

The point I was making here was that it was an example of one group of people deciding that they have the right to kill another. Obviously it is different to the US government putting a murderer to death, but I feel that WO understood the point I was making.

I would like to say that this is debate I feel so strongly about that I am liable to say things that I later regret. I have a tendency to say anything that I feel justifies an argument, sometimes without duly considering any offense I may unwittingly cause. In my defence, I'm only human, and I think we are all guilty of acting without thinking at some point.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Well, frankly, whether that's true or not is not the issue. Attack the argument, not the person, or stay silent.

I would suggest to everyone that they re-read their posts before they hit submit, and perhaps even let it sit a couple minutes beforehand just so you have a clear head.

---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------

TheGrandmaster agrees: Fair enough. I don't feel I attacked WO, but still... re-reading your posts is a good tip, one I should probably follow 😉

Belittling someone because they are American, or Scottish, or Pakistani, or Mongolian, or whatever else is never okay on this board. That's pretty much the end of the story.

If you want to discuss it further, please contact me via pm.

 

[Big Damn Hero]

You guys all brought up very good points. 🙂 And believe me, the fact that there is a good chance of the person executed being innocent is a very good reason to not believe in it. On the other hand, would you prefer this "innocent person" to live in shame and confinement their ENTIRE life? Personally, in that instance, I believe that they would prefer death. Death, while knowing that they are innocent and will, depending on their faith, go to "a better place". 😀

Oh my lord. That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Yes, miscarriages of justice do happen. But I can't think of one person that would rather die for a crime they didn't commit, than have the chance to clear their name and to live the life they were meant to live.

But, theoretically speaking, what if our plan wasn't flawed? Everybody who was sent to prison was guilty. Everyone who was sentenced to Death was guilty. Would you still be against it?

YES.

The offender didn't care. Locking him up with accomplish nothing, except perhaps driving him more mad then he already was.

Gaol, jail, prison, whatever you call it, ISN'T just about punishment. It's about rehabilitation, about people being able to pay their dues and move on, to teach those with no moral compass right from wrong (if possible). Of course there are always going to be those who are past redemption; or those that commit crimes in which they should be locked up for the rest of their life no question (I'm personally thinking repeat offenders, serial killers/rapists; but that's obviously a personal thing and each life-long imprisonment sentence should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not just a "do they tick all the boxes" basis. I've forgotten what I was saying.)

Now, I heard some of you bring up the point that the offender may be mentally ill. Now, The Grandmaster and I discussed it, and here's what I thought:

Whether somebody is "mentally ill" or not doesn't matter. In fact, it makes them MORE dangerous since they cannot be reasoned with. Yes, it's very unfortunate. But we don't win wars by going easy on everybody.

Besides, would that mentally ill person really need to live? They're ill, they don't understand what they're doing, and they don't understand life. IMO, it would be a blessing to stop them and not make them live their life like that. 🙂

This little section makes me so mad that I can't reply right now. But going by your theory, we might as well get rid of all the disabled people in this world, because they don't really need to live either, do they? They contribute nothing to the economy, they don't understand life.

I would really love to hear more on this "mentally ill" bit of yours.



I haven't replied to the rest of this post because this whole stance on mentally ill people just makes the rest of the argument pointless in my opinion.

 

[Washburne]

I wrote my answer too soon so I'll be repeating what others have already said. Just not as well put.

This subject feels way more one sided than the last time it came up. I can totally understand the feeling of wanting that some people should die or that they deserve to die. And there's people'd death I don't mourn in the slightest or sometimes think that they deserved it. But I'm still 100% against the death penalty. We're hopefully way beyond the eye for an eye kind of thinking.

On the other hand, would you prefer this "innocent person" to live in shame and confinement their ENTIRE life? Personally, in that instance, I believe that they would prefer death. Death, while knowing that they are innocent and will, depending on their faith, go to "a better place". 😀

I doubt everyone will see it as going to a better place. And I can't prove you wrong but I'd be very interested to know how many people in prison that would rather die than contiue living. And if you're alive there's always a chance, although sometimes very small, that you'll be proved innocent. And to some there's even the chance of parole.

And even if we somehow knew that all convicted are guilty (which we can't but lets go with it) who'd decide what crime deserves death and which doesn't? You, me, the majority or people voted in charge by the minority of a population?

But, theoretically speaking, what if our plan wasn't flawed? Everybody who was sent to prison was guilty. Everyone who was sentenced to Death was guilty. Would you still be against it?

Yes.

Besides, would that mentally ill person really need to live? They're ill, they don't understand what they're doing, and they don't understand life. IMO, it would be a blessing to stop them and not make them live their life like that.

With such a statement would you mind giving your meaning of "mentally ill"? Because to me the expression is much wider than how it looks from what you said. Not that I agree anyway (see Lindsey's post) but knowing your definition would be a good start.

Well, in the beginning, I believe that all life has worth. And after a while, you prove yourself to be useful to the world, or harmful to the world. You gain respect, or disrespect. Love or hate. Some people gain execution, others gain a long and good life.

Does that mean that everyone that commits murder or rape can't be useful to the world in other ways? Or that all people not commiting terrible crimes are useful to the world?

 

[Professor Walsh]

And even if we somehow knew that all convicted are guilty (which we can't but lets go with it) who'd decide what crime deserves death and which doesn't? You, me, the majority or people voted in charge by the minority of a population?

Important questions - Nelson Mandela's years on Robben Island spring to my mind.

 

[thevikingsgirl]

Few people choose death. It's human nature to survive.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Important questions - Nelson Mandela's years on Robben Island spring to my mind.

To be fair, Nelson Mandela wasn't a murderer on death row...

 

[Professor Walsh]

To be fair, Nelson Mandela wasn't a murderer on death row...

That's true. He was, however, a person the authorities - the people voted in charge by the minority of a population - considered a terrorist an a threath against society as they knew it.