Hi!

This is a Topic I suggest to be discussed because I am writing an essay on it at the moment, and it's really interesting...
I kind of turned my opinion like 10 times since I started researching... it's so deep and difficult so... I hope for a nice discussion...

I'm completely against it, simply for the reason that I believe people don't EVER have the right to kill someone. And that's what the death penalty is really, killing someone. You're doing the exact same thing the criminal is convicted for (most of the times) and on top of that, it's a fact that a lot of people who got the electric chair or whatever appeared to be innocent after they got killed.

I'm glad that I live in Holland, seriously. So typical that it's still there in America somehow...

I also tended to change my mind on this subject constantly, but right now this is how I feel.

I don't really think death penalty is going to stop crime. As Aurora said, it's bringing more death and killing. I've got my theory, as mordib as it might sound, that suffering is worst than death itself, so if I keep on with that, staying all life in prison is more big of a punishment than dying. At least that's how I see it.
But I'd only apply this in countries where the penalty of staying in prison for life does exist.
Here, it's supposed to exist, but it's only for 25 years. There's no death penalty either, and criminals have easy ways to make their time on jail shorter... *sigh*

But in general, I'm against it.

I did some random searches on the internet and came across this article: Singapore Death Penalty Shrouded in Silence

Here's another one: Death Penalty in Singapore


I suddenly feel that I'm on the other end of the spectum regarding this topic as Aurora now, because I feel that to some extent, it has helped in curbing crimes on the whole.

Singapore has this death penalty offence for murder, kidnap, smuggling of drugs (mainly heroin) over a certain weight, etc. Let me copy this:

Apparently, we have the highest number of executions in proportion to our population of four million. I agree with the stand in both articles that the human rights' stand is a little shaky for both parties actually.

Trafficking, possession of illegal arms, kidnapping, murdering... These crimes cause harm to others, and personally, and because it has been in place for such a long time, it would not serve much of a deterrent or warning if only a life imprisonment is given.

It's worse but some people seem to view death as more of a worse penalty :blink: Anyway the more money-minded side of me would say that it's a waste of taxpayers' money to pay for these people for their 'stay' in prisons.

Hmm, good point. But I think that not 'warning' the public about the seriousness of the crime in the eye of law and letting them go (well, in a way) would only lead to more social problems.

I'm a little conservative concerning this topic because I think that these are useful seeing the crime rate. I think that the safety on the streets here in the middle of the night is better than in other countries in broad daylight. People are freaked out by the penalties, I guess.


The only thing I do not really agree with is the fact that people make mistakes. Like the bloody education system here, there's no letting down your guard or stuff. One mistake and you're looked down upon for life! I guess I can create a new thread for this but I'd probably end up getting upset over nothing...

I'm digressing.

This is by far one of the hottest debates here in America.

Do we stand against our own amendments with the right to life and liberty? Once someone has commited a crime, especially murder, rape, child mollesting...etc...they have given up any rights they had.

I stand on a very fine line on this topic for many reasons. First I do have to say, I believe in it. But I believe the critera should be more sever in passing down a sentence of death, and minors should never under any exception be given a death sentence.

Now, I feel that we should have it to deter crime. There has to be something that would make someone think twice about commiting a crime. And our economy is bad enough as it is without having to pay for criminals to sit in cels, have 3 square meals, watch TV and have sports in the yards. And believe me, the cost of maintaining one prisoner is astronomical...why would anyone fear that as a life sentence? Also...if anyone nees a reason to believe in the death penalty, just look at the faces of the parents whose children were viciously and painfully killed in the Oklahoma city bombing. Or for the family of Matthew Shepard, a young gay teen who was murdered under the most gruesome and mind numbing circumstances.

Lists of these kinds of crimes go on and on...and I personally believe, to commit such atrocities...death is deserved.

Why this is seen as a typical American thing seems a little out of context, actually...but buwahahahha *rubs hands* that could be another FABULOUS debate.....

I don't think that the death penalty helps to reduce the crime rate. Look at America. They have the death penalty there and I don't particularly see it as a safe country. However, I have no idea whether there are less crimes because of the DP so maybe everything I say doesn't make any sense, but I think that criminals don't let that stop them. They probably think it won't happen to them anyway, that they can get away with whatever it is what they're about to do and that they won't get caught. I think it's mostly the thrill that counts, and besides, how many crimes aren't planned beforehand? Killing is in a lot of cases a spur of the moment kind of thing, I think, sad as it is.

I think I'm straying off the subject here :D

Anyway, the fact that there are innocent people who get the electric chair is actually enough for me to be completely against is. Every innocent peolpe that's killed is one too much and I think that the cops are often very careless in their investigation, just because they're already convinced the suspect is guilty or God knows what.

Alright, don't have anything other to say regarding this at the mo ^_^

Hey Gals,
as I already said I researched a lot on this and just for information I will post the part of the different pro and contra arguments here - my final statement will come later... is not ready yet ;)





5. The Public Image of Death Penalty

5.1 General Voices Pro Death Penalty

Argument 1: Incapacitation of the criminal (The lives that are saved)
"The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down." (Poet Hyman Barshay)
The basic argument of most Death Penalty supporters is that the good deeds achieved by executing murderers, can't be out-ruled by contradicting opinions, an executed murder can never again commit the crime, and also will his example deter others from acting alike.

Argument 2: Deterrence
The initial intention of Death Penalty and still one of the strongest Pro and Contra Arguments alike (as most ones, by the way, it is applicable on both positions), by executing offenders others will refrain from taking the same path. Although, most Death Penalty supporters point out that the deterring effect would be incomparably higher, if the time on Death row wouldn't last over decades, and so the impression is easily gained that there is no execution at all.
("I believe that if the Death Penalty, was exactly that, a penalty to die and not a penalty to die in 20 years or so, then yes it would abate serious crime." Ian W., 26, CA)

Argument 3: Cost
"The problem we have with the death penalty is the extreme financial burden it places on the taxpayers and public sector. The process to ultimately execute an individual is extremely less than timely. With the appeals process in place and the lack of efficient turnaround of executions, these convicted criminals on death row are living on state and federal funds for years upon years. Even the price of the "humane" execution supposedly costs in the neighbourhood of millions and millions of dollars, all of which are being paid by innocent, law-abiding citizens. If there was a cheap way to dispose of criminals who have done something so horrific they warrant to die, I would be in its favour." (Ian W., 26, CA)
Death Penalty supporters point out that the state should better spend the limited resources on the old, the young and the sick rather than the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists etc.

Argument 4: Retribution
Due to an internet page survey (http://www.geocities.com/trctl11/results.html) retribution is the reason most people who answered to the poll chose. In the tradition of "An Eye for an Eye" Death Penalty supporters point out that if one chooses to end the sacred life of a human being he should pay the ultimate prize.
“I hold life sacred, and because I hold it sacred, I feel that anyone who takes some one’s life should know that thereby he forsakes his own and does not just suffer an inconvenience about being put into prison for sometime." (Professor van den Haag, http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/OrnellasPaper.htm)

Argument 5: Forfeiting Rights
Another argument I often came across, but because always differently put and never completely including every aspect I won't quote it, but summarize the ideas.
Basically the question is whether Death Penalty violates Human Rights by taking a life, but so does any other lawful punishment. Imprisonment violates the right of freedom of person, but it is generally seen that the deed of punishing the offender and saving society from their criminal impulses is to be valued higher then the personal right of the offender and therefore one could say through committing a crime one forfeits some of ones most basic human right. Death Penalty supporters therefore can argument, that by taking one's life one forfeits the right of his own life as well.


5.1.1 Enshrinement in the Constitution

"The death penalty, or capital punishment, may be prescribed by Congress or any state legislature for murder and other capital crimes. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment ("Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Bill of Rights, Amendment XIII). Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence." Bill of Right, Amendment XI) does not require a jury trial on the sentencing issue of life or death." (Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/death_penalty.html)


5.2. General Voices contra Death Penalty

Argument 1: Contradiction
"I believe [Death Penalty] is morally incorrect. Firstly, on the simplistic basis that either it is wrong to take a life, or it is not. If it is wrong to take a life, then capital punishment must also be wrong. (Of course, if it is not wrong, then there is no need to punish murderers)" (BA in Philosophy, 21, GB).
The first is a very simple argument that, opposed to the pro Death Penalty "Eye for an eye" Argument, rather questions the moral responsibility of a state, whereby claiming to kills someone is wrong, they contradict themselves by taking the killers' life as a punishment.
Another quote in that direction I once read on an Amnesty international publication: "Why do we kill people, who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

Argument 2: Unfair (Ab-)Use
"It is not used fairly--more white people commit crimes, yet more blacks are on death row. It is not uniform throughout the states--Texas being the most morally reprehensible. Mentally ill people, mentally deficient people, and children are sentenced to die, often without adequate representation. (In Texas, people have gotten the death penalty while their state-appointed attorneys slept through the trial.)" (Student, 34, Nebraska)
The law, judge and jury are not blind to race, sexual or religious orientation, if you trust statistics and though the constitution grants every defendant an attorney, good ones increase the chance to get a lesser punishment by 95 percent or more.
Another unfair feature of death penalty is really that for the same crime a completely different penalty can be inflicted, just depending on the state it had happened in.
Also to execute people, who by the time the crime was committed, had not a fully developed and capable brain, like mentally ill or retarded person, or teenager and children, is more then questionable since their ability of guilt is not fully assured.

Argument 3: Ultimateness
Death Penalty can't be repaid after years and when finally someone else is convicted of the crime someone else has been executed for. Innocents are on death row and innocents have been killed already, and there is no way that can be redone.

Argument 4: Deterrence
Death Penalty opponents claim that it is not effective in deterring possible offenders, and again statistics prove that point, since despite having death penalty the united states is one of the countries with the highest murder rate, as opposed to for example European countries.
Also a survey among American police-officers revealed that they don't see the effect of Death penalty either and place it at the least effective plan to decrease violent crimes - far behind Reducing drug abuse, Supporting a better economy, simplifying court rules etc. (FactSheet.pfd, Death Penalty Information-centre)

Argument 5: Cost
Despite what most may think, the Indiana Law Study Commission found out in 2002 that the total costs of Death Penalty (assuming that 20% of the Death sentences are in the end changed into life) lie about 38 percent higher then the cost of lifelong imprisonment. Most of the money flows into the trials and appeals.
"In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)" (FactSheet.pfd, Death Penalty Information-centre)

Argument 6: No rehabilitation
Death Penalty does not aim for an improvement of the offender, he has no chance to learn from his mistakes and prove that he can become a better person and is therefore rather a treatment then an actual punishment. Death Penalty only aims for revenge or the publicity but does not acknowledge the fact that making mistakes is human.
Additionally Death Penalty punishes also the family of the offender, who is completely innocent.

it is deep! my country doesnt hav eit so we never talk about it!

I stand for the death penalty, but only for serious crimes. Plus your saying any innocent life taken isn't worth it, but do you know that everyone killed by a murder is (most likely) innocent. Charlie Manson and his other followers brutly killed innocent people and I personally think life in prison for them wouldn't be punishment, they deserved the death penalty. I know there aren't murders like that everyday, but the DP does help. Plus I agree with others, the economy and taxes are bad in America, I don't want to put some rapist up for the next 20 years with all the essentials he needs. My grandpa was in jail for 8 years, granted it was minimum sercurity, but it was a walk in the park for him, he got to work out, eat, sleep, talk to me on the phone, and he still places bets on sports events, now if that is punishment so shoot me. Anymore these days I think we are too light on criminals, I'm not saying give everyone the DP. When my mom went in for a speeding ticket once in court she had a line in front of her. There were 3 or 4 child molesters that got 6 months probation, and these were on more than one count, my mom went up for her speeding ticket and got 7 months!!!!!! more than a child molester. Now in my mind that is wrong, and crooked, but I really can't do much about it considering I really have no legal say for another 3 years.

Note: I'm sorry if I ranted, went off subject and/or didn't make sense up there but this subject just irks me, if you will.

If I recall correctly, that was your dad. Which is why he refuses to drive in Pennsylvania anymore.

But I do agree strongly with everything you said.

The idea behind the death penalty in America anyway is a good one. However the judicial system needs to have a major overhaul. The idea is to draw a firm line to let people know that if you do some things you will have to die for your actions. Well I agree with that. People need to learn that they must be responsible for the things they do, not their parents or friends. Most people don't know this lesson. They say oh yeah I'm responsible but they aren't. But we have a justice system that puts child molesters and pedophiles in prison for 5 years and then turns them loose to do it again. Nine out of ten times they will do it again. That does not help the person whose life has been destroyed. If you are truly against the death penalty then ask yourself this question "If someone murdered my parents, siblings/raped and tortured my child could I really say I would not want that person to suffer the ultimate ?" The Bible says that it is better for a person to be thrown into the deepest water with a millstone around their neck than to hurt a child. In America we have air conditioned prisons where the inmates have tv's, are sent to school, allowed work release if they are in for a misdemeanor at the tax payers expense. I for one do not think they deserve to be treated great for committing a crime. My dad worked for the prison system for 30 years and some of that was over death row. If he were alive he could tell you that for every two people that get rehabilitated there are hundreds that don't. People who drink and drive know that they are taking a chance with someone's life but they do it anyway and then say I didn't mean to show mercy. Where was their mercy when they killed the person they hit. The death penalty does help stop crime because a lot of people think about it first and don't commit the crime. I think the laws need to be tougher than they are and if you are not responsible for your actions (provided you are intelligent enough to be) then the problem is yours. Oh and a minor that is smart enough and mature enough to know the difference between right and wrong is mature enough to stand trial as an adult.
Sandi

I don't like the death penalty, mostly because if I ever did something stupid enough that would result in the death penalty or life in prison, I'd want the death penatly because I think spending life in prison is much worse. Not that I'd know what being in prison is like, I'm just basing my opinion on the tv show 'Oz'.

Killing them just seems to me like giving them the easy way out.

This is a tough one. I am from Canada, and we don't have the death penalty here. We also don't have the right to bear arms so that we can go around shooting people either. Canada has a relatively low crime rate, but we also only have a population of 30 million, where a country like the US has a population of 300 million.

I think that a lot of the laws need to be re-vamped, and that our access to weaponry should be severely diminished. Why the residents of the US need to have guns on them all the time is really beyond me. It makes me feel a little sick.

I really don't believe in the death penalty, but at the same time, how can one be punished for their crime when inmates often have it better than people who go to work every day and are struggling to make ends meet? There is something really wrong with the system in that respect, and the thought of it makes me really uncomfortable. Of course, we cannot treat these prisoners like small animals and keep them in tiny cages and only give them the bare minimum, because the next thing you know we'll have human rights activists coming out of the wood work making claims that our prisons are like concentration camps or other such things.

I don't think that the death penalty should be issued unless there is cold, hard evidence or a confession from the culprit. These days, you just can't be 100 percent sure, and to get a bunch of strangers and have a trial with a jury just doesn't seem sufficient to me. How can you really be 100% sure? I think a lot of times people are grasping at straws because they just want to get someone, anyone put away, and their name goes in the paper and they get their paycheck. When it comes down to it, no one really cares.

Like many of you, my mind changes on this topic fairly often (even though I live in England where we do not have the death penalty).

At the moment, I believe most countries should have the death penalty for extremely severe cases such as repeated child mollesting, serial rape and or murder, that sort of thing. But, there are things worse than death.

Over here, a 'life sentence' is 25 years max. and then you have people like Myra Hindley and Ian Brady (If you didn't know, they raped and murdered numerous children, recorded it and then buried the bodies on the moors.) or Fred and Rose West (very similar thing) who get 'two life sentences' then within a period of twenty years are back in normal society with regular people AND under the witness protection program to keep them safe from people exactly like them. I think people like that deserve a death sentence (or maybe to get locked in a room with the parents of the children they abused and murdered).

Although then you have people like David Gale, who spend years on Death Row, finally get murdered by the government for their crimes. then it comes out that they were innocent the whole time.

But that is just my opinion and tomorrow morning it may be completely different.

Frankee
xox

Definetly pro....
But there has to be a better research method.
To many people have gotten a death penalty en turned out to be innocent ( I firmly believe 1 is too much)
I don't have any kids put please help me if I do and somebody hurts my baby...
I would hunt them down kill them and turn myself in, and I would probably smile during the trial.
Offcourse then I am a murder myself and facing the same punishment.
I have never heard anybody say that 10 years for killing a child will make the parents feel that justice has been done.

but like I said; to many people die innoccent.
I won't have to face this debat in holland since there are no deathpenalties.
Our system though is so shitty that a life sentence means 20 years

This is not quite true you know.
Life sentence means life sentence.....that we think it is 20 years has to with the fact that most prisoners can get a reduction because of good behaviour. And most killers get tbs anyways (which mean they go to a facility that is gives psychological treatment to criminals....it is a combination of prison and therapeutic centre). And most people who get tbs never get released again. Hence the current uproar on the whole tbs system.

I am against the death penalty because I don't think killing the killer would help me. The other person still remains dead. Besides there is no way to be certain in most cases if you have the right person. Also you would do the same thing you abhor that the other has done.

*shrugs* But I guess I am a minority with my views.

Good point Dana,

It is true that life sentence is actually for life but I do not feel the whole TBS system is working.
Especially with what has been going on in the last year concerning people escaping while on leave, but that is an entirely different topic .
But that is my opinion, to many slips in the syste.m
But... I still vote for death penalty.
This is such a difficult debate because by allowing death penalty we are defying everything that is written in the law in every country.
Sheesh.. I am seriously thinking about my opinion now.
Maybe I am wrong, but then again maybe I'm not.
Okay I'm definetly ending this post now.
I'm confusing myself.

I'm SO against death penalty and I will explain why.
First of, as earlier mentioned, it's an easy way out. Now, if you're a religious type of person you might say, but they'll burn in hell forever. Maybe. I don't know. I've never actually died before (as far as I can remember).
And yes, I am a religious person, I do believe in heaven, and therefore in hell.
But to be honest, the murderer/rapist/child molestor etc., has done his/her crime in this life, and so I think he or she should be punished in this life.
Death penalties to me don't work. Yes, they have death penalty in countries in e.g. Asia, but does that stop people from still smuggling drugs there? No. So does this penalty work? No.
To me that's quite obvious.
Also, I know that most prisons have been up to their ears (if they had ears that is) full with prisoners, so would it be wise to throw the murderers/rapist/child molestors etc in prison? Maybe. Maybe not.
To me there is one solution; first make sure that the people who are in prison are the ones that should never ever get out. The dirt of the dirt, so to speak.
Then, there are people who have commited lesser crimes but still harsh enough to not let them out for a long while (not life long, but say 20 years or so). I think there should be certain places for those people too.
And last but not least, the "petty" crimes. Give those people supervision, make sure they realise what they have done by e.g. giving them chores in the store they have robbed or what not. Put their noses on their crimes so to speak.
Maybe I'm thinking very positive and naieve here, but I truly think that death penalties are not going to help. It's not going to stimulate people to stay on the right path, it's not going to stop people from doing things that will get them the death penalty.
That's just the way I see it. :)

xxx
Petra