True. But this touches on a misunderstood and flawed point many make about the death penalty. Many argue that the death penalty is wrong because you can not undo it, and so the death penalty is intrinsically wrong. But you can't undo 40 or 50 years of imprisonment either. Punishment which removes someones life (either partially by imprisonment, or entirely by death) is all either right or wrong. It can not be argued that one is wrong because mistakes can be made and life is deprived, while the other is right even though mistakes can be made and life can be deprived - the only issue is of degree. It's to do with deterrence. If you tell people that if they're naughty they have to go to prison, they're not going to care as much if they know they're going to get let out if they get a sore tummy and want to see their mummy and daddy one last time. Firstly, there is absolutely nothing unnatural about killing a fellow human being. We've been doing it as long as our species existed. Victims have a right to forgive, but unless every single person that man wronged has forgiven him, he should not be granted a reprieve. Punishing those who do bad is not bad. No more than forcing a child who's done bad to stand in a corner is mean. It's still debated whether it does or doesn't have an effect on serious crime rates. From my looking at the evidence I'd be willing to say that it seems it may well have an impact, but I wouldn't guarentee it. There are good reasons to have a death sentence though, even if it doesn't deter crimes. Simply put, it is that even if the death penalty doesn't deter crime, it does a bloody good job of preventing reoffending.
OK, firstly to you, just because we do something doesn't make it natural, we build buildings... that's not natural, we make materials, hence the word man-made/synthetic as opposed to natural, other animals in the World FIGHT but they do not usually KILL, this can be proved time and time again in the animal kingdom, does the usurping juvenile lion kill the older male? Not often. Secondly, do NOT proceed to compare murder to a child doing something silly, it doesn't compare. Finally, people forgiving people for killing their loved ones isn't as uncommon as your making it sound, it happens an awful lot, although you will want compensate, you don't necessarily want bloodthirsty revenge, at the very most you want them to suffer for their crimes.
Technically you shouldn’t have to teach a child not to kill because it wouldn’t be in that childs natural instinct to want do so. I hope this triggers a thought process (amongst the reader) rather than a response, it should.
This isn't revenge. Rather a punishment set down by society if you happen to cross the line... So you're saying it's wrong to put anyone to death even if they say, bombed 2 blocks worth of buildings and killed over 50 people? And I want to ask you, is prison really a better alternative? I mean, even after you go out, you are basically stratified and alienated from society, because of your status as ex-con. Your answer does intrigue me, so I would like to ask, how would you go about punishing criminals? Or would you just let them go? Because there's a 100% they won't ever re-offend right?
I'd say yes, its wrong, whoever decides on that punishment (death) is just as bad as the criminal themselves, 1 or 50 deaths it doesn't matter, no life should be taken no matter what, at least in my books, and I'm glad the UK seems to agree. Of course reasonable punishment is required, should they be let out? no, never. What annoys me most if that 'life imprisonment' in the UK isn't actually life is it...its what, 25years? I think if someone did kill 50 people like you stated there should be life imprisonment with no appeals, (as long as its 100% proven his fault) not 25 years, meaning yes they should stay in prison until they die, terminally ill or not. Of course this is all my opinion, and I can see where people may disagree with me as some might say killing 1 is not equal to 50 etc.
But look at it this way, life imprisonment is perhaps a worse fate, as you'll still leave him to die, albeit in a perhaps less physically painful form but most likely more mentally damaging. I don't know about you, but lethal injection is much less painful than spending 50 years in a Prison, whether humane or not. But I guess it's all subjective as imprisoning a person to you may not seem too painful, but 50 years is a long time...Plus when you get out, how can you "fit in" into regular society.
I'd feel like killing him too. However, that isn't justice, that is vengeance. The justice system isn't (or shouldn't be) about revenge. +1 A cold-blooded mass murderer should be removed from society for the rest of his days; because no man has the right to take another man's life - but that goes for those exercising 'justice' as well. Plus, a lifetime in prison (a prison with unpaid labour and without game consoles, TVs, gyms, ...) is, in my view, more of a punishment than death. Assuming there is no Hell for these people to go to after they die, what is their punishment? If the proles want their revenge, this should be it. (And personally, I'd rather be dead than spend the rest of my life in prison.) The taxpayer will have to foot the bill - but we already foot the bill for our protection. We pay for the police, the justice system, for everything: at least removing criminals from society is a justified cost. 'Lesser' criminals, who will be released at some point, get some extra punishment (I would think this would delight the revenge-seeking populus, but apparently they don't think about this, or things are really just too easy for ex-cons): provided the prison service does not help to "adjust" these people, their punishment continues once they get out. Our world changes every day. Imagine being imprisoned for thirty years in 1979 and coming out now. The stigma of being an ex-con, with the subsequent alienation: too bad for them. Provided the convicted person was in fact guilty, they made their own bed or however that expression goes. It's their own fault. The fact that it will be harder for them to reintegrate into normal society might add to them reoffending. But you cannot imprison everyone for life; you cannot kill everyone: reoffending will always happen. The justice system is far from perfect, but even without any changes or my semi-idealistic scenario above I don't see a need for the death penalty. The moral implications of coldly deciding to take someone's life (murderer or not) are too great; and as a society where justice is supposed to reign supreme we are - well, should be - better than that.
Who's to say that it would be 50 years before your innocence was proven? Most convicted murderers here in the UK are eligible for parole after around 15 years, depending on the circumstances of the crime and the convicted persons background. Also, ask any of the Guildford Four if they would have preferred being executed after being found guilty of crimes they were later absolved of. I could go on with naming people who have done time for crimes they didn't commit, and could have faced execution. Ask any of them, and I will bet you a penny to a pound they are glad as hell we dont use capital punishment anymore. Saying that it is just as hard, or harder, for a prisoner to be locked up for life, and using this to rationalise capital punishment is beyond belief. If I was faced with serving time for a crime I didnt commit, I wouldn't just roll over and accept being shafted, I would fight for my rights and for my life. I certainly wouldnt be asking to be killed. If it took me 50 years, I would still fight to clear my innocence. Having said that, I am really on the fence regards capital punishment. I think it has it's merits in some extreme cases, such as child and serial killers. I don't think it should give killers an easy way out though, and I think that keeping some killers alive and in prison is far more of a punishment for them than to kill them. It's also worth considering that the police still do try to stitch someone up every now and then. When a murder occurs, the police are under immense pressure from the media and the public to catch the criminal, especially in very high profile cases. Sometimes 2+2=5 when gathering evidence, or a police officer may be over zealous when questioning a suspect. Sometimes, evidence is magically created just to secure the conviction. All these things have happened in the past, and probably still do. Seeing as we cannot say that our police forces are 100% truthful and effective, then I have serious concerns about capital punishment. If we could trust our police and judicial system 100% I would back executions to the hilt, but we can't so I dont.
the problem with incarceration is that it is too damn expensive - personally I think its too painfully obvious that the serious criminals are treated too well in prisons..... as in we spend too much on them. It sucks that it costs so much to trea them with the basics but is a low life worth millions, how about millions of low-lives are they worth millions too? $40,000-$60,000 per year per person depending on the facility is nothing to scoff at
If we start killing prisoners just to save a buck, then we become no better than them. How many of these killers have blood on their hands because of money? We should do the same because we don't like paying to keep them off the streets? We do need to reduce our spending on prisons, but as soon as that happens, you can bet your bottom dollar that prisons will become a hell of a lot more dangerous, not just for the cons, but for the prison officers too.
I think we just need to section off about 1000 acres of land in some desert, erect a wall, provide the tools for growing food and some primitive shelters and let all the lifers go at it.
Us Brits tried something along those lines, it was called Australia. It never did work out very well for us though
personally I do think a no-contact prison system is the way to go just giant wall, guard towers and mine fields round the outside. and no I never advocated that we should kill off prisoners because they are expensive, I was just making the point about the problem.
chain gangs are the way to go. get the prisoners to rebuild our roads. no tv, no internet. bread and water is all they need. they are in prison to be punished. not for a free ride. i don't believe in the death penalty. all crimes are forgivable to me. doesn't matter what it is.
I've seen that part of this discussion before in different forms Australia was never just a lock them up unsupervised and throw away the key. If you lock them all away together and let them sort each other out, then it's just survival of the roughest & toughest, and the weakest become their slaves - not what i call justice. Everyone knows that the main problems of the death penalty, include that in many cases it is impossible to be 100% certain if someone is guilty, and then decide where the line is drawn as to what crimes deserve the death penalty or not Many people may say a serial killer deserves it, but not for someone that killed in self defence as a last resort... this leaves a massive grey area! How about putting criminals to work for us, so the government gets something for spending our $50k per year? I'm thinking about something like the fields/open areas can have heaps of large cranks, which the prisoners have to turn. An incentive such as not meeting your daily quota, add's one week to your prison sentence, and doubling your quota reduces your prison sentence by one day. Sure some may choose to do nothing and rot in prison, but i'm betting most of them will crank to meet their quota. Maybe another incentive can be given where meeting your quota for the week earns you a hot dog or a cheeseburger, etc. And all of these cranks, are turning electricity generators, which power the nearest city or factory, etc. This helps the governments budgets and even the environment a little bit.
This was the alternative I was considering, seeing as the death penalty isn't really in place. If the said prisoner had a lifetime sentence, then at least put them to work... But honestly, even if we were to put them into prison for the rest of their lives(this is not considering mvagustas idea) and see that as a worse sentence, wouldn't it be more justifiable just to put them to death? I mean you'd rather see someone rot for 50 years rather than kill them outright? How does that make it right?
I am in favour of capital punishment but only if the person about to be killed has been acertained to be 100% guilty of the crime - there can be no room for error. That transcript changes nothing for myself, I think Lethal Injection is fine and the most humane method...better than the electric chair...although the most henious of criminals deserve that..
Electric chair + Nitroglycerin coated clothes... Fun times to be had. But the problem even for life sentences is that 25 years later, they could have "revealed" evidence that proved their innocence...25 years too late imo.
