Who's for it? Who's against it? I'm absolutely 100% against it for a few reasons, which I think leave no room to accept such a punishment in our society. The first reason is that the death penalty is just not compatible with our judicial system. The way it's set up, it heavily relies on witness testimony. Humans are an imperfect species and therefore whenever you're dealing with them there is a margin of error. This could be a small margin of error, but it's mere existence should be enough. Executing an innocent person is probably the most awful thing for a society like ours. So since our society relies on imperfect testimony, I think the death penalty should be out of the question. A related point is that our technology is advancing so quickly. What if 10 years later some scientific discovery has been made that provides concrete evidence that an executed person was actually innocent? Whoops, too bad the person is already dead and nothing can revive them! Such a possibility cannot be denied and therefore such a punishment cannot be accepted. Another inconsistency with our legal system is that you have to pay for your own legal representation. Logic tells you that the best lawyers cost the most and the best lawyers are the best because they can argue their point well and get someone a lesser punishment than say if they had a noob lawyer doing probono (sp?) work. This logic leads to the conclusion that you can basically buy your way out of the death penalty. This obviously favors the rich and hurts the poor. Therefore the death penalty isn't being administered consistently. By the 1972 ruling in the case of Furman v. Georgia, if the death penalty isn't administered consistently, it is considered cruel and unusual and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment. Lastly, I feel we just don't need the death penalty is that it's provides the same deterrence as life in prison. A criminal isn't going to think commiting the crime is "worth" life in prison but not the death penalty. And that assumes that criminals think of the consequences before committing the act, which assumes that they planned it. Many crimes are spur of the moment decisions fueled by emotions. All in all, the death penalty needs to be removed ASAP.
im in for the worst of the worst where theres no dam way this d bag would be innocent. mass murders and other that waste my tax $$ would better being dirt at least they could give life to some plants/ food for animals.
Im for the death penalty, for some people i think that is a more humane way of dealing with them. Also why should we all pay for these cruel heartless convicts with our taxes, there are people starving and children stooping in their ignorance, on whom those dollars would be better spent. why should i pay for BTK to eat.
im certainly not in favor of the death penalty. i believe that god alone is the only one who should be making these decisions. also, one of the main emphasis of christianity is forgiveness. the death penalty completely disregards this mentality. when someone is executed under the death penalty, we are not giving them a chance. case in point, these are issues that humans should not have control over, but rather god.
Against, I agree with mrblonde. Take Guy Paul Morin as an example of the second case. He was convicted of murder in 92 (had been in custody since 86). Later, with the advent of better DNA testing he was cleared. Further investigations uncovered huge problems within the police forensics unit (ie misrepresentation of forensic evidence, misconduct). If Morin had been put to death for murdering his 9 year old next door neighboor, not only would his death have been completely unjustifiable, we would be stuck with even more crooked cops. stneod:Separation of church and state is about keeping the association of the state separate from the association of the church. It is not about using god as a basis for morals, and hence laws.
I still somewhat incognito as far as my opinion on the death penalty is concerned. But I will play devil's advocate just for arguments sake. I think the death penalty is an important arm of the judicial branch. It allows us to remove truly horrible criminals from societal influence permanently, if done right can save us taxpayers plenty of money. There is just this negative stigma about death and execution in the new world. Really, it is more humane that locking people away from ever. We get what we want, and that person no longer has to suffer.
Some people deserve death, just look at dahmer. The state didnt do it, people did. The electric chair seems like a bad way to go out though. i would opt for lethal injection.
if the guy's guilty 100% with no doubt,,,,, then kill his ass,,,, immediatly,,, with no appeal, i may be a cruel bastard,,,, but then again i have no patience for sick-fucks,,, kimberly leech was killed in my town by TED BUNDY,,,, when they killed his ass,, in fla. state prison,, a couple miles from here.... i turned all my lights off,, before his execution time,,,,, so the fla. state prison would have all the power it needed to light his ass up!!!!! when they brought him to court here, the parking lot of the courthouse was full, of trucks with people in the back,,, with thier rifles handy,,, one peek of him and theyre would have been no execution,,,, it would have happened right then and there.... as for lethal injection,,,, im against that,,,, it's too easy a way to die..... im sure thier victims didnt have the luxory of a '' easy'' death. id personally strap them in the chair,,, with wires hooked to his anus, during a electrical storm,,, and let him sweat,,,,,, hoping lightning didnt strike no time soon,,,, killing a child is just wrong..... and for doing that you deserve no mercy!!!! i aint cruel,,, im just plain out vicious,,,,,,
Are you being sarcastic? I'm not familiar with the topic. But a few cents worth of bullets seems less expensive; no medical professional needed. Tie em to a post and send em to oblivion like they did with nazi collaborators in WWII.
Well one problem with life long prisoners is that they have nothing to lose, and cause great danger to other inmates and the guards.
In civil society I see no reason to employ death penalty in any situation. The only exception I can think of is in times of war where certain security measures are necessary. And even then it should only be used when the situation makes it so that no other pragmatic alternative exist.
Yes, our society should strive to act like Nazi Germany. I'm not sure I exactly understand what you're saying, but the way I read it you're basically saying that you think the death penalty should be a tool for the government to control society's ideas and emotions? That scares me.
Why do you see the cessation of life as uncivil? I think it emphasizes rather than diminishes the value of life. Those individuals have committed such atrocities that they are no long entitled to the wonder of life. What? Do you understand what a nazi collaborator is? It is somebody who supported the Nazi's despite the domination of their homeland. High treason in other words. After the Allies conquered France and Holland, the partisanry, and native soldiers would take these collaborators, tie them to a post in a grain field and fill em full of lead. This is an infamous photograph of one of these executions after the close of the Falaise Gap in France. I think you misread my original post.
Uh, what?! I don't see how you got that idea from what I wrote. So once more, this time really succinct Death penalty really bad, mkay. Not to be done. Except when really needed in immidiate life and death situations during war. Clear enough?