The Death Sentence

If somebody commits a murder, gets put in prison, gets out on parole, and commits the crime again, he is not going to get parole again. Not to mention that he gets charged for the second murder on top of things. He's never getting out of prison again.

Originally Posted by Duo

If somebody commits a murder, gets put in prison, gets out on parole, and commits the crime again, he is not going to get parole again. Not to mention that he gets charged for the second murder on top of things. He's never getting out of prison again.

I mean multiple murders before his first trial in my last post. And even if he's in prison, he's a danger to the prison guards and other inmates.

The same inmates you would rather have executed?

And the prison guards know what they're getting into when they take the job. It's the same things as joining the army or becoming a police officer.


And if somebody is convicted of more than one murder in the first place, they're not getting parole and they're not getting out.

Originally Posted by Duo

The same inmates you would rather have executed?

Those inmates may not have done anything nearly as bad as the person we would be executing, and we shouldn't allow prisoners to be killed by other prisoners even if we do want them dead. That's the responsibility of those empowered to do so. If someone kills a murderer, that person then becomes a murderer rather than an executioner.

And the prison guards know what they're getting into when they take the job. It's the same things as joining the army or becoming a police officer.

Maybe so, but just because they know the danger of their job doesn't mean we shouldn't think of their safety regardless, and even though they know they might be in danger, that doesn't mean they should fully expect it. We shouldn't treat them as expendable. Same goes for the police or the army, that's why we equip them sufficiently. If there was any way to make military matters or crime less dangerous for those involved, we'd try to do so, but there isn't, so it's a bit of a different matter there.

And if somebody is convicted of more than one murder in the first place, they're not getting parole and they're not getting out.

But they're still using up government funds to be allowed to live, and they're still in prison, a danger to the inmates and prison guards, and a danger of escaping no matter how good the security is.

I feel like I'm going in circles here.

Originally Posted by Jokerman

I REALLY don't like murdering as an sentence, and I am happy that in Sweden, this sort of murdering ended over 100 years ago.
Death sentence is as much murdering as if I would kill someone on the street!

I agree with Nietzsche, and I think it is an SICK way of punishment! We also did that in Sweden, but that was like 500 years ago! I think it is an primitive and discusting way!

It's interesting that you should bring this up. An earlier poster made the claim that having the death penalty in place was effective in lowering the homicide rate. It's strange to see then that the US has one of the highest (if not the highest) homicide rates in the western world. Countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, the UK etc (essentially any European country) all have much lower homicide rates than that of the US, and not one of these countries employ the death penalty.

Funny that.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

I mean multiple murders before his first trial in my last post. And even if he's in prison, he's a danger to the prison guards and other inmates.

The problem is that when your in prison you have a lot less resources on hand.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

But they're still using up government funds to be allowed to live, and they're still in prison, a danger to the inmates and prison guards, and a danger of escaping no matter how good the security is.

I feel like I'm going in circles here.

It's cheaper to keep them in prison instead of executing them and jail break are so rare and if someone was going to do so they'd do it within 15 years, when they were still in physical shape to do so.

An earlier poster made the claim that having the death penalty in place was effective in lowering the homicide rate. It's strange to see then that the US has one of the highest (if not the highest) homicide rates in the western world. Countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, the UK etc (essentially any European country) all have much lower homicide rates than that of the US, and not one of these countries employ the death penalty.

The only problem is that this doesn't mean anything. Correlation is not causation.

Many people would attribute such rates to our policies on guns. Who can say?

Don't confuse me, I am not implying that death penalty does lower the homicide rate; I am simply saying that it cannot be proven or disproven solely based on our homicide rate compared to other countries.

Originally Posted by DarKnite92

The problem is that when your in prison you have a lot less resources on hand.

The resources are still there unless you remove all access to any physical objects whatsoever to the prisoner, and since the Human Rights act exists they must be given a certain amount of free time outside of their cell. During which a resourceful person could easily try to escape, or at least harm someone.

It's cheaper to keep them in prison instead of executing them and jail break are so rare and if someone was going to do so they'd do it within 15 years, when they were still in physical shape to do so.

That really depends on their age, and a lot of people don't go out of shape until they reach their fifties. And saying it's cheaper to keep them in prison rather than to execute them is a lie. It costs around £30,000 to keep one prisoner alive for a year in Britain, that's more than a lot of people actually earn in a year. The longer you keep them in prison, the more years you have to pay this amount.



Regarding the death penalty not reducing murders in America, here I'd say it's because it's harder to get a hold of a gun, and more surveillance on public places and more of a police presence preventing murders. But murders still occur. And a post earlier in this thread suggested that if there wasn't so much beauracracy involved in Death Row in America, and they were executed quicker, it would probably have more of a deterrent effect because the criminal would know that if he were to be found guilty, he'd be executed much more swiftly. But I'm not that sure about that.

Originally Posted by Igna

The only problem is that this doesn't mean anything. Correlation is not causation.

Many people would attribute such rates to our policies on guns. Who can say?

Don't confuse me, I am not implying that death penalty does lower the homicide rate; I am simply saying that it cannot be proven or disproven solely based on our homicide rate compared to other countries.

Then you could say exactly the same thing (i.e. correlation doesn't imply causation) about the death penalty apparently reducing the homicide rate.

Indeed, which is why I've suddenly removed myself from this debate.

Andi's evidence is very interesting, and I'm not going to weigh in an opinion until I can somehow find out how effective the death penalty actually is, or isn't.


If the number of lives saved by it is greater than the number of lives lost, then I will put my support behind it, to do anything else would be foolish and immoral.

If, however, that is not the case, then I remain opposed to it for the same reason.

I hate quoting myself as a reply, but in this case it's fairly warranted.

Then you could say exactly the same thing (i.e. correlation doesn't imply causation) about the death penalty apparently reducing the homicide rate.

I am not implying that death penalty does lower the homicide rate; I am simply saying that it cannot be proven or disproven solely based on our homicide rate compared to other countries.

EDIT: Then again, I'm not sure if you were specifically referring to me. If you weren't, feel free to disregard this post.

And if it can't be determined either way GDwarf? Then where do you stand?

Originally Posted by Asmodeus

And what would you consider to be better? Putting such filth in a warm, safe, comfortable prison for a couple of years? Let's not forget that some people out there are so cruel and twisted that they'd rape a baby until their colons are hanging down between their legs and they have serious complications for the rest of their lives, if they survive the ordeal of being tormented by a fully grown rapist, that is. You might call it revenge, but I call it justice. There's nothing to be gained by having these people around, only that they continue to drain resources in captivity and the victim's family has to contribute to keeping these cretins alive and happy via their taxes. The criminal won't care about what he's done to his victims, he'll just eat, drink and reminisce in his little cell about what he's done and enjoy the fact that people are concerned enough to keep him alive, and gain a deluded sense of grandeur and importance about his own miserable, stinking hide. If andi is right that there is a deterrent for other sickos with having the death penalty, I'd say string them up by the neck and use their bodies for something useful, such as giving people in need of transplants some fresh organs. That's a lot more lives saved that way. :3

Hmm, I worded that a lot more strongly than I intended, but still, I wouldn't lose any sleep over some of these types of people losing their worthless lives. I said before I don't like the idea of the death penalty much, but quite frankly, I think that some people just don't deserve any mercy at all. *shrugs*

I want to begin with, that I am not great in english, but I understood your post pretty good, I guess...
1st: Do you really know how ALL criminals against the law think? They think different as much as we do!
2nd: Even if a human does this sort of crime against the law as you say, that man still has rights and should not be treated as "filth".
3rd: Yes, I think it would be better to put a woman or man which has committed a crime in jail for some time, or if he/she has some "problems" as many call it, then try to put him/her in an mental hospital!

Those are my opinions!

Originally Posted by Jokerman

2nd: Even if a human does this sort of crime against the law as you say, that man still has rights and should not be treated as "filth".

The right to liberty is a right. We take that away from them when we imprison them. What's to say we can't take other rights from them? As a criminal, you inherently lose this right, and so certain other rights could also be revoked.

Originally Posted by Jokerman

I want to begin with, that I am not great in english, but I understood your post pretty good, I guess...
1st: Do you really know how ALL criminals against the law think? They think different as much as we do!
2nd: Even if a human does this sort of crime against the law as you say, that man still has rights and should not be treated as "filth".
3rd: Yes, I think it would be better to put a woman or man which has committed a crime in jail for some time, or if he/she has some "problems" as many call it, then try to put him/her in an mental hospital!

Those are my opinions!

So, you think that we should spend money on the people who have to regard to human life...what do the victims family get? Do we try to help them? hmmm, no, lets help the person who kill