The Death Sentence

Should it be used? If so, when? If not, why not?

Personally I believe that people who commit serious crimes, such as murder or rape, repeatedly, or are arrested on multiple charges of either, should suffer the wrath of the death penalty. Not in terms of punishment, but because quite simply the fact that they have committed these serious crimes more than once, sometimes without indication of stopping, means they are a danger to society, and imprisonment would be a waste of money and completely ineffective in suppressing the threat. Plus keeping them alive in prison may give them a sense of importance that we don't want to give them. We do not approve, and we should not give them the satisfaction.

Discuss.

I hold the belief that it is no one's place to say whether or not a person can or cannot continue to live. Yes, I realize that murderers have effectively done this already to this victims, but there is little to gain in plucking the eye from another if he has taken yours.

These are heinous crimes, but I cannot stand by the death penalty in good conscience.

I believe that in some cases, death is a necessity if society hopes to survive. When you have people like this guy running around and committing such heinous, the only real way to silence them is to dispose of them. After all, punishment isn't supposed to be enjoyable.

How much like the monster must we become to slay it?

If removing a threat to other people is a bad thing, then we're all monsters. In my eyes, people who take their obsessions to such extreme lengths and perform such acts should no longer be considered people. In fact, I'd go as far as labeling them as vermin. There's a time when politics and therapy and any other method could have its time in the sun, but when it comes down to it, some people just cannot be helped, and it is best to remove them before they do something even worse.

So yes, I am a monster. I'm a monster because I feel that people like this do not deserve life if they hold the lives of others in such small regard.

Originally Posted by The Great Panda

I believe that in some cases, death is a necessity if society hopes to survive. When you have people like this guy running around and committing such heinous, the only real way to silence them is to dispose of them. After all, punishment isn't supposed to be enjoyable.

That is disgusting and such a terrible thing to do.


I believe it should only be used if the person has commited several acts of murder and shows no signs of remorse other then that of getting caught.

Only in the most brutal cases should it be allowed, otherwise I say let them rot in jail.

Originally Posted by The Great Panda

If removing a threat to other people is a bad thing, then we're all monsters. In my eyes, people who take their obsessions to such extreme lengths and perform such acts should no longer be considered people. In fact, I'd go as far as labeling them as vermin. There's a time when politics and therapy and any other method could have its time in the sun, but when it comes down to it, some people just cannot be helped, and it is best to remove them before they do something even worse.

So yes, I am a monster. I'm a monster because I feel that people like this do not deserve life if they hold the lives of others in such small regard.

By placing someone with the jail cell, however, it is possible to retain their life and also keep them away from others.

The death penalty should be used more liberally. I'd argue that almost any time someone gets a life sentence, they should be getting the death penalty instead. With a grace period of ten or fifteen years, in case further evidence comes to light.

There's no point in keeping a criminal alive in jail indefinitely if you don't plan on releasing them; they get better health care and food than many people who aren't criminals, and it's paid for with tax dollars. It makes no sense.

And the "eye for an eye is bad" argument holds no water with me. It's not an eye for an eye, it's logic, justice, and not wanting to waste the taxes of good citizens caring for the worthless lives of serious criminals.

Originally Posted by Latex Glove

By placing someone with the jail cell, however, it is possible to retain their life and also keep them away from others.

But if he's such a monster for imprisoning someone, then we're doing the same to him. Just because we're justified to imprison doesn't mean it's any less wrong than what he did.

Also many countries insist that the people within prison have rights, and so he'd have to have a certain amount of time spent in the company of other people. And there's nothing to say that a total psycho would kill those people as well. As I pointed out, it's also a waste of money, and gives them a sense of worth that they are undeserving of.

As The Great Panda quite rightly put it (awesome name by the way), many of the people I'm referring to would be vermin. We don't catch rats and imprison them for being generally disgusting and persistent threats to our household or our health. We exterminate them.

Lord-of-Shadow, I disagree with killing anyone who's just getting a single life sentence, because for one thing life isn't necessarily life, it could be 15 or 25 years and they may eventually get out on parole. If you're referring to the kind of person who will never leave jail and will never get parole, they may sometimes feel remorse if it was just for a single murder, and so it may be worth keeping them alive for the punishment value. I agree that they may become a waste of money however, and so probably shouldn't be kept alive if they're NEVER coming out.

Also justice is giving each their due, and giving somebody what they deserve. A crime deserves punishment, but of equal value to the crime committed. Not necessarily have the crime done to them. Using the death penalty on a murderer is not a case of "a life for a life", it's a case of simple punishment, eliminating the costs of keeping someone who won't ever be leaving prison alive, and eliminating a threat to public safety.

Further, keeping a criminal alive in jail indefinitely doesn't necessarily stop them. If they don't have any hope of getting out, then they have nothing to lose. I've spoken to people who've worked on parole boards, and one of them recounted how, with one man, he said, "Keep denying him parole, so he can't get out, but always promise it'll be considered next time his case comes up. If we don't keep considering it, we're putting the guards and other prisoners at risk."

Killing the repeat offenders, and not holing them up where they have nothing to lose, is a justice to the people, and to the killers, most of whom aren't so much evil and malicious as mentally ill, and permanently unable to function in society.

I hate the idea of using the death sentence myself, but it's a necessary tool to protect the people.

Most of the posts on here that support the death penalty say that those who are just going to never leave prison ought to be executed. Here's the thing though. If someone knows that when they commit an atrocious act that they'll get maybe five years of waiting on death row and then getting killed themselves, they may be more inclined to commit the crime if they don't care about their lives, whereas if the punishment is spending the rest of your life (and if you're 30, that's a lot of time) in a prison. To me, if the punishment were the latter, I would definitely rethink committing a crime. Now, while this only applies in crimes with pre-meditation, I think the point still stands. We may be spending money to keep this one man alive for 40 years in prison, but how many other people is that one man stopping from committing crimes for fear of the same punishment?

I don't think you're going to find many people who would care about the difference, Aralith. Generally, the people who are inclined enough to murder will do so whichever way, and all of them have the unspoken option of committing suicide after the crime (which many take). So really, no one has to spend a life in prison. All they have to do is commit suicide.

Anyway, I'm a bit surprised that so many people here are for it, but I do agree with it. I think the government does have the authority to end an extreme criminal's life. Our jails are busting at the seams, it seems, with people who will be there for their entire lives without any hope of improving or any hope of actually giving back to society.

I'm opposed to it.


Death should really only be an alternative if there is no other way. (Say the guy's got a gun and the police need to arrest him, I'm fine with them shooting him in that case, provided that he is likely to kill someone else.)

There are a few reasons for this. First off, you can never be certain that someone did, in fact, commit a crime. You can be well over 99% sure, but that's not the same thing. (If, let's say, 1 000 people are killed every decade, all of whom you are 99% sure are guilty that's still 100 innocent people killed. Fun.)

Secondly, it doesn't seem to have any measurable effect on crime. Countries that had the death penalty and got rid of it didn't have a sudden rise (or, admittedly, fall) in crime rates. Why? Because criminals assume they won't be caught. They don't do a cost-benefit analysis before they kill someone in anger.

Thirdly, the point of laws is to keep society running smoothly, that's it. Killing people doesn't make it run any more smoothly than putting them in jail does.

Finally, according to pro-death penalty people in past threads people tend to spend 25 years on death row before they're killed. Which means that they cost more (need to have a much more thorough investigation before you can give the death penalty) than simply having people in for life.


...So, it apparently has no benefits, gives the law far too much power, is morally questionable, and can kill innocent people.

What, exactly, is the upside?

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

But if he's such a monster for imprisoning someone, then we're doing the same to him. Just because we're justified to imprison doesn't mean it's any less wrong than what he did.

What you're saying in this is: Let's COMPLETELY remove the factors that surround the crime this man committed and the parties involved. Let's ignore the fact there was someone INNOCENT being abused and raped and unjustly wronged and imprisoned for 24 years? We should forget all this and merely equate the locking up factor?

Are you equating someone who is innocent to someone who has committed a heinous crime?

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Also justice is giving each their due, and giving somebody what they deserve. A crime deserves punishment, but of equal value to the crime committed. Not necessarily have the crime done to them. Using the death penalty on a murderer is not a case of "a life for a life", it's a case of simple punishment, eliminating the costs of keeping someone who won't ever be leaving prison alive, and eliminating a threat to public safety.

The costs of keeping someone alive is a secondary point. By going against a BASIC human value of killing an innocent life, you have forfeited your right to be treated or expecting to be treated as a normal human being. I seriously don't understand why it is the victim's taxpaying relatives/loved ones who are forced to pay to keep the killer alive.

Originally Posted by Tazryl

That is disgusting and such a terrible thing to do.


I believe it should only be used if the person has committed several acts of murder and shows no signs of remorse other then that of getting caught.

Only in the most brutal cases should it be allowed, otherwise I say let them rot in jail.

Several acts?

You most definitely speak through the eyes of an observer. Why don't we change the scenario a little. How many members of your family and loved ones must a person kill before you would feel they deserve to be killed? Because from what I understand, the word "several" means three or more. So in your case, for a person to kill your mother AND father would still not suffice for them to be considered worthy of death.

Why don't we all stop thinking about this issue from an observer's standpoint, and think about it in terms of the people we love and hold dear to our heart if they were murdered?

Originally Posted by Latex Glove

By placing someone with the jail cell, however, it is possible to retain their life and also keep them away from others.

It would sicken me if I knew that my tax money was going towards feeding, clothing and medically caring for the person who killed my mother. Wouldn't it sicken you?

I'd like to look at the next one slowly:

Originally Posted by Aralith

If someone knows that when they commit an atrocious act that they'll get maybe five years of waiting on death row and then getting killed themselves, they may be more inclined to commit the crime if they don't care about their lives,whereas if the punishment is spending the rest of your life (and if you're 30, that's a lot of time) in a prison. To me, if the punishment were the latter, I would definitely rethink committing a crime. Now, while this only applies in crimes with pre-meditation, I think the point still stands. We may be spending money to keep this one man alive for 40 years in prison, but how many other people is that one man stopping from committing crimes for fear of the same punishment?

You're very confusing and very misleading in the way you presented your argument. At first, you start off by saying that "if they don't care about their lives" they'd be more inclined to commit the crime if they knew they'd be disposed of quickly. But then you quickly switch to the "and if they DO care about their lives, then the other option - long term imprisonment - is more of a punishment"; as though there is only one option for each scenario. You need to be more clear and credible: If someone cares for their life, what is worse, to have that life taken away from them? Or, to sit for a while in prison knowing that they'll be out at some point? which is more of a deterrent?

The issue of someone not caring for their life is irrelevant; merely for the fact that the killer in question did not kill themselves after committing the crime. The mere fact that they're still there means they care. So your point fails in that aspect. And to conclude, the prospect of losing this life that they care about, is much more of a deterrent than to know that they have hope in coming out after they've finished their "time-out"/grounding stage.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I'm opposed to it.

There are a few reasons for this. First off, you can never be certain that someone did, in fact, commit a crime. You can be well over 99% sure, but that's not the same thing. (If, let's say, 1 000 people are killed every decade, all of whom you are 99% sure are guilty that's still 100 innocent people killed. Fun.)

Secondly, it doesn't seem to have any measurable effect on crime. Countries that had the death penalty and got rid of it didn't have a sudden rise (or, admittedly, fall) in crime rates. Why? Because criminals assume they won't be caught. They don't do a cost-benefit analysis before they kill someone in anger.

You're saying that even the hardest of hard evidence and unquestionable testimonies that you can NEVER ever be 100% certain? I can't accept that. I do agree with you that as humans, we do err, but I don't agree that it's an impossibility to reach a 100% conclusion in every case.

And then why did you limit the killings to moments of anger? Why not expand to the wider aspect which involves planned and thought-out killings? Why not talk about serial killers? Repeat offenders?

Thirdly, the point of laws is to keep society running smoothly, that's it. Killing people doesn't make it run any more smoothly than putting them in jail does.

Actually, the current system isn't keeping society running smoothly. Here in the UK, rapists and violent criminals are being let out after 6 months simply because the "jailing" system isn't working properly. People actually find it easier these days to commit crimes because they realise the current situation, and that the punishment will not be extended to its full amount.

Finally, according to pro-death penalty people in past threads people tend to spend 25 years on death row before they're killed. Which means that they cost more (need to have a much more thorough investigation before you can give the death penalty) than simply having people in for life.

In which country?

...So, it apparently has no benefits, gives the law far too much power, is morally questionable, and can kill innocent people.

What, exactly, is the upside?

Again, I think your opinion would be different if you were afflicted personally.