Death Penalty

[jravnsbo]

oh that chinese way would be doubling insulting!  ouch, sting

[© Tweed the Younger]

Ah, but Christopher, bullets were deemed too expensive as a way of execution in Germany 60 years ago, and thus they used gas chambers instead. Gas chambers are clearly the most efficient and least expensive way to kill people. So really, we ought to use those instead, right?

Why not the Chinese way? You charge the executed person's family for the cost of the bullet.

Yeah, that makes  alot of sense.

[PD]

All I'm gonna say is that I support the death penalty.

[Gustaf]

All I'm gonna say is that I support the death penalty.

Interesting.

[© Tweed the Younger]

All I'm gonna say is that I support the death penalty.

Who would have guessed!

[Demrepdan]

I support the death penalty. But under certain conditions.

One condition that holds the up-most importance, is that they are 100% CERTAIN that the person being put to death committed the crime, without a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, you should have DNA testing, perhaps a confession, some audio evidence, pictures, something caught on VIDEO (eye witness accounts shouldn't always count. Just think, what if these "eye witnesses" are out to get the person, and they all band together and say.."oh yeah, I saw him do it")

A person should only be put to death for the most HEINOUS crimes. And ONLY for the most heinous. If you kill someone, or even TWO people, you should get life in prison at most, but not the death penalty. But if you kill many, many people (serial killer) and or you do HORRIBLE things to them. Torture, mangle the body, EAT them, then that would count as a heinous crime.

Also, it is good to only kill people who won't be anymore use to anyone. By that I mean, if the killer may be holding vital information, then he should not be put to death. Like, an important member of a crime organization, or certain terrorists.

The most important thing, however, is that the accused is 100% guilty.

[Gustaf]

I support the death penalty. But under certain conditions.

One condition that holds the up-most importance, is that they are 100% CERTAIN that the person being put to death committed the crime, without a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, you should have DNA testing, perhaps a confession, some audio evidence, pictures, something caught on VIDEO (eye witness accounts shouldn't always count. Just think, what if these "eye witnesses" are out to get the person, and they all band together and say.."oh yeah, I saw him do it")

A person should only be put to death for the most HEINOUS crimes. And ONLY for the most heinous. If you kill someone, or even TWO people, you should get life in prison at most, but not the death penalty. But if you kill many, many people (serial killer) and or you do HORRIBLE things to them. Torture, mangle the body, EAT them, then that would count as a heinous crime.

Also, it is good to only kill people who won't be anymore use to anyone. By that I mean, if the killer may be holding vital information, then he should not be put to death. Like, an important member of a crime organization, or certain terrorists.

The most important thing, however, is that the accused is 100% guilty.

It is hard to be a 100% certain. Regarding eye-witnesses there was recently a lot of commotion in Norway, where, in certain villages, almost all men were accused of child molesting or rape and were found guilty based on the children's testimonies. Now, after many years, they have all been found not-guilty. It was a modern version of witch-burning. Very scary.  

[© Tweed the Younger]

You're never 100% certain, but I do take Dean's point.

[Gustaf]

You're never 100% certain, but I do take Dean's point.

Dean? Do you mean Dan?

[© Tweed the Younger]

Yeah, yeah, Dan.

[Nym90]

I oppose the death penalty because I believe that government should not have the right to execute its citizens under any circumstances. I feel that the government should set a moral example and not stoop to the levels of the criminals. I do not believe in an eye for an eye, I feel that we as a society should be better than the criminal. The death penalty breeds a culture in which killing is considered acceptable for moral reasons. The murderers probably have their own twisted warped moral reasons for why what they are doing is correct, and thus any acknowledgement that murder is acceptable for any moral reasons at all helps to breed these attitudes.
I feel that life in prison is, in some ways, a greater punishment than death. It gives the person the rest of their life to live with what they have done, and to not have any freedom to be a part of society.

[© Tweed the Younger]

I oppose the death penalty because I believe that government should not have the right to execute its citizens under any circumstances. I feel that the government should set a moral example and not stoop to the levels of the criminals. I do not believe in an eye for an eye, I feel that we as a society should be better than the criminal. The death penalty breeds a culture in which killing is considered acceptable for moral reasons. The murderers probably have their own twisted warped moral reasons for why what they are doing is correct, and thus any acknowledgement that murder is acceptable for any moral reasons at all helps to breed these attitudes.
I feel that life in prison is, in some ways, a greater punishment than death. It gives the person the rest of their life to live with what they have done, and to not have any freedom to be a part of society.

Good post.  And, yes, life imprisionment is a greater punishment than death.

[jravnsbo]

I still like the death penalty hanging out there over some of there heads.  As I said before it can produce a missing body or evidence for closure to the family.  You can always plea it down to life, but if no death penalty then you have nothing to offer them and they have noreason to talk and thus no closure for the family.  Which is the saddest part.

I oppose the death penalty because I believe that government should not have the right to execute its citizens under any circumstances. I feel that the government should set a moral example and not stoop to the levels of the criminals. I do not believe in an eye for an eye, I feel that we as a society should be better than the criminal. The death penalty breeds a culture in which killing is considered acceptable for moral reasons. The murderers probably have their own twisted warped moral reasons for why what they are doing is correct, and thus any acknowledgement that murder is acceptable for any moral reasons at all helps to breed these attitudes.
I feel that life in prison is, in some ways, a greater punishment than death. It gives the person the rest of their life to live with what they have done, and to not have any freedom to be a part of society.

Good post.  And, yes, life imprisionment is a greater punishment than death.

[MAS117]

I'm in favor of the death penalty

[Huckleberry Finn]

This is one of these issues, which make gap between Americans and Europeans. In other hand polls show that even 30-50% of Finnish are ready to accept the capital punishment in some circumstances. And I thin there have been similar results of gallup in even Sweden too (Gustaf??)

In other hand in most of the European countries there is almost political suicide to suggest to restore death penalty as the act of seriously taken politician. Except is far right Le Pen styling moviments. At least in Scandinavia all in major conservative parties are against. I don't know how this issue is in Britain. (English members?)

And which is Silvio Berlusconi's wiew?

I can accept death penalty in cases of war crime, terrorism and some childmurder.
 

[Huckleberry Finn]

But I don't want to see return of capital punishment in Europe. (except maybe in cases of war crime, genocide and terrorism)

Well I am flip-floper.

[English]

In Britain the issue is very split. Most people in the UK (+70%?) would advocate using the death penalty for child murderers and paedophiles. In practice however the majority of Brits would vote against it's re-introduction in any referendum. The reason? There have been dozens of miscarriages of justice in the UK, people have very little faith in our justice system. Too many people have been convicted of serious crimes they didn't do. Presumably these people would've been put to death when they were completely innocent? No thanks!

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

In Britain the issue is very split. Most people in the UK (+70%?) would advocate using the death penalty for child murderers and paedophiles. In practice however the majority of Brits would vote against it's re-introduction in any referendum. The reason? There have been dozens of miscarriages of justice in the UK, people have very little faith in our justice system. Too many people have been convicted of serious crimes they didn't do. Presumably these people would've been put to death when they were completely innocent? No thanks!

I support the Death Penalty because we have the technology to prove guilt or innocense. Only after this evidence processing has been done correctly, and the proof is indisputable, should the death peanalty be imposed upon an individual.

[English]

I tend to lean in favour of the death penalty for people who have comitted unspeakably evil crimes. Unfortunately as it stands I don't trust British justice whatsoever, so I would never agree to it's return. It seems the UK police are quite willing to frame people just to get a conviction! Ever heard of the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6?

[Gustaf]

This is one of these issues, which make gap between Americans and Europeans. In other hand polls show that even 30-50% of Finnish are ready to accept the capital punishment in some circumstances. And I thin there have been similar results of gallup in even Sweden too (Gustaf??)

In other hand in most of the European countries there is almost political suicide to suggest to restore death penalty as the act of seriously taken politician. Except is far right Le Pen styling moviments. At least in Scandinavia all in major conservative parties are against. I don't know how this issue is in Britain. (English members?)

And which is Silvio Berlusconi's wiew?

I can accept death penalty in cases of war crime, terrorism and some childmurder.
 

Polls tend to show that a substantial minority, and a clear majority of young people, support the death penalty in Sweden. The major parties are all against it though. I actually convinced a woman to vote no to the euro by telling her that Le Pen was in favour of reintroducing capital punishment. She was shocked!

[kenhd]

The greatest problem with the death penalty is our justice system is not a truth seeking device, but an advesarial competition grounded in arguement and sway. Would it be better if the investigation was run by the courts, without the prosecution having an influence on the investigators?

Ultimately the death penalty is supposed to be for henious criminals; I guess we could look at the death penalty as the only way to be certain said person doesn't do it again? Some criminals just keep on killing no matter where they are--they attack other convicts, and guards.

Now we have prisons that are basically 24/7 isolation.
But if someone in such a place gets the opportunity, they will kill again because they want to. I don't want to be the one trying to explain it to the family of a guard why their loved one is dead because a mass murderer can't receive anything more than the multiple life sentences they are already serving. And my step-daughter is married to a correction officer so I'm familiar with the job these people do and the daily dangers they face.

Also, a lot of future killers keep getting second chances until they 'finally go too far.' Three strikes can be severe given some of the crimes out there, so maybe we need a system to recognize criminals whose crimes are escelating in seriousness?

I agree that the state shouldn't be in the business of killing people, especially given the imperfections of our legal system. But we are one hell of a righteously indignant society, and goshdarnit, ever since we got civilized in this nation it became illegal for the victim's family to seek out justice...

[Emsworth]

It is a punsihment but I was giving 2 quick examples of how life sentence does not stopa  killer from killing again unlike the death sentence, which stops killers from killing again.  

If one looks at the situation in such a manner, then no punishments can stop a criminal from committing a crime again, save the death penalty. Of course, there is a slight difference, in that once one is imprisoned for life, and there is no higher punishment, there is little to deter one from committing further crimes.

[migrendel]

I must once again state my unequivocal objection to the use of capital punishment under all circumstances. We are simply too far into human history to continue to administer it and recognize the primacy of a universal sense of justice.

When a state condemns a person, they reject their worth, and do something even more heinous than ending a life. They demean it. Until the end of a person's days, they must live with the opprobium of social condemnation. Regardless of the enormity of a crime, any nation which has any pretensions of calling itself a civilization cannot do such a thing.

The arguments about how the death penalty is not blind as to its victim's race or class are well known, and need not be presented here. Yet I am compelled to contradict one thing that is often heard said: Capital punishment recognizes a family's need for closure. We all are befallen with certain tragic events in our lives. And anyone with a scrap of humanity left in them will provide sympathy to those who are afflicted by grief. However, we cannot extend this desire to provide aid and comfort to serve as a call to act as condottiere to oblige these people's most bloodthirsty wishes. For any person that claims that they are asking for closure and retribution, I would reply that they ask for vengeance, and perpetuate a cycle of violence in a fashion that can indeed be described as evil.

Perhaps the most compelling arguments are the simplest. When all is said and done, how can the state reconcile itself as being nothing more than a murderer itself? How can it answer that cry for help that is violent crime by responding with the ultimate scorn conceivable? In any nation which sets kindness and mercy as ideals to which the government endeavors, the government cannot do either of those things and be consistent with its precepts. No longer should we attempt to fine-tune the machinery of death and expect to see something that is fair. While I may not live to see society recognize the dignity and worth of all its citizens, I believe that history is on my side, and someday this abomination shall be righted.

[dunn]

I must once again state my unequivocal objection to the use of capital punishment under all circumstances. We are simply too far into human history to continue to administer it and recognize the primacy of a universal sense of justice.

When a state condemns a person, they reject their worth, and do something even more heinous than ending a life. They demean it. Until the end of a person's days, they must live with the opprobium of social condemnation. Regardless of the enormity of a crime, any nation which has any pretensions of calling itself a civilization cannot do such a thing.

The arguments about how the death penalty is not blind as to its victim's race or class are well known, and need not be presented here. Yet I am compelled to contradict one thing that is often heard said: Capital punishment recognizes a family's need for closure. We all are befallen with certain tragic events in our lives. And anyone with a scrap of humanity left in them will provide sympathy to those who are afflicted by grief. However, we cannot extend this desire to provide aid and comfort to serve as a call to act as condottiere to oblige these people's most bloodthirsty wishes. For any person that claims that they are asking for closure and retribution, I would reply that they ask for vengeance, and perpetuate a cycle of violence in a fashion that can indeed be described as evil.

Perhaps the most compelling arguments are the simplest. When all is said and done, how can the state reconcile itself as being nothing more than a murderer itself? How can it answer that cry for help that is violent crime by responding with the ultimate scorn conceivable? In any nation which sets kindness and mercy as ideals to which the government endeavors, the government cannot do either of those things and be consistent with its precepts. No longer should we attempt to fine-tune the machinery of death and expect to see something that is fair. While I may not live to see society recognize the dignity and worth of all its citizens, I believe that history is on my side, and someday this abomination shall be righted.

bless ya

[© Tweed the Younger]

bless ya

Half the time I can't understand what he says...