Death Penalty

[Gustaf]

Death penalty is hard to discuss. Either you believe that the government should have the right to kill it's own citizens in times of peace, or you don't. That's the dividing line and few people change their minds on that, I think death penalty is often used as an example of an issue where people have deeply held beliefs and are unlikely to change.

[Gustaf]

Death penalty is hard to discuss. Either you believe that the government should have the right to kill it's own citizens in times of peace, or you don't. That's the dividing line and few people change their minds on that, I think death penalty is often used as an example of an issue where people have deeply held beliefs and are unlikely to change.

I'm sure you mean by the right, after the person has commited a crime deserving of.

Well, yes, but it doesn't change the fundamental issue. The state decides whether a crime is horrible enough to warrant death, but that is a side issue, especially since the views there vary from country to country. In Nigeria women get executed by stoning for adultery. I don't think that is a crime that warrant death, but they do. So I think my definition holds.  

[Gustaf]

Yes but still in the minority of Americans.  37 states have it and the fed and military systems have it.

See jravnsbo!  I'm not the only one.

I'm in the minority in almost everything.  So it doesn't bother me.

So am I!

[Gustaf]

prove it outside of a liberal source.

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.  

but what is a human life worth to you?

I keep pointing to the TX case where the thugs got life and then escaped and went ont he killing spree.  Plus how about the killer in Massachusets that killed the priest that was a child molester.  He killed and nothing will happen to him further, maybe it wasn't mass, was a non death penalty state.

Not for child molesters at all, but example iof a killer with life able to kill and no punishment, what is his deterent?

I am personally opposed to the death penalty, but many who live around me are not.

Well, here's the kicker:
To house a criminal for 30 years, it costs about $800,000.
To execute a criminal, including all appeals, etc., it costs about $2,000,000.

We can debate the morality of the death penalty all day, but the numbers do not lie.
The death penalty costs much more money, and when every state is in money trouble, it is too expensive.

How is the life sentence not punishment?

And I'm sure there are 2 cases where an innocent person was given the death penalty.

I remember that DNA-tecnhology made it possible to determine that someone who was executed something like 30 years ago was innocent. I don't remember the name of the case, but I recall wwatching it on the news a few years ago.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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

Interesting.

[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.  

[Gustaf]

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

Dean? Do you mean Dan?

[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!