Personally, for the vast majority of situations - actually, all situations, I am against the death penalty. With the possibility of false convictions or being used to kill off opposition (or gay people in some places), it's horrendous. With the fact that dead people can't help us figure out how to prevent pedophilia, it's pointless.
But then again there are some major suck in the world and sometimes it would seem nice to just see the back of it. On the plus side we'd have less people, and the world is overpopulated. Or would we? Populations tend to rise dramatically after wars, like people are having 10 kids to counteract all the death. So mebbe the families of death penalty recipients have more kids than average? I don't know but it's an interesting thought.
What about you? What do you think?
Some people, through their own actions, have made themselves not only worthless but detrimental to society. We don't need them.
i would agree with this, though it does sound a bit sadistic in the wording, but reasonable in the sentiment.
I've been called worse than being sadistic. HaHa
just saying. not disagreeing.
Someone always has the right to live a life as a human being capable of love and enjoyment. If the killer in question is capable of love, then there is surely hope that they can come to see the horror of what they have done and feel remorse for it. If the killer is not yet capable of loving, it is our duty as human beings to give someone a chance to be able to. If we kill someone not only have we not solved anything (the death penalty has not been shown to be a good deterant against crime) and risked a horrible miscarriage of justice, and allowed ourselves to act upon our desire for vengeance, we have also squandered the opportunity to heal someone who has been emotionally maimed by their past.
we risk a much greater evil by letting those who have no remorse nor sense of wrong who given the chance, will kill again. the doctrine of giving anyone a second, third, in some cases 30th chance to reform themselves does nothing to prevent crime either. in fact, it diminishes the seriousness and legitimacy of such a venture. the problem i see with many opponents of the DP is that is does not need to be a deterrent. laws act as both deterrent and punishment. these are very different ideas, despite what one thinks that the punishment is just there to discourage. no. we have set forth that certain crimes are nonredeemable from, and we as a civilized world must be willing to let government or law do what we ourselves have said no single man has the right to decide. and by allocating the execution of justice to the power of the courts, it is no longer vengeance we remove individual malice from the act, and it becomes justice.
life imprisonment does very little for three reasons: it does not rehabilitate them in the vary vast majority of cases, the environment of keeping hundreds of murderers and rapists together will only reinforce the nature that puts them into prison, and it is ENORMOUSLY EXPENSIVE!.
IT is merely a expression that the majority of murderers , hardened ones more specifically, for the most part work their way up through lesser crimes, often being sent to jail many many times for smaller things before committing a higher offense. my point was that in that case, the numerous attempts of the system to try to fix them have not worked, and so why, upon falling over the precipice of homicide, would it be easier to go back
i would like to note i misspoke in the first part. let me rephrase: conventional sentences do nothing to rehabilitate them, where the sentence is 25-life, but where through the stated appeals you referred to, it often get knocked to 20 years or so. and in the case where they are then free, more often than not, they will perpetrate the crime again. those who have life sentences or on death row are the abysmal minority. the majority are with other convicts and will be released within a 20 year span or so. so yes they will get out. and i don't know of any rapist that gets a life sentence, except if he is a high profile serial case one, in which case, he would not e with the aforementioned normal cons. i understand the costs of appeals, but the costs of that are quite comparable, whereas a death row inmate might have more support, the life sentence convict will also rack up very vast amounts in legal fees. that is the bane and savior of our system: we give that right to everyone to make sure justice will be carried out as much as we can. so you can't compare one as a nil and the other as a huge amount, because that is simply not the case. and even with more costly means, such as lethal injection or gassing, that still is fairly paltry compared to having to keep more specific prisons, just for full lifers open, which we often have to do, and feed, clothe, and care for them for 60 years or so. as to the rehabilitation, i think you should serve a time more on the high side of the scale for each individual crime, than not, since i do doubt some persons rehabilitation, i still want the longest time that is still reasonable to make SURE they are. as to the last one, i believe we have addressed the cons of that above. and if nothing else, from a very neutral and cold view of it, it is fair, it is just. so once a time to assure the conviction was valid has been done with, i see no reason to delay what men and women, informed of the implications, chose is right.
I don't support the death penalty, mostly because the possibility of convicting an innocent person still exists. Also, it actually does cost less to keep someone in jail for life.
I am for the death penalty in case of no doubt and very heinous killings.