I am 100% for death penalties, though I'm not a violent person myself. Death Penalties end all the crimes that shouldn't exist since it's proven prison does nothing and criminals don't change. Death penalties ARE humane because they protect other living beings from the abusers who would otherwise go back to what they were doing. Just trusting that TIME will change them is causing more and more repeats of the same crimes.

Sorry. I disagree.

The problem with the Death Penalty is, do you know how many people on Death Row have been freed, because new ways of examining evidence, like DNA testing, found that they were innocent of their crimes? Once someone is put to death, that's it, they are gone, and if a mistake was made, well, nothing anyone can do to fix it. And I have to say that prison DOES change people. Sure, you have your repeat offenders, who commit a crime, go to jail, get out, and commit another crime. And that is terrible. But you never hear about the person who goes to jail, rethinks their life, and comes out trying to change their ways, because that is simply not sensationalist news-worthy. People change all the time, no one is set in stone. In tens years time, you yourself may be a completely different person than you are now. You can't simply say it's "proven" without backing it up with some hard data.

Hahahaha, what?

Seriously, what? How old are you?

If the death penalty ends all crime, why is there still crime in places that have it?

Reading the post more carefully, it's abuse that he hates so badly that he feels that those who commit it should not get a chance to repeat or even correct themselves. Irrational, but passionate. And it's not about crime, which is why I deleted my post.

I would say think it over more carefully. The abuser himself might have a real problem that developed early in their life and wasn't remedied. That doesn't free them from responsibility, but it explains why and we can learn from it. They might change if they develop positive coping mechanisms for their problem or just get older and understand more. If their abuse wasn't that bad, a strict death penalty would deprive them of the opportunity to understand what is wrong and change. A medium punishment might be enough to ensure that it doesn't happen again. However, if the abuse ends in the funeral parlor, then go for the death penalty if the evidence is strong enough.

Gotta make an example when the case is that bad and many people agree.

In the case of one count of spousal abuse in California, the offender goes to jail to await the trial. When they see jail they get scared straight from the inmates who have been there for more serious offenses. If found guilty they must take special classes and stay away from their spouse for three years. Enough time to grow and benefit from the classes. But a death penalty on a first, light offense doesn't rehabilitate, it just adds another to death row and ties up the system to process their papers, costing taxpayer money to feed them their final meal and consume power on the electric chair.

Plus you know, eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.

The original poster has some clearly illogical standpoints on this issue.

The real solution to ending all crime is to apply the death penalty to everyone. If nobody is alive, the nobody can commit a crime!

PROBLEM SOLVED.

I, myself, am a strong advocate of the birth penalty. As soon as a criminal is born, lock them up.

I'm not really for or against the death penalty, I just think there could be alternatives worth looking into instead (yes I sit on the fence when it comes to it). I can understand if a violent crime happens people will call for the blood of the accused, and honestly I don't know if I would or would not do that myself, it's a valid punishment - if the accused is proven guilty. However it's not an example that's been effective in preventing future crime... effective at making sure they don't commit another crime again yes, but detering future crimes? No, not really.

I have thought a bit over the years as to punishments and crimes, usually ending up in the same conclusion: anyone who has comitted and been proven guilty of a crime should work each and every day of the rest of their lives (or deemed sentencing period) towards something that has a positive outcome for society, the work also being a way for them to pay back the tax payers for the money spent to keep them behind lock and key. I'm not saying they should be given a cushy job and be let loose back on society, quite the opposite. They should have to work within the jail or (if they are not deemed a high risk for escape) in small controlled groups or as individuals outside to earn their right to food and ammenities and special privileges in the prison; the work being something that will benefit society on a positive level. Working projects like relaying roads, train lines, mostly labour intensive projects (with certain restrictions to tools excetera, and those who are unable physically/mentally to do manually intensive work - but they would be given work, just not as strenuous) in which they also earn the rights to a basic lifestyle. It will keep them A) busy, B) give them a chance to learn something new (better themself) and C) maybe they would be able to change.

Well, it's a positive attitude to hope that most of them can be rehabilitated. It is an unrealistic view that all of them can. 'Everyone can change' is an idealism, assumed outside of reality. The truth is that some people are just monsters, either by choice or by something they can't control like the way their brain is wired or has developed. If they can't be reformed then they must be ended like a forest fire or else placed into an isolated environment so that they can't do more harm. That last one would cost money and we live in a world of government that taxes us to pay for its decisions. Or donations from an interest group. You want to help those that can't be helped and must not be around others, then an interest group must exist. That way, those who care more than others will have a purpose in this area and the abuser can get what help is left for them.

Man, this topic has returned to crime and then turned to some new science in one stealth swoop by EL.

Off Topic Science Fiction:
Death penalty for everyone / Lock up a criminal as soon as they are born. One is unfair to everyone by depriving us of life, the other is untestable. Solution: Put everyone in stasis until God comes ( arrives ) so that he can deal out the justice fairly and give credit where credit is due. There will be a permanent end to crime and those that are approved will be transformed into non-crime entities.


Removing a threat for the better of others and serving as example to those that would follow. Death is not violence, violence is violence and death is death. Execution was decided to be in as humane a way as possible, probably by the superior court. Also, who would have to answer for ending the violent person's life? We don't live with a simple system of an executioner on a button anymore. Execution duty is performed by several individual's whose job is to flick some switches in sequence so that the aggregate of their work results in an execution process. You can't point at any one of them and say 'you did it.' I think this form is called something like 'moral disengagement.'

im only for the death penalty in 100% doubtless, inhumanity-involving cases.

like say...a case where theres authentic video footage, pictures, witnesses, fingerprints, no alabi, a confession, etc etc... involving rape, murder, or any variation of the two--but ONLY in the cases where the heinous crime was done for some form of personal pleasure. i believe that all other motives can be worked at, "solved", in a way. taken as clues with what needs to be implemented in society to cut down on crime in general.
but the motivation is everything.

however, pleasure as a motive is too dangerous an element to simply ignore or tolerate. a person who kills because they believe their hand is genuinely forced (think of your local military soldier, or a parental figure when a burglar breaks into their home, or someone faced with a situation that is truly "them or me" in terms of lethality), is not a threat to others. a cornered animal doesnt bite because its a vicious beast; it bites because its cornered.
however, one that seeks out and corners others just to watch them tremble, is a big problem. one that will likely NOT be reformed, as pleasure is a powerful motivator, and an addictive feeling in general.

and the thing is about innocents in the system, people will always make mistakes, as nobody is perfect. however, it shouldnt be an excuse to stop dealing with those who are definitely, certainly, without-a-doubt not worthy of such consideration.
maybe there could be a new sentence invented for those cases that are NOT 100% and therefore could be disproven over time. dont ask me what this new sentence might be, but really, we dont have to stick with the justice system as is, FOREVER. power to the people and all that jazz.

EDIT: ugh, okay, someone had to say the "if you kill violent people youre just as violent!" thing. no..no. not all violence is the same.
removing a threat permanently is NOT on the same level as making yourself a threat to others without rhyme or reason. there ARE gray areas, just as there are for consensual sex, and rape. the act itself does not define the act; the MOTIVE does. and if the MOTIVE is not rooted in sadism, malice, or overall anti-social qualities, it is NOT on the same level as those who ARE motivated by sadism, malice, etc.
a soldier in the army kills people. not because he LIKES it, but because he feels he NEEDS to, to protect those he loves against those who would do harm to them. that is NOT the same as being those people who would do harm to them. its a purely ridiculous thought to entertain, that they could be.
cripes, i should just put this on a recording and play it back for the confused souls in the audience.
rape and sex are not the same. murder and killing are not the same. sheesh. same ACT (intercourse, loss of life), different MOTIVE, different OUTCOME. see how that works? there are also differences between loving affection and harassment, did you know...?

(I know you weren't referring to me, but) I'm not saying that supporting the death penalty makes you a violent person, but I feel that if you support it, you have to admit that it's okay to kill another human being. I can't bring myself to say "What this person has done is so unforgivable that I have the right to end their life".

(if things like assisted suicide are out of the equation, but that's a whole other can of worms)

I think that Death should not be the immediate answer. I don't know very much about the process of being prosecuted, but I think that first, they should be just contained. I mean, if they did something THAT bad, wouldn't they just be sentenced for life? With the new technology erupting, escaping prison is becoming increasingly impossible. Yes, I understand that abuse is very bad. Maybe they could be put through therapy, and before they are freed out of jail, they would be tested by experts on the issue, and if they are still unstable, they will return to therapy and jail? Because, taking someone's life is taking absolutely everything away from them. You can't do anything more than that.

Again, I don't know what they actually do, maybe they actually DO do what I had just suggested, but that's just my opinion of what should happen.

The death penalty is actually a much easier way to pay for your crime than to sit many years in prison alone. Think about that. Here in Norway we have Anders Behring Breivik, who I personally hope gets raped, tortured or hang himself, but I don't want him to be killed in a human way by some death penalty. Having him alive also makes it possible for psychiatrists and specialist to learn more about his mental health, and might help others who act in a similar way. It can teach us a lot about how some human beings act. He wont see the sunlight ever again anyway.. That being said we have never (since the 2nd world war) had any crimes in this country that is close to what he did.

There's a lot of admiration over here (UK) about how Norway as a whole is handling the Breivik situation. Admiration and sympathy too. That was a horrible thing.

The death penalty for abuse? No. People who engage in that CAN change and have done so. Or at the very least, they learn techniques to better control their impulses. So, they are not irredeemable. I do favor death penalties, precisely because they are reserved ONLY for the most violent crimes that result in loss of life, and ONLY if the crime was committed in a highly preplanned (and usually creepily sociopathic) way. Not for crimes of passion, as they are called, where extremely unfortunate things happen because someone's emotions got out of control. Abuse -- in terms of violent physical abuse, at least -- is a crime of passion, often exacerbated by things like alcohol. It's not premeditated; it just happens. Something suddenly triggers it, and bad things happen. And that is, indeed, the difference between first- and second-degree murder. Here in the US, the former carries the possibility for the death penalty, in some cases. The latter, never.

And no, the death penalty is not "violent." Lethal injection is the preferred method, at least here in the US, over the electric chair, and it's like putting an animal to sleep. Nor is it an emotion-charged process, like when someone's beating the crap out of someone else because they're enraged. That's violence. Two entirely different things. The death penalty is simply that: A penalty. A consequence of an action freely undertaken with premeditation, and it's one that's generally only used in the most extreme cases (i.e. sociopathic serial killers, usually). It's not even an "eye for an eye" kind of thing; it's simply removing a threat from society which has been deemed irredeemable and untreatable, by due process. That process involves not only court proceedings but also things like in-depth psychiatric evaluations. It's simply a guarantee that that person will never harm anyone again, because due process (involving many people) determines that the person in question can't be "fixed."

With death penalty you have the risk to kill someone who was actually innocent, so you would be murdering an innocent person with no reason.

Prison does nothing because of the way they are handled most of the time. Usually prisons are just building where you put a lot of criminals together and then... do nothing. If they were handled in a more effective and reeducation inclined, things would probably change.

Deaths penalties are not based in the concept of justice, but more in the concept of "revenge" (you killed/raped/whatever so I'll kill you), at least that's my opinion.

I agree that sometimes you can get the impression that people commit certain crimes and the punishment isn't really proportional, but the solution isn't death penalty, in my opinion.

I agree. I'll go one further: I'm not even really in favor of the death penalty for simply being preplanned. A killer for hire is a terrible person and deserve many, many years of jail time and is certainly engaged in a social disconnect of useful behavior, but they're not so socially disconnected that I think they're irredeemable. In fact, that they kill for hire (or as part of another criminal enterprise) suggests they're merely improperly socialized to me. A soldier is a killer for hire too, after all, and even policemen. The difference is how they're interacting with society.

But the folks who just completely disconnect with all social outlets - the Jeffrey Dahmers and such? I do feel bad for them because they're horribly broken individuals, but I'm not sure I feel that it's entirely appropriate to suggest that someone who hits that level of screwed up in the head (who would also have to be able to explain that disconnect to others if they ever were to be released and operate in civil society) is such a person that we owe ourselves the opportunity to "fix" them.

I think also think it's important to make the distinction that "life in prison" isn't the same as "will never get out of prison." I've known people who were in for forty years who got out in eight, for instance. That's not a problem with the justice system being too lenient, but a symptom of the system being too overbooked by lesser social ailments criminalized by legislatures.

But the most important thing reason you don't slap an automatic death penalty on "abuse," (beyond the poorly described crime that's supposed to represent) is that if you make it to where things other than murder carry a death penalty you lose your leverage in persuading people that might commit those lesser crimes to leave victims alive. Why rape someone and get the death penalty for it when you can rape someone, murder them, and remove the most intimate witness to your crime? By escalating punishment you're pushing for a rational escalation of behaviors.

"Rape? Prove I raped them, all you have is a burnt corpse. All you can try to peg on me is the murder, which means I'm only being tried for half of the crimes you're suggesting I committed."

It's the same stupid idea that the US has had for decades when they started escalating the punishments for illegal drugs. Once you're looking at doing 25 years for even small amounts of narcotics there's really not a lot to do as a difference for any lesser or equal criminal behavior. Mandatory sentencing minimums and high prison premiums on certain common crimes are essentially a logic machine for more criminal behavior. Why turn yourself in ever if the penalties of punishment are high enough? Send someone to prison for long enough and you absolutely ensure that they'll never rehab, because you're only reinforcing the disconnect with regular society.

Well, I don't really think that death penalty follows the eye for an eye rule. It's more of...

Good Lord, I'm agreeing with Mistermook again.

Every case of someone killing someone else is different. Was it a crime of passion? Was it accidental, although there is fault? (As in the case of a drunken driver killing someone. Yes, they killed someone and yes, it's their fault for being stupid, but they didn't intend to kill anyone.) Really, the deciding factor is where a person's head is, so to speak. Are they just stupid and made a grievously huge mistake? Are they a little unbalanced but could probably be fixed? Or are they completely unhinged in a way that makes them a danger to society? Those are the questions that due process attempts to answer, and the answer that is eventually reached decides the punishment that the person receives.

It's not as if everyone who gets convicted of murder is sentenced to the death penalty, or is even up for it, for heaven's sake. (At least, not in the US; I have no idea about laws elsewhere where the death penalty is an issue.) I suppose that there are people wrongly convicted who've been put to death, but in order to get the death penalty in the first place AND in order for it to be carried out, there has to be a hugely strong case against you -- Usually, there's a confession -- AND there's always the appeals process, which is why people sit on Death Row for decades and why death sentences are often commuted. So, I think the possibility of wrongfully executing someone is small and that instances are rare, certainly rare enough that the idea shouldn't be abandoned. There have been and still are far more instances of wrongful convictions, I'm sure, but not everyone convicted of first-degree murder is sentenced to execution. Even Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't...although that's probably only because he was convicted in a state that doesn't have capital punishment.

And, off-topic, but IMO the so-called "War on Drugs" has created more problems that it has solved. Namely, as Mistermook said, prison overcrowding, so that people who ought to be in jail more, IMO, than people involved in drugs, are getting out early. The punishments are not fitting the crime. "Life sentences" aren't really for life, as Mistermook said, and those who would advocate them over the death penalty need to be aware of that. And there are other effects of overcrowding, as well. Those of you calling for rehabilitation instead...It's not as easy as it sounds, not in a system as currently overloaded as it is. (Still, it DOES happen, with people with longer-term sentences and who've been deemed worthy of the effort; I do prison ministry, so I'm a bit familiar with what goes on in prisons.) But you do reach a point of diminishing returns. The truth is that not everyone can be redeemed. There are some people, like the Dahmers of the world, whose heads are just wrong. So, you're faced with feeding/housing them for the rest of their life...or doing away with them. What happens to them is up to the process in place.

How do I put this in an ethical way?

In my opinion, Jail for life with NO payroll is worse in my opinion. I mean, being dead, or staring at a jail cell wall for a good 30-60 years WISHING you were dead. Weigh the options, people.

And, if you were found guilty when you WEREN'T, then, you have the option to be set free. Because, the Ressurect-O-Nomitron hasn't been perfected in the outside world.

Yet.



Being in jail for life, BASICALLY, achieves that as well.

But then there's the other side of the coin: While that person's sitting around, society gets to pay to feed/clothe/house them. Yay. True, they often end up doing that anyway, with the way people sit on Death Row for decades. But that's just the way the system is, trying to make sure that only those who are truly guilty are executed in the end.

And you're assuming, too, that long-term imprisonment would be unpleasant for a person who would have otherwise been executed. But in general, it seems that the folks on Death Row are perfectly happy to stay there. They're fed. Clothed. Housed. Provided with free health care. (Unlike people who've committed no crime whatsoever; how's that for screwed up?) Etc., etc., etc. Were they ever to be released, with their record, it'd be hard for them to, for instance, find a place where they could live, much less a job. So you generally don't see them begging to be executed RIGHT NAO, PLZ! because they can't stand it anymore, do you?

So, if it was so unpleasant, why do you think (usually) confessed-and-convicted (often) serial killers go on with endless appeals? It's usually NOT because they claim innocence, you know. As I said, most who end up on Death Row have confessed to their crimes. Usually, they pled not guilty by reason of insanity. (Which is NOT the same as pleading plain old not guilty; it's actually a confession that you did indeed do the crime(s) but you're claiming that since you're not sane you can't be held accountable for it. Basically, you're claiming that what you did was a crime of passion, because you weren't in control of all your faculties.) A person in such a case gets convicted when the prosecution can adequately prove that they were enough in their right mind that punishment is still applicable. That was what happened with Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance. Well, except that he wasn't sentenced to execution but rather to 900-and-some years in jail.) In any case, really, Death Row inmates usually do the appeals process, warding off their sentence being carried out for as long as possible, because it's better, in their own opinion, than death.

So, the "life imprisonment is actually worse than death!" argument...doesn't really cut it. At least, not judging by what people who've actually been given a death sentence do. Being imprisoned for decades might seem horrible to YOU, but apparently it isn't horrible to someone otherwise facing death.

no payroll? well, shit.

Well, you know what they say: Crime doesn't pay.

I deliberately didn't say anything about that, you know. Trust you to take up the slack.