What do you think about the death penalty

Post Reply New Topic

I think so that the death penalty for the biggest degenerates who have committed the most disgusting crimes is right. Unfortunately, the country where I live, has abolished this death penalty because I believe in this psuedo-humanitarian have invented the European Union. I'm not saying that every murderer should be sentenced to the death penalty, but I believe that some criminals who have committed violent crimes in particular, could be sentenced to this punishment.

Recently I watched a movie about Anders Breivik, the psychopath who killed children in Denmark, but the Danes do not even have a life sentence, not to mention the death penalty.

In Poland it was once a death sentence, it was before the Second World War, it was under communism, abolished after the restoration of democracy in my country, as apparently do not fit into a modern, democratic European state.

The U.S. is supposed to be a democratic state, and not abolished the death penalty, and everyone knows what a criminal penalty if he threatens to commit some terrible crimes.

My objections to the death penalty are practical rather than ethical. What if the penalty is applied in error? Its effects cannot be undone and no restitution can be made. It is irreversible. Given the error prone nature of our courts I do not see how the penalty can be safely applied.

Besides, there are reversible equivalent penalties. What about life imprisonment. This removes the convicted person from our midst. It it is later shown he was mistakenly convicted then he can be released and some monetary compensation can be paid to him.

ruveyn

I think the death penalty is essentially a form of human sacrifice.

I'm in the UK. If we still had it, a lot of innocent, wrongly convicted people would have been killed.

What do I think about the death penalty? Boil 'em in oil!! !

I'm against the death penalty. But I'm staunchly in favor of Jailhouse Justice.


If Jeffrey Dahmer where sentenced to death, he'd still be alive today in solitary confinement on death row awaiting a humane demise at the expense of taxpayers. Instead, he died as violently as he killed at the hands of another inmate. Capital punishment is too expensive and unfairly applied.

The least that could be done is to pass a federal law requiring that ONLY defendants convicted of 1st degree murder based on forensic evidence can be eligible for the death penalty. That is, a defendant convicted on circumstantial evidence cannot be legally executed until and unless forensic evidence is uncovered that links them to the murder(s).

BUMP!

If we are going to have a discussion about capital punishment, then perhaps we should get the facts straight first.

Anders Behring Breivik is Norwegian - not Danish. Denmark has a life sentence, although it is somewhat complicated. The death penalty, however, was abolished in 1951 (though only completely in 1993).

After that sidenote, then how about a "ranking" of crimes deserving of punishment from a slap on the wrist to the death penalty? (I am against the death penalty myself, BTW, but it is always interesting to other points of view). Some people - for instance - believe that rape should be punished by death.

... and I wonder how many innocent incarcerated who have been the victims of Jailhouse Justice...

Life imprisonment is not an option without it's own issues. According to what I am assuming is a reputable site (http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/s ... px?catid=3), it costs $47,000 per year to house an inmate in the California prison system. Someone has to pay for that, and when the money is being spent there, it cannot be spent somewhere else. Using California's 2007 incarceration rate of 171,000 inmates, that is $8,037,000,000 spent annually, although I imagine it has to be adjusted downward because not everyone is in prison for a whole year. Even still, the number is going to be huge. Imagine if this money was spent on education? Or services for those with disabilities?

For people who have committed truly heinous crimes or who have repeatedly committed the same violent crimes (repeat offenders), I am not certain that society as a whole should have to bear the above expenses to have them incarcerated until they die. Do they not give up their "right to live" when they repeatedly deny that right to other human beings? I am not talking about the spouse who, in a fit of rage, kills their spouse's lover, or the mother who kills her child's rapist. I am talking about the thugs who have killed numerous people and who show no remorse. I am talking about the repeat pedophile who does not get "better" with rehabilitation, but continues to ruin the lives of innocent children. I am talking about serial rapists. People like this cannot safely be allowed to be in society. Ever. And I can't help but wonder if the money spent keeping them in prison could be better spent somewhere else. On people who have not violently denied the rights of other people.

I don't trust the legal system enough to be 100% accurate. I don't trust government enough to believe it won't abuse such a license to kill.