The Death Sentence

[Ben]

Does a man who murders another man have a right to life? Any man who murders another man has declared by his action that he does not accept the principle of individual rights. He is worse than an animal, as he has chosen to abdicate his reason in order to act like an animal. The death penalty is an ordered imposition of a sentence of execution as punishment for a crime. There are people who think that the death penalty should not be legal anywhere in the United States. In 2008, 37 people in the United States were killed by this uncommon phenomenon. However, the pros and cons of the death penalty are as shuddering as the name sounds. Some people think it

[Victoria]

Well, I agree with it and also disagree with the death penalty. I don't agree with it because what happens if the person you sent to their death was actually innocent of the charge and was set up. We can never know, sure that might happen once in a blue moon, but it still can happen. Or what happens if you killed someone out of self defense because the person was trying to hurt you? But other than that i totally agree to have the death penalty. I mean shit, they obviously didn't care about the other person who they kill, CANT REVIVE BACK. So why not? We have to pay our hard earned money for these criminals to have food and shelter? Shit, i say kill the bastards the same way they killed the victim! Usually half the time they aren't sentenced to life and are able to be put on parole, so what if they go out and kill someone else, now someone else just died because its "immoral" to kill a human intentionally.

For the criminals who think its okay to go beat their wives, beat the shit out of someone to rob them, people like them, i think it should be okay to beat the shit out of them, not kill them because obviously they didn't kill anyone, but just make them suffer. Make them bleed. Make them breath out of a tube like they just made the other person have to do. It will make them think twice about doing it again.

I think our law system is all screwed up.

An American two-year-old girl who was reported missing in Orlando, Florida, in July 2008, and whose remains were found in a wooded area near her home in December 2008. Her then 22-year-old mother, Casey Marie Anthony, was tried for the first degree murder of Caylee but was acquitted. She was, however, convicted of misdemeanor counts of lying to police officers.
The prosecution sought the death penalty and alleged Casey murdered her daughter by administering chloroform, then applying duct tape, because she wanted her freedom.
Casey's car smelled like a dead body had been inside of it. She said Casey had given varied explanations as to Caylee's whereabouts and finally admitted that day that she had not seen her daughter for weeks. Casey fabricated various stories, including telling detectives the child had been kidnapped by a fictitious nanny on June 9, and that she had been trying to find her, too frightened to alert the authorities.
Caylee's skeletal remains were found with a blanket inside a trash bag in a wooded area near the family home.

^ What kind of sick person could do this? Your own daughter? The evidence is ALL RIGHT THERE, and you let this bitch free...this child had done nothing wrong to deserve to die. I say torture the bitch!
Fatal oral dose of chloroform may be as low as 10 mL (14.8 g), with death due to respiratory or cardiac arrest. I highly doubt she knew how much of this shit to use on her daughter, what if the little girl went into cardiac arrest, you just caused that pain on a two year old.

It's illegal and unlawful to murder someone, but if someone does it, they still live. I don't find it fair.

You have child molesters out there, living in human society..ummm im not sure if i missed something, but you just touched a little child inappropriately or tried to have sex with them, and you're living the next street down from my house? Do you have a child? So what happens if this happened to your child, you'd want the fucker to die. Just because it's not happening to you doesn't mean its right. These people should suffer! Child molestation can cause mental problems long run in a person, symptoms may include general behavior problems, delinquency, anxiety, regressive behaviors, nightmares, withdrawal from normal activities, internalizing and externalizing disorders, cruelty and self-injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, poor self-esteem, age-inappropriate sexual behavior and even possibly commit suicide down the road from the trauma they caused. All we do to them is slap their hand, tell them don't do it again, mark them as a predator and let them live around us like nothing is wrong.

What happens if someone murdered your wife or husband, raped them, cut them, let them bleed out and die a miserable slow death..and he gets, 35 years! Or maybe if hes lucky he will pled insanity.
If the accused can prove that he or she was insane when the crime was committed, he or she may receive a reduced sentence or avoid sentencing altogether. Jurisdictions vary in how they address insanity defenses.
So now lets say their sentence got reduced to 20 years, in 20 years this person will be able to be a free person. They will live in society with us, do you think the trillions of people that live on this world will know who he is when we see them? Not likely, so this person has no problem of committing this crime again.

I say just kill them and get it over with so we don't have to worry about people like this.

( I used Wiki for my info )

[IndigoSunset]

I'm quoting selectively to respond to specific points but hopefully thereby providing responses to the general thrust of your argument bianca(though apologies if this way means I miss something important)


so what if they go out and kill someone else, now someone else just died because its "immoral" to kill a human intentionally.
I think the major difference there lies in passive and active states of killing people. For example, the legal system relies on a presumption of innocence. The reason for this? The Blackstone Principle: It is better that 10 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent should suffer.Source ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). This was repeated in an American context by Benjamin Franklin: "it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"Source ([Only registered and activated users can see links]'s_formulation#cite_note-6). The justifications for this are twofold. Firstly, that the innocent should not be unduly punished. But secondly, and equally importantly, it is that our duty lies more in the tangible (potentially falsely imprisoned) prisoner than to the concept of further victims down the line. And it is this second point which is most important for the context of this debate. It is better for the state to potentially allow people to die than for the state to actively kill an innocent of its own.


i think it should be okay to beat the shit out of them
Do you not believe in the concept of Human Rights? That they should apply to everyone equally? As a human rights campaigner this view upsets me greatly.


The evidence is ALL RIGHT THERE, and you let this bitch free...this child had done nothing wrong to deserve to die. I say torture the bitch!
Evidently the evidence wasn't all right there or else she would have been found guilty. As I've stated, the presumption of innocence is a founding principle of pretty much every legal system in the world. Moreover, I'm a Law Student and it's laughable how misrepresented so many laws, legal principles and cases are in the Media and by Politicians. I can only presume the same holds true in the US with its ostensibly more reactionary press and politics. Additionally, specifically on torture, it simply doesn't work. The information is entirely unreliable. Source ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). Source ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). Former head of the US Defence Intelligence Agency: "Experienced military and intelligence professionals know that torture, in addition to being illegal and immoral, is an unreliable means of extracting information from prisoners" (Source ([Only registered and activated users can see links]).)


It's illegal and unlawful to murder someone, but if someone does it, they still live. I don't find it fair.
If it's so wrong for an individual to kill someone, why is the state doing it any fairer? You seem against the idea of fair trials from the implication of the removal of presumption of innocence so how could the state be claim to be any more just than any of its individuals?


All we do to them is slap their hand, tell them don't do it again, mark them as a predator and let them live around us like nothing is wrong.
I actually agree with you that a number of crimes, particularly those involving children(either as victims or prisoners) and crimes of a sexual nature are entirely mishandled by the justice system. But not because I think they should be punished more severely. I think the spells in prison are entirely unproductive. I support the locking away of prisoners but only in order that they can be rehabilitated. If there isn't the support there, then the chance of reoffending is relatively high. The answer isn't to kill people, it's to help them.


Or maybe if hes lucky he will pled insanity.
I don't know how sentencing works for those who are certified insane over there but over here it's certainly not a pleasant experience. I have mental health problems myself and so have visited a number of mental health institutions over the past few years- Some of them are little better than this ([Only registered and activated users can see links](novel)).

[Control]

I agree, if someone kills someone, doesnt mean that they deserve the death sentence. When one commits a 1st degree murder, then they do. Such as the anthony case, i find it pretty completely obvious that it was commited. The evidence otherwise proved them wrong, with the multiple cases going on, the death sentence shouldn't be looked down upon, as sometimes its used and is needed. In my opinion the sentence has been needed in the past, but hasnt been used, which i think is completely wrong. If you have a penalty and someone commits the crime that deserves it, why not use it?!

[IndigoSunset]

If you have a penalty and someone commits the crime that deserves it, why not use it?!
But even with that apparently simple statement you have to ask the question- which crimes deserve it? Even if we were to accept for the sake of argument that were instances in which state-sanctioned killing of its citizens could be justified(which I absolutely refute) then we would still have to decide which crimes were grave enough to warrant it. I don't understand how the death penalty could ever be said to be needed, could you explain that point please?

[Victoria]

I don't understand how the death penalty could ever be said to be needed, could you explain that point please?

And unfortunately because of the people who think its unfair to execute someone, no one will know why its needed. Why do i say this? The states that HAVE the death penalty do not use it enough to show anything! Do you think less than 50 executions out of the 20,000 that are committed will accomplish much? But i bet 20,000 executions will. The murder rate would drop!

I personally think we need TELEVISED executions every night at 8:00 p.m. on national television. Forget the movie of the week. Let's just have about 50,000,000 Americans sit down every night and see some little children crying about their mother who was raped and murdered. Let's see some moms and dads mourning over their little girl who was molested and murdered by some wicked devil, and then let's see the rascal get what he deserves. I bet that would deter some crime! You say, "Man, you're crazy!" Am I? Did you ever read how God commanded the Israelites to execute people? It was a PUBLIC STONING? Is God crazy too?

"And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him." (Num. 35:16-21)

"Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death." (Num. 35:30-31)

The best way to clean up America is JUSTICE. Justice will teach people to respect the law once again.
The death penalty saves lives. Repeat murders are eliminated and foreseeable murders are deterred. You must consider the victim as well as the defendant.

Most people have a natural fear of death- its a trait man have to think about what will happen before we act. If we don’t think about it consciously, we will think about it unconsciously. Think- if every murderer who killed someone died instantly, the homicide rate would be very low because no one likes to die. We cannot do this, but if the Justice system can make it more swift and severe, we could change the laws to make capital punishment faster and make appeals a shorter process. The death penalty is important because it could save the lives of thousands of potential victims who are at stake (Bedau, H., 1982).

So what you're trying to tell me that Osama bin Laden deserved to live?
The total of people who died in the 9/11 attacks was 2 996 (2 977 victims and 19 hijackers).

In the World Trade Center and near it there were 2 606 persons, including:

1 762 residents of New York
1 402 persons in Tower 1
674 residents of New Jersey
658 employees of Cantor Fitzgerald L.P.
614 persons in Tower 2
355 employees of Marsh Inc.
343 firefighters
175 employees of Aon Corporation
37 Port Authority police officers
23 police officers
2 paramedics
1 firefighter was killed by a man who jumped off the top floors


On the airplanes there were 246 members of the crews and passengers. All these people died.

87 on American Airlines Flight 11
60 on United Airlines Flight 175
59 on American Airlines Flight 77
40 on United Flight 93

HE PLOTTED THIS! HE MADE THESE PEOPLE DIE.
But because you think its unlawful to kill someone, we should just tell him hey, don't do it again. Let's just put you in jail.
NO. What happened when he was killed? EVERYONE CHEERED THAT A TERRORIST, A MURDERER DIED! DIED AT A HUMAN HAND!
Do you feel safe now that a guy like that is dead? I sure as hell know i do. How do you think other people will feel when
they know that person was executed?

Basically you're telling me that war in wrong? Do you think the army shoots rainbows from their guns? No they shoot bullets.
When they shoot, they shoot to kill. But we allow this to happen. Its the same damn thing!




( James L. Melton, [Only registered and activated users can see links] [Only registered and activated users can see links] [Only registered and activated users can see links] )

[Azn]

Here's an interesting point:

Some people say that murderers should face the death penalty because they deserve to suffer for the crimes that they committed.
However, if you think about it, which one is more suffering? Being locked in prison for years with no hope of getting out, or a quick death?

Prison is pretty harsh and a lot of people go crazy after a few years...

[Victoria]

Prison is pretty harsh and a lot of people go crazy after a few years...

Okay, sure its pretty harsh, but the point of the fact is they still let the criminals go! They aren't locked up forever! And as you just said, people go crazy after a few years, now, you have a crazy murderer out on the streets when their sentence is up. Sure, jail time does do good for some people, they actually regret what they did, they feel sorry blah blah, well, tough shit. They should have thought about that before the heat of the moment and killed a person. Sure, if we give them jail time they can become a "better person", but it still doesn't change the fact that they took a human life away from someone.

My friend's father goes to Indiana EVERY YEAR for court. Why? Because of his brother. His brother that has been dead for 8 years. His Brother's murderer goes to court for a hearing to be put on patrol every year. And every year, he stops him from being put out on the streets, to keep him where he deserves to be. But why is it that you are giving this man the option to be free? Wanna know what he did?

Sure you might say oh its stupid that he did it in the first place, but what happened to him should NEVER happen. His brother was hitchhiking his way through Indiana to get home ( I forgot the reason why he had to do this, ill find out ) and these 2 guys picked him up. Well, little did he know that sick homosexuals had picked him up and they beat the shit out of him, raped him, and killed him. I mean really? One of the guys died in jail, but the other one still get to have hearing to be let free?! WHY?? You don't know that he won't go back out there and do it again! What was the motive? What was the reason behind him killing an innocent man. He never did anything to him. People are sick out there, and we need to rid the world of them if they commit murder.

Police officers carry guns around with them. Why? I mean if its unnatural to kill someone, then why have them? They use it to protect themselves, from criminals. They actually shoot and kill people with them, but they are saving lives by doing it! We congratulate them, give them medals and rewards. So what's the difference? Sometimes they kill the person before they have the chance to hurt someone, so why can't we do the same to the person who DID KILL someone?

[Azn]

@Bianca

Sorry, I meant to say life in prison without parole is much harder than just simply being put to death. I'm actually neutral on this standpoint as I'm unsure. I haven't lost someone to a murderer but I'm sure it feels terrible. My dad is an ex-cop so I can verify that when you use a gun, it's an intent to protect, not an intent to kill. You can actually get in trouble with killing a criminal, if there is another way to detain him, such as pepper spray or a taser.

[Victoria]

Sorry, I meant to say life in prison without parole is much harder than just simply being put to death.

Ah okay lol well then that makes sense XD


My dad is an ex-cop so I can verify that when you use a gun, it's an intent to protect, not an intent to kill.

I understand its an intent to protect, but it's still taking a human life away which there is no difference then between execution. More than likely if they guy has a gun and starts shooting it, they are gonna kill him. But what if he didn't shoot anyone and missed or something? He didn't technically kill anyone, but he was still shot at gunpoint. They were trying to protect the civilians. Just like executions would do. I mean I would much rather see them rot in jail forever but that wont happen.

My cousin is dead because her friend, someone her and my family took in to help, killed her. She was only 16. Her birthday was in 5 days. He stabbed her and killed her, left her body in a vacant building until police recovered the body behind the Department of Public Works building in a pile of sand used for winter road maintenance.

TRAVERSE CITY -- A final conference was held Friday for Robert Jensen Schwander, the teen accused of killing 16-year old Carly Lewis.
Schwander was in court as was the Lewis family.
Both the defense and the prosecutor told the judge that after reviewing jury questionnaires, they are confident that Schwander could get a fair trial in Traverse City.
The prosecution also offered a plea deal to reduce the charge to 2nd Degree Murder. That would give Schwander the possibility of parole where 1st Degree Murder does not. Schawnder declined the offer.

^ A fair trial? Why does he deserve a fair trial?? He killed someone, how is anything about that fair? Thankful he declined the plea deal and took the sentence he deserves, but see, why would you give a murderer the option to have parol? He took a 16 year olds life, its only fair the same is done to him.


I don't know. These are just my thoughts though. The death penalty will probably never happen though.

[Sci_Girl]

I personally believe that not all crimes deserve the death penalty however that said one crime I feel most strongly about is when it involves children. Be that murder, rape, molestation, harsh abuse etc. anything involving a child I have a problem with. Some dead end going no where 'G' who got busted in a robbery and shot up the place is senseless and I feel bad for the families of any victims however I do not believe a crime such as that deserves the death penalty. I believe some people can learn from their mistakes but if it involves children I do not think so. My problem is that my tax dollars are feeding, clothing, and keeping a person warm in jail. MY dollars, MY money, MY hard earned income for some low life to have his peas and corn for dinner and a warm place to sleep for the rest of his life. I do not think so, and that is the problem I have. If some disgusting person ever touched or hurt my baby boy or baby girl in any way I would wish the worst upon them and I sure as hell would not want them alive. Even if it means getting a civil way out of life with a mere needle prick and falling asleep with the chemicals I do not care, the point would be to rid of scum such as a person who hurt a child.

[Victoria]

. My problem is that my tax dollars are feeding, clothing, and keeping a person warm in jail. MY dollars, MY money, MY hard earned income for some low life to have his peas and corn for dinner and a warm place to sleep for the rest of his life. I do not think so, and that is the problem I have.

This ^!! They aren't having a hard life in there. They have cell mates. They have shelter and a bed to sleep on. These savages should get the cold hard concrete floor. We are forced to pay our money to keep these people alive. Some people, not all people, struggle to live, struggle to put a roof over their head and to put food on the table, and you're telling me that even though some people struggle, we are forced to give the government money so they can feed these people and i have to pay for their electric so they can watch tv? They get to go outside, see sunlight, work out, watch tv, take showers, get food. What's the punishment? I don't see it....I was just reading wiki and it says prison uniforms usually consist of clothing better suited to the comfort and durability required for long term inmates. Why are they comfortable again? I highly doubt prison is teaching them anything. If we're not allowed to have the death penalty we should atleast have it to where the murderers should be in a small, confined room, no bed, no pillows, no human contact, no tv and no outside, so where all they have to do is forced to think about what they did.

I say have two different types of jails, one for those who did kill & for those who didn't. Sure im not happy about giving my money away but i would much rather it be for those who didnt kill just so i know my money isn't keeping those people alive.

[bamag]

This ^!! They aren't having a hard life in there. They have cell mates. They have shelter and a bed to sleep on. These savages should get the cold hard concrete floor. We are forced to pay our money to keep these people alive. Some people, not all people, struggle to live, struggle to put a roof over their head and to put food on the table, and you're telling me that even though some people struggle, we are forced to give the government money so they can feed these people and i have to pay for their electric so they can watch tv? They get to go outside, see sunlight, work out, watch tv, take showers, get food. What's the punishment? I don't see it....I was just reading wiki and it says prison uniforms usually consist of clothing better suited to the comfort and durability required for long term inmates. Why are they comfortable again? I highly doubt prison is teaching them anything. If we're not allowed to have the death penalty we should atleast have it to where the murderers should be in a small, confined room, no bed, no pillows, no human contact, no tv and no outside, so where all they have to do is forced to think about what they did.
I say have two different types of jails, one for those who did kill & for those who didn't. Sure im not happy about giving my money away but i would much rather it be for those who didnt kill just so i know my money isn't keeping those people alive.

I am personally against the death penalty. I believe many people are unaware that putting someone to death actually costs more money than to keep them alive.

"Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)." -California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice

California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.

California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.

Keep in mind this is for the state of California only. In California, the death penalty costs several times as much as permanent imprisonment.The federal costs are much higher.
From an economic standpoint, the death penalty is stupid. To support the death penalty means that you support tax money being wasted on killing criminals. Unless you take pleasure from inmates being executed, there is no reason for the death penalty. Each death costs millions of taxpayers' dollars.

[Victoria]

To support the death penalty means that you support tax money being wasted on killing criminals.

So you're telling me that you would rather have a criminal let go and kill again and have innocent people die than just get rid of them so it doesn't happen again? I'm sorry but if i have to spend a little bit of money to save human lives then I will. I don't see how the information tells me really anything. I'm saying if they did have the death penalty, only do it if they killed someone. Not do it for every criminal that has to be put in prison. That information doesn't take that into affect. That information doesn't show the amount of criminals that will stop once it was in affect. So if you had to spend a few more dollars on your taxes! You spend money on your taxes to help keep criminals alive! Ummm, once criminal activity ceases, so does the need for executions & the need for so many prisons to hold the over population of criminals so we won't have to pay much anymore for their food, clothing, electricity and whatnot. So spend a little bit of money to save money in the long run, ya, ill do that. I have to pay for bullshit in my taxes as is, uncle sam is fucking me in the ass as we speak.


replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.
Okay but they haven't had permanent imprisonment for every murderer. Majority of the time they are let out on parol or lowered sentences. If they were so worried about executions why haven't they starting doing the right thing and just keep them permanently in prison then. But then also on your more tax payer thought, if we do start permanently keeping people in jail? Well now that is NO ONE getting out, meaning more people, more people, more people, see where im getting at? That means more prisons, more money going out to feed them for the rest of their lives now, electricity for the other prisons that had to be built, more flat screened tvs for the cells, more gym sets for them to work on on. Okay, if you say well if people will continue to commit crime after they know that they will be sentenced to permanent imprisonment, what makes you think they still won't go out killing people if you implement the death penalty? Well, I don't know, but what i do know is that majority of every humans goal is to live, to survives and not die, would you commit a crime knowing you will but put in jail, forever, but will be able to still talk to people and know whats going on in the outside world and still have a life, or death.

[bamag]

I don't understand why you would think that people that are permanently imprisoned would have flat screened TVs and stuff. Prison isn't exactly paradise. There are some people that have luxuries in prison but its usually for smaller crimes. There are also many life imprisonment sentences where parole is not a possibility. Your argument for using the death penalty as a deterrent is valid but is statistically shown not to work.
352
(taken from [Only registered and activated users can see links])
Refer to the chart. The death penalty is used much more often in the South than in the Northeast. The South also has a higher amount of murders per million.
Furthermore, most experts in the field do not see the death penalty as a deterrent:
"A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.

Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.” (M. Radelet and T. Lacock, DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES?: THE VIEWS OF LEADING CRIMINOLOGISTS, 99 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 489 2009)

[haxatax]

i think prison is better then death. If you just kill them they wont suffer at all. just a quick and easy way out. If they were in prison they can suffer surprise butt secks and wish to die but they cant

[Cara]

I think some criminals DO deserve the death penalty. Those who kill others, don't deserve their lives since they have taken one from someone else. However, stupid stuff like stealing and such should just have the person rot in their prison cell until they are free again. A prime example of someone who deserves the death penalty is karla homolka. Another, is a more recent case: casey anthony. two sick, sick women that don't deserve their lives, in MY opinion.

[Chi]

In Australia there isn't the death penalty. I don't really have a stance on this....just because we don't have it here and we aren't really exposed to the same degree of crimes...whether it be it just doesn't as happen as much here or the media isn't allowed/doesn't want to advertise that it has happened.

I think if someone murdered someone close to me however and I had the choice to send them to prison or put them to death I would probably opt for the death penalty. I don't believe in life after death and therefore not having any form of consciousness would be the ultimate punishment in my eyes, and that they don't deserve to spend another minute on this planet.

[bamag]

In Australia there isn't the death penalty. I don't really have a stance on this....just because we don't have it here and we aren't really exposed to the same degree of crimes...whether it be it just doesn't as happen as much here or the media isn't allowed/doesn't want to advertise that it has happened.

I think if someone murdered someone close to me however and I had the choice to send them to prison or put them to death I would probably opt for the death penalty. I don't believe in life after death and therefore not having any form of consciousness would be the ultimate punishment in my eyes, and that they don't deserve to spend another minute on this planet.

If the victim was someone close to you, you would want revenge. What about if someone that you did not know was murdered? Would you still opt for the death penalty? It is pretty interesting how Australians view the death penalty.

In a survey taken by Roy Morgan Research in August 2009, only 23% of Australians aged 14 and above believed that the death penalty should be used for murders. Yet at the same time, 50% believed that an Australian who was caught smuggling drugs from a foreign country should be executed by the foreign country. Does this mean that drug smuggling is viewed as a more serious crime than murder?
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Azn]

I have a neutral stance on this, because I empathize with both sides, more towards the sides of the families of the murder victims. However, I also empathize a bit with the murderer's side because I believe people can change for the good. But mostly I lean a little towards the death penalty.

However, I would like to bring up that, by using the death penalty, we may actually kill innocent prisoners. In my opinion, it is a little foolish to think that everyone sitting in prison right now is guilty. There are tons of innocent people accused of murders and other crimes sitting in jail.

Here's an example of an innocent man who almost faced the death penalty:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Ben]

I have a neutral stance on this, because I empathize with both sides, more towards the sides of the families of the murder victims. However, I also empathize a bit with the murderer's side because I believe people can change for the good. But mostly I lean a little towards the death penalty.

However, I would like to bring up that, by using the death penalty, we may actually kill innocent prisoners. In my opinion, it is a little foolish to think that everyone sitting in prison right now is guilty. There are tons of innocent people accused of murders and other crimes sitting in jail.

Here's an example of an innocent man who almost faced the death penalty:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

To also emphasize your point, Troy Davis of Georgia, was wrongly executed. Hundreds of people realize that he didn't kill the cop that he was accused of doing. He also didn't carry firearms that night and since this is in Georgia, I'm expecting that racism was also rampant throughout the case. Even the jury said that they didn't even have an ounce of proof that related him to this case, but out of fear, we executed him. He was a genuine guy and many people were outraged by the decision.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[bamag]

I find it inexcusable that they would execute a man that they have little to no evidence implicating that he killed McPhail. Its especially inexcusable when there was another suspect to the case. Sylvester Coles has 9 affidavits claiming that he is the real killer. They should have at least conducted an investigation on Coles but instead they kill a man based on hunches.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[IndigoSunset]

To also emphasize your point, Troy Davis of Georgia, was wrongly executed. Hundreds of people realize that he didn't kill the cop that he was accused of doing. He also didn't carry firearms that night and since this is in Georgia, I'm expecting that racism was also rampant throughout the case. Even the jury said that they didn't even have an ounce of proof that related him to this case, but out of fear, we executed him. He was a genuine guy and many people were outraged by the decision.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Eh, just on that specific case. I played an admittedly small part of that campaign to have his case reheard, as an Amnesty member/activist, we had a city supporting Troy's right to a fair trial which we believe he was denied. I however am not convinced of his innocence. As the line went in the campaign, there was "too much doubt"- It wasn't that he was necessarily innocent but rather than there was not enough proof that he did do it. Don't forget, a big piece of evidence(his clothing) was not permitted due to the method the police used to obtain it(something about the way they entered his house) which would have provided the evidence. I don't think it's right to say Troy was innocent, but he is certainly an example of why the death penalty is wrong- there was simply too much doubt in his case to make such an irreversible decision.

[Chi]

If the victim was someone close to you, you would want revenge. What about if someone that you did not know was murdered? Would you still opt for the death penalty? It is pretty interesting how Australians view the death penalty.

In a survey taken by Roy Morgan Research in August 2009, only 23% of Australians aged 14 and above believed that the death penalty should be used for murders. Yet at the same time, 50% believed that an Australian who was caught smuggling drugs from a foreign country should be executed by the foreign country. Does this mean that drug smuggling is viewed as a more serious crime than murder?
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I think its natural to seek revenge because of emotion and evolutionary reasons. I'm going to take this to a whole other level but, pretty much the reason I'd want to get rid of them or make sure they got the death penalty is that I want to make sure that their genetic traits do not get passed on (anymore if they already have a family). They removed one of my family members and thus ruined or damaged chance for our genes to survive.

IF the person murdered someone else I would leave it up to the law. Now I do think america is flawed in some cases and especially 60 years ago as I think America had far more extreme racial prejudices than Australians ever had (I could be wrong, but I should mention I'm half italian/lebanese so i am kind of not biased as I never experienced any racial prejudices to date). I would say today with forensic science and the amount of technology we have to track, record and follow people that it would be able to pin point the murderer fairly easily. Unless there is something medically or psychology wrong with the murderer (that can be tested and proved by multiple specialists) and if the murderer had no motive or reason to kill this person then I'd agree to the death penalty.

If the murderer knew the person and the deceased put the murderer through hell I don't think the death penalty should be considered.

If the murderer killed multiple times then I think the death penalty should be used.

This is all generalized though because there are so many cases, victims and accused individuals that its hard to make a general ruling on should there be a death penalty or not.

In regards to drugs and being trialed overseas...I don't really understand why 50% of Australians agreed with executing a drug smuggler. I guess it would depend on the amount of drugs smuggled. If it was...an insane amount (I have no understanding of drugs and their value but if I say over 10mil in drugs I hope its a decent amount :P) I would accept the death penalty for the following reasons.

1) Providing drugs in another country (and the country Australians would in mind is Indonesia/Bali) causes a lot of problems and these problems are..
a) Gang related
b) Medical problems
c) Social problems

All a, b and c can potentially cause death to innocent people. a) Causes problems like crime wars b) being addiction, overdosing and date rape occurances, c)would be a mix of police and distributor violence, an excess amount of drugs readily available may make the place unattractive to tourist, which is the only thing Bali and Indonesia have going for them at some stages of the year.

So yes...I can think of a lot of scenarios where the drug smuggler is pretty much a murderer or at least supplying the weapon and catalyst for murder.


QUESTION TO COUNTRIES WHERE FIREARMS ARE SOLD READILY:
In return to my above response to drugs, do you think the weapons provider of mass murders (where a firearm or bombs have been purchased and used) should be punished as well with prison time for distributing the item?

[Azn]

I feel as if other countries look to the United States to see their stance on issues. So if the United States were to fully legalize the death penalty, other countries may do the same. I these other countries get the chance to fully legalize it, they could use it to do much harm to innocent people, depending on who controls their prison system.

Just some thought... I thought about this in my head, perhaps that's not how it is.

[Khelddar]

The Death Sentence is always a touchy subject, i think that the death penalty should be illegal.

Firstly i think that everyone should have the chance to show remorse no matter what they did. Granted most wont but i think that everyone should be give the chance.

Also the death penalty to me is to take the easy way out. If someone has done something to get the death penalty then i think they should live out the rest of their life in prison.

Lastly you cant bring someone back from the dead and say oh sorry turns out you where innocent.

[Scan]

It should be legal. Instead of having tax payers pay for a murderers' living for the next 70 years, why don't we just kill him? Prisons are filling up, and it's eating up tax money that could be put to other things to make the US a better place.

[inuse123]

I say just kill them and get it over with so we don't have to worry about people like this.

I agree. I've always thought the death penalty should be legal for 1st degree murder, at least. If someone is able to kill another person with their own hands they shouldn't even be put in prison. Sure prison may be more miserable than death, but there are so many criminals that get released from prison that shouldn't be. And the death penalty is generally more humane than the murderer's methods, so it's not like it's some gruesome thing. As for televised executions though, that'd be a bit much!!


I feel as if other countries look to the United States to see their stance on issues. So if the United States were to fully legalize the death penalty, other countries may do the same. I these other countries get the chance to fully legalize it, they could use it to do much harm to innocent people, depending on who controls their prison system.

Unfortunately that's true. Countries that aren't as soft as we are punish innocent people, and that would just be an effect of legalizing the death penalty..a horrible effect. A thing I thought about is if the death penalty is ever legalized it would be years from now and since America is losing so much esteem already, no one would follow our lead by then...so 50/50 I guess

[Chloe]

I think that the death penalty should be brought back, but only for very extreme cases, such as mass murder/rape/other similar things to that, because of the amount of pain and suffering that the victims have had to go through, the person that has done that doesn't deserve to carry on or go to prison. (such as Josef Fritzl)
However there's always going to be that chance that the person is innocent of what they were accused of..and people can never be 100% right about it.
Plus, I do think that, depending on the person, a life sentence in prison would be worse (and by life, I mean that they spend the rest of their lives inside prison, and not just 30 years)

[victoriamle]

I believe that murder is only acceptable if it is for the sake of self defense.
Other than that, I think that if you take someone's life away with no purpose or out of hatred, I think you deserve to die as well.

[Bot]

Shouldn't be done. If the person had a reason to harm another person and a good one, there shouldn't be a penalty. :/

[13800038]

Sorry I didn't read the first post. If the person is guilty I would be glad to give them a death sentence if this is their third time in jail. I feel this way because the government is wasting our tax money on other people's faults. The average person gets 60k in money used in a Jail sell for a year :/ now that is a lot of money.

[IndigoSunset]

Sorry I didn't read the first post. If the person is guilty I would be glad to give them a death sentence if this is their third time in jail. I feel this way because the government is wasting our tax money on other people's faults. The average person gets 60k in money used in a Jail sell for a year :/ now that is a lot of money.
Your main argument in favour of the Death Penalty is money? I know that economic arguments are important but surely some things are worth more than money? To my mind at least, whether someone should live or die should grant only the smallest of sway to an economic argument.

[burntoast]

Personally, I don't support the death penalty. I would, however, there is always the chance that an innocent human being is taking the punishment for someone else's actions. Also, I believe it depends upon the reasoning. If the killer were to be defending themselves, then fine. When that person goes out and kills 10 more people, they have gone too far and should be jailed, or even killed if there is enough proof. I can't complain about the system, mostly.

[Ray-Chill]

Hmm
Me being from Texas, where we used the electric chair still..
I think if someone is guilty of a crime in which they take someones life in a horrible way and can be violent to others they deserve it. Why do they get to live when the innocent person they murdered has no life?

Also, to add.. I feel as if rapists and child molesters should fry also.
They ruin lives more the a murder I feel.
Their victims have to deal with that trauma for the rest of their lives and have to live in fear that they might be attacked again or to have to see that person again some day. Who know.
I don't care if they have a mental problem or what not. If you rape someone or hurt a child like that you deserve to die a horrible death.

[13800038]

Money is what turns the world around, those starving people are dying because of no money. It's like the Ambrosia of this day and age. They are also a threat to society and have no place in this world to harm others.

[Kiminess]

I read up frequently about kidnapping, rape, and murder involving children and find that a majority of the time it has been comitted by a convict who was let out of prison for the same types of crimes. I feel very strongly about violent acts against women and children. As a child who was molested on numerous occasions growing up, I can't help but feel these monsters should be locked away forever. If you simply won't keep them locked up, then rid them of the world as they will more than likely do it again, and usually will end up murdering their victims the second time around. I would rather pay to rid them than I would to keep them alive. It may be an easier end to their life than prison, but at least there is no chance of them coming out and hurting more innocent people. So, if the act is violent enough [murder for pleasure, rape that is without a doubt rape and not a wolf cry, abduction/kidnapping] then I'm all for the death penalty.

[Slasher]

I think it should exist for persons that have murdered/tortured/raped many times even after a first arrestation/treatment. Like if they can really represent a danger for anyone by escaping or have high chances of doing those type of crimes again. Why paying jails for people that are ruining others' life?
Death sentence should also be a choice for prisoners that are sure to stay in jail for the rest of their life.

[Tom]

Taking away another person's life is the most selfish action a person can commit. The only time I really agree with killing someone is in the protection of one's friends/family/self. If there's some sick fuck sitting in prison for killing another human being and it wasn't an act of protection or self-defense, then I'm all for the death sentence. I hope I'm never messed in the head enough to do that to another human being.

[neorob68]

We dont have it over here, but we will get it back in the future, i think!

Holland is way to soft in punishing criminals.

[omg3rdtime]

Wow, people get really in to this stuff:O

[Ape]

I don't believe in it because people will suffer worse from life without paroll because they will die anyways but if you kill them it is just an easy way out also if there was ever a case where the person is innocent they have time to form there case and someone could get evidence and such

[Eggy]

I do not believe that any individual should be killed by another individual, ever.

[John]

im going to grave dig this and see if we can spark some more inspiration. Cody. and i just started talking about it a bit.

[Cody.]

GRAVEDIGGER!

imo, for those that didn't see my post.
I am against the penalty.
I do understand that it takes a lot of tax payers money to keep an inmate, but death should never be an option.

The executioner is taking a life. How isnt he considered a murderer himself?

[John]

GRAVEDIGGER!

imo, for those that didn't see my post.
I am against the penalty.
I do understand that it takes a lot of tax payers money to keep an inmate, but death should never be an option.

The executioner is taking a life. How isnt he considered a murderer himself?

valid point, but i think at that stage, the life of the prisoner is no longer considered as important if it is even considered a life at all. And like you mentioned on the other thread, what is the difference between a life sentence and death?

[maxxine]

Life in prison is more of a punishment than death imo

Id rather die then live my life in a cell with murders pedophiles and worst of all bad food ):

[Cody.]

valid point, but i think at that stage, the life of the prisoner is no longer considered as important if it is even considered a life at all. And like you mentioned on the other thread, what is the difference between a life sentence and death?

very true.
there is no difference.
but where is the line to draw with the death sentence?

taking a life is never okay.
wether its murder in the streets with a knife, or in a jail with a machine, there is no difference.
it is still murder in my eyes and its frowned upon in society.
taking a life is taking a life, no matter what way you look at it.

[John]

i think any life sentence justifies the death penalty.


and i agree, but i dont think that someone at that stage has the right to be valued as a life.

[underworld]

I always believed that death for murderers are an escape.

Its like when a person who lost everything and just wants to die commits suicide. They want to "escape"

Well, for these murderers, death in itself is an escape. Sometimes I think people underrate maximum security prisons. I know tax payers pays for prisons and such but I think its worth it. Id rather a murderer spend a life in prison than just die... Nowadays, the prsoners in death row dont even have to feel pain dying. Id rather have them suffer for years in prison :P

[John]

I always believed that death for murderers are an escape.

Its like when a person who lost everything and just wants to die commits suicide. They want to "escape"

Well, for these murderers, death in itself is an escape. Sometimes I think people underrate maximum security prisons. I know tax payers pays for prisons and such but I think its worth it. Id rather a murderer spend a life in prison than just die... Nowadays, the prsoners in death row dont even have to feel pain dying. Id rather have them suffer for years in prison :P



not to be rude, but that makes no sense. you want to waste money and cause suffering just to be spiteful? The death sentence is good for both sides in a lot of cases.

[underworld]

not to be rude, but that makes no sense. you want to waste money and cause suffering just to be spiteful? The death sentence is good for both sides in a lot of cases.

Tell that to the families of the person that was murdered :P

and not everyone if for death penalty :P
Dont assume people are all pro death penalty

[John]

Tell that to the families of the person that was murdered :P

you said that prisoners want to die. If someone is already in a life sentence, they will see very little if any of their families. and if they want to die, that should not have anything to do with their families.

[Riku]

Human beings should not be killing other human beings, PERIOD. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[Spurs]

I actually had a debate about this with a friend of mine.
I'm pro death penalty.

The way I see it, if someone commits a crime that is serious enough to be put to death, they should be.
In my opinion, why should someone who has taken a life, possibly multiple, get to live, breathe, smile, laugh, eat, drink etc when their victim cannot? They may have taken someone's brother, someone's uncle, an aunt, a mum, a son/daughter from a loving family. For the criminal to live, they can experience things that the victim can't. If the criminal gets life, they may still see/contact their family and can still enjoy the fact that they're alive, albeit in a cell.

I get what people mean about what makes it alright for the executioner to take the life of another human, but I'd consider it justifiable homicide. These people are paid to do a job and they do it. They've been given the power by whatever employer actually employs them, and they are simply carrying out the verdict that the law has laid upon the criminal.

To me it's a slippery slope, and I'm not terribly clued up about the whole system that revolves around the death sentence, but from what I do know and understand, that's my opinion. :)

[l3mu3l]

I wish canada had the death sentence. Maybe people would rethink taking someone elses life.

[Demonic]

I think the death penalty would seriously make people re think there actions personally.

But then again if someone was charged on false sources that definetley wouldnt be right.

[Nath]

I'm on the fence on this one. I don't know if I am for or against it.

I can see why some states/countries use it and I can see why the others don't.

It's a good deterrent and I do somewhat believe "an eye for an eye", if you've murdered an innocent being then do you really deserve to live yourself?

On the other hand, there's the big "what if they're innocent" argument in my mind. Also as mentioned many times here is it really right to kill one person because they did the same to another??

[awe]

I've debated this with myself on countless occasions. I never feel it's right for a human to have the power to take another human's life until I read a story about a pedophilic serial rapist cannibal and my only thought is [Only registered and activated users can see links]

[ttink]

I've debated about this topic many times, with many people, my opinion may not be clear at sometimes ( I'm not that great with getting my thoughts and putting them into words )

I also have to say that I'm on the fence for the death penalty. When I was taking my international law class ( in high school ) a man was convicted of murdering a random man. Multiple videos that we've watched on this topic clearly showed that the police had tunnel vision on this one suspect. They relied on eye witnesses that were 30-70 yard away from the person. Evidence clearly led to another man that even went to a relatives house to "Hide" a weapon. He was sentenced for a death penalty so every single person in my law class signed a petition to extend the investigation of the crime, and to release the death penalty that was sentence to him. 2-4 week after we had signed this petition it had reached thousands of people. We later received news that they continued to death penalty and he got executed not to long after the petition we had signed. I don't have full details on this case because it was my first semester law class which was a while ago, and I tried remembering the name but I simply cannot.

The things that you hear about criminals and what they do to their victims is horrific most of the time. You can clearly build up rage and hatred for them, meaning that you do want them to be executed. If it were my choice I would have many people executed for the horrific crimes that they've committed but letting our anger determine what happens to these people is sometimes not the best. Many people have been wrongly convicted of a crime, and the media can heavily target a person that is not proven guilty.

I personally think that Canada is fine without the death penalty and sometimes I look upon the United states and question why they have it. I heard in presentation that the United States death penalty has not affected the crime rate ( meaning that it has not decreased a significant amount ). [Only registered and activated users can see links]

I believe that I don't believe in the death penalty as it stands right now.

[xxcutescreamer]

I really hope this doesn't count as grave digging. (I'm not quite sure still how that works exactly, especially since this is the debate forum and I don't know if that applies here as well.)


I am 100% for the death penalty for a few reasons.
The main one, my mother was murdered by her military husband 11 years ago and he STILL hasn't his punishment.
They ruled on his case, found him 100% without a doubt guilty, and he has sat for 11 years because the state the murder happened in keeps sitting on the fence about the death penalty like many others.
11 years is a long time to wait for justice.
11 years is too long for me.

I do believe though that if we are going to kill someone (an eye for an eye) for murdering someone that we should have complete concrete evidence that they 100% did it. A confession doesn't cut it these days, too many people are willing to protect their children/parents/siblings/spouses and take the fall.

That being said, I spent 75% of my life living 30 minutes or less away from the original Old Sparky in Texas, though sadly she is now just part of a replica museum.



[QUOTE]Between 1819 and 1923 the method of execution was hanging until Texas authorized the use of the electric chair; the use of the electric chair ended the execution of death sentences by counties in Texas. The chair

[Bacon]

I do believe in the death sentence. I actually think that there should be some torture along with it. That's depending on the crime, though. For example, a child rapist and killer should get some real big torture. To someone who killed one man in gang violence, maybe shouldn't get the death sentence but if he will it should be quick. If someone killed multiple innocent people, torture it is.

[PrincessParker]

This is going to sound very cold, and probably awful, but it's how I feel on this particular topic.

I live in Canada, and we no longer have the Death Penalty.

I do not believe that criminals should be murdered because they have commited a crime that is so horrible that they can no longer be trusted in normal social circumstances. I think that if the crime was that horrible, they should be forced to pay their debt back to society. I think this should be done by injection of uncurable diseases, and be tested on to find a cure. Not like crazy Hitler authorized test facilities, they can be clean, sanitary, and professional. That way, they are giving back to the world, instead of just being murdered, and given the easy way out.

(Sorry for the short and sweet answer, and for any spelling mistakes. I just got a baby kitten, and she is pouncing all over the place like a maniac, pressing all sorts of buttons. :P If there is anything you need better explination on, or something you want to add/argue, just quote me. :) )

[jwh830]

I am 100% for the death penalty. Prisons are way too overcrowded already.

[Jager]

I agree with the death penalty, must be cause I'm an American and was raised you did something wrong and murdered then karma will be a Bizitch and send ya to the needle.
But that doesn't mean I don't believe that while they're in prison waiting to die for their heinous crimes that they shouldn't be paying back to society through being Guinea pigs but that's against their "human rights." I'm indecisive. Le sigh.

[Tika]

I don't believe in the death penatly. I am against killing somebody, period. Especially since the death penalty doesn't really deter people from being violent monsters.

[caonima]

I would say a death sentence. After all, I wouldn't want to waste taxpayers' money on a bunch of evil-minded people. How is it fair if the victim dies while the murderer survives?
If they are not evil-minded, they can be sent to the mental institution for recovery in the case of mental illness.

---------- Post added at 01:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------


I don't believe in the death penatly. I am against killing somebody, period. Especially since the death penalty doesn't really deter people from being violent monsters.

The death penalty actually deters quite a number of people from committing crimes. If you know the risk of putting to death when you kill somebody, you won't do it.

[Lucy]

so i read somewhere that prisoners on death row appeal the shit out of their sentences, which actually costs more than keeping them alive.
also they're on death row for years (usually) before they're sentenced.
then there's the cases of people being pardoned after new evidence has been discovered. ~ derek bentley was pardoned.
and the guildford four would have been sentenced to death, had it been legal at the time (i think it was a few years after it was made illegal)
they were completely innocent.

[kutt]

I would say a death sentence. After all, I wouldn't want to waste taxpayers' money on a bunch of evil-minded people. How is it fair if the victim dies while the murderer survives?
If they are not evil-minded, they can be sent to the mental institution for recovery in the case of mental illness.

---------- Post added at 01:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------



The death penalty actually deters quite a number of people from committing crimes. If you know the risk of putting to death when you kill somebody, you won't do it.





*Most people wouldn't do it. There's a pretty high number of people who don't give a shit about the consequences of their actions.

[caonima]

*Most people wouldn't do it. There's a pretty high number of people who don't give a shit about the consequences of their actions.

There are even more that give shit about the consequences of their actions.
If you know stealing will land you in jail, will you still steal?

The law is the last deterrent (first being morality) from people committing crimes. It should be taken seriously instead of being a joke whereby the murderer is able to live off taxpayers' money in prison while the victim's family (assumed as taxpayers) have to support him.

[kutt]

There are even more that give shit about the consequences of their actions.
If you know stealing will land you in jail, will you still steal?

The law is the last deterrent (first being morality) from people committing crimes. It should be taken seriously instead of being a joke whereby the murderer is able to live off taxpayers' money in prison while the victim's family (assumed as taxpayers) have to support him.



Any Methamphetamine user in the United States is proof that the law does not deter them from doing anything criminal in order to get their next fix and/or causing harm to anyone trying to stop them from getting their next fix.

[tofusquares]

I honestly don't support the death sentence. I think that rotting in prison for a lifetime is a lot worse than rather immediate death.

[caonima]

Any Methamphetamine user in the United States is proof that the law does not deter them from doing anything criminal in order to get their next fix and/or causing harm to anyone trying to stop them from getting their next fix.

There is a difference between policy makers and rule enforcers. One comes up with policy while another enforces it.
That is the reason why whenever a government comes up with a policy/law, there must be strict enforcement of the policy.
If there is a death sentence in place and the law enforcers follow strictly by arresting the criminals, it will certainly deter people from committing the same crime as they know they will suffer the same consequences and there is no chance to escape the sentence.

[kutt]

There is a difference between policy makers and rule enforcers. One comes up with policy while another enforces it.
That is the reason why whenever a government comes up with a policy/law, there must be strict enforcement of the policy.
If there is a death sentence in place and the law enforcers follow strictly by arresting the criminals, it will certainly deter people from committing the same crime as they know they will suffer the same consequences and there is no chance to escape the sentence.



Let me refer back to my previous post, and this isn't word for word here: "Meth users don't give a fuck". They're going to do what they do no matter the consequences, I've seen it firsthand. You could tell a Meth user that if they quit using for a year you'd give them a million dollars, they'd still go out and get another fix I guarantee it.

It is a good deterrent for non-drug users and/or the mentally stable, but the latter persons are going to do what they do whether it's life in prison or death by a firing squad.

[caonima]

Let me refer back to my previous post, and this isn't word for word here: "Meth users don't give a fuck". They're going to do what they do no matter the consequences, I've seen it firsthand. You could tell a Meth user that if they quit using for a year you'd give them a million dollars, they'd still go out and get another fix I guarantee it.

It is a good deterrent for non-drug users and/or the mentally stable, but the latter persons are going to do what they do whether it's life in prison or death by a firing squad.

If you continue with this mentality, there will still be new meth users entering the market every year. Even if this policy cannot deter current meth users from continuing their drug addiction, it will certainly stop others from being addicted to drugs. Thus, when the current meth users die of old age or what-so-ever reasons, there will be much less or no more meth users as they are withheld by the law in place.

[Sci_Girl]

If you continue with this mentality, there will still be new meth users entering the market every year. Even if this policy cannot deter current meth users from continuing their drug addiction, it will certainly stop others from being addicted to drugs. Thus, when the current meth users die of old age or what-so-ever reasons, there will be much less or no more meth users as they are withheld by the law in place.

Couple issues here. Believe it or not as long as meth is around (it is not going anywhere btw) there will be users, a lot of them. A user can be facing a good amount of jail time if caught, which for the average individual of knowledge of right and wrong that premise would scare them, however for the addict they could care less. There will be, possibly more, users every single year as long as there are those individuals who are willing to try it or already have an existing addiction to the drug. Secondly, read up on meth addiction and see if saying "hey you are getting the death penalty if you do not stop now" is actually going to deter them from using. Simply using meth can kill the user and they already know that but they do it anyway because they do not care. How is the law saying "you will die from this" going to scare them away from using when they already have the knowledge that what they are injecting could kill them at any time? They are using and they could not give a rats ass they just want the high. Meth addiction is not something you can just tell an addict to get over because there will be consequences from the law.

There is no cookie cutter response when it comes to behavior in people. You cannot assume that threatening an addict with death would deter them from further use. Some users maybe but the bulk not likely. That high and that strong addiction far surpasses anything negative that could come about. Overdoses happen a lot due to this non-caring attitude, that is just the way they have programmed themselves to think and often nothing but that overdose stops their drug use.

[Demonizer]

I think that the death penalty is a good idea in some situations. Such as serial killers or rapists. Otherwise it's just wrong.

[tchaikovsky]

Couple issues here. Believe it or not as long as meth is around (it is not going anywhere btw) there will be users, a lot of them. A user can be facing a good amount of jail time if caught, which for the average individual of knowledge of right and wrong that premise would scare them, however for the addict they could care less. There will be, possibly more, users every single year as long as there are those individuals who are willing to try it or already have an existing addiction to the drug. Secondly, read up on meth addiction and see if saying "hey you are getting the death penalty if you do not stop now" is actually going to deter them from using. Simply using meth can kill the user and they already know that but they do it anyway because they do not care. How is the law saying "you will die from this" going to scare them away from using when they already have the knowledge that what they are injecting could kill them at any time? They are using and they could not give a rats ass they just want the high. Meth addiction is not something you can just tell an addict to get over because there will be consequences from the law.

There is no cookie cutter response when it comes to behavior in people. You cannot assume that threatening an addict with death would deter them from further use. Some users maybe but the bulk not likely. That high and that strong addiction far surpasses anything negative that could come about. Overdoses happen a lot due to this non-caring attitude, that is just the way they have programmed themselves to think and often nothing but that overdose stops their drug use.

I agree with this. The death penalty should be used, in moderation, wiith death crimes only; and that's it. As the population grows bigger, we can expect the users / bad people of stuff to come in proportion; which by no means should be over-exaggerated to the point where people start "deserving" the death penalty in an attempt to curb usage that's inevitable going to happen.

[Sari]

I agree to a point with the whole eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. That's true, but there are circumstances when you just can't turn the other cheek. If someone is a serial killer for example... I don't want you wasting my taxes keeping him alive for god knows how long. But I think that it needs to be reserved for the absolute worst crimes.

[goodieboy]

Death sentence should be for crimes that majorly hurt the public's interest, so as to discourage more people from hurting the public's interest. From the place where I come from, drug trafficking is punishable by death. If you're found with more than 15g of ectasy or ice, gallows for you. It is really efficient in stopping others from become drug peddlers, leading to lesser drug addicts. Look at Australia (There are more countries, but Australia is the first that comes to mind, sorry to you guys living in Australia), where there isn't a death sentence. Drug abuse, murders are rather serious. I've even heard of people in my country going over to Australia to peddle drugs since there isn't a death sentence there.

[Freja]

I am completely against death penalty, and I'm shocked that you would actually kill another person for doing drugs/being a drug dealer.In my opinion you can't say "killing is wrong" and then end that person's life. No exceptions. Yes, they take up your "tax money" and stuff. But somehow I also think that ending their life is the easy way out. And I just genuinely believe that killing another person is wrong, no. matter. what. Also think if just one person was sentenced to death penalty who was innocent. How would that make you feel? I am disgusted..

[goodieboy]

I am completely against death penalty, and I'm shocked that you would actually kill another person for doing drugs/being a drug dealer.In my opinion you can't say "killing is wrong" and then end that person's life. No exceptions. Yes, they take up your "tax money" and stuff. But somehow I also think that ending their life is the easy way out. And I just genuinely believe that killing another person is wrong, no. matter. what. Also think if just one person was sentenced to death penalty who was innocent. How would that make you feel? I am disgusted..

Yes, but think about it. If there's no death sentence, there'll be more murderers, more drug dealers running rampant in the society. If drug dealers are merely kept behind bars, I'm very sure my country's drug addiction rate will rise 10 fold. The death sentence is a necessity to significantly reduce the damage that brings to society, aurderend to deter drug peddlers and murderers.

[Freja]

Yes, but think about it. If there's no death sentence, there'll be more murderers, more drug dealers running rampant in the society. If drug dealers are merely kept behind bars, I'm very sure my country's drug addiction rate will rise 10 fold. The death sentence is a necessity to significantly reduce the damage that brings to society, aurderend to deter drug peddlers and murderers.
Honestly? I don't believe death sentence instead of life in prison are gonna stop anyone. If you're insane enough or too far out in a drug abuse to do it, you'll do it. But that's just a personal opinion.

[goodieboy]

Honestly? I don't believe death sentence instead of life in prison are gonna stop anyone. If you're insane enough or too far out in a drug abuse to do it, you'll do it. But that's just a personal opinion.

No, drug dealers go for good and fast profit. No one is willing to die because of money. Would you rather have 1 billion dollars for 1 day and die the next or live your current life? Drug dealers are willing to risk life imprisonment, but certainly not capital punishment.

[Celestial]

Well, there's a lot of arguments for both sides, but I believe when 1 person kills men, women, and children for no reason and is caught with chance of mistake, cameras, witnesses all clearly showing and the person shows no regret for the actions or sign that they are willing to or want to change, and no medical excuses.

Then I'd be quite happy to agree to line them up for the death sentence.

Just my way of saying I think there comes a time and a place where it can be used.

[Matt~]

I think that the death penalty should only be used in extreme cases, like child molesters, or serial killers.

[tchaikovsky]

I think that the death penalty should only be used in extreme cases, like child molesters, or serial killers.

Not as if I condone it, but I don't think the penalty should be enacted upon child molesters. Yeah, it's a horrible thing to do, but IMO it doesn't constitute death. Who knows; they may turn into a decent person over time. Death should only be forced upon those who intentionally bestow it on another.