Here is my honest opinion on the death penalty. I say let them rot, but at the same time as someone above me stated putting them to death feels like the right thing to do. Just like the old saying "an eye for an eye" it basically saying "a life for a life", but putting someone in jail for life is basically taking away their life, they have very little freedom, they can't do the normal stuff they do, can't eat want they want, can't choose what to watch on T.V etc... so yeah putting them in jail is the right thing to do, but it does cost(as people before me have said). Some people like to think the death penalty is a way of punishment, but once again as stated above, it is mercy, compared to rotting in a jail with the thought of the persons face or the guilt and hearing the scream of pain and agony. I feel that the death penalty should be used only in special cases, such as genocide and killings of presidents and government workers etc...
Originally Posted by EpikTh0rn
So killing a postman, according to you, is worse than killing a cashier?
Or that a senator's life is above anyone elses?
Well I guess I should say based on how horrendous the murder is.
Originally Posted by EpikTh0rn
Between l960 to 1968 crime rate increased 11 times.
Since the 90s crime has been on a massive downward trend.
Originally Posted by EpikTh0rn
In my opinion, the death penalty is a mercy. A life in jail is pretty miserable. And keeping prisoners is expensive, getting rid of those that suck up the most government cash is not at all a bad idea.
Actually it is more expensive to execute someone than to keep them alive in prison.
In order to execute someone you first need to put them through 10 years of appeals, which takes a lot of money and a lot of time (10 years of time actually). You think 10 years of food costs a lot? How about 10 years of lawyers. Oh, and that isn't "1 lawyer", because the majority of the time the state has to pay for the lawyer of the convicted too.
Besides that, think of prisons like Angola, completely self sufficient; they don't cost the taxpayer a dime. (Good luck convincing someone on death row to farm food btw)
Originally Posted by EpikTh0rn
We can debate about the monetary worth all day, but in the end it has to do a lot with different morals. The most likely scenario is that the people who like the idea of the death penalty feel it is morally correct to punish someone with death for what they see as an equal crime. The people on the other side think punishment with death is never to be our decision or some other similar argument.
The 'eye for an eye' punishment system has been around for a long time, however you should consider that in most of the civilized world it has been abolished.
Just taking a look at this map will tell you a lot;
Blue -> Abolished for all crimes
Green -> Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war)
Orange -> Abolished in practice (ie, its still in the law, but has not been used in over 10 years)
Red -> Legal form of punishment for certain offenses
South Asia, North East Africa, and of course, USA, are the last bastions of killing in the name of justice.
I guess now is the right time to note that nearly all the countries where the death penalty is abolished have lower crime rates than the others. In fact, you can see quite a pattern between the crime levels and the state of capital punishment.
It would be logical to assume that the death penalty has no effect on the crime rates, and if it did, then you could infer that it actually makes people more likely to commit crimes (blaze of glory? nothing to lose? not sure the reason).
I see no reason to have a death penalty. These people do not 'agree' to this, and often there is no way for them to leave the society that has the death penalty. It is unfair for a society to enforce death upon someone who never wanted to be there in the first place.
When I see you, my heart goes DOKI⑨DOKI
Fish: "Gorman has been chosen for admin. After a lengthy discussion we've all decided that Gorman is the best choice for the next admin."
It would certainly give them something to think about, would it not? Lets be realistic here, if the person who does the killing/raping is willing to ruin a life, he should be much less ready to do it, unless he is suicidal. Its like holding an anvil over someones head, quite menacing and guaranteed to reduce the rate of fatal crimes.
Money wise, who needs to lethally inject someone? Shoot them in the face, certainly will cost less money then giving them food their entire lives.
I.E. Tuscon, the kid was 20ishh, thats 50 years of paying for his food and clothes if they don't kill him.
The death penalty certainly has its own "appropriate" uses
Money wise, who needs to lethally inject someone? Shoot them in the face, certainly will cost less money then giving them food their entire lives.
I.E. Tuscon, the kid was 20ishh, thats 50 years of paying for his food and clothes if they don't kill him.
The death penalty certainly has its own "appropriate" uses
Hoss.
