Death Sentence Vs Life Imprisonment

[arunbg]

Should capital punishment be abolished and replaced with life imprisonment ? Is death more humane as compared to almost 15 years of rigorous confinement ? Do you think some criminals actually deserve the ultimate punishment ?

I feel death penalty should indeed be abolished .It doesn't make the judges any different from the convicts themselves. Every man has a right to live his life to the fullest. It is not reasonable to take what you cannot give back. Sure there may be people who are rotten to the core and are a threat to society, but even they ought to be given a second chance, while taking necessary precasutions of course.

Arun

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't think the idea that "Every man has a right to live his life to the fullest" is a good case against the death penalty. The alternative is throwing a man in maximum security prison... and well... no man lives his life to the fullest in there.

 

[quantumdude]

I voted Both. Some people deserve to swing from the gallows.

 

[arunbg]

What about life after his term or during paroles ?
Even if life isn't at the fullest, it can still be worthwhile .
Death just terminates this opportunity.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm just saying that's a bad reasoning against the death penalty because in fact, they don't get to live a large majority of their life to the fullest or anywhere near that. Life isn't much of a cakewalk after 40 years in prison either when/if you're paroled.

Plus its rather unfair to let someone be released from prison to at least attempt to have a normal life when his very act stopped another persons life dead in its tracks, literally.

 

[siddharth]

I don't think that anyone should be sentenced to death.

 

[Evo]

What about life after his term or during paroles ?
Even if life isn't at the fullest, it can still be worthwhile .
Death just terminates this opportunity.

Someone that deserves the death penalty should not ever be eligible for parole or a sentence less than life (without the opportunity for parole).

Why should a criminal that is guilty of something heinous enough to warrant the death penalty be entitled to a "worthwhile" life? Some people are just evil and not reformable. I don't think their time in prison should be like summer camp.

 

[siddharth]

I'm just saying that's a bad reasoning against the death penalty because in fact, they don't get to live a large majority of their life to the fullest or anywhere near that. Life isn't much of a cakewalk after 40 years in prison either when/if you're paroled.

But, if you're dead, life isn't much of a cakewalk either.

 

[Pengwuino]

But, if you're dead, life isn't much of a cakewalk either.

and this means...

Notice how i said nothing as to the merits of the death penalty...

 

[Kurdt]

The reason I am against the death penalty particularly for murder is that its such a contradictory penalty. You say that killing somebody is wrong and that it is one of the most awful crimes one can comit yet you condone the killing of the murderer afterwards. Doesn't make sense to me. Taking a life is either wrong or it isn't.

EDIT: Second point is in the event of a miscarriage of justice.

 

[arildno]

Some people deserve to swing from the gallows.

Really? By the long or short rope?
Or is frying more humane?


As I see it, the punitive element in the societal reaction towards crime is largely irrational, obscuring the perfectly rational motive of getting some dangerous person off the streets (this, of course, given any type of crime, is most effectively done by killing the person)

One of the primary problems with the whole punishment idea is that the punishment must "fit" the crime, it can't be larger or less.
This means, for example, that a petty crime drug addict must get a "small" punishment if any, instead of being forcibly retained until we may be comfortably certain the guy can be released and do no further offenses.

On the other scale, since "taking a life" is said to be such a horrifying act, a woman finally rebelling after years of abuse by taking her husband's life must be consigned a long prison term (or execution), even though there is just the minutest risk she'll ever do something like that again.


On the death vs. life imprisonment issue, I voted life imprisonment only, since "undecided" wasn't an option.

 

[Pengwuino]

But how often is a housewife given the death penalty for killing her abusive husband?

 

[MeJennifer]

The reason I am against the death penalty particularly for murder is that its such a contradictory penalty. You say that killing somebody is wrong and that it is one of the most awful crimes one can comit yet you condone the killing of the murderer afterwards. Doesn't make sense to me. Taking a life is either wrong or it isn't.

Depends on the person you ask.

Some have those morals while others do not.

Some consider it simply an effective deterrent for others.
"Here, look! This is what's going to happen to you if you do not obey the law!". The criminal is used as an example and warning for others.

 

[quantumdude]

Really? By the long or short rope?
Or is frying more humane?

It was just an expression. I don't mean that we should use the literal gallows. I think that the lethal injection should be used. Actually, I think that's a lot more humane than life in a maximum security US prison, where the local gang of nothing-to-lose, AIDS-ridden convicts would be happy to offer a new convict a lethal injection of an entirely different sort.

 

[Kurdt]

arildno: I concur with this point of view but perhaps go further to say that a lot of petty crimes are born from social factors which largely need to be resolved in society. Beyond that some serious crimes are performed by people whom I imagine have some sort of mental illness. WE agree that anybody in their right mind would not comit murder but we fail to recognise even in this era that mental illnesses are a very broad spectrum indeed. The fact that somebody killed is indeed terrible but if they are fond to be of unsound mind then they deserve the chance to be treated and live a normal life.

This is similar to arildno's beaten wife argument, One could say environmental conditions have pushed her to the edge of sanity and in one brief moment she lashed out and murdered her abuser. With the correct councelling that woan could be freed into society with no danger to anybody else. Of course it depends on whether you believe society should be survival of the fittest type or a one in which we all look out for each other.

 

[siddharth]

and this means...

Notice how i said nothing as to the merits of the death penalty...

What I mean is that, I think that every person including the criminal has a right to life.

"Here, look! This is what's going to happen to you if you do not obey the law!". The criminal is used as an example and warning for others.

There's a lot of conflicting studies done on the effect of capital punishment as a detterent. If I remember, some studies even showed that there were higher murder rates in countries with the death penalty. In fact, I don't think that statistical studies can prove that the death penalty actually causes the murder rate to drop, they can at best only show correlation.

 

[MeJennifer]

Beyond that some serious crimes are performed by people whom I imagine have some sort of mental illness. WE agree that anybody in their right mind would not comit murder but we fail to recognise even in this era that mental illnesses are a very broad spectrum indeed.

Were does this notion come from that murder must be some kind of mental illness?
Perhaps from the absurd idea that since "humans must be good and if that is contradicted by the facts then they must 'obviously' be mentally ill, by definition"?

What a few thousand year of history has shown us is that humans murder for all kind of reasons, ranging from pleasure to self defense. Murder is simply a human activity, which by the way is not uncommon in the animal world either.

I wonder if you would call a lion mentally ill as well?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I do not trust the government enough to let them ban guns so of course I don't trust it enough to allow it to kill its own citizens. I don't trust it to decide who is and who is not a human being either. Our experience with another government that allowed itself that prerogative was negative.

 

[Kurdt]

The mind is not an object that runs by a specific set of rules. Mental illnesses are a spectral disorder many exponentially more severe than others. I'm just saying that the psychological makeup of a murderer is going to be different than that of somebody who does not comit murder. There has to be some trigger. If you believe that murder is a human activity then that suggests that you would quite happily live in a lawless world where anything that occurs is considered just human activity. What I am in favour of is a greater understanding of environmental and genetic makeup of the populaton as a whole and I strongly believe in the spectral nature of mental problems. Perhaps illness was too harsh a word to use.

I would not call a lion mantally ill because a lions survival depends on it eating other animals. A human's survival does not depend on taking the life of another except possibly in matters of self defence.

 

[bomba923]

Regarding the death vs. life imprisonment,
why not just let that be the criminal's choice?

(whenever there is doubt in sentencing to either death or life imprisonment)

 

[MeJennifer]

If you believe that murder is a human activity then that suggests that you would quite happily live in a lawless world where anything that occurs is considered just human activity.

I would be highly interested how you make such a conclusion.
I think it would say much more about you than about me.

That murder is a human activity is simply a fact. Hiding this fact, or "explaining" it with people being "mentally ill" are simply means to show one does not like this fact.
Whether one likes or dislikes such a fact does in no way imply on how one desires how a society should be run.

 

[Evo]

This is similar to arildno's beaten wife argument, One could say environmental conditions have pushed her to the edge of sanity and in one brief moment she lashed out and murdered her abuser. With the correct councelling that woan could be freed into society with no danger to anybody else. Of course it depends on whether you believe society should be survival of the fittest type or a one in which we all look out for each other.

That is how it is in America, there are varying degrees of "murder", it can be ruled "involuntary manslaughter" which means there was no criminal intention to kill and carries a very light sentence, to murder in the first degree, which can carry the death penalty in states where it is allowed. There isn't "one sentence fits all". If someone is found to be mentally incompetant, then they are sent to a mental hospital for treatment.

Killing someone can also be considered "self defense" and the charges will be dropped altogether. This would apply to someone breaking into your home and trying to kill you, and you kill them in self defense.

 

[Pengwuino]

What I mean is that, I think that every person including the criminal has a right to life.

But life in prison is living... why should the murderer get to walk the streets a free man (as i was saying)?

 

[Pengwuino]

Regarding the death vs. life imprisonment,
why not just let that be the criminal's choice?

(whenever there is doubt in sentencing to either death or life imprisonment)

Let the criminal have the choice? Why not ask the criminal if he prefers jail or a non-extradition country.

 

[Kurdt]

I understand there are different degrees of murder my point is that a lot of people who are just convicted of I suppose the pre-meditated kind could be considered as havin a mild mental instabilities and should be treated that's all.

With regards to human activity; if you consider this a fact and do no research into why it happens then perhaps that says more about you than me.

 

[Cyrus]

Kill them.

 

[meteor]

I imagine myself convicted to die in the electric chair. It must be horrible and i don't want that feeling for any other person
The cliche "some people are intrinsically evil and deserve to die" is wrong. There're no evil people and there're no good people. Some people commit crimes, and we must ask ourselves the reason of that. Is the criminal really "evil"? Or were his/her acts conditioned by education/environment/abuse? It's too easy to destroy what seems dangerous and non profitable, even if it's a human life

i've read in a webpage that USA is the developed country with more murders per capita. Are americans "eviler" than the rest, or is that fact caused by the environment, e.g. free possession of guns

 

[MeJennifer]

With regards to human activity; if you consider this a fact and do no research into why it happens then perhaps that says more about you than me.

Ok?

Research into why humans are as they are?
Ever heared of evolution? Or is that perhaps an ugly word.

Do you think that by "explaining" the goodness of humans by blaming "exceptions" on mental illness, the environment, society and other excuses is going to change one thing about the fact the we are who we are due to millions of years of evolution?

 

[Pengwuino]

i've read in a webpage that USA is the developed country with more murders per capita. Are americans "eviler" than the rest, or is that fact caused by the environment, e.g. free possession of guns

So the very fact that you own a gun makes you evil? I had no idea guns had such magic powers! (you'll also want to actually do some research and look at how many murders there are in areas of the US whos gun laws resemble 'progressive' nations in Europe) You're simply excusing all criminals for what they do. People do things because they want to be satisfied. Some people will do a little more. Look at something simple like getting music. Some people will work hard and earn their money to buy music. Some will just download it for free (which is another form of stealing anyhow). Some steal right out of the store. Is the criminal who does such a thing mentally ill? Or did he just want to get something for nothing like most people do...

 

[meteor]

Some steal right out of the store. Is the criminal who does such a thing mentally ill? Or did he just want to get something for nothing like most people do...

There are a lot of factors there.. Education is most important, an educated person will behave in a social manner and will try not to steal (there are exceptions, Winona Ryder comes to mind). Then again, a person educated in a criminal environment will tend to behave criminally

 

[Cyrus]

There are a lot of factors there.. Education is most important, an educated person will behave in a social manner and will try not to steal (there are exceptions, Winona Ryder comes to mind). Then again, a person educated in a criminal environment will tend to behave criminally

That is way, way wrong. White collar crime results in the loss of more property and money than crime by the poor.

 

[MeJennifer]

That is way, way wrong. White collar crime results in the most loss of property and money.

Not so much wrong, but ludicrous.

"...an educated person will behave in a social manner and will try not to steal "

My oh my, I am stunned to see that there are actually people who believe such things. Don't get me wrong they should have to right to believe it and express it but come on.

 

[Moonbear]

I voted for both, depending on the crime. I think it's something that should be very rarely used, and even for the vast majority of murderers, is too extreme, but there is the rare person who is so incorrigible and commits such heinous crimes and who cannot be reformed, and if they ever escaped, would go right back to killing, such that the concept of rehabilitation is lost with them. Those rare few, who we could do little else with other than leave to rot in solitary confinement the rest of their life, they are the ones I would still say the death penalty is appropriate for.

 

[Kazza_765]

I do not trust the government enough to let them ban guns so of course I don't trust it enough to allow it to kill its own citizens. I don't trust it to decide who is and who is not a human being either. Our experience with another government that allowed itself that prerogative was negative.

Agreed. I'm not against the death penalty per se, I believe there are some people that deserve death. However, I don't believe that any government should ever have the right to take the life of its citizens.

 

[Cyrus]

Your statement is a direct contradiction of itself Kazaa.

 

[wolram]

For 1st degree murder.
I think it would be best to ship them out to some deserted island, may be put a mine field around it, and let them fend for them selfs.

 

[Cyrus]

You mean send them to Australia again?

 

[Kurdt]

Do you think that by "explaining" the goodness of humans by blaming "exceptions" on mental illness, the environment, society and other excuses is going to change one thing about the fact the we are who we are due to millions of years of evolution?

The attitude that we are who we are is pretty negative. To me it says there is no point trying to change because we are this way anyway. the point I'm making is that if there is a reason for someone to murder be it mental instability or whatever (this is pre-meditated and not self defence stuff) then perhaps that person can be helped like anyone else who has a psychological problem.

The problem also with evolution is its not perfect, that's why there are genetic diseases and faulty genes. The fact is that in this modern era we can do something about it and not just leave people to rot saying well its your fault because we evolved with a certain percentage of murderers in our society and you happen to be one of them.

 

[wolram]

You mean send them to Australia again?

No that is way big, just a small island.

 

[MeJennifer]

The attitude that we are who we are is pretty negative.

To me this has nothing to do with attitude Kurdt. Something is either true or false, regardless whether it is negative, positive, beautiful, Utopian etc.
My attitude in this matter is frankly rather one of indifference. Which is usually the best approach in assessing something objectively. Too much subjectivity guarantees a distorted view wouldn't you say?

To me it says there is no point trying to change because we are this way anyway.

Well look at history and see what happens when some people are trying to change others, "for the good" of course. Ideologies that require people to start thinking differently usually lead to brutal suppression of thought and expression.

The problem also with evolution is its not perfect, that's why there are genetic diseases and faulty genes. The fact is that in this modern era we can do something about it and not just leave people to rot saying well its your fault because we evolved with a certain percentage of murderers in our society and you happen to be one of them.

And you would not consider that statement arrogant? The attitude of "we humans can do better than nature"? We are the product of nature, what is wrong in finding some pride in that? Are you saying that that what created us (evolution) is wrong?

Don't get me wrong I respect and understand exactly what you are saying.
And no snideness or ill-will intended on my side!

 

[Kurdt]

I don't think that attempting to do something about the problem of murderers in a society is arrogant at all. In fact that is part of our nature as far as I am concerned. We have opposing points of view and could argue forever so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[J77]

Of course the death penalty should be abolished!

Mistakes can be and are made with "lifers" - it's a good job they're still around to be freed.

 

[Anttech]

Have we not debated this one to death already (pun intended).

Anyway my 2 eurocents:

The death penalty as a behavior corrective measure does not work obviously, because there isn't much to correct once you are dead.

The death penalty as a deterrent does not work also IMHO, as if it did Murder rates, Rapes would happen far less frequently than they do.

The death penalty as a way to keep criminals of the streets does work, however with Maximum security prisons as safe as they are, could be argued as just as effective.

So the only description I can think of that the death penalty really does outweigh life imprisonment is for Revenge purposes.

I for one don't think the government should sponsor Revenge through the courts, it brings them to the same level as gangsters revenging the loss of one of their 'family'

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

States which have the death penalty have higher rates of murder than those who abolished it. Also those who reinstituted it saw no drop in murder rates.

The money it costs to keep a criminal on death row (legal bills) is greater than keeping them incarcerated for life.

Interestingly the law on this comes from the Old testaments, eye for an eye law, the Jews had one punishment that warranted the death sentence and that was murder. This draconic legal system was it is purported the inspiration for Americas laws. By the way Israel no longer has a death sentence, meaning they are more progressive than perhaps those of a fundementalist leaning, if you get my drift.

How do you judge a man as being incorrigable, is there a standard evaluation test that predicts sixty years of the rest of someone's life, who are you to play God?

How can a man atone for his crimes if he's dead? How do we know that he may never give anything back to society, serve as an example of a repentant man, lead others not to make his mistakes, we don't he's dead, darn

Revenge does not bring contentment in the famillies in question, it does not bring back the lost familly member and it is in the long term of no real consolation.

Quite apart from the fact that it's old fashoined and somewhat barbaric, The US I think will follow Europes lead in the end and fewer and fewer states will use it. I've yet to see anyone convince me that it does anything except waste money end life and increase murder rates.

 

[arildno]

States which have the death penalty have higher rates of murder than those who abolished it. Also those who reinstituted it saw no drop in murder rates.

The money it costs to keep a criminal on death row (legal bills) is greater than keeping them incarcerated for life.

This is one of the main reasons why I voted for life imprisonment only; death penalty does not "work" (in a generally preventive way), as it is practised in Western countries today.


One might wonder whether public torture&executions might bring an element of terror into the general population preventing them from doing crime, but from the (rather meagre) statistics from earlier Europe when this was the norm, it seems that the level of crime was, in fact, a lot higher than it is today.

So, the scare strategy in preventing crime seems singularly unsuccessful, nor are orgies of vengeful violence something we should participate in as a society, IMHO.

 

[J77]

This is one of the main reasons why I voted for life imprisonment only; death penalty does not "work" (in a generally preventive way), as it is practised in Western countries today.

You mean, as practised by the US: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

 

[arunbg]

In most of the recent cases of death penalty in the US that I have come across, the punishment is carried out at leat 10-15 years after the crime has been committed .What's the use of that? How do you know the criminal is not a changed man ?
Right to life is fundamental and no court or state has the authority to take anybody's life, period.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

By the way Israel no longer has a death sentence.

Israel did have a death penalty on the books at one time. Adolph Eichmann was the only person executed under that law. So far, I haven't found any information on the web indicating that the law had changed.

 

[MeJennifer]

Right to life is fundamental and no court or state has the authority to take anybody's life, period.

Feel free how "right to life is fundamental".
It is clearly your prerogative to have an opinion about death penalty. But to present it as some universal law, is just a sofist way of promoting your idealism.

 

[Anttech]

So he is free to have an opinion, but not express that opinion??

You totally lost me, seems like "doublespeak" or whatever they call it