Death Sentence Vs Life Imprisonment

  • Thread starter arunbg
  • Start date

Death sentence or Life imprisonment

  • Life imprisonment only

    Votes: 23 50.0%
  • Both, depending on crime

    Votes: 23 50.0%

  • Total voters
    46
  • #1
590
0
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
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
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.
 
  • #3
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
I voted Both. Some people deserve to swing from the gallows.
 
  • #4
590
0
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.
 
  • #5
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
I'm just saying thats 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.
 
  • #6
siddharth
Homework Helper
Gold Member
1,127
0
I don't think that anyone should be sentenced to death.
 
  • #7
Evo
Mentor
23,155
2,804
arunbg said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes gracy
  • #8
siddharth
Homework Helper
Gold Member
1,127
0
Pengwuino said:
I'm just saying thats 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.
 
  • #9
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
siddharth said:
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...
 
  • #10
Kurdt
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,812
6
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.
 
  • #11
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
Tom Mattson said:
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.
 
  • #12
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
But how often is a housewife given the death penalty for killing her abusive husband?
 
  • #13
1,997
5
Kurdt said:
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.
 
  • #14
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
arildno said:
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.
 
  • #15
Kurdt
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,812
6
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.
 
  • #16
siddharth
Homework Helper
Gold Member
1,127
0
Penguino said:
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.

MeJennifer said:
"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.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
1,997
5
Kurdt said:
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? :confused:
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. :smile:

I wonder if you would call a lion mentally ill as well? :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #18
918
16
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.
 
  • #19
Kurdt
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,812
6
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.
 
  • #20
759
0
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)
 
  • #21
1,997
5
Kurdt said:
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. :confused:
I think it would say much more about you than about me. :smile:

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Evo
Mentor
23,155
2,804
Kurdt said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
siddharth said:
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)?
 
  • #24
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
bomba923 said:
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.
 
  • #25
Kurdt
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,812
6
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 thats 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.
 

Related Threads on Death Sentence Vs Life Imprisonment

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
5K
Top