what are your feelings on the death penalty?
i think the death penalty is a crime against humanity. you are truly stripped of all your rights. you think, but, can i write letters? no. can i talk to anyone? no. can i do anything? no. can i learn anything? no.
and so you are forced to stay trapped in your mind. and if you did something as awful as killing someone then you will eventually either drive yourself crazy and it would then be mental torture which is also a crime against humanity to also know that death was flying at you for this thing you just realized you were so horribly bad for. “good people make bad mistakes its what they do after that matters.” or juveniles are on death row when you read these stories its always psychologists who jump in to help the kids, so they can obviously get over it in their heads/behavior and control themselves more. and what about when they kill the wrong person?
OR. the person would just try and do things to stay on top of their humanity, find little loopholes as a prisoner if given life in prison. they can hum and make noises to sing, they can talk to themselves and make an imaginary friend. when the guard gives food they say thank you, ask how the person’s day was. joke around a little, try and get to talk. if they give crap like just stand up for yourself and hell your are in life in prison, why not fight back a little. so if you clear your conscience and get your stuff together you could potentially be “happy” in jail.
or i was thinking of you give people human rights but otherwise no they are criminals. ankle bracelets, probations, fines, classes, check ups, etc.
what do you all think?
population control?
you don’t believe the world can function at a higher level of thinking as to what to do with them?
im sorry hippo but there is more to do with life than money. once again, where are the brains? we are better than money and population control. we can help people : )
john j which cases? after how many times? under what conditions? nature or nurture?
do you see why we can’t play god?
the sad truth is the only reason i can think of it is to set an example to humanity about not to be a bad person.
otherwise “anyone” would get away with it and justice would be a joke.
people would kill each other all the time if they didn’t hear about any punnishment. greed would take over, i guess.
September 10th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
it’s called population control. if someone abuses their rights and priviledges as human being by murdering several innocent people, I’d say the world would be a better place without them.
me: ornithologist/wildlife biologist
Report this comment
September 10th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
eye 4 eye & soul 4 soul
me: ornithologist/wildlife biologist
Report this comment
September 10th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Death penalty, properly instituted, saves taxpayer money, so I’m all for that, except, the current justice system is inept to say the least so I can’t trust it to make the right decision so I’ll have to be against it unless the justice system is reformed.
I don’t truely believe in rehabilitation as it takes far too much resources and is not often successful as people can fake their way through any tests to get by.
Once someone has lost the capability to live within the rules, I don’t believe I can trust them to ever live within the rules again. Leaving them in a cage forever would be more of a crime then simply removing them for society. Unless your are going to allow personality reprogramming where we use brainwashing techniques to completely wipe and rebuild the persons personality so they can function with society. I consider this a semantic as we are still killing the person inside, we are just letting the body survive.
It is about both setting an example and also providing sufficient incentive for the rest of the population to live within the rules. Unfortunately you can’t fix people once they are broken, they can only fix themselves. Since you can’t tell the fixed ones from the ones faking being fixed, you frankly can’t trust any rehabilitation program by itself to be the solution. You need stiff penalties for some crimes, but you also need to know when to enforce them.
Ask yourself, if someone staged and set off a Nuclear weapon in New York City killing say 20-30 million people, would you accept rehabilitation as a punishment. No amount or rehabilitation is going to fix that level of contempt for your fellow man. Killing that person may be your only solution. Any situation taken to the extreme shows how the death penalty is nessesary in order to keep society running smoothly over the longer term. Ironically, in the case of the person who kills millions, I would want that person put in sensory deprivation for the rest of their lives and kept alive for as long as possible with as little contact as possible so he could suffer in the most henious way imaginable (alone). I’m a creul man when it comes to punishment and I do think for some crimes death is too good for them.
Oh and as someone just reminded me, we need more organ donors so we should make them sign the card before killing them.
me: ornithologist/wildlife biologist
Report this comment
September 10th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
I think it it too widely used especially in some states (TX). I also think some cases warrant the death penalty.
me: ornithologist/wildlife biologist
Report this comment
September 11th, 2011 at 12:38 am
It is necessary sometimes to prevent crimes.
me: ornithologist/wildlife biologist
Report this comment
September 11th, 2011 at 1:36 am
I support the death penalty. If you kill us, we’ll kill you back! But seriously,It’s hardly an issue, since most death row inmates typically wait twenty years or so before their sentence is carried out. The death penalty has been used successfully for eons. It makes people afraid to break the law, afraid to kill someone. Personally, if someone killed someone I cared about, I would want the maximum penalty the law allows. Cold blooded killers who decided that they wanted to play God deserve to have to face him for it.
me: ornithologist/wildlife biologist
Report this comment
September 11th, 2011 at 2:36 am
If the death penalty is purely for punishment – wasn’t it called capital punishment?- then it’s pretty pointless because you aren’t really penalizing, say, the serial killer, because I don’t think a dead person can feel anything. Bangbashchop. Done. Lesson learnt? NO. Furthermore death penalties are causing lifelong grief for the killer’s family, who did nothing wrong.
If the death penalty is for removing an extremely dangerous person from the society, then wouldn’t the life sentence make more sense? The criminal learns something, can see his/her family from time to time (a WAY more ethical approach) and it has the same result. There is also a chance for the person to be release after some (long) years, which gives them a second chance at life. I think that’s fair because 99.99999999999% of people have feelings.
Regarding the risk of killing the wrong person, there is actually very little chance. However… if it DOES happen, then y’know- I don’t think that person can be ever be brought back to life again.
The death penalty is pretty ironic, too. It’s like telling people “do not use violence to solve problems” while riding down doors and shooting down people who did. I believe it’s also unfair to the executioners because, well, look, to put it bluntly the second they execute someone is the second they become murderers. And an ‘experienced’ executioner would be like a serial murder… are you saying we should kill those people as well? They aren’t so innocent.
THE DEATH PENALTY, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS POINTLESS IN MY OPINION. I am proud of Australia for abolishing it!
P.S. Also interested at what everyone else thinks! It’s a very controversial topic!
@mekool
But don’t you think that’s ironic? Kill us and we will kill you back?
me: ornithologist/wildlife biologist
Report this comment
September 11th, 2011 at 3:37 am
It really depends on the individual. Unfortunately, at least in the USA, we don’t have the human or financial resources, generally, to make 100% subjective decisions regarding who should be on death row and who should not.
I will say this, however.
American prisons are, on average, filled to over 150% capacity. This is especially bad in the state of California, where they are filled to nearly 200% capacity in some cases.
Why is this?
This is because of people who are absolutely terrified of the idea of people with convictions being set loose, yet are also squeamish about the idea of a death penalty.
Overpopulated prisons sap our human AND financial resources. There are people who work twice as hard as people in jail will ever work and still don’t get as nice a life. People in jail get food, a (relatively) safe place to sleep at night, running water, toilets, and a roof over their heads…. Ever wonder why education in CA is so bad? 30 years ago, we spent roughly 3% on prisons and 15% on education. Nowadays we spend 10% on education and 15% on prisons.
We have fewer personnel in the positions that count.
My personal belief is that if a person is deemed psychologically unfit (a consistent danger to other people and possibly himself over a period of time) then perhaps death penalty would be appropriate. We euthanize rabid dogs, do we not? People who run shelters periodically euthanize dogs not only for safety or health concerns, but also to make space.
me: ornithologist/wildlife biologist
Report this comment
September 11th, 2011 at 5:36 am
I think it has its purposes. Ted Bundy certainly had it coming – some people cannot be reformed under any circumstances. He fought it to the very end, appeal after appeal, but Florida stuck to its guns. My mother said he was just plain stupid to move down there and do his serial killing in a state that has a very active death penalty. Many states have it, but haven’t used it in 20 or 30 years. People just sit on Death Row forever. Pretty much the only people who get the death penalty these days are those who are responsible for numerous deaths, such as Timothy McVeigh.
Gary Ridgway (the Green River killer) murdered about 50 people in Washington State back in the 1980s, but he was able to bargain his way out of the death penalty for life without parole by giving information. He was successful at evading capture because he chose victims who are considered “throwaways” – prostitutes, runaways, people who are often not reported missing and therefore difficult to identify. Bodies would not be found until years later, when most of the forensic evidence had been washed away or very badly deteriorated. Personally, I think he should have gotten the death penalty. People who prey upon others like that have no place on this earth.
I was watching a show about cold cases a few years back – a serial killer who had been caught for killing children was interviewed. He said that it was like being a crocodile lurking at the bottom of a river, in between meals. He could live off the kill for a long time, as much as 10 years, but the desire to kill was always there and without a doubt at some point in time he would come back up to the surface and do it again. It totally creeped me out. I just do not understand all these bleeding hearts who think the death penalty is so inhumane. If some serial killer went around killing their children for nothing more than entertainment, they might not be quite so softhearted.
Another man had killed a woman and then had sex with her dead body. When asked about that, he said on a scale of 1 to 10 it was about a 14. Ugh. Disgusting, revolting, you name it. I don’t think that he was a serial killer yet, but with that answer I am sure he would have been more that likely to be a repeat offender just to experience that high again. I saw another show about the BTK killer. These people are frightening beyond belief.
So I disagree with you that the death penalty is a crime against humanity. The families of the victims do not view it that way. I knew someone who back in the 1970s walked a girl home and watched her go up to the porch, but not actually enter the house. She was never seen alive again – some time later, she was found and was chalked up as another one of Ted Bundy’s victims. His wife told me the story and said that he was still haunted by it, over 20 years later.
Sometimes you just can’t help people. Someone with a sick, twisted mind is not going to want to be rehabilitated. They do not drive themselves crazy with guilt or think they are horrible people, as you seem to think. Ted Bundy was interviewed numerous times – he loved the attention, thrived on it actually. Talking about his deeds was pleasurable for him. He even offered investigators help when the Green River killer was at large – he told them the best way to catch the guy was to find a fresh dump site, as the killer was likely to visit it several times afterwards. How sick is that? What is really horrendous – IT IS TRUE, that is really what they do. Where is your concern for these poor victims? What fate they suffered is the real crime against humanity. I think your concern is seriously misplaced.
And what the heck do you mean by, “if they give crap like just stand up for yourself and hell your are in life in prison, why not fight back a little.” It sounds like you are encouraging these criminals to cause problems while incarcerated. Pretty poor advice.
me: ornithologist/wildlife biologist
Report this comment
September 11th, 2011 at 7:36 am
I’m against the death penalty but not because of sympathy for criminals. It doesn’t prevent or reduce crime, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.
The worst thing about it. Errors:
The system can make tragic mistakes. In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas for starting the fire that killed his children. Multiple forensic experts have since found that the arson testimony that led to his conviction was based on junk science. As of today, 138 wrongly convicted people who were sentenced to death have been exonerated. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant (as in the Willingham case) and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Capital juries are dominated by people who favor the death penalty and are more likely to convict.
Crime reduction (deterrence):
The death penalty doesn’t keep us safer. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people who lack a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent.
Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in 49 states (all except Alaska), also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty
Costs, a surprise to many people:
Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. The high costs of the death penalty are for the complicated legal process, with the largest costs at the pre-trial and trial stages. The point is to avoid executing innocent people. There are tremendous expenses in a death penalty case whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.
Who gets it:
Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty isn’t reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn’t apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. How many people with money have been executed??
Victims:
People assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty imposed. It just isn’t so. Some are against it on moral grounds. But even families who have supported the death penalty in principle have testified to the damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.
It comes down to whether we should keep a system for the sake of retribution or revenge even though it isn’t effective in reducing violent crime, costs much more than alternatives and, worst of all, can lead to the nightmare of executing someone for a crime he didn’t commit.
me: ornithologist/wildlife biologist
Report this comment
September 11th, 2011 at 9:36 am
I’m against it. I live in Texas, and I supported capital punishment for a long time, but the more I learned about it, the more I came to oppose it. In the end, several factors changed my mind:
- Mistakes happen. Since 1973 in the U.S., 138 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA and other new evidence (DNA is not available in most homicide cases). These are ALL people who were found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A life sentence is reversible. An execution is not.
- Cost – because of the legal apparatus designed to minimize wrongful executions (and the enormous expense of death row incarceration), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.
- It is not a deterrent – violent crime rates are consistently HIGHER in death penalty jurisdictions.
- It is inconsistently and arbitrarily applied.
- Because the U.S. is one of the last remaining nations with capital punishment, many other countries refuse to extradite known criminals who should be standing trial here.
- It fosters a culture of violence by asserting that killing is an acceptable solution to a problem.
- Jesus was against it (see Matthew 5:7 & 5:38-39, James 4:12, Romans 12:17-21, John 8:7, and James 1:20).
- Life without parole (LWOP) is on the books in most states now (all except Alaska), and it means what it says. People who get this sentence are taken off the streets. For good.
- As Voltaire once wrote, “let the punishments of criminals be useful. A hanged man is good for nothing; a man condemned to public works still serves the country, and is a living lesson.”
- Whether you’re a hardened criminal or a government representing the people, killing another human being is wrong. Period. “He did it first” is not a valid excuse.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
Report this comment