Death Penalty, Right Or Wrong? Your Views

[Jez 0]

For some criminals a death sentence is preferable over a lifetime spent behind bars. For that reason, and others, I'm against the death sentence.

Without making light of anyone's views on this topic, a quote from Lord of the Rings comes to mind, when Frodo tells Gandalf that it's a pity his uncle Bilbo didn't kill the creature Gollum when he had the chance, Gandalf responds-

"It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them Frodo?..Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

[Wez 0]

Me too... but only if they can proved beyond any doubt....

Yes true!

[goferrarigo 0]

For some criminals a death sentence is preferable over a lifetime spent behind bars. For that reason, and others, I'm against the death sentence.

Without making light of anyone's views on this topic, a quote from Lord of the Rings comes to mind, when Frodo tells Gandalf that it's a pity his uncle Bilbo didn't kill the creature Gollum when he had the chance, Gandalf responds-

"It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them Frodo?..Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

See the only reason i am for death penaealty is i have seen/read too many instances where hijackers keep hostages to free their leader from prision and the govt has to give in... Also heard abt when people cross the LOC and kill a few of our armymen and then they bribe the police and get out again... thus i am all for shooting those bast***s

[Rainmaster 7]

It is wrong - instead of being killed they should be tortured, much more of a deterrent.

Seriously though I think a person like that should just be locked up for the rest of their lives, isolated from other people. The death penalty is the easy way out for them, if their sorry they should live with what they've done, if their not then they should just be forced to live in complete isolation anyway.

It's not about a right to life for the perpetrator, you could argue they forfeit that right when they commit murder, it's about the lack of another person's right to take someone's else's life - nobody has that right, therefore it can never be justified. This is because you don't gain the right to take a life just because someone else abuses the same right of another person (commits murder). It's like saying 'oh you killed that person and that's completely wrong in every way so now i'm going to do exacly the same to you and that's not completely wrong because i'm going to call it a punishment'.

The only way your allowed to respond is if it's been done to you, like if someone punches you in the face - then it becomes (morally) acceptable for you to do the same to them. But of course if you've been murdered you can't respond because your dead. The problem is that people don't look at things objectively, they let feelings cloud their thoughts and stop using logic, saying things like 'if someone did that to my brother/sister/mother/father then I'd kill them' or 'they deserve to die'. These statements may be true, the criminal may *deserve* to die, but it doesn't matter you still don't have the right to take their life from them, just like they didn't have that right when they committed the original crime.

The only reason i posted this is because there's nothing on tv.

[Quiet One 15]

80 years ago (on August 23rd, 1927), Sacco and Vanzetti were executed in the USA. Maybe most younguns never heard about them (there was a fairly popular musical about them when I was a kid). Anyways, they were two anarchist workers. One day there was a robbery and the store owner and someone else were shot. Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested and accused for the murders. Of course, they were totally innocent.

It was a worldwide famous story at the time. Personalities like Chaplin and Einstein protested against the obvious farce that was the trial, and all the made up evidence just to incriminate this two guys for being Italians and anarchists. Everythimg was in vain. They were judged and finally killed.

In 1977 (50 years later) the U.S. Government finally admitted that it was a mistrial and that those two guys were innocent.

To imagine the situation in 1927, the anarchists were the most feared terrorists around the world. They killed many rulers, and robbed for their cause. Imagine today, there is an explosion in a building. The police catches two Muslim guys that write for a pro Iraqi newspaper. They were totally innocent of the explosion, yet the papers instead of focusing on that make a lot of articles about terrorism, sadam hussein and whatnot. Nobody has any sympathy for these two Muslim guys.

Does that mean that it would be good to convict them for the explosion and kill them?

Human Justice is far from perfect, always will be. And killing is a one way street.

I know this post is not very relevant, but the coincidence with the dates got me thinking. Sorry

[Lalindra 0]

Death penalty is a must in this criminal world today. If one person is given the death penaly for commiting a crime, the next person will not look to commit it. At least they'll hesitate and think twice about it

[Kay 0]

Death penalty is a must in this criminal world today. If one person is given the death penaly for commiting a crime, the next person will not look to commit it. At least they'll hesitate and think twice about it

Hmmm as long as you kill everyone who commits the crime, if you draw the line at self defence or other reasoning then they'll think, then believe they are in the minority who get away without death. For that you need to take away 'beyond reasonable doubt' too. Otherwise it doesn't work as an effective deterrent.

[mikathegreat2 2]

If it was'nt for death penalties, Saddam Hussian would still be lurking somewhere in Iraq or in the middle east! George Bush would be really p!ssed off so I guess there was no other option! It should definately be banished unless the person is a great killer & is 1 of the most wanted person ever by the US Government.

[rumblestrip 0]

Death penalty is a must in this criminal world today. If one person is given the death penaly for commiting a crime, the next person will not look to commit it. At least they'll hesitate and think twice about it

It's unfortunate that it doesn't work that way. If it did, places that had a death penalty would have a great reduction in crimes that were punishable by death, and they don't.

But then there's this guy, who didn't commit a crime at all, yet he's sentenced to death.

In less than three weeks Kenneth Foster, an African American man sentenced to death in 1997 for the murder of Michael LaHood, is scheduled to be executed in Texas.

LaHood's actual killer, Mauriceo Brown, was executed in 2006. Foster, who was in a car about 100 yards from the crime when it was committed, was convicted under the controversial Texas state "law of parties", under which the distinction between principal actor and accomplice in a crime is abolished. The law can impose the death penalty on anybody involved in a crime where a murder occurred. In Foster's case he was driving a car with three passengers, one of whom, Brown, left the car, got into an altercation and shot LaHood dead. Texas is the only state that applies this statute in capital cases, making it the only place in the United States where a person can be factually innocent of murder and still face the death penalty.

Foster maintains that he did not know that Brown would either rob or kill LaHood. According to an Amnesty International investigation, there is evidence not heard at trial that the murder was an unplanned act committed by Brown, as the latter himself claimed before his execution.

Yeah... really fair to execute a person who didn't commit the crime he's being executed for. I'm sure that's a great deterrent - for something.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Sorry for not responding to this sooner....life happens...anyway:

But where do you draw the line at? What happens if it was premeditated to protect another life, for instance if someone was hurting their child?

There is another option besides premeditated murder to remedy the situation you are talking about. I'm assuming it's a mother/child being abused by a father/boyfriend. The first option would be to leave that man and put a restraining order on him. If a murder happens in the situation you are talking about, it's normally not premeditated, but rather an act of self-defense and in most cases, if that can be proven (and it's not very difficult to prove it) the murderer doesn't even face jailtime. The circumstances most often come out in trial or even before the trial in the evidence-gathering phase of the investigations.

[Rainmaster 7]

I suppose the two main questions/arguments are:

1.Is it morally justifiable? (does anybody have the right to decide that?)

2.Is it an effective deterrent? (proved by independent research giving overwhelming evidence accross countries in many different circumstances showing that places with the death penalty have signifigantly less murder rates than places without)

If yes is the answer to both of these it must be a good thing, I just think it is too much of a grey area for us mere mortals to be meddling in, never paddle through murky moral waters.

[Medilloni 6]

What an amazing post Kay, truly brilliant.

The hard part for me is that I once thought exactly as you, and I do mean word for word. Then, as has happened with Bruce, a member of my family was murdered. So now I find that when I see articles like this, they leave me completely cold and very hard to be rational. (I think that's my way of saying, please don't be offended by my comments.)

The reason for this is that, when this happens, you (generally, not you Kate) can never understand the horror, the bad thoughts, the fear, the worry for the children of the person that was murdered, how the act shortened the lives of others through immense, awfull sorrow. .......And a million memories, thoughts and feelings that have been truly smashed. The sickness you feel with every visit to solicitors, barristers and courts. I wouldn't wish this on any sane person.

Mention is made of a situation (for example) where someone hurts your child, well the degree of hurt is uncertain here, but I absolutely believe that if someone hurt my child to the extent that it could affect him in terrible ways [now if a teacher slaps him for bullying, he deserves it. If a teacher happened to be a child mollester and harmed him in that way, there's a difference...], then I know I would kill them. I would have no remorse, and I hope I'd get away with life in prison. Is that 'right'? I don't know, I only know that buried deep in this subject, emotion will never be able to make 'sense'. In all of our different ways, we are probably all right some of the time.

It is for that reason that if a Government was determined to introduce the death penalty, they can find a way of reducing the risk of innocents being convicted. It is possible where intelligent and good people make the decisions. There are many cases that have doubt attached, killing someone through (questionable?) self defence, 'crimes of passion' (as used to be the case in France), there will be many where the death penalty should be avoided. But a huge number that are beyond question - these are the ones that should leave this place.

We hear 'but what about the victims?'. Well, it's probably fair to assume that the victims could be full of revenge, hatred and not in a position to judge fairly, and on a grand scale, whether the death penalty is right.

You say, "Life in prison should mean until they die". I agree, but isn't this just a different way of applying the death penalty, but with a clause that says, "oops, if we get it wrong, we can let them go"? Just a thought, not a dig

Also, I really believe that 'cost to the state' has no place in this. If it was a hundered times more expensive to keep these people away from others (a huge number being repeat offenders), then tax me - I'll be happy to pay.

On a purely selfish level, I believe that once convicted 'beyond doubt', then an appointed family member of the victim should choose the sentence.

And 'deterent'? Who knows, really? Will we really find out if this goes on in someones head: "Well yes, I was thinking of murdering someone, but the thought of ME being killed? No thanks"

[Kay 0]

Life imprisonment first yes allows mistakes to be corrected (as they so frequently are), secondly allows for the family of the offender not to take on the huge feelings of guilt, they still may do this of course. Thirdly, it will depend on the crimes the death penalty would be used for. Anything less than murder and the victim is still alive, while a huge amount of people don't want the death penalty exist then it is possible the victim's do not want their offenders killed. What do they do? When do they know it's from their personal point of view or that they've been threatened?

As for the change in opinion I am the complete opposite. Before I had experience of the justice system I wanted it and now I do not. One personal experience and then it reaffirmed by the loss of the daughter of my mum's close friend who was my age.

The huge problem is that the death penalty is seen as a solution to the crime, but it rarely ever thought of in context to our current system (thanks to the closed nature of our system). I can remember countless mistakes, victims and witnesses were not even told of the change to the date of important days. Paperwork was clearly misplaced as delays got ridiculous. I do not, at all, trust this system to have a death penalty. I then think to all the parents jailed for killing their young babies, but later freed.

In response to your second to last comment, what does the person choosing the sentence do (is there a limitation on who they are) and who do you pick? The person with most anger who wants the worst sentence, or the person who feels compassion? The middle ground, but what if there isn't any? What happens if that person doesn't have any family?

Mike - do you have five year cut off point there where after that point you cannot prosecute the offender for that crime? What happens to the few times it is pre-meditated? For instance their child finally tells them that they were hurt in the past and they know they're not strong enough to go through the justice system because they would get torn apart? Or if they went through the system, but it hurt their child so much they had to drop the charges?

There certainly needs to be changes, but personally the system here is too flawed to be choosing who lives and dies. It's good to see so many people having clear opinions on the matter and that we are able to discuss this without causing offence (or at least not meaning to), so many times I have encountered discussions elsewhere when people just couldn't accept other opinion.

[Medilloni 6]

Wow Kay, you type faster than a speeding bullet!

And I kind of agree (if that makes any sense...) with most of what you say. Like a said before (and pretty badly), I struggle to make sense of the whole topic sometimes - like, I know my opinion is clouded with other stuff and I understsnd that as a nation we need to be as fair as possible. The nagging doubt I have is whether the law has much to do with justice and morals - but those two things are unique and personal to us all............

Can't type fast enough, just a few thoughts injected into your post below:

Life imprisonment first yes allows mistakes to be corrected (as they so frequently are), secondly allows for the family of the offender not to take on the huge feelings of guilt, they still may do this of course Shouldn't this be part of the incentive for the offender?. Thirdly, it will depend on the crimes the death penalty would be used for. Anything less than murder and the victim is still alive, while a huge amount of people don't want the death penalty exist then it is possible the victim's do not want their offenders killed And if they do? options currently don't exist for those that have been offended. What do they do? When do they know it's from their personal point of view or that they've been threatened?

As for the change in opinion I am the complete opposite. Before I had experience of the justice system I wanted it and now I do not. One personal experience and then it reaffirmed by the loss of the daughter of my mum's close friend who was my age. Sorry to hear that Kay.

The huge problem is that the death penalty is seen as a solution to the crime I don't think of it as a solution, just that there is no chance they can ever commit murder again , but it rarely ever thought of in context to our current system (thanks to the closed nature of our system). I can remember countless mistakes, victims and witnesses were not even told of the change to the date of important days. Paperwork was clearly misplaced as delays got ridiculous. I do not, at all, trust this system to have a death penalty. I then think to all the parents jailed for killing their young babies, but later freed. That's true Kay, and I don't disagree - but for all of these there are many cases where the offence is clearly indisputable - for example, and to make a point, lets say the nut cases that drove their car into Glasgow Airport succeeded in killing people and they both lived through it, many people saw them - I believe in cases as clear cut as that, then they should be killed.

In response to your second to last comment, what does the person choosing the sentence do (is there a limitation on who they are) and who do you pick? The person with most anger who wants the worst sentence, or the person who feels compassion? The middle ground, but what if there isn't any? What happens if that person doesn't have any family? Lots of options here, for example if there's no-one to act as spokesperson for what the family agree, then there is a standard way of getting rid of them. I admit Kay, this one is not driven by logic, just what I personaly would have like to have had a say in.

Mike - do you have five year cut off point there where after that point you cannot prosecute the offender for that crime? What happens to the few times it is pre-meditated? For instance their child finally tells them that they were hurt in the past and they know they're not strong enough to go through the justice system because they would get torn apart? Or if they went through the system, but it hurt their child so much they had to drop the charges?

There certainly needs to be changes, but personally the system here is too flawed to be choosing who lives and dies. There do need to be changes,agreed. I'm concerned that despite whatever is done, or whoever is in charge, I can see no reason to trust the collective brain power of our Government - or a prospective replacement.It's good to see so many people having clear opinions on the matter and that we are able to discuss this without causing offence (or at least not meaning to), so many times I have encountered discussions elsewhere when people just couldn't accept other opinion. Agreed, but I suspect that is borne out your eloquent and intelligent manner Kay.

[pumpdoc 2]

I'll state my position very clearly...............someone who kills in cold blood does not deserve to live, simple as that, and no it's not a deterant it's not about deterance.

[Jenson_Rules 0]

I'm a bit of both. On the one side it would worry me if innocent people (including those who were provoked etc!) got it, however if it was a cold blooded murder like whats happening in the UK all the time then yes, I do feel the death penalty (to be made public too like hangings used to be) is the way forward! Look at Dubai, they have the death penalty and it's one of the safest places to live. I also think immigrants who commit a crime should get 30 days in prison then deportation immediately and forever banned fom re-entering the country! They had their chance, they broke it, so they can **** off!

[Autumnpuma 0]

Mike - do you have five year cut off point there where after that point you cannot prosecute the offender for that crime? What happens to the few times it is pre-meditated? For instance their child finally tells them that they were hurt in the past and they know they're not strong enough to go through the justice system because they would get torn apart? Or if they went through the system, but it hurt their child so much they had to drop the charges?

We do have a statute of limitations here, but what do we say about a person who chooses, after a span of five years, to take the law into his or her own hands and decides to kill a person? Somehow that seems a crime greater, perhaps, than the abuse heaped upon the victim. As for not being strong enough to go through the justice system, well, it seems to me that killing a person would be more difficult and more scarring. Also, how is it more civilized to decide on your own to kill a person without trial than to fight to get the statute of limitations on certain crimes expanded? A lawful execution of a criminal who has had 15-20 years of appeals seems better to me than the vigilante killing by a victim who doesn't like the legal system. Just my take on it.

I'm far from the expert on it, but I believe those circumstances you describe would mitigate (and lessen) the sentence. Those on death row here in Kalifornia do not fall into that category you describe.

There certainly needs to be changes, but personally the system here is too flawed to be choosing who lives and dies. It's good to see so many people having clear opinions on the matter and that we are able to discuss this without causing offence (or at least not meaning to), so many times I have encountered discussions elsewhere when people just couldn't accept other opinion.

I wouldn't throw out the whole concept of a death penalty simply because the system is flawed. Fix the system.

[Kay 0]

I wouldn't throw out the whole concept of a death penalty simply because the system is flawed. Fix the system.

I think my first post proves I'm not just focusing on one thing!

[Autumnpuma 0]

I think my first post proves I'm not just focusing on one thing!

True. I was, rather narrowly, addressing your questions to me. I realize your stance on this is more complex than the one facet you put to me!