FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What Are Your Thoughts On The Death Penalty?





smokey4life
The death penalty is irreversible. There's no going back and saying 'oopsie, we made a mistake, we take it back'. It's been proven that it doesn't serve as a deterrent - that is, doesn't keep other people from committing the same crime. The only thing it does better than any other penalty is make damn sure that that person never commits the same crime again (or for the first time). Given all that, you'd think I'm against the death penalty - but I'm not. I think in certain cases it may be the only way to protect society from truly heinous persons.
IceNinjaa
im for it. if people are "qualified" for the death penalty they obviously did something to merit such a punishment. i don't think there are usually mistakes with it. its not like prison where once the punishment is determined its served immediately. they dont just kill the person with whatever method they chose. there are usually years before it happens. and if theres any mistake with the case its usually discovered within that frame of time.

sure there are some kinks with it all. as well as some area for debate but its one of those things that are needed in some instances. because as hard as it is to believe, there are some people that just wont give up no matter what. and the death penalty is the only way to ensure they dont do anything to other people.
vahsi000
there shouldn't be a debate on if the death penalty should exist or not, rather the should be a debate about what kind of crimes should be penalised by the death penalty.
otiscom
I think the death penalty should be there, but as said previously, what crimes "qualify" for it.
That is another discussion.
Miniwood
I am against the death penalty.

It seems to me that life without parole is a far better punishment. You can only kill a person once and then it's over for them, endless days in jail until you die is far worse. And if society did make a mistake then the person can be released, if they are dead then we have forced the staff who killed them to deal with the killing of an innocent person.

It surprises me that the death penalty is so widespread in America, a predominantly Christian country. I'm atheist but I do know that one of the ten commandments is 'Thou shalt not kill', there's no clauses to that. It's not 'That shalt not kill unless the majority of you think it's a wise thing to do in the circumstances'.

Another example of the inadequacy of the death penalty is shown by the reactions to the trial of Saddam Hussain. The victims say they want him skinned alive or tortured, they feel that our current 'humane' death penalty is not enough, they feel he should suffer for the thousands of deaths he has caused. The best way to punish Saddam is to lock him up for life. He was a President, life as a lowly prisoner will be a true punishment, hanging or shooting him will end his misery.

Staff who carry out the death penalty often deal with post-traumatic stress and many take their own lives because they cannot deal with their own acts. Criminals should be punished, some of them for the rest of their lives, but we shouldn't make murderers of ourselves.
pjv
i am not sure where i stand. my religion said it's not good and i agree but sometimes, criminals are like hopeless cases and do heinous crimes over and over. They wreck people's lives and terrorized their victims that sometimes I like to be in favor of it.
Daniel15
This reminds me of a while ago in school (we were doing Van Nguyen and the death penality as one of our Issues)...

I personally think that the death penality shouldn't exist (or be brought back, the last person executed in Australia was Ronald Ryan, in 1967). Everybody has a right to live, even if they have done some bad things. Allowing the Death Penality is basically allowing 'legal killing', which is why I'm against it.

If I could find my essay I wrote on the topic, I'd post the whole essay here Razz
IceNinjaa
yes, life without parole is definetely a worse punishment than the death penalty. however its inevitable that there are some who would do anything to escape prison once they realize how bad it is. yeah they could have increased security around them 24/7. but some criminals have the wits about them to get whatever they want. i find it to be one of those necessary evils
Bondings
To me the death penalty is the symbol of vengeance and hate and nothing less than legalized murder.

I qualify any killing of an intelligent being (in this case human) without his/her consent or by directly saving another intelligent being, as murder.

And for your information, mistakes always happen and much more than most people think. If I'm not mistaken over 3-5% of the cases in the USA are disproven after the death penalty. And the real rate is of course much bigger.
Shiva
Funny that the rate is mucj bigger.. since it was the government who killed the second time, not the guilty!! Confused
alkady
Miniwood wrote:


It seems to me that life without parole is a far better punishment.


Problem is, To us. Prison is the Best Punishment, But to the Prisoners, Death is 100% Better than getting Ass-Raped by Big Bubba Daily and later on Getting Diseases such as Hepatitis which is quite common in Prisons, STD's which are the Result of an Ass Raping by a HIV infested Prisoner etc.

Prisons are House to Serial Killers, Pedophiles, Rapist, Psychopaths (Well the ones that don't commit Psychopathic Crimes and end up in the Coo Coo House), Disease Carriers and such!

Perhaps people should have a choice, Because Death Sentences right now are indignified to the Prisoner. Well the Way the Sentence is made Public to a Select few!
tylergram
Deleted
standready
I am torn on this subject. I don't like the idea of killing anybody but I also don't seeing someone who has committed the crime sitting comfortably in an air conditioned/heated cell getting 3 meals a day provided to them.
I remeber reading a book where the max prison was a high walled area in like an old rundown part of a city. One way in, no way out. No electricity. Guards patrolling outside only to prevent escape. Some food was slung over the wall for the prisoners but never enough for all to get a meal.. Basically letting them exist like animals.
Soulfire
I'm against the death penalty.

Firstly, to me, it would appear that we are being hypocritical when we commit the same crime that the person being put to death is, and that is killing someone. Nobody deserves to die before their "time" is up, and it's a civil line we must learn to draw and respect.

Here's why:
1) It costs more money to put someone to death than to imprison them for life.

2) I believe that the death penalty falls under "cruel and unusual punishment, which is clearly not allowed by our founding documents (The Constitution).

3) There's no turning back. There's no erasing killing someone. When you put them to death, it's permanent, and when you've found out that you have killed them in error, a condolence card to the family won't solve the problem. There are innocent people on death row.

Since 1976, at least 95 people have been found innocent while on death row. 1 in every 7 people executed is innocent of the crime they are charged with.

4) The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime. The majority of states with the death penality have higher murder rates than states without the death penalty.

5) Don't you think life behind bars - no freedom, just wasting away in a cell is a more severe punishment than death? To kill them is to free them of their guilt and conscience.
Tatsumaru
I don't think humans should act as a god and kill their own kind... but on the other hand, I do think someone who has commited horrible crimes (massmurder and the like) doesn't deserve to live. It's difficult really... but you can always still lock criminals up and let them rot away and repent. I think I'll go with 'against death penalty' in that case.
foodman
well as many of you have said its unfair and there are many flaws to it.
if the peron is innocent and is put to death then that 1 more innocent perosn killed.
Why should the government have the right to kill people?? We cant kill them with out punishment so neither should the governtment.......
N!Ce
Killing 1 innocent human being is in my opinion far worse than leaving 1000 guilty alive.
Seeing how many committed verdicts that led to a death penalty have been disproven afterwards, I don't think it is a good idea at all.

They should rather be imprisoned for the rest for their lifes. That way they won't be able to harm others either and at the same time they can still be released in case their innocence gets proven afterwards.

My 2.5 cents :f
Bondings
Soulfire wrote:
Since 1976, at least 95 people have been found innocent while on death row. 1 in every 7 people executed is innocent of the crime they are charged with.

I didn't know it was that bad. Shocked

Soulfire wrote:
To kill them is to free them of their guilt and conscience.

I completely agree with this one. By committing the same crime/thing to the person in question you place yourself on the same (low) level as the person and virtually undo their crime, freeing them from guilt and conscience.

In my opinion, the strongest signal against murder is by not doing/supporting it yourself in all circumstances. And that's what society should be doing.
"You are a murderer .... and so are we."
"You are a murderer .... but we aren't."

tylergram wrote:
If someone murdered my spouse or child, I think I would want them to die.

That would be the case for most people, I'm not sure if I would resist to that feeling. In those circumstances people are blinded by hate. And justice should be based on logic and not on hate.
woundedhealer
I'm against the death penalty and glad we don't have it in the UK. Taking a life is wrong, no matter what the circumstances.

rom a spiritual point of view, I believe the people who carry out the death penalties will have to answer for their actions at some point in their existance. In my mind a plea of 'only following orders' isn't going to let them off the hook. Then there's the judges who ordered the death penalties, will they have to answer for it as well? I don't know, but I think probably yes they will.
tylergram
Deleted
Duck
Soulfire wrote:
I'm against the death penalty.

Firstly, to me, it would appear that we are being hypocritical when we commit the same crime that the person being put to death is, and that is killing someone. Nobody deserves to die before their "time" is up, and it's a civil line we must learn to draw and respect.

Here's why:
1) It costs more money to put someone to death than to imprison them for life.

2) I believe that the death penalty falls under "cruel and unusual punishment, which is clearly not allowed by our founding documents (The Constitution).

3) There's no turning back. There's no erasing killing someone. When you put them to death, it's permanent, and when you've found out that you have killed them in error, a condolence card to the family won't solve the problem. There are innocent people on death row.

Since 1976, at least 95 people have been found innocent while on death row. 1 in every 7 people executed is innocent of the crime they are charged with.

4) The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime. The majority of states with the death penality have higher murder rates than states without the death penalty.

5) Don't you think life behind bars - no freedom, just wasting away in a cell is a more severe punishment than death? To kill them is to free them of their guilt and conscience.


I am against the death penalty and I totally agree with Soulfire. Point 5 is actually exactly the same as my argument against death penalty. Death penalty is not a punishment for most people. It's a release. Soulfire said it all Razz Laughing
HoboPelican
I've seen a number of sites disputing the figures that anti-death penalty proponents quote. I won't argue the point, just be aware that there is disagreement on what the actual figures of innocents killed is. And if you believe one erroneous death is enough to ban the death penalty, I can respect that point of view.

The cruel and unusual argument doesn't hold water for me. Life in prison can be just as cruel to some. Just look above to see the people who say that life in prison would be worse. Which actually would be more cruel is dependant on the prison and the individual. Do we ban life terms also?

Against the Bible? In some other current thread there is a list of many offenses that the Bible states deserve stoning. So there is a biblical basis for the death penalty.

Deterrence? Maybe a small effect, but you can't use that as a reason.

Vengeance? Prison could be worse than death.

Cost? Shouldn't enter into it in my mind. It's a bigger issue.

Yeah, I don't have answers. I think certain people need to be removed from society. I guess I believe it should be used, but it should be reserved for very heinous crimes where there is no doubt or there is a confession.
(and yes, I do think there are crimes where there is no doubt involved.)
Soulfire
Quote:
I've seen a number of sites disputing the figures that anti-death penalty proponents quote. I won't argue the point, just be aware that there is disagreement on what the actual figures of innocents killed is. And if you believe one erroneous death is enough to ban the death penalty, I can respect that point of view.

It's not one erroneous death - but more than one, and the possibility that many more people on death row are innocent. But my figures could be wrong. (The figures I have were from information packets when we debated this in our Sociology class). But you're right, the numbers could be different.
Quote:
The cruel and unusual argument doesn't hold water for me. Life in prison can be just as cruel to some. Just look above to see the people who say that life in prison would be worse. Which actually would be more cruel is dependant on the prison and the individual. Do we ban life terms also?

It could be - but something must be done to punish people, we can't just let criminals go scott-free can we? I guess what my point is that in my opinion death seems more cruel and unusual than a life sentence in prison. Like I said, it's just my opinion.
Quote:
Against the Bible? In some other current thread there is a list of many offenses that the Bible states deserve stoning. So there is a biblical basis for the death penalty.

The Bible is conflicting slightly about murder. I'm not sure what my thoughts are on the Bible and the death penalty, but know that this scripture is before God's commandments, and before Jesus Christ. Bear in mind that this is much closer to the beginning of the earth than other scripture, so it may seem a bit barbaric, but you can't have a holy book without violence.

Genesis 4:11-15
"And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;...a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."

Adam and Eve's sons were Cain, a farmer, and Abel, a shepherd. Both brought the best they could do to sacrifice to God. God accepted Abel's sacrifice of meat, but rejected Cain's offering of grain. Cain's dissapointment turned to anger, and he murdered his brother - Abel. God cursed Cain for the murder and sent him to wander the earth. God put a mark on Cain that nobody that saw him would be motivated to kill him. If anyone killed Cain for the murder of his brother, that person would be very severely punished. Here, banishment and exile is the penalty for murder; capital punishment is specifically prohibited.

The first mention of capital punishment as a penalty for murder is in Genesis 9:6

Genesis 9:6:
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

This passage is regarding that killing of man is an offence to God because we are an image of God. Unlike the previous passage which gives exile and banishment as a punishment for murder, this passage requires the murderer to be killed.

Perhaps it is one of those "gray areas" in the Bible, after all, nothing really is too black and white.
Quote:
Deterrence? Maybe a small effect, but you can't use that as a reason.

Why can't I? Clearly the death penalty doesn't scare people to not kill, because people are still killing people.
Quote:
Vengeance? Prison could be worse than death.

Again, that's your opinion (which differs from mine), but that's expected.
Quote:
Cost? Shouldn't enter into it in my mind. It's a bigger issue.

I mentioned that just to supplement the rest of my opinion. When we were debating the issue at our Youth in Government conference, cost was a huge issue (it always is in politics...).
Quote:
I think certain people need to be removed from society

Life behind bars is removing them from society.

I'm not totally 100% against it, but I think it's being used carelessly, and needs to be restricted a lot more than it currently is.
HoboPelican
Soulfire wrote:

...
Quote:
Deterrence? Maybe a small effect, but you can't use that as a reason.

Why can't I? Clearly the death penalty doesn't scare people to not kill, because people are still killing people.
..
Quote:
I think certain people need to be removed from society

Life behind bars is removing them from society.
...
I'm not totally 100% against it, but I think it's being used carelessly, and
needs to be restricted a lot more than it currently is.


I'm not really arguing for it, Soulfire. My statement that deterrence shouldn't be used as an argument was meant in the sense that I wouldn't use it as an argument FOR capital punishment. I agree that it has a very minimal deterrent effect. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that point.

We agree that some people need to be removed from society. However, I don't accept life imprisonment as being enough of a guarantee. Our legal system is too flawed in my mind to assure that they won't be released 20 or 30 years down the line. And what about the society in prison? Should a mass murderer be allowed in the same population as embezzlers and other non-violent criminals? For that matter, what about all the falsely convicted inmates who you are locking them up with? The isn't it mportant to protect the society in prison is as well as outside? (remember, your argument is that there are innocent people in prison) Should we have them in solitary for life?

These are just questions, and honestly, I don't have any good answers myself. I will not say that anyone opposing the death sentence is wrong. With no hesitation I say that I admire their convictions. Those in favor of capital punsihment often feel that way for what, to me, are the wrong reasons. But I do believe that in some rare situations, the death penalty is appropriate. And by your last line, I'd even venture to say we agree more than we think.
Soulfire
Quote:
I'm not really arguing for it, Soulfire. My statement that deterrence shouldn't be used as an argument was meant in the sense that I wouldn't use it as an argument FOR capital punishment. I agree that it has a very minimal deterrent effect. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that point.

My mistake, I misinterpreted your thoughts. Sorry about that too.
Quote:
We agree that some people need to be removed from society. However, I don't accept life imprisonment as being enough of a guarantee. Our legal system is too flawed in my mind to assure that they won't be released 20 or 30 years down the line. And what about the society in prison? Should a mass murderer be allowed in the same population as embezzlers and other non-violent criminals? For that matter, what about all the falsely convicted inmates who you are locking them up with? The isn't it mportant to protect the society in prison is as well as outside? (remember, your argument is that there are innocent people in prison) Should we have them in solitary for life?

True - there are many flaws in our legal system, and a sentence of life in prison doesn't necessarily mean that the person will spend his/her life in prison. And it's not as permanent as death either.

To me, it doesn't matter really who they are with, but I could be mistaken (because I know slim to nothing about prison life). As long as they are all locked up and secured, it's out of sight and out of mind for me (but I am not naive enough to think that we life in a perfect world, I mean, escapes are possible).

As for a falsely convicted inmate... Well, at least they have the chance at an appeal and to prove themselves innocent. If you're killed... Well, I guess you're out of luck for an appeal or attempt to prove innocence.

I believe that our prison systems handle themselves well enough to keep the prison society at least under control.

Quote:
These are just questions, and honestly, I don't have any good answers myself. I will not say that anyone opposing the death sentence is wrong. With no hesitation I say that I admire their convictions. Those in favor of capital punsihment often feel that way for what, to me, are the wrong reasons. But I do believe that in some rare situations, the death penalty is appropriate. And by your last line, I'd even venture to say we agree more than we think.

If you read through my post, you'll see I stumbled through them. Oh well, I tried to answer them to the best of my ability, but alas... not very much ability, heh... Wink. I agree with your "rare situations, the death penalty is appropriate" statement. When you mentioned the Bible and I went passage-hunting, that helped to confirm it as well, that the death penalty is justifiable, sometimes but I currently think people are put to death too hastily and the penalty is carelessly used.
shwetanshu
i m for it too.. if ppl have committed a cruel/bad enough crime he shud be awarded death!!
saiyeek
There should be death penalty.
Saryon
There definately should be death penalty. In my country, we have a criminal who already raped and killed over 4 young girls. Perhaps even more. After he committed those horrible crimes, we have been able to catch him.
In his case, I think he should receive the death penalty immediatly. Unfortunatly, it doesn't exist here (anymore). There have been serious discussions wether we should create it once again, for these serious cases. At the end, we're not going to do it. I disagree, but I'm just a citizen.
I mean, he will be locked away for the rest of his life (they say...). But still, he doesn't deserve the right to live anymore. Who knows, he might escape, and do it again...
arkebuzer
oh yeah! Im for it!

In sweden we pay tax money so that rapists and killers can watch cable TV and eat a lot better food than what you get in school.

Id say kill em all Wink Its cheap and effective!
bigdan
I'm not in favour of the death penalty. I'd prefer criminals to spend the rest of their worthless lives behind bars with no chance of parole EVER. They can rot in there.
anathema
Against of course because anyone can take the life of a person...
mwellsy
bring it on!!!

if natural selection couldn't remove them from the gene pool,
than someone has to Laughing
-SonyGamer
I think that it's only good if a person has been sent to jail for life. I mean, why make them suffer there whole life in jail when you can just end it for them. There's no turning back from a life sentence. But if they aren't done for life, they shouldn't get the death sentence since they could always improve.
jipmerite
It is true that it seems a worse punishment to suffer behind bars for the rest of ones life. But most criminals know that life imprisonment doesn't necessarily mean 'life' but a set period, like 15 years in some places. And also, whithin those 15 years, there are ways to get out before that, like good behavious etc....

And imprisonment does not seem so bad when you have to choose between that and death,

So I think the death penalty should be there as a deterrent for criminals.
Wahwah Man
I'm for it.

if i was to commit some heinous crime (hypothetically of course) i would totally choose firing squad. goiing out in style Cool
leat397
I agree that death penalty is irreversible. That's really no way for the guilty person appeal in the future. It's a definite and final decision for the criminal.

I think justice is to make everyone live harmony, how many effort they put create what they would receive. They killed someone and they should pay for it. The point is, how justice is there in the world? Wealthy people coul easily excape from physical punishment by the use of money, they could hire a great lawyer in fight for not being judged...

What I mean is, practically death penalty is no a best solution unless we have a higher level of equality in society
jipmerite
A perfect society is really hypothetical. But let's say the legal system is perfected and there was no corruption in the goverment. There would still be people who commit crimes, kill people, terrorist acts.

The question is whether the death penalty should still be there or be abolished.

Even in the most advanced societies, there will be crime. And crime should be punished. nAnd if the crime is bad enough, the Jury should have the option of dealing out the death penalty.
HoboPelican
jipmerite wrote:
A perfect society is really hypothetical. But let's say the legal system is perfected and there was no corruption in the goverment. There would still be people who commit crimes, kill people, terrorist acts.

The question is whether the death penalty should still be there or be abolished.

Even in the most advanced societies, there will be crime. And crime should be punished. nAnd if the crime is bad enough, the Jury should have the option of dealing out the death penalty.


Well, as you said, it's all hypothetical. Are you hypothesizing a fool proof judicial system, also? Absolutely no errors in conviction? You talk about about no corruption in the judicial system, but I don't see coruption as being the failing point.

If you are assuming perfection, then I am more for it than before. But I imagine those who say any taking of human live is wrong will still be against it.
kazikame
Death is liberation. Keep them in jail for the rest of their lives. That's a real punishment.
Miniwood
arkebuzer wrote:
Id say kill em all Wink Its cheap and effective!


That's not true. The Death penalty is very expensive because as soon as the death penalty is put on the table more money is spent on the case. Then only a very few death penalty cases result in an execution. Take a look here:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=7&did=258

or just read this quote if you're lazy:

Quote:
The most comprehensive study conducted in this country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty system imposing a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life.5 As I mentioned earlier, these findings are sensitive to the number of executions the state carries out. However, the authors noted that even if the death penalty was 100% efficient, i.e., if every death sentence resulted in an execution, the extra costs to the taxpayers would still be $216,000 per execution.


So that's anything from $216,000 (with maximum number of innocents killed) to $2.16 million more than life imprisonment.

Having said all that, in matters of human life, cost should not be a consideration.
HoboPelican
Miniwood wrote:

Quote:
The most comprehensive study conducted in this country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty system imposing a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life.5 As I mentioned earlier, these findings are sensitive to the number of executions the state carries out. However, the authors noted that even if the death penalty was 100% efficient, i.e., if every death sentence resulted in an execution, the extra costs to the taxpayers would still be $216,000 per execution.



Read the link, unfortunately the actual report (reference 5) cited is not available. As such, I have serious questions about their methods. It sounds like they are adding all legal costs for all death penalty cases and dividing them by the number that are executed. If that is true, it is very misleading. It is not the average cost for each case, but just piling all the costs for the failed cases onto the successful ones.

But I still agree that costs should not be considered when deciding this issue.
sketteksalfa
I say, im absolutely against death penalty. we dont have the right to kill base on our judgement. only God on his own judgement, the creator can restore and knows if it is your end. We cannot play as God.
HoboPelican
sketteksalfa wrote:
I say, im absolutely against death penalty. we dont have the right to kill base on our judgement. only God on his own judgement, the creator can restore and knows if it is your end. We cannot play as God.


That's fine, but doesn't the OT give examples of offenses that people should be stoned to death for? Doesn't that put the issue back with man?
Soulfire
Okay, so I've confirmed that I am for the death penalty only in rare occaisons. And when I mean rare, I mean very rare. It is still my opinion that the death penalty is arbitrary and capricious because no man is perfect, so therefore that imperfect man [in my opinion] will make mistakes when it comes to terminating the life of another man. Sometimes due to individual prejudice.

Okay, that aside, let me bring up not only the issue of death, but the method in which people sentenced to death are executed.

People are killed the following ways:
Lethal Injections (27 states)
Electrocution (12 states)
Gas Chamber (7 states)
Hanging (4 states)
Firing Squads (3 states)

Alright, so lethal injections seem to be the most popular, but is lethal injection TOO peaceful? You have a vein stuck in you, and you calmly and peacefully pass into what has been described as a "sleep like" state, and then dead. To me, that is not a deterrent to crime, certainly not an incentive to commit crime, but still, not deterrent (or not deterrent enough).

The other ones, at least in my opinion, seem very barbaric - especially barbaric are hanging and firing squads. Some states are "kind" enough to offer you a choice of how you'd like to die.

Some refined arguments (of mine) against the death penalty:
1) Because of everything a death sentence entails, it can cost up to 6 times as much as incarceration. Although many have claimed that when dealing with human life, cost is not an issue, in today, where money is of the essence, this should be a strong anti-Death penalty argument.

2) It's irreversable. Since 2000, 25 people have been executed although they are innocent of the crime they were charged with.

3) It's racist. This is a bold claim I know, but two-thirds of any case involving a black or hispanic killing a white results in the death penalty, and overall a black person is 5 times more likely to receive the death penalty.

4) The death penalty gives no room for redemption, rehabilitation, restoration, or repair for the criminal. It's unfortunate that it does not allow people to change.

5) Executions add to the glorification of violence we have in our society today. It legitimates murder, and some of the methods we use are downright ghastly.

6) Civilized countries, in my opinion, should not have it. China and former Soviet republics are abolishing it. Every human has an inherent right to dignity and life.

7) Since I am religious, I will throw this in: the New Testament tells us not to "play God", meaning that worldy court decisions bear no right to make decisions that undermine God's existing plan. Jesus taught us to show mercy and compassion toward everyone.
HoboPelican
Soulfire wrote:

Some refined arguments (of mine) against the death penalty:
.......


All good points. That said, I would only really question item 2. I have yet to see any figures like that corroborated that convincingly. If you scan the pro-penalty sites, they claim that "x" number of reversed decisions where not exonerations, but legal ploys vacating a decision, deals, legal hocus pocus with evidentiary rules, etc. They claim that these people were not innocent in reality OR legally. Just that the sentence was reversed.

I don't' stand by either sides statements on erroneous convictions because neither side has ever shown numbers that can be checked easily.
Daniel15
OK, I just scanned in my essay on capital punishment.
Take a look, if you can understand my handwriting:

Page 1: http://daniel15.com/stuff/capital_punishment_1.jpg
Page 2: http://daniel15.com/stuff/capital_punishment_2.jpg

Very Happy
crimson_aria
Death penalty would decrease the amount of crimes in a country. If people are scared of something such as getting killed, naturally, they'd avoid it. I admit it might help a lot.

However, I believe everyone has the right to live and to repent for his sins. Death penalty would end every chance for the person to live another life as someone better. Judges can think of equivalent punishment other than death. Yes, there's a saying "an eye for an eye". But, there's also another saying (from Mahatma Gandhi), "an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind". People say death penalty is justice. But how do you define justice? I remember what my high school teacher said, "Justice without love is revenge". Are they sure they want justice? Or they just want revenge? Fine, people who's loved ones are victims would basically want revenge. But after that, what would happen? Death is not the cure. It would only make sufferings worse. People might want revenge because they cannot give justice, they cannot give love. Sometimes it's easier to hate than to love. I'm against death penalty.
woundedhealer
Quote:
Death penalty would decrease the amount of crimes in a country. If people are scared of something such as getting killed, naturally, they'd avoid it. I admit it might help a lot.

The death penalty doesn't decrease crime. The sort of person that would avoid commiting a crime because of the threat of a death penalty is not generally the sort of person who commits a crime.
godam64
death sentences should be given to the high level crime that really really really annoying non criminals people. the used of death penalty is to make people afraid to make the same mistakes and to reduce high level crime. i think a really bad criminals should die since they can't adjust themself in normal society.
kerouac
I am against the death penalty. I believe that life inprisonment is a more effective punishment. The UK voted out capital punishment in 1963, and subsequently banned the possession of firearms including shotguns. In the USA capital punishment still exists. And there is also the right to bear arms.

There is always the chance that an innocent man (or woman) could be excuted. With life inprisonment this could not occur.
Fanghai44
ppl dont hav to die for watever they do unless they kill some1 else...so im not 4 the death penalty
Related topics
Religious Zealot Kills
Is the death penalty wrong?
I knew the Governator wouldn't let me down...
F. Nietzsche
Serial killer tries to kill himself.
Troops charged with murdering Iraqi civilian
Saddam sentenced to death
[UK News] 5 deaths lead to suspicion of a Serial Killer.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Scrates
Islam, Apostasy and the Death Penalty
China's Human Rights Record
Sin, original sin, devil;Fantasy or real?
Is it immoral to write a story where the characters suffer?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.