Poll
Do you think there should be a death penalty for the most heinous crimes?
YES
NO
UNSURE
349 total votes
Poll added by: James
Comments Showing 401-450 of 509 (509 new)
Lisa wrote: "Fay wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Fay wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "So a human life comes down to affordability.... That don't sound right to me..."One cannot put a monetary value on a human life.
..."
Erg, these things are hard to decide on.
Maybe if there was a true working rehabilitation program for these kinds of people and it really worked then there would be a prison sentence but maybe not a life sentence. And even after they were released there would still be some kind of watch on them.
But if the rehabilitation didn't work then the life sentence would stay.
Fay wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Fay wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Fay wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "So a human life comes down to affordability.... That don't sound right to me..."One cannot put a monetary value on a h..."
These individuals are master manipulators. ...how could we ever believe anything they say? I'm sure if they wanted to they could beat any test (except brain scan, maybe) out there and as a consequence be released under false sense of security. They need the death penalty to keep their surroundings safer.
Lisa wrote: "Fay wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Fay wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Fay wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Harry wrote: "So a human life comes down to affordability.... That don't sound right to me..."One cannot put a monetary ..."
The fact that they are "master manipulators" is the other thing I was also thinking of. Good point. So really, you can never trust them I guess. For me, that would leave us with the option I started with- life sentence in prison.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
ROUND TWO (January 2017) ...
... Time to reopen our most contentious poll ever!
-----------------------------------------
Decided to open up this poll again over a year later as we now have a lot more members - 3,500+ in fact. Thought it'd be interesting to see how this revisited poll ends up and how most of y'all vote.
I have voted yes, but there are reservations. I think guilt must be unambiguous. I was thinking of that Norwegian (Anders Brevik?? can't recall the name) who killed a large number of innocent young people and would do it again if he had the chance. It costs a lot of money to keep someone like that alive. If he were executed, that amount of tax-payer's money could be used for something much more beneficial, such as healthcare for the poor. It should not be applied for one isolated event, largely because juries have been known to convict innocent people, although in my view life in prison is not much better than death - the justice system has to be improved so the conviction of the innocent stops.
In my opinion, Anders Breivik is a very good example of where there is no chance of innocence and the massive cost of keeping him alive would be better spent on the victims' families.
No. Why should a person be punished to die on a behalf of a crime! The person who would punish that is doing the same crime of killing. Let's say a person kills a person, if you punish them, you are just committing a crime just like they did.
Why would I let them go so easily for what they did...they should rot in a forgotten place for the rest of their lives...
But you are doing the same crime of killing as they did if you punish them by killing so you are just as guilty.
I do not see the guilt, because I am not advocating the killing of a human. Someone like Breivik lost the right to be called human when he did that. For those who feel he should be punished more would you advocate the old Soviet three year sentence? For those who are unaware, that was the worst sentence that L. Beria could come up with and even J Stalin was impressed.
Ian wrote: "I do not see the guilt, because I am not advocating the killing of a human. Someone like Breivik lost the right to be called human when he did that. ..."Bingo.
Yet you are killing the person just as they killed an other."...once I admitted the arguments of necessity and force majeure put forward by the less eminent, I couldn't reject those of the eminent. To which they retorted that the surest way of playing the game of the red robes was to leave to them the monopoly of the death penalty. My reply to this was that if you gave in once, there was no reason for not continuing to give in. It seems to me that history has borne me out; today there's a sort of competition who will kill the most. They're all mad over murder and they couldn't stop killing men even if they wanted to." "But what then is capital punishment but the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated it may be, can be compared? For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life."
Author: Albert Camus
Philosophically I'm against it. But, I still voted 'yes'.Incarceration can be long, drawn-out torture; (this is fitting and proper) whereas the DS is 'over too quick'. In a sense, DS "isn't painful enough" to satisfy justice. Let them rot in a cell, this is true torture for them and 'easier on our conscience' as well. For both these motives, yes certainly, I'd rather see the 'less heinous' sentence: imprisonment. But only as long as the sentence is firm. It has to be absolute no backsliding, life-term, with-no-hope.
I believe in humane prisons; but not 'soft' prisons, light-sentences, or easy paroles. In my opinion, society benefits from a stern legal code and unflinching retribution.
I also do not believe 'the state' (when it kills) is the same kind of killer that a murderer is. A murderer is a blood-crazed mad dog running amok. The state executes impersonally, for reasons of civil order, and without malice. There's not necessarily a 'do as I say, not as I do' hypocrisy in this.
Dexter wrote: "Yet you are killing the person just as they killed an other...."There are killings that are necessary for the greater good. For example, when the Allies had to kill Nazi soldiers, those were killings that would save millions of lives down the line as obviously the Nazis would never stop until they had world domination.
So to state killing is always wrong or immoral is incorrect. 99.9% of killings are, however.
Now one might argue WW2 and Nazis are an extreme example and I'd agree.
However, perhaps wartime is not a totally incomparable analogy to modern crime in our society.
For example, if you happen to believe, as I do, that that Earth is currently Humanity (95% of us) vs. Sociopaths (5%) then it does seem like a warzone to me. That 5% are slowly but surely decimating the planet. How do we deal with that? Repeat offender rapists, pedophiles and even murders keep getting released after supposedly being given life sentences...
I think the 95% are fed up.
James wrote: "For example, if you happen to believe, as I do, that that Earth is currently Humanity (95% of us) vs. Sociopaths (5%) then it does seem like a warzone to me. That 5% are slowly but surely decimating the planet. How do we deal with that?"Well, here in the United States, we elect them president. Just saying . . .
What a coincidence that this message came at this very moment when I am in the midst of discussion about the levels of analysis and vectors of influence in changing opinions on the death penalty!!! And after reading this one in particular, I am unsure of the answer to this question. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/200...
Martin wrote: "Well, here in the United States, we elect them president. Just saying . . ...."And some of 'em probably deserved the death penalty! :)
As long as there is a death penalty, innocent people will be convicted and killed. DNA evidence has exonerated many too late. Innocent people STILL get convicted and killed today. In England, it was found that an innocent person had been executed, and within a week, the death penalty had been abolished. ONE person was all it took. They were more civilized than we are, apparently.As long as there is a death penalty, there will be some who wish to die, but who can not bring themselves to kill themselves (because SUICIDE is wrong—god said so!) who will kill, in order to GET the death penalty. It doesn't matter that that is logically messed up—There are people who do that. States that have a death penalty (by which, I mean one where people are actively being executed) have higher rates of death-penalty crimes than states that do not. Who wants people killing people in order to court the death penalty?
Not only the person who is executed is punished, but also their family. Families of victims, seeking "closure," have found out afterwards, too late, that execution did not bring the relief they sought. Only forgiveness frees us from the endless cycle of vengeance.
Most people who face the death penalty do not have lawyers who have the training to offer a competent defense. They are often railroaded. Lawyers have slept through trials. How can we hold the Ultimate Sentence one people who do not have adequate representation?
The death penalty, with the legal reviews involved, is much more expensive than life in prison, and takes many years. Many die in prison of other causes any way. Why waste resources so?
There is no legally "humane" way to execute people. The drugs that have been used in the past have been found inadequate, and are being withdrawn from access by anti-death penalty countries that refuse to sell them to this country, knowing what they will be used for. People who are "supposed" to be unable to feel pain writhe in agony. It is cruel and unusual punishment.
Other "civilized" nations no longer practice the death penalty. The only other country to execute as large numbers of people as we do here is China. Political prisoners are tried. Then, when the sentence is handed down, the accused is taken outside and shot, pistol to the head. That saves on Death Row expenses and post-trial appeals.
Texas by itself kills as many as an entire despotic country, all by itself. More and more states have rid themselves of the death penalty. More and more states that still have it on the books have not actually had an execution in years.
A nation is judged by how it treats its least—the most despised. Murderers. How do we wish to be judged?
Wordwizard wrote: "Other "civilized" nations no longer practice the death penalty. ..."Incorrect.
Japan still has the death penalty - arguably the most civilized nation on Earth in terms of standard of living and social reforms (e.g. healthcare, education) for its citizens.
I would also argue India, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Russia (which all still have a death penalty in place) are "civilized" nations.
Depends how you define civilized nations really. If you mean non-Western or non-White populations, then point taken, but otherwise the term civilized is totally ambiguous.
How about I define "civilized" to mean nations that do not practice the death penalty, and thus exclude the USA?
According to this 2015 report, some 58 countries (out of 196 countries in the world) have a death penalty in place: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A077746...
Wordwizard wrote: "How about I define "civilized" to mean nations that do not practice the death penalty, and thus exclude the USA?"Well then you'd be contradicting civilized because you'd be including certain North African nations (for example and just off the top of my head) that legally permit female circumcisions (or do not make it a punishable crime) but have outlawed the death penalty. Likewise with certain Islamic states that have either banned or have a defacto ban on the death penalty but still allow for other heinous crimes (crimes by the Western definition) against females.
And as mentioned, it's arguable Japan is one of the most, if not the most civilized nation on Earth in this era in terms of protections for its citizens and social reforms - yet they have the death penalty.
Thus, it's a lot trickier debate than just dividing up the world between civilized and uncivilized.
I meant that not having a death penalty was A qualification for being civilized, not the ONLY one. Sorry that what I put was muddled.
"17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with men. 19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coal of fire on his head. 21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."-Romans 12:17-21
I did a lot of research on this topic for my undergrad Political Science capstone paper. After wading though all the evidence and statistics, reading and rereading the rhetorical orations on the ethics, on justice, on vengance, on crime and punishment-- at the end of it, all I could conclude can be summed up with a short quote often attributed to Ghandi: "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Its just my opinion, but I really don't believe there is ever a case where the death penalty is an appropriate option.
I voted yes. I agree, for example because of acid throwing. The person who is a victim, can't live like before or probably can't live at all!
But what is they are innocent? You can't reverse the death of a person! If you kill somebody wrongly, you are not able to bring them back when if you revisit a trial and somebody is innocent, you can take them out of jail."No one can blame victims and their families for wanting revenge, including through the death penalty. In their pain and loss, they are entitled to that desire. However, laws exist to prevent individuals from pursuing vengeance and their own vision of justice. If they do anyway (if, for example, a victim kills a perpetrator) then they become perpetrators and pay the price, both legally and morally. Although we may feel empathy with such a victim seeking revenge, Nietzsche's warning—that when fighting monsters you must take care not to become one yourself—should be remembered. Killing by the state is wrong as well, potentially even worse than killing by an individual...
In my view, the death penalty is morally, socially and politically wrong. Morally, killing is wrong. Killing on behalf of a state is wrong as well. Some may believe that the death penalty is a just and moral punishment for the most serious of crimes; victims and their families are morally entitled to long for revenge. However, the social, political and economic costs of such retribution are, in my opinion, too high...
No national interest can justify human rights violations such as the death penalty or torture."
James wrote: "I voted unsure on this one. Can't decide.
I understand how it's barbaric for our society to be killing people who are probably insane.
Then again, when you see people rape, torture and murder inno..."
I voted yes, but, there should be absolutely NO doubts to the guilt! Too many people have been executed who were innocent but for those where there is as the law states "No shadow of a doubt", then yes they should be executed!
John wrote: "I voted yes, but, there should be absolutely NO doubts to the guilt! Too many people have been executed who were innocent but for those where there is as the law states "No shadow of a doubt", then yes they should be executed! ..."I agree it should be in cases where there is 0% chance of innocence. For example, the killer is caught on film committing the crime. Or where there are dozens of witnesses, perhaps.
There is no way to be absolutely sure of guilt in most cases. Most murders are not committed broadcast on live TV.
Wordwizard wrote: "There is no way to be absolutely sure of guilt in most cases. Most murders are not committed broadcast on live TV."But the filming of the crime was just one example, hence "For example" before mentioning that example...
Other EXAMPLES, would be the masterminds of the Holocaust. That was irrefutable given all the witnesses. Anyone who thinks the Nazi architects deserved to live would have a beef with me. I could happily put all those Nazis assholes in a gaschamber and pull the switch on them all and not even have 1 second of regret for the rest of my life, that's for sure.
But yes, I do agree most murders cases are not anywhere near irrefutable, so then we'd be stuck in the current situ: i.e. life sentences that don't usually end up as life sentences and the criminals end up committing more crimes again when they are eventually released or re-released...
For the record, I was responding to Message 436 as you were posting 437. I was not responding to 437.
Wordwizard wrote: "For the record, I was responding to Message 436 as you were posting 437. I was not responding to 437."Okay no worries. It's confusing who is replying to what.
I think one thing we can perhaps all agree on in this group would be that if our politicians got their act together, and the legal system closed loop holes that allow certain criminals to keep being released over and over and finding more innocents to victimize, we wouldn't even need a poll discussion like this.
Whatever side of this debate you are on, you gotta admit the amount of times you hear on the news "the murderer/rapist had only just been released etc" is ridiculous.
For those who think it is wrong to execute someone who is clearly guilty (and to make sure, without incontrovertible evidence, the person should also be guilty of at least two major felonies) what do you want to do? Let them out at some time, so they can do it again? Or throw away the key? If you vote for the latter, what is that achieving other than salving your conscience? If it is only your feelings at stake, would you volunteer for an additional tax adjusted so that it is the people with those feelings that pay for the upkeep of said prisoner(s)?
I voted unsure as some people who commite these crimes domt do it for fun or pleasure its a mental dissorder and being in jail is a fair scentence but on other hands the ones who do it for pleasure or fun i cant make up my minds as death just seems so easy so to me they aint paying for their crime
Well I put 'Unsure'. As someone who was sexually abused when I was 12 by a paedophile, I know what it is like to have to the abuser not even step a foot in jail. Yes the death penalty would prevent others receiving the same abuse. However the mental scars are always the same no matter what the result. Even if it did exist here, that won't stop the mental scars that exist after rape or torture.
You cannot remove the past, but perhaps you can stop recidivism.
Ian—Although life without possibility of parole is better than a death sentence (and cheaper than the appeals process, so that it pays for itself without any need for a special tax) which can not be revoked if a mistake has been made, I am for TREATMENT of mental illness, rather than punishment. I do not accept the technical legal definition of "insanity" either. If someone kills, that is by definition insane by me.
Wordwizard, the question then is, how do you treat such persons? You can't simply define them as insane, and then say insanity can be treated. We can treat insanity if it is due to a chemical imbalance, at least up to a point, but I doubt you would find such an imbalance in many killers.I also do not accept the US legal system and its costs on this issue. The death penalty is undoubtedly cheaper once you get around to doing it. The costs to lawyers before hand should be irrelevant because if it is justice you are seeking, a sentence of life imprisonment should have the same lawyer's costs.
With current judicial system, i say a big no ...! Jails are good institutions for experimental drugs, without drastic changes in system nothing could be done.
People can be treated for mental illness by other means than by medication. Sensitivity training is one way. Psychotherapy is another. I don't say that everyone can be cured, but that's not any excuse not to try. How else will we find out?Ian—The costs have been documented. Saying that you don't accept the costs is saying you want to have your own #AlternativeFacts. What it actually costs is not irrelevant, since "once you get around to it" excludes the ACTUAL costs leading UP to doing it. "SHOULD" be irrelevant? Costs to lawyers are NOT irrelevant, since they must be paid, and it is NOT justice to kill in order to send the message that killing is wrong.
What you are effective saying is that if the death penalty is there, the accused should have the right to interminable appeals, but if you lock them up and throw away the key, forget so many appeals. Sorry, but for me there are two issues: has the accused the right to show that he is not guilty, and second, the punishment. The first should be the same irrespective of the punishment. If you allow more appeals solely because of the punishment, that means that it is not the accused you are trying to save - it is yourself.Once the accused dies, how can he cost more than someone locked up for so many years? Maths are fairly obvious here.
If you are simply asserting that any killing is wrong, there is little point in debating. That is our view, and you are entitled to it.
I feel death penalty is like punishing a person for a particular state of mind in some cases.. And many its major psychological disorder..
Ian wrote: "Once the accused dies, how can he cost more than someone locked up for so many years? Maths are fairly obvious here. ..."Absolutely true.
And in a world where victims of crime, and their families, never seem to get enough assistance, spending for years or decades on these psychopaths is the real insanity.
I am going for 'unsure' for this one. Sometimes some people are wrongly accused and go on death penalty while they are innocent. Some people struggle with mental illness that puts them in a position to commit such crimes, but those don't deserve death for something they have no power or control over, they need help and care. But then there are those blood-thirsty people who kill with cold blood, or those who rape. Death or serving a lifetime sentence is what these people deserve.
Just speaking in general, it would be difficult to decide what punishment would fit the crime, as not being part of the event itself.Therefore i believe that what ever pain or hurt one causes another should in turn be felt by the doer. Of course there are instances where it isn't intentional.
In any case, people would be more apt to be more careful in how they treat others.
Treat others as you yourself wished to be treated.
I just happened to run into this on Quora:What are the most infamous last words in history?
James D. French (ca. 1936 – 10 August 1966) was an American criminal.
Already in prison for life for killing a motorist who had picked him up from hitchhiking in 1958, but allegedly afraid to commit suicide, French murdered his cellmate, apparently to compel the state to execute him.
French's last words before his death by electric chair were "How's this for your headline? 'French Fries'".
(Copied from Wikipedia article: James French (murderer) - Wikipedia)
Ian—I am not saying that if someone gets the death penalty, they should be able to have interminable appeals. I'm saying that if someone gets the death penalty, they DO get many (though not interminable) appeals, including up to the Supreme Court. It DOES cost many times more than a life sentence. The figures are indisputable. You are talking SHOULDs, rather than coming to terms with the facts.
"Free loaders" used to piss me off to no end and i felt that i was paying for their lazy asses and their brand name shit. But now i just feel sorry for them. The people who we can put in the category of cheating the system are living a life completely dependent on other people. What kind of motivation can such a person have? How depressing world it would be to know that nothing you own or put in your belly was something you earned?
I know some people feel society owes them. ..the individuals i know who feel that way all suffer from depression (i could mention their political views as well, but i won't). I guess we can call them free loaders, but in all honesty, I'm not sure they are capable of being productive part of society. ..not sure we want them to. ..i wouldn't want them making my food or checking my vitals at the docs office. Perhaps we are better off paying them to stay home.