1. Someone sentenced to death will probably cost an anormous amount. No one wants to get killed and so they will probably do as much as they can to stop it from happening
2. See 1.
3. Decriminalizing everything would also remove overcrowding. Because no one would go do jail. That's not really the issue here though.
4. Except that it has been shown (sorry, I can't name names here) that death penalties actually increse violence. And do not significally deter from crimes.
5. Yep.

Also: If someone is executed for a crime they weren't guilty of you have a big problem. And bad convictions are a lot more common than you might think. Of course it was a lot worse say 50 years ago, who knows how many innocent african-americans have been killed in the US because of biased juries.

Having the death penaltie says:
You can't kill, but we can.
Violence and death solves problems.

Are those really messages you want to send?

well, we have to see first what purposes the death penalty serves;

1. deterence?
2. punishment according to desert? (according to what people deserve)
3. rehabilitation? (one of the main aims of punishment)

1. Talking about deterrence...the concept itself is controversial. People don't agree whether deterence effect actually exists. Some people say harsh punishment would prevent crimes because criminals would be scared of the sentence. Hence death sentence is a good way of preventing crimes. Nevertheless, this is not necessarily true. Murderer do not think about what penalty they would get when they commit murder. Many people kill because of impulse. It's an instant decision.
Some countries give death sentence to those selling a large amount of heroin. To be fair, most of those people have been in business for such a longgg time...that they could not stop when it becomes the law that they will get a death sentence.
They are dealing with millions and millions of dollars. Would they suddenly give up their business just because the government imposes death sentence if they are ever caught. IF the answer is no (they will take the risk and probably spend a little money on hi-tech methods preventing them from being caught or even bribery)...then death sentence has no deterence effect.

2. punishment according to what people deserve. This is probably the most convincing argument for death sentence. Still question arises as to who would be able to judge what people deserve? Some people might even argue that only the God can decide.

3. Rehabilitation is one of the main goals of punishment. This doesn't seem to apply to capital punishment though because if people get death sentence already, they cannot be rehabilitated.

So I think the only argument which can probably justify the capital punishment is desert. Still that itself can be questioned.

Sigh..

I'm very unsure of how I feel about the death penalty.... While I can see why it is justified, I find no right in anyone being able to take another persons life...

This makes it complicated...however, in the chance that I had to decide, I say the death penalty SHOULD NOT OCCUR.

It is irrational, and just as much of a murder as the other person had commited.

No, I'm not a religious person, "God" does not come to mind when I think of this, however, life is irreplacable, and I disagree with the Topic post...

This person stated that "Killers do not value THEIR lives"...WRONG...

Killers do not value other lives, if it is there own they didn't value, and they hold the capability of taking another persons life, it is my strong belief that they have just as much power to commit suicide. Therefore, since they don't, they obviously do value their lives.

Murder is wrong, to counteract it with more murder and call it right is hypocricy..I do not support it.

Bjrn is getting at one of the big issues here. I find it ironic that despite all the furor over the multitudes of innocent people on death row so many people are still in support of the death penalty.

People get so happy about "justice" being done by taking the lives of the guilty, but what about the innocent ones that get taken as well? Is it alright to kill one innocent person so 99 guilty ones can die and be punished? That's essentially what not only the American society but our government is saying.

As for the Bible view, Christ pointed out that once it was an eye for an eye according to the Law, but since we're all guilty of death that point is moot. Like the pharisees who wanted to stone the adulterer, we can judge (punishing/sentencing as a judge) only if we ourselves are without sin.

And as Christ says, there is none good but one, and that is God (Mk. 10:18), it's why only God had to come to earth to pay for our sins, as a man to pay the sins of mankind, as God since men cannot be a sinless perfect sacrifice to pay for sin, or infinite to pay for the sins of all rather then just their own.

There is one just judge and He says vengeance is His, not ours (Ro. 12:19). When we take it upon our sinful selves we see the great miscarriages we are so accustomed to seeing in our society, of innocent people waiting to be executed, locked away for much of their lives, their lives and relationships ruined.

I myself do not see why we continue to pursue the killing of others as a means of justice (and we ourselves all guilty of death) when we can't even guarantee we're getting the real criminals. One innocent (and I use the word as one not guilty of the crime they're accused of, not perfectly innocent which none of us are) life taken is too much.

I'm definitely against the death penalty. Why should the murdered get to escape feeling guilty (hopefully, anyway) for the rest of their lives?! Although it would give piece of mind to the family of the person who was killed/raped/whatever, I think that it would be more painful to be in prison. I know that we pay taxes for that too. But think of the family of the murderer. It could have been done in self defence, or the person might be completely innocent, but they die for no reason. I just think that's so sad...

hmmmm, this is a tricky one and I wasn't sure which one to go for, so I voted for I don't care. The simple reason is that in my opinion, many cases do not warrant death, although people who cause suffering, like on the London bombings last year or on September 11th in America, I feel these get away lightly with just a prison statement.

I don't really mind to be honest. If the government want to bring back the death sentence, which they most likely wouldn't be able to do, due to new health and safety laws etc, then it's fine by me. Hopefully, it will stop all this pain and suffering thats happening unnecessarily.

Nice thread by the way, it's interesting to see different people's views about past punishment

This post has been edited by sportytalk: Feb 22 2006, 07:13 PM

Rehabilitation is indeed an important factor in the punishment system. The ultimate goal of punishment is rehabilitation, that criminals might reform themselves to fit into society. This is the very reason why the capital punishment should not be used--it does not allow for rehabilitation. Once you're dead, you're dead. There is no reformation there.

Secondly, it scares me how much trouble the government is willing to endure in order to kill people. Defendents' lawyers fight as hard as they can to keep their clients from incurring the death penalty. Soi-disant justice nevertheless stops at nothing to depose these lawyers and do what some would unfortunately call just. Lawmakers in many places give energy to ensuring the death penalty doesn't meet its own untimely end. Just how bloodlusted in the state? It makes me sick.

Yet we must analyse lawmakers' motives for keeping the death penalty alive. No doubt it was once used for protection. Prisons not having been perfect at all times, society would have wanted to protect itself; at the time, such protection could only be guaranteed by death. Another viable hypothesis is that religion perpetuates the death penalty. Western religions, which tend to have punishment "Hell" and reward "Heaven," would suggest that evildoers have already condemned themselves, on some level, to Hell, or the respective equivalent. Such actions can be seen during the corrupt periods of the Catholic Church. However, what about modern religion? Didn't Christ state that killing was wrong?--Like people listen to him. Not saying that religion is per se the breeder of the death penalty, but it has surely played a role.

As for deterrence, it hasn't worked. If the death penalty truly deterred people from heinous crimes, no one would commit them, or at least a significantly fewer number. However, crimes warranting the death penalty have not shown a downward trend.

As an ultimate punishment, life in prison should be used. Society is at risk from the criminal, it costs significantly less (40% less to keep an inmate alive for life than a single execution, 70% less in court costs), and it gives due and proper respect for life.

personally, i think that if they did the crime they should pay the price..if they killed a family becuause they pissed them off they should get the death penelty jsut because they took away the lives of others..and basicly made them suffer...so we should make them suffer..make them sit on death row knowing they are going to die in 4 years..make them feel sorry for themselves them kill em..if you think that killing them in this painless way (leathel injection) is cruel and unusual punishment, try being electricuted in a chair...or the gas chamber..thats gotta suck!