Death Penalty: a means of Justice or self-interest?

What is the value of life?

Everyday in every corner of the world, at least one life is lost.

Every waking moment, One man dies in the hands of another.

Every now and then, culprits are said to be punished, thus pardoned for their crimes.

This I ask, Is it enough that criminals be forgiven just because they were sentenced a few years in prison?

Is it appropriate to just eliminate them, to be bring fairness for those in grief?

Should their existence be justified by their regrets?

Should we not be fair, as the adage say "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, evil for evil"?.

Should we be forgiving to those that hurt us? to those that mistreat us?

I shall place this questions forward, In your own thoughts, In your own words, what is the meaning of justice?, how much is the value of life?, should we be given the right over the life of another?. How do you think things should be?


Heres a few links to inspire you:
1
2 credits to Ananjones for this finding this one.
3
4 - This is a manga, a story revolving around a "good" person. Pretty nice i think.

[I changed the intro, its a bit cheesy but i thinks its pretty ok, what dya guys think?]

 

I think the death penalty cannot be put in to one specific category because it has more than one purpose. When a crime is commited that warrants such a punishment the crime itself is something that often brings up feelings of revenge/retribution within society, and in some countries it is the will of the people that would define such a punishment as justice.

The death penalty also serves as a deterrent for anyone wishing to commit silimar crimes, thus it helps to keep unrest in the population to a minimum.

Depending on your view on ethics it could also be interpretted as justice, as in an eye for an eye.

I think what you really need to ask is what is justice? Because there is really no right answer. This really depends on what ethics you believe in, such as duty-based ethics, kantian ehtics, christian ethics, consequentialism, utilitarianism and many others.

 

I share, along with my dad, the opinion that each crime should be punished with what was committed (excluding some cases). For example, if the said criminal killed someone, then the death penalty should be applied. Back here in Portugal, assassins go to jail and stay there. When they get out, they go and kill someone again. Then they go to jail, they get out and then they kill someone else, etc. And many times, those same criminals who are, after all, guilty, go to court and they don't go to jail. They stay free. After all, (back here) judges suck.

Too bad, then.

 

I was joking, man, but my saying goes "keep your nose outta bizness".

Also, I'm a rather cold person, so I'm not the right one to ask that question.

 

Yeah you'd regret that for the rest of your life. There was a 20/20 article that some guy in America was sentenced to like 30 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit (killing someone) and he forgave the judge that sentenced him.

 

There are a number of reasons why I don't agree with the death penalty
1. As someone has said before, there is a risk in executing innocent people, and that also depends on how serious/ thorough the case is examined before landing a verdict
2. It doesn't make the families of the victims feel better. It won't bring back the dead, neither does it bring closure to them. There is no need for them to be burdened by the death of another person.
3. The state would have to justify that by playing the murderer and taking away their right to life it will benefit the society...

The list goes on, but I'll stop here for now

 

Statistically, the death penalty does not effectively act as a deterrent for any crime whatsoever.

Additionally, what kind of fucked up person things the killing another human being brings justice to their friend/family's name?
If they think killing is actually wrong, then why would they support such actions against someone?
It seems most people hold a double standard. And it goes something like this:

"I don't support the killing of people I like, love, or agree with. If someone kills someone that has done something I think is bad, or that I hate, or am completely different from, then it's ok."

Of course, this can be seen in America currently (and more so in the past few years) that Muslim racism has risen dramatically. The war with Iraq has produced a great many 'us vs them' propaganda machines. There is valid reason to dislike and perhaps even hate the religion of Islam (for reasons I won't go into, but can easily be looked up), but there's never a reason to reduce an entire group of people to a single stereotype.
I digress.

Capital Punishment is ineffective and inhuman (regardless of how human they try to make the killing process). It's not actually a punishment (how can you teach someone a lesson if they're dead?) and it certainly doesn't help the victim's family to be any more altruistic or virtuous in regrades to forgiveness, understanding, or (from what I can gather) self-awareness.

In short:
Fuck capital punishment.

 

"..serves as a deterrent....... helps to keep unrest in the population to minimum.."

People are being murdered more and more everyday. I don't think it serves as a detterrent at all. i wish it did, but it obviously doesn't. Every single day in the past couple of weeks that I've checked out international news on different websites, someone has been murdered. Just yesterday I read about a young girl who was slaughtered in some sort of screwed up satanic ritual!
I don't personally believe in the death penalty. I think that although someone may have killed a person, we are still not entitled to take away their life. That person may regret it someday. They may go on to become a great person and genuinely feel guilt about what they have done.
Who are we to not forgive those around us, when we're not all perfect ourselves. We're not all killers! but people can be capable of a lot of things, and sometimes these 'things' can be worse than death.

 

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If one has the audacity to end someones life (Leaving their friends & Family torn because of their stupidity.) They deserve the same fate.

 

yes that is justice

 

Oh look, another break time for me. Let's see if I can squeeze this post in within five to ten minutes...

I'm going to go out on a limb to disagree with most of you as I strongly support the death penalty. One of many cases that has absolutely made me irate was the case of the BTK Killer who murdered 10 women, but was able to escape the death penalty only due to the legal technicality that the crimes he committed took place before Kansas enstated the death penalty.

Now, I do realize that many of you have concerns of innocent people being wrongfully convicted and executed. First of all, those cases are very rare if you take the information from this source combined with this source.

If you take those numbers and do the math up to the current year theoretically, you will find that only ~3.7% of individuals who are given the death sentence are actually proven innocent.

Here's how I got the numbers:

TalkLeft cites that 4.5 people are wrongly convicted and sentenced to death per year since 1972. That gives you 168 people wrongly convicted. Since the TalkLeft source has numbers dating from 1972, I took the numbers in bold from the ClarkProsecutor source:

That gives you 1,139 people executed since 1970. Plus add 3,350 that are currently on death row (i.e. waiting period before execution) gives you 4,489 people total who were convicted and received death sentences.

The percentage of innocent people out of those convicted and sentenced to death is 168/4489 which equals 3.7%.

However though, given that statistic is small, I don't think it is something to shrug off. Of course I believe that loss of innocent peoples lives especially if they are wrongly convicted of the crime is tragic. However, the elimination of those who indeed have committed murder may not always make things right, but it certainly can prevent further innocent lives from being lost at the hands of those convicts.

Even though there is a chance that the courts can wrongly convict people and sentence them to death, the time that those people spend on death row (around 14 years) is more than enough time to make a case for appeal.

 

None of this addresses my post whatsoever.

 

Okay, so the BTK killer killed a lot of women and you want him dead. That does not prove that the death penalty is the suggested deterrent in the matter, so you really are not arguing your case when you're saying this. People against the death penalty could easily say that the BTK killer should be sentenced to a term of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty, with the same result of a death (with a lot of different aspects included).

If this is the only risk that comes along with not using the death penalty, then why don't you consider the reason for this? The chances of a convict (in term for life imprisonment) to escape incarceration and wreak more havoc is at the responsibility of the jailers. I am not saying that this is false, but you would also have to consider if the jailers were 100% doing their job as they should be, then there would a 0% chance that the convicts can wreak their havoc, right? Of course, there is no 100%, but you could then compare that to the non-existent 100% chance that the judge will always make the correct decisions as well. You even gave us the statistics to support this claim. And what's the percentage, statistically, that a killer escapes prison and kills a whole bunch more people?

 

Fine, want me to address your post? Here you go!

I disagree with your statement for two reasons: one, the definition of "fucked up person" that you used in your statement is rather subjective. If you ask other people what their definition of a "fucked-up person" is, you will get a wide spectrum of answers. Second, the feeling of wanting to kill another human being for taking another person's life, whom happens to be close to them, is actually a result of human psychology of revenge. Families and relatives of a close loved one whom was murdered will most likely desire a need of payback for several reasons, one of them being that since the damage done to them is permanent (i.e. loss of a loved one's life at a hands of a convicted killer), the convicted offender has practically forfeited his right to live. However, none of this matters as realistically speaking, those relatives will not be the ones to dish out revenge on the convicted killer.

You're right, the death penalty is a double-standard and it should be a double-standard. Likewise it's also a double-standard in principle for the convicted killer to live even behind bars when he didn't spare any of his victim's lives. Refer to my later half of this post regarding my point.

No, the point of punishment is not necessarily for the purpose of teaching a lesson. Here's the Webster's definition of punishment (source):

So, is the purpose of punishment to teach a lesson? Yes, in most cases BUT NOT ALL CASES. For instance, being spanked on your ass just for talking back to your mom or dad is not comparable to the crime of taking someone's life just to be issued a death penalty in return. The scale of the offense in each scenario is obviously much higher in the latter. To be exact, the main point of punishment is to issue the penalty to the offender. That is, you commit a crime, you pay the price. Simple as that.

Sorry for not getting to my main point as I had limited time to post here yesterday.

However, the BTK Killer that I have cited in my previous post was intended to serve the purpose of posing a question whether such a sick individual who kills people for sexual fantasies has the right to live behind bars while taxpayers have to pay for that killer's necessities (such as food and water.)

But, that isn't my main point nor my main argument for the death penalty. My main argument for the death penalty is that it should be used as a measurement for justice. When you deliberately take someone else's life (or lives) for no justified reason, you practically have shown no respect for human life and therefore asked to forfeit your right to live.

The BTK Killer had no remorse none-whatsoever for his actions (read the transcript linked within the article.) So why should the BTK Killer have the right to live the remainder of his life when he didn't spare any of his victim's lives when they pleaded for theirs? Does it make sense to give such an individual a much lighter fate (i.e. life behind bars) than the fate the BTK Killer imposed on his victims?

Actually, you're wrong about the escapes being solely the jailer's responsibilities. If a convict has the desire and will to escape from jail, he will certainly do it, jailer or not. The article shows how convicts' determination to escape prison help them overcome seemingly impossible obstacles.

Also, regarding repeat-murderers, this site states 46 cases with some cases taking place in jail, and some cases taking place outside of jail after the convict escapes. Do note that the site itself does not give a complete statistic, so there could be many more cases that site does not list.

And speaking of statistics, unfortunately its difficult to find any official total statistic of murderers who escape prisons as well as those who repeat the same offense. This could be a possible reason that if such reports are made public, it can be used to politically damage such jailing institutions which can result in cut funds, which can also adversely lead to less security enforced in prisons.

Someone brought up a point of how the death penalty supposedly does not deter the crime of murder statistically. Well, how do you explain this graph then? Sources for the data of the graphs here and here

 

When a person's dead, they're gone. There's no way anyone should assume to have the wisdom with which to judge whether or not a person should live or die. I personally believe that premeditated murderers and such should be made slaves, so that they can give something back to the society they took from.

 

This can still be done by life imprisonment.

Is this a rhetorical question? Well, if the answer is based on opinion, what matters? I say no, but based on different reasons. I think a term of life imprisonment is more painful than the death penalty.

So this is supposed to contradict the fact that it is the jailer's responsibility to ensure that a convict does not escape prison? I think its common sense to know that convicts want to escape prison, but that doesn't change the responsibility that the jailer has. Otherwise, what the hell is the use a jailer if he has no job? Does he get paid for feeding the criminals and cleaning the floors only?

Quite simply. Murder is not based solely on the fear of receiving the death penalty.

 

No, because when convicts are sentenced to life imprisonment, they are able to live the rest of their lives in jail with restricted rights. That punishment does not equal to the suffering of what their victims went through. Oh wait, that's right, their victims are dead.

Yes, that is a rhetorical question as it goes back to the main principle of the justice system that the punishment must fit the crime. Life imprisonment, in which you are arguing for, does not fit the crime of taking an innocent person's life simply because (in which I had stated before) the act of taking another person's life shows that you don't respect that person's right to live, and therefore the same judgment you had enforced on your victim should be enforced back upon you.

Oh how so? How is living behind bars in which you are fed 3 square meals a day and are able to go outside and exercise, and not to mention, you can rest comfortably knowing that you can still keep your life 'more painful than the death penalty'? Elaborate more on this with reason.

Problem is that the prisoners outnumber the guard faculty around 55-to-1 as more and more people are getting arrested which leads to overcrowding in jail facilities nationwide. Do you think that it is realistic for a single jail guard to watch 50+ inmates at the same time while on duty?

Also, what you don't realize from the article is that many jail escapists are very calculative and smart. Obviously, the low guard-to-prisoner ratio factor works well in favor of the prisoners as these escapists can plan their escape by doing things, such as cutting a hole in the wall, or digging a tunnel while the jail guard is not focused on them. You really can't blame the guards for this problem as they clearly have their work cut out for them.

Again, elaborate please. Don't just blurt out your claim and do nothing to back it up. Provide some solid evidence.