Bye Bye Death Penalty

kikokateyy

How can someone convicted of murder have the right to live, when the victim had their right taken away?

ArroganceInStep

Another thing: no one is born a killer. Killers are a product of society, then society kills them and calls it justice. We might do well to look at societies with low murder statistics and ask why ours produces so many more killers, rather than calling to just kill them all.

That is debatable. I think murder can be about more than just society. At some point, it actually is the person's fault, and not just their circumstance.

Also Singapore has the death penalty, and they have extremely low crime rates (and rediculously harsh penalties). That's a blanket statement that grossly oversimplifies the situation.

MFPAddict

We all should have learned it by kindergarten: two wrongs don't make a right. It works for big stuff too.

You are so right. We should just have murderers sit in the corner!!!

Wow, an elementary wisecrack really makes your point. I'm convinced, let's totally kill them all.

Ouch, my feeling are hurt.

Proud to live in a death penalty state!!!

fightingdissonance

The reason death row inmates are so costly is because they're housed seperately and have added security.

People on death row are exclusively violent offenders (someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the case everywhere in the U.S.)

Your point about violent offenders being jailed is precisely my point, they have the potential for a higher punishment.

Life without the possibility absolutely has everything to do with the argument at hand, because if the accused isn't executed that's the alternative. Violent offenders imprisoned for life without the possibility of parole are an extreme threat to other inmates. Knowingly exposing other inmates to that kind of threat, is in and of itself, inhumane, regardless of if they are a 'sub-society' or not.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree with the rationale. Violent offenders imprisoned for life without parole should be kept in isolation units if they are a risk to other inmates, which to my understanding is what happens. Also, prison isn't a nice place, nor should it be. It IS potentially violent, but not everyone violent there needs to be there for murder to hurt other inmates, so in my opinion, that argument for keeping the death penalty becomes moot. Arguing for the death penalty based on protecting other convicts is a logical fallacy.

ArroganceInStep

Because there was definitely no injustice back then.

sure thre was injustice BUT most people thought about what they were about to do. I can promise you people look at mecompletely different when they realize that yes, I own a gun and YES, I enjoy shooting it an NO I am not afraid to use it to defend my self and I also have every intention of teaching all three of my daughters how to use it...in fact my nine year old is a better shot than me. Do you think she will EVER have a boy try to be forceful with her.....heck no. They aren't gonna mess with a girl whose entire family knows how to use a gun. They are gonna be real nice to her. Not saying it won't happen but it is less likely to happen to her because if it does she will be prepared and ready to defend herself. Yes, we do plan on making it very clear that we are a family that owns and uses our guns regularly. You come to my door unannounced and I don't know you, there is a good chance I am holding a loaded gun when I answer the door.....for my own protection( I live in the middle of nowhere so this is a neccesary precaution for a stay-at-home mom, no police would ever get here before I would be long dead and yes, we have door-to-door people come all the way out here at least a few times a year and it scares the crap out of me).

You're changing the subject. I am all for gun ownership, that wasn't what I was arguing against.

What I was against was the idea that somehow, back in the old days, justice was handled better. That getting a gang of drunk bar buddies together to curb stomp someone who wronged your sister was somehow better than a tribunal process. That a father's vigilante justice was better than the police. That jails today are a vacation and should instead be fashioned after older, crueler models (that worked fantastically well I might add).

Elona_30

This will probably be an unpopular opinion - but it amazes me that there are any states in the US that still have the death penalty. It seems medieval to me.

(From Britain)

I agree with you I live in Canada and we do not have it nor do I believe that anyone has the right to decided that, in the end God will deal with all of us, he is the only one that should be aloud to make that decision.

batalina

i live in maryland, where we do have the death penalty, but i'm against it. i used to be for it until i did a school project about it and found that it doesn't actually solve anything, makes crime rates higher, deprives families of justice while they have to wait out the mandatory appeals, and in some states equals out to several million dollars per execution, many times more than the cost of keeping people imprisoned for life. oh, and, like, 1 in 10 sentenced to death row ends up having their sentence overturned. the death penalty doesn't seem worth it, to me, anymore.

cry884

If there is even one innocent person being put to death, we cannot ethically have a death penalty. And since there have been multiple cases of people being wrongly convicted (and later exonerated by DNA evidence, etc.) it is obvious that we should not have a death penalty.

Nastasha915

I live in Texas. It'll be a cold day in hell before the death penalty is overturned here, but I get where you are coming from. I'm a supporter of the death penalty (though I think it should be exercised with a little more caution than it is in Texas).

cannonsky

We all should have learned it by kindergarten: two wrongs don't make a right. It works for big stuff too.

You are so right. We should just have murderers sit in the corner!!!

isn't that what prison is?

MollyDukes

I'm Canadian also, and I do agree that if the person is 100% guilty, some people are just evil and deserve to die. For example, there's a murder trial going on in London, ON right now of a man who sexually assaulted and killed a little girl. The most he'll get is 25 years (that's the harshest penalty in Canada), probably eligible for parole after half of that. THAT is sad.

I live in Canada as well....a while back a murder took place on the street next too mine....a guy stabbed his best friend to death. He was sentenced to 25 years. With that sentence, if he got good behaviour he was allowed to spend weekends at an onsite cottage with his girlfriend eating steak dinners and the whole nine yards,:indifferent:
During the trial he showed no sign of remorse as well as clearly stated he didn't regrett what he did and the media made it into a sob story about how he was passed from foster home to foster home. What about the kids who are now fatherless because this man just killed their daddy???
He was released after serving 10 years.:grumble:
Are system is a joke if you ask me

MFPAddict

We all should have learned it by kindergarten: two wrongs don't make a right. It works for big stuff too.

You are so right. We should just have murderers sit in the corner!!!

isn't that what prison is?

Exactly! Repeating a punishment that didn't work when they were 5, but at a HUGE expense to the taxpayers.

fightingdissonance

Another thing: no one is born a killer. Killers are a product of society, then society kills them and calls it justice. We might do well to look at societies with low murder statistics and ask why ours produces so many more killers, rather than calling to just kill them all.

That is debatable. I think murder can be about more than just society. At some point, it actually is the person's fault, and not just their circumstance.

Also Singapore has the death penalty, and they have extremely low crime rates (and rediculously harsh penalties). That's a blanket statement that grossly oversimplifies the situation.

The example of Singapore is a valid argument, and I agree that my remark could be construed as an oversimplified blanket statement, though that's not how I meant it. With respect to that, a country like Singapore wasn't exactly what I was thinking of. I was thinking more of examples such as Sweden where murder rates are very low.

I agree that the person is the one in ultimate control of their actions, of course. But what exactly is a person? I think we're shaped through our environment, in addition to being born with inherent personality traits. Simplified, when you live in a society that glorifies violence, how can we expect not to turn out killers? I'm by no means justifying people killing or saying society directly causes it thus should condone it. But I am saying it's much more complicated than simple black and white.

Contrarian

I don't even kill bugs.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

ArroganceInStep

I see what you're saying, but I disagree with the rationale. Violent offenders imprisoned for life without parole should be kept in isolation units if they are a risk to other inmates, which to my understanding is what happens. Also, prison isn't a nice place, nor should it be. It IS potentially violent, but not everyone violent there needs to be there for murder to hurt other inmates, so in my opinion, that argument for keeping the death penalty becomes moot. Arguing for the death penalty based on protecting other convicts is a logical fallacy.

I think this will have to be an agree to disagree sort of thing. The fact is that today lifers do mingle with genpop in prison. It's restricted somewhat, but we can't really afford for them not to (it's also cruel and unusual, to my understanding, to keep someone in 24 hour lockdown forever). An argument could be made for stricter separation, but I don't think it's feasible to completely separate the two. Even death row inmates have interactions with genpop.

I do strongly disagree that my argument is a logical fallacy. When we convict a criminal, the state takes responsibility for that person. In sentencing them to prison, we are responsible for their safety and well-being. That's why we have to do maintenance repairs in prisons, and staff medical professionals, etc. I believe mingling violent offenders with life sentences with genpop, when studies have shown those offenders are more likely to terrorize other inmates, undermines the state's responsibility to keep those other inmates safe. Prisons are already a dangerous enough place, this makes it more so. There's only so much you can do to protect inmates in prison, but if you're a poor 19 year old kid who stole a benz and took it for a joy ride, what happens if the serial killer sitting next to you at lunch has a bad day?

grinch031

Another thing: no one is born a killer. Killers are a product of society, then society kills them and calls it justice. We might do well to look at societies with low murder statistics and ask why ours produces so many more killers, rather than calling to just kill them all.

That is debatable. I think murder can be about more than just society. At some point, it actually is the person's fault, and not just their circumstance.

Also Singapore has the death penalty, and they have extremely low crime rates (and rediculously harsh penalties). That's a blanket statement that grossly oversimplifies the situation.

Agree with the poster in which you are quoting. Every single person IS a product of their genetics and their environment. The primary reason more minorities are in prison is because they grow up in worse environments. Whether its their fault or not isn't really the point. If they committed the crime and it can be proven they did it, then they need to be isolated from society because they are likely to repeat the crime, and we need to set an example of them to deter others as best we can.

But living in a society where there is a lot of violent crime is a failure of that society. So killing the individuals who are a product of a society that failed them isn't really what I call justice.

ArroganceInStep

The example of Singapore is a valid argument, and I agree that my remark could be construed as an oversimplified blanket statement, though that's not how I meant it. With respect to that, a country like Singapore wasn't exactly what I was thinking of. I was thinking more of examples such as Sweden where murder rates are very low.

I agree that the person is the one in ultimate control of their actions, of course. But what exactly is a person? I think we're shaped through our environment, in addition to being born with inherent personality traits. Simplified, when you live in a society that glorifies violence, how can we expect not to turn out killers? I'm by no means justifying people killing or saying society directly causes it thus should condone it. But I am saying it's much more complicated than simple black and white.

With that clarification, I agree that it is extremely complicated. I don't know enough about Sweden's legal system to comment. I think the root causes, glorification of violence, socioeconomic disparities, not getting enough hugs as a kid (kidding), run deep. I do agree that there are societal forces that make lives difficult and can foster an atmosphere where violent crime is more likely, but I am viscerally against the 'don't blame me, blame society' mentality (not saying that's what you said, more reacting against it in my response to you).

nakabi

What if they did those horrible things to your child or your family member? Are you okay with them living off your tax dollars for the rest of their lives?????

doorki

Another thing: no one is born a killer. Killers are a product of society, then society kills them and calls it justice. We might do well to look at societies with low murder statistics and ask why ours produces so many more killers, rather than calling to just kill them all.

That is debatable. I think murder can be about more than just society. At some point, it actually is the person's fault, and not just their circumstance.

Also Singapore has the death penalty, and they have extremely low crime rates (and rediculously harsh penalties). That's a blanket statement that grossly oversimplifies the situation.

Agree with the poster in which you are quoting. Every single person IS a product of their genetics and their environment. The primary reason more minorities are in prison is because they grow up in worse environments. Whether its their fault or not isn't really the point. If they committed the crime and it can be proven they did it, then they need to be isolated from society because they are likely to repeat the crime, and we need to set an example of them to deter others as best we can.

But living in a society where there is a lot of violent crime is a failure of that society. So killing the individuals who are a product of a society that failed them isn't really what I call justice.

To add to it, the death penalty teaches society that killing is a valid punishment.

ArroganceInStep

Agree with the poster in which you are quoting. Every single person IS a product of their genetics and their environment. The primary reason more minorities are in prison is because they grow up in worse environments. Whether its their fault or not isn't really the point. If they committed the crime and it can be proven they did it, then they need to be isolated from society because they are likely to repeat the crime, and we need to set an example of them to deter others as best we can.

But living in a society where there is a lot of violent crime is a failure of that society. So killing the individuals who are a product of a society that failed them isn't really what I call justice.

A fair point, but again, some people view capital punishment not as justice per se, but as protection of society (the ultimate isolation from society, so to speak). I also don't think the 'make an example of them' philosophy works. Punishment as a deterrent has a pretty shaky success rate, hence so many repeat offenders.