this may sound odd coming from someone who is obviously pro-choice, but i am against the death penalty. my reasons are: 1) it costs more to execute someone than to keep them jailed for life, 2) if a family member of mine was murdered, i'd want their killer to rot in jail for the rest of their life..so they'd have a good long time to regret it. and 3) it just simply does not reduce crime at all.

thoughts, everyone?

I've thought of that too, yes. I would much rather have the person have to live and deal with what they have done.

maybe im just a sadistic freak... but i think people who commit horrable crimes should get a long painful death... not rotting in jail... painful suffering....

death penalty is definately out of the question...by agreeing to have someone killed it is just like you killing them yourself...when anyone says 'oh he/she should get the dealth penalty for murdering so and so' well i see the death penalty as murder too

rotting in jail qualifies as painful suffering to me, cheese. the suffering is just emotional, rather than physical. and well, depending on the situation, can be physical as well... =/

Yeah, well, in the US, there's something against cruel and unusual punishment. No matter how much the person deserves it.

No reason to kill, anyway... Death is bad. Life is sacred.

and well, what if they really didn't do it, and an innocent person gets killed?

Very true! An it does happen as well - people who are framed, people lyin in the court, law officers makin facts fit the case... it all happens, an a posthumous pardon cuts nothin, cos the injustice is done.

However, I also dun think prison is bad enough fer people who commit crimes. If I'm payin fer these people to be incarcerated (which I am), then I want 'em to realise it's a deeply unpleasant place to be. I once watched summat on one place, it was like a bloody hotel!! They interviewed an inmate, an he said he loved it, it was better than his bedsit! Honestly, how much incentive is THAT to stay out of trouble??

i don't think the death penalty is the answer to anything...for one, if someone genuinely innocent is put to death, that's wrong in itself, and there's no way to rectify that...and also, if the death penalty is relied on too often, what's to stop the floodgates opening and it becoming an acceptable punishment for lesser crimes? you may laugh, but over time, it's possible...

i don't think there'd even be the issue of a death penalty if the government put more value on "life imprisonment"...it's so easy to get parole these days...

sorry, i'm rambling, this isn't gonna make much sense...

I'm not sure where I stand...I think that Child abusers and rapeist should be surverly turtured then killed....but after rotting 200 hundred years in a small 2 by 2 foot box...

I'm not generally for the death punishment, but i do think prisons are to soft now a days. I think the solution is clear. Why did the even get rid of the rack and hanging people by there hands in the first place I ask you. (I'm only joking...ermm really) But i do think for people who have commited really bad crimes, and there is absolute guilt to the crime aught to get it pretty bad. Besides I'm sure a life time spent hanging from wall is probably worse then death. (but really I'm not for the medevil punishments) so yup thats me veiw.

The problem is, though, how does one determine what the basic standard of living should be...

Even if we guaranteed them only the bare essentials - a bed, a toilet, food, water, clothes, a roof over their head - they'd STILL be living better than a great number of people...

Seems sick that crime actually does pay if poverty is your other option, but such is the condition of the world. I know what I'd be doing if that was my choice.

Me too... I know if I was in the poverty zone here, I'd be so far below the breadline that goin to prison for housebreakin, twockin or muggin would not only be an acceptable risk, but a preference!

Exactly my point. I know there's laws against inhumane punishments for crimes, and I imagine making inmates live in conditions less than the standard of living would be considered inhumane and cruel...

But honestly, how can we determine what the standard of living even is?

maybie someone here can help me out with finding info on this.

i heard along time ago about some culture that had a sightly different take on punishing murderers. they would let the family of the murdered person decide the fate of the murderer. this meant that the murderer could be punished in any number of ways, including having to face the berrieved family every single day of his/her life. i am not sure what culture this is from, but i thought that it was a nice idea when i heard it (although in the end it would'nt be feasable). has anyone any ideas what culture this is from?

I've no idea what culture it's from, though it sounds like it could be a tribal one. As for the death penalty I'm oppose to it - I don't think that anyone has the right to take someone else's life (unless asked to do so in case of serious fatal illness for example) regardless of what that person has done (incidentally I am pro-choice, but I think that's a different concept to the death penalty which I won't go into now). Having said that the prison service does make life better for many inmates, especially when you compare it to the conditions in which some law-abiding people live. I think if the government took the 'life imprisonment' ruling seriously and parole wasn't so easy to get then it might make more of an impact, but I can't see that happening.

all in all, i'm opposed to the death penalty, under the condition that there are different areas (of the same prison, the areas would be the same (no special treatment for different kinds of criminals) for different kinds of criminals. i only think this because those criminals who are getting the death penalty (mass-murder, continual pre-medittated murder, murder-for-hire, and a few others i can't remember) would be around other kindsa criminals (e.g. drug dealers) and everyone in prison ends up talking about how they got there, which leads to the bomb makers teaching the drug dealers how to 'get rid of' a major cometetor, and murderers teaching ppl how to clean up after a murder and get away from the scene of the crime. i dun care about the cost, and i think that the death penalty itself is wrong, but i believe that if we're goin to get rida the death penalty (and we want to ACTUALLY lower crime), we NEED to separate different kindsa prisoners (among other things)

I read somewhere that there is still a death penalty in american because something like 51% of people support it, when they abolished it in Germany there was something like 75% of the population in favour of it, 10 years later it was something like 29%. why do i mention this? no idea, you're clearly all opposed to it in the first place.

As a side thought i heard convicted peadophile and rapists etc are given a hard time by everyone, even other convicts

as well they should be in my eyes, im opposed to the death penalty but rapists etc get me riled up - they are the lowest

im against the death penalty in general due to the whole thing of innocent people getting killed though, but thats been discussed ...

I think the crime you comitte should be returne dto you.. if you rape someone then chop them up into bits while still alive.. that should be done to you. If you shoot someone in the head you should be shot in the head. If you bury someone alive you should be burried alive. and so forth and so on.... if you cost someones life.. then you should not sit in jail annd read you should get the crime payed back to you....

you're talking about an eye for an eye

of course you'd need to find someone to do all that and there aren't many mentally stable people that do that and it wouldn't stand, its far too barbaric, it's lowering ourselves to a criminals level and as Ghandi (sp?) said "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind"....or something



having said that i'd happily beat a certain next door neighbour over the head with an iron bar if i got the opportunity

Interesting to find that most who are pro-choice are against the death penatly and those who are pro-life are for it.

That said......I'm against the death penatly. Who are we to take someones life because they took anothers? What makes it ok for the person who pushes the switch or injects the person with poison to kill a killer, and it's not ok for the killer to do so?

As for rapists and child molesters, well in jail they have their own form of justice. You'd be surprised how many killers and other inmates think that rapists and child molesters are the lowest scum on the face of the earth and make their jail stay a living hell.

I am against the death penalty... but then again.. I am for it... I believe that the only way someone should be put to death is if there is a smoking gun. I mean DNA, witnesses..it has got to be completely confirmed that this person is guilty. There could be no second guesses. Since that is not always the case I am against it in 99.9% of all cases. But I feel that the ones that are smoking gun cases, the punishment should be just as horrible as the crime. I think they should be gruesome and painful and they should be public. How scary is lethal injection?? Not to terribly scary other than you are going to die... now how scary is it to be ran through...oh let say...... a ...... meat grinder! Now that holds a bit more fear doesn't it.... how about a wood chipper..... see what I am saying..that is a deterrent of crime.
But then again... to take another's life for doing the same is a bit on the hypocritical side. Once again.. I am against it... maybe I am schizoid...

well, the death penalty idea, i am for it on the whole. i would rather see i child molesterer dead than having all the comforts of home in their own private prison. however, the chanced of an innocent dying are large thanks to corruption and mistakes, and thats wrong, and i would like to see brutal murderers and rapists in great pain for a long time before death.

but child molesterers to get a bad time in jail as it is. the man that kolled sarah payne, got a 'cheshire grin'- another inmate cut a 'smile' through his cheeks and corner of his mouth.
but they should get a bad time as their legal punishment. not because another criminal decided to do what the law didnt

I agree that they should be given a slow painful tortris death but that in itself will change nothing. I feel that they should allow the family of the victim decide what will be done with him/her and if it were me I would do him exacution style after 3 years of non stop torture or just hand the family members weapons and say go nuts. I do agree that the death penelty is not always the way especailly when the man or women that is convicted is innocent. Everyone gets what they deserve so if you do wrong I believe you will get yours.

to be honest, i don't think death solves anything.

however, if they lifted the ban on corporal punishment, that might be an idea.../me shrugs...

Corporal punishment... Yep, that might not be such a bad idea to bring back, if only because the current system doesn't seem to be working.



A while ago, when I first started my PhD course, I did think about this. I know some prisoners who behave well are allowed materials to write with and books... I could have written my thesis from my cell! Lots of nice peace and quiet, no bills to pay, regular exercise and a routine to help me write. It sounds perfect really! ... Instead I decided to earn a living and four years later I'm still writing it!

Yeah I always said prision would be like club med for lesbians... 3 meals a day, free room and board, gym membership, education, legal repersention, health care... since I am already gay.. I dont have to worry about big bertha... the only draw back is that whole lack of freedom thing.. and no vacation time

i know! drive them insane through sleep deprivation....
just an idea

I think making them go insane would just make them more dangerous, if they were not insane already to begin with

I'm not sure... I mean, I can't reach a fair decision about this. All I know is that people can break out of jail, and they can get out on parole or their time's up and still be dangerous...

i'm against it as well. I think it is a shame that innocent people die from the police's mistake. Not to mention that it would be less of a punishment for them to die.

The death penalty is scarey. Mainly because it is not foolproof and its a quick end. Id also have the nagging doubt of the persons innocent. Even people who admit are not always guilty. Prison is used as a true punishment and with rehibilitation is better than the death penalty but it doesnt always happen. Theres cases in teh UK where homeless people are commiting crimes coz that way they are guarenteed a bed and food, and who can blame them so innocent people are in prison.

i am basicly against the death penalty, although there would have to be many changes in the way prisons worked if it was removed. ok, i'm basicly just gonna list the arguments ppl use in SUPPORTING the death penalty (or at least the ones i've heard)
1. what if the death penalty were only used when you KNOW someone's guilty?
my answer: that can never happen. there've been HUNDREDS of cases (death penalty or not) where everyone is SURE that person is guilty, all the evidence points to him, etc. etc. and then it turns out that that person was innocent for one of various reasons (set up, evidence was planted, the police made a cruicial mistake). you will never KNOW beyond ANY doubt (not a reasonable doubt, ANY doubt) that the person is guilty. well, that's not true. it's POSSIBLE. and even if it did happen, well, just keep reading
2. the death penalty costs much less
a: who cares?
3. the death penalty stops mass murderers and those who murder for hire from telling inmates how to kill ppl
a. ummm...... this happens anyways, murder in the second degree (in the states i dunno about the UK) carries a prison sentence of (at minimum) 15-life and at most (i think) 25-life. these people are allowed to talk to other inmates. ALL inmates can and do talk to other inmates, and it almost always ends up being about their crimes. so the armed robber tells the drug dealer how to break into a building, and the murderer tells any gang/maffia/wtv you want to call it member that's in jail for a small crime exactly how to clean up the crime scene
4. the death penalty stops crime better than life sentencing
a. (i have 2 actually) then why are there so many people on death row? (second answer) besides if you get killed, for many people that's better than having to live with yourself (and live in the worst possible prison the government can put you in, which is pretty awful) for the rest of your life with absolutely no freedom
5. some people DESERVE to die
a. who are you to play god? who are you to decide if a person should die or live? did YOU know what was going through that person's mind when he killed that cop (or murdered those people). he could either be insane, driven to an uncontrollable rage, or, in the case of a cop killing, a complete misunderstanding (like when the cops kill pedestrians by accident). and even if he IS the most sick twisted perverted person on this planet who DEFINITELLY commited these crimes, you have no idea what lies beyond this life so you have no idea just what punishment you are inflicting on him. it might not even BE a punishment

no, it doesn't. to execute someone costs more than keeping them in prison for life, actually. you should correct anyone who tries to use that argument with you, cause they don't have their facts straight.



it's a proven fact that the death penalty does not work to deter crime. countries with no death penalty actually have a lower murder rate than those with the death penalty.

all in all, it just isn't an effective solution...

I am NOT going to live in a country where the people who run it (chosen by the people) think they have right of life or death over anybody. End of.

i dun understand this thing about cops and the death penalty. if you kill a cop, you get killed, no questions asked, you get a needle in your vein. but when a COP kills someone, they either get (at minimun) a reprimand for 'excessive force' or maybe a few years in jail. why? cause they only have that split second to make the decision wheter the suspect's goin for a gun or not. that's completely true (and i agree they shouldn't have to serve life for makin a mistake) but it shows how the death penalty is biased. i mean, say a cop broke down your door cause he had a warrant to search your apartment (assume you're an unknowing, completely innocent suspect). you panic, and have 'that split second' to think. now for many of us, all you'd see would be that gun pointing at you, and ignore the person holding it. so (assuming you have a gun within reach) you grab a gun and shoot the cop in what you think is self defense. unfortunatelly, at your trial, all the jury hears is 's/he's a cold blooded killer who murdered a police officer to run from the law' and you might (not necessarily but you've got a reasonable chance) of gettin convicted and sentenced to death. now i want someone pro death penalty to explain how THAT makes sense

Bump cause another thread was made on this subject...and no point in posting all this over again in another new topic, so the person who made it can just read all of this.

It's not an easy thing to decide on, sometimes passion gets in the way and whoever hurt us warrants death at times.

But, since the system is soo faulty , it's sad that the possibility of innocents being sent to death is a much worse crime than those that deliberately killed or some such thing:::

I still think that law enforcement and laws should be written with appropriate sentencing to fit the crime...I mean some states you get more time for watching underage people naked , then say someone that rapes and kills your g/f or wife...now thats stupid...

but anyway ... no govenrment is perfect...no punishment just... ::shrugs::

the main pro-death penalty argumen i hear is 'if someone killed your parents, wouldn't you want that person dead?'. me counter-argument 'if your parents killed someone, wouldn't you want them to live?'

I'm against the death penalty. I think it is pointless. why create more pain out of something the has already caused enough? I'm glad that Maine does not have it..

y'know they still have hanging in 4 states? and a firing squad (for the death peanaly) in 3?

thats sick.. Taxes?

i dun think so. 'old sparky' is bad enough if you ask me (who the H*LL names an electric chair? )

sick sick people... I'm betting they do still hang people there though

i actually am pretty sure they repealed that. otherwise all those ppl bush killed as govenor would've been hanged and not electrocuted

good good.. don't want to give Bush any other way to kill people.. except that whole sending troops in to blow the hell out of people...

"why yes lets bob a third world country further into the stone age.. thats good international polocy right?"

yep and then let's leave our soldiers there where they can kill and be killled by ppl who never wanted them there in the first place

I've vistied various prisons... I have yet to see the prison that is like a holiday camp.

In the UK - they are overcrowded, understaffed and usually inadequate in their facilities. The ones I have visited made me very, very uncomfortable.

Why do we have prisons? - to punish, to re-educate, to protect society (and in some cases the offenders)...

It is difficult to strike a balance between these demands, but killing people is a very difficult point. The criminal justice system is still so flawed that innocent people are wrongly found guilty of crimes... DNA has helped reduce this - but not eradicate it, there are still too many problems.

_________________________________

From this website

Bush, the Bible and the Death Penalty

When asked what Jesus would say about the death penalty, George Bush responded that it would be hard to tell how he would feel about it.

Personally, I think Jesus would most definitely have an opinion - since he received the death penalty himself. Only a fool would believe Jesus would support the death penalty.

Funny how the majority of people believe in Christ and the same majority support the death penalty. Logically those two don’t mix.
_________________________________

AND here is something that very few people seem to understand about the law of talion... "an eye for an eye"

Matthew 5:38-42

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

_________________________________


In truth Jesus' teachings are far far more difficult to enact and live by than we would like. Far more difficult.

Love our enemies, something I doubt I could manage... Perhaps if we remember that criminals are still people and that no matter how much they have hurt others - society must treat them as human beings.

Showing offenders their errors and helping them understand their mistakes is a cliche' but perhaps something we should try and achieve in our prinsons. That coupled with denying their liberty - making their environment as uncomfortable as is ethically possible, and protecting society from them while re-educating them - should help move society forwards... I hope.