Okay, my partner and I have been been having an ongoing debate for a while now and I thought that I'd get some more opinions on it.

He works in the prison service and is a firm believer that capital punishment should be brought back into force here in the UK. We both agree that our legal system isn't working as it is - prison is no deterrant anymore.

If you look at the figures - there are approximately 75,000 inmates in prisons in this country. It costs around £20,000 per year, per inmate to keep them there. This is our tax money.

So, my partner feels that the death penalty should be brought back in force for the more serious crimes such as murder, rape, armed robbery, burglary and to a certain degree drug smuggling etc... He proposes a three - strike rule, if you're imprisoned for a serious crime three times, you're out.

I disagree with this. Although I agree that we need to find a better way to deter people from commiting crimes, I cannot condone taking another persons life. Under any circumstances - surely this makes us no better than any other murderer? I'm all for taking it back to basics and maiming people - you steal three times, you lose a hand. Let the punishment fit the crime, as it were.

Anyway, I'd like to know your thoughts on this. Perhaps someone has an innovative idea to deter criminal activity in this country?

The death penalty isn't going to deter anybody. It never has. If they're not afraid of a lengthy prison sentence, they won't be afraid of the death penalty.

From the point of view of the massive costs required to detain people, my answer would be to decriminalise the possession of drugs. If I'm caught with cocaine, I'll go to prison. Why? It's not like I was hurting anybody with it. But no, I've lost my job and I'm in prison. While I'm in there, you're paying through the nose to keep me somewhere I don't want or deserve to be. Likely I'll catch AIDS or something equally nasty. I may come out a heroin addict, or a criminal, and I'll certainly not be particularly inclined to become a productive member of society.

Unfortunately, I don't have an innovative idea to deter people from crime.

I will say, however, that I cannot condone the death penalty. Perhaps your partner would change his mind if he knew that to execute someone costs MORE than imprisoning them for life. It also has been proven time and time again to not be an effective deterrent to crime.

As for your idea of maiming people -- ah, no. Can't say I agree with that at all. Seems a bit on the cruel and unusual side to me.

I look at capital punishment from a view that it’s 'an eye for an eye and everyone ends up blind'. The criminal who has been convicted.. his suffering is about to end, s/he isn't going to hell or any of that huie... they are just getting out of a situation that they have got themselves into, probably best for them, look how many suicides occur in prisons.

The family of that victim of the supposed crime feels what? - A sense of justice because this person has been killed, does that compensate for what has been done/lost/happened in the first place? Not that I've ever seen..

All I can take from it is that the family of the criminal suffer by their name being dragged through the press; they maybe family but do not condone what has happened yet are perused and labeled, somewhat unfair on them that they have to live with it for the rest of their lives knowing the person who committed the crime is no longer about! Yet they still are.

Like the commiebasket and cadice say it hasn't deterred anyone in the first place. My view is criminals become just that from their upbringing and environment, not sex, drugs and violence on TV; but the family values and standards a child needs as its growing up.. and as we all know there’s many cases children are dragged up. Capital punishment does nothing for mankind but reflect the rage and anger humans have, far from wanting peace and helping others in the world eh!

How could you possibly condone killing someone because lots of people are in prison and you as a citizen have the joint responsibilty to pay for that. To enforce law, money must be spent. Just Because it annoys you to have to pay for murderers to be kept away from you, and hopefully rehabilitated does'nt mean they should die.

I have heard this arguement before, however I have not seen any proof upon the issue. Could you provide a link proving such? I might be sounding sarcastic, but I'm honestly not, I'd like to know.

As for the issue..

The death penalty in its current form is no deterrent. Why? Because it is an easy way to die, and is not in the mind of people all the time. To pose a hypothetical, if capital punishment were to work, public executions would have to take place, society would have to be engineered to constantly think of the death penalty and keep it in their heads from youth. The punishments would have to be severe and painful.

My beliefs upon the issue have been changed substantially since last time this has been discussed, so here's a new start. The line between vengeance and justice depends on individual perspective. Government cannot operate upon that, it must operate upon the principle of protection. Therefore, bringing justice to people is not my concern, protecting the people and deterring the crime is.

No more cruel and unusual than popping someone in a chair and passing electricity through their body until they're dead.

Which Candice also opposed.

True - perhaps I should have elaborated a bit.

I'm not talking dirty old machete job. A surgical procedure, involving doctors and anaesthetic etc.... Yep - it will still cost money but not as much as keeping inmates in prisons.



I agree with you. I don't see possession of drugs as a serious crime and to be quite honest the amount of crap that goes round the prisons - what may start off as something recreational could develop into a very nasty habit.

Yep. I can't provide a site with this, but I'm sure there is one if I cared to look for it. Anyway, my friend who lives in the Netherlands confirms it. In the Netherlands (and I'm sure other countries) drugs aren't illegal, and they have less problems. My friend (She moved here for five years before moving back) says that the really addicted druggies were separate from the other people, pretty much. And they just died off.

I'll have to type more later, but I'm against capital punishment and will have to find a point to bring up that you people haven't. Going out to eat.^^

I originally got that information from my Sociology textbook, which I can't very well post a link to. But I did a search, and this is one of the first things I found. I'm copying and pasting a good portion of it (it's a little long, sorry...I thought this particular excerpt was quite important), as it applies to this debate and why exactly the death penalty makes very little sense -- but I've bolded the portion that applies to your question. The information was taken from a paper published by Gary W. Potter, PhD. Department of Justice and Police Studies, Eastern Kentucky University. You can see the rest of the paper by clicking here.



If you want more links, click here, here, here, and here.

As for Snugglebum's suggestion of a surgical removal of a body part -- I still say no. Being an ex-con already carries a stigma with it -- one that makes it very difficult to find a job. If someone was missing a hand *and* an ex-con, it'd be even more difficult for them to find a job. And, could they collect disability payments? Probably not, but they would clearly be disabled, and unable to perform many tasks. Many people turn back to crime because they simply get frustrated with trying to find work. Your solution would almost guarantee they would turn back to crime. What else COULD they do, really? Missing one hand, unable to collect disability payments, an ex-con, and more than likely not enough education to qualify for a job where s/he would not need to use her/his hands. How would this person survive? I know that if I were in that place, of course I'd turn to crime. How do you expect people to become productive members of society by mutilating them?

in extreme cases the death penalty should be used. however i dont think the decision should be made based on monetary concerns.


by extreme cases, i mean cold blooded killers who have proven resourceful at elusion. like ted bundy. ted bundy was caught twice and escaped twice, and a lot of young women lost their lives because of that. there is absolutely no reason to keep a man like that alive.


as for the limb thing..well....
personally i think we should be more concerned with protecting our citizenry then punishing people.

by removing a limb, you will just take an individual with already problems and violent tendencies and just make them even more angry, more bitter, and more incapable of finding a job when released. this will become a danger to citizens.




@commie bastard:

well, i know making a big deal about this is a bit off topic, but i feel i must reply. as a man whose whole family was effectively destroyed by the drug trade, i deal with a lot of residual anger towards drug dealers and people who use. the drug trade hurts thousands and should be illegal. *except weed... i mean, come on* making drugs legal wont change the fact that it is a brainwrecking addiction that destroys lives and familys and would land people in jail anyway for stealing to fuel their habit. i know people like to think that making it legal would just be a huge magic wand that solves all the problems, but theyre sorely mistaken.

Who decides a person should be killed? When a person does wrong, wouldn't a life imprisonment sentence be worse? Spending the rest of your life locked up to think about your wrongdoing. If killing is a crime, what right does the government and justice system have to commit that crime? 8 out of 9 people are guilty who are sentenced to the death penalty, but what about that last person? What if there was a pill released that killed 1 out of 9 people that took it? Would you allow that to be released into society? If people escape, you shouldn't kill them. If your dog escapes and kills the neighborhood cat, would you kill him? Prison security needs to be bettered in that case.

if a dog escapes and kills a person, killing it is actually mandatory.

i dont think it should be used as a punishment but as protection. if a killer still is a threat to society, he should be killed.

and by extreme cases i mean cases in which its guarenteed, like ted bundy.


well, yeah prison security needs to be bettered. but where are we gonna get the money to do everything we need to do?

Which only goes to show animal's rights clearly aren't as important as people's.



Everyone is a threat to society. In fact, it's hard to determine what IS a threat to society. A prison should keep them locked in, if the prison security is faulty, that's not their fault. If you were convicted, falsely or truthfully, would you get out if you knew you could?



*points up* Using the money used up there to make the prison systems better instead of killing people?

Well now,

1. Capital Punishment (including the ever popular decapitation and maiming)

I've worked in the legal profession since 1994. Nearly ten long years. In those ten years I have yet to see a criminal trial that was 100% open and shut. There are literally hundreds of factors that sway both juries and judges - away from the truth and hard facts. Very few cases have the overwhelming evidence necessary to get a pure conviction, and even fewer of these cases are of a serious nature.

I have personally witnessed several cases of gross incompetence on the side of either the defence or prosecution. I have been involved in two very dangerous cases of police corruption, and I have seen, each year, in the UK hundreds of appeals cases being won - the first trail having been seriously flawed in some way.

All of this highlights one simple fact - our courts don't always get it right.

There are numerous examples of innocent men and women who have been mistakenly found guilty of crimes they did not commit. Executing these innocents is, in itself, a far greater crime than imprisoning them for life.

Until you can get a system which is 100% accurate - you should not have something as severe or final as a death sentence, or even a simple mutilation... or two.

[EDITED TO ADD] This doens't mean that we should just ignore crime. Yes continue to prosecute criminals and punish them for what they have done - denying liberty is a form of punishment, and - more importantly - get certain criminals out of circulation. Keep society protected from the more serious offenders by locking them up for longer... and really enforcing those long term sentences. If they're innocent then hopefully they'll be able to prove it, even if it takes years to do so - that's till better than not giving the innocent the chance... 'cos in our righteous indignation we leathally injected them. [EDITED]
____________________________

Imagine (if you would) that I've just broken into your house and killed you family while they slept. I then plant enough evidence to frame you for their murder, (far-fetched I know - but stay with me here folks).

You go to court and are found guilty - and sentenced to death.

While you're waiting to die - the Home Secretary / Attorney General walks in and says to you - "I want to abolish the death penalty, but I need your support. Sign this agreement and I'll get rid of Capital Punishment - and your sentence will be for life." Do you sign? You know you're innocent, but all those guilty people will also be spared... and locked away for life instead.

(i) If you didn't do it - why should you be punished?

(ii) If you are innocent - are those victims (and their families) getting real justice?

(iii) If someone else committed the crime - and you're going to die for them - they aren't being punished... they are out there free to commit more crimes.

(iv) If you're still alive in prison - you can still try and argue your case. There are numerous cases where innocent people have proven themselves years after being sent to prison (think the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six in the UK, and the Hurricane in the US). In a couple of instances their release led to renewed police investigations and the real culprit being brought to justice!
____________________________

I have to say there's one thing that I'm not to certain about with Snuggle's initial post... Snugg - please advise me here:



Burglary - a crime so serious that a repeat offender should be killed (or by another standard - physically mutilated)???!!!?!?!? I’m hoping that this was just a typo… I mean seriously?

Pat breaks into his neighbour's house while they are out shopping and nicks the DVD player. (s)he's caught tried and after doing time comes out and breaks into a factory one weekend... caught again etc, then breaks into a shop one night, gets caught - found guilty and given a lethal injection OR has his/her hand amputated.

If that’s how you feel then I feel that's a tad over-reacting. If it was a typo – my apologies and please disregard the last couple of paragraphs.
_____________________________

2. The Reform of the Prison Service



It's an often-asked question, and one which makes a fundamental assumption - that the current system doesn't work... so why doesn't it work?



If prison was ever a successful deterrent then, historically, Britain would have had a very small crime rate. This is not so. We actually had the death penalty right up until the 60's (after that only for certain acts of treason). Yet it wasn't a deterrent. People committed violent crimes then as they do now. The only really significant crime rise is in sexual assaults (though many believe that in reality it's more to do with women managing to report these horrific crimes more readily than previously). When the death penalty was abolished - there wasn't any increase in violent criminal activity.

Problems, Solutions and Cost?

Prob 1. Our Prisons are overcrowded and to a lesser extent unmanaged. Young and first time offenders are being crammed in to general population with hardened/professional criminals, repeat offenders and serious offenders. They are being detained for up to years at a time in very close quarters to soe very bad company.

Sol 1. New prisons to cope with overcrowding and decent management - kids and first timers being segregated from career villains.

Cost 1. Bloody expensive in the short term - building costs, finding suitable sites, hiring staff, etc etc. In the long run cost effective as people won't re-offend - some projects of prison management show a trend away from repeat offending where first timers are segregated.

Prob 2. Is locking people up the only answer?

Sol 2. Look at alternatives to custodial sentences for lesser crimes. Eg, tougher enforcement of community orders, greater fines, curfews enforced through electronic tagging.

Cost 2. Very cheap - compared to the £20,000 per year figure Snuggles provided. So long as it's enforced properly - so more money / resources need to be allocated to the Probation Service.

Prob 3. Okay - we've locked up some people, we have to... but then what?

Sol 3. We should lock people up for three reasons (i) to protect the community, (ii) to punish the criminal, (iii) to provide an environment where the criminal can be re-educated / rehabilitated. To this end we need to ensure that people can't escape, that they aren't allowed certain rights (apart from denying them their liberty - how about taking away the ability to commit further crimes whilst still on the inside), and provide a means to change them for the better. The toughest of these is rehabilitation. For every criminal activity there are a myriad of socio - psychological - political - religious and even medical programmes that can help alter the criminal's perception and (hopefully) change their attitudes for the better. These need to be at least tried out onevery prisoner and maintained on those who are responsive, with harder programmes for those who are less responsive.

Cost 3. This one varies - though it can be very, very expensive. One project in UK prisons saw prisoners being fed a healthy balanced diet with plenty of fresh fruit and veg, a little less red meat and no high fat foods. The results were amazing as violence and stress in the test prisons fell dramatically (the levels remained the same in prisons which didn't adopt the new meals). However, the experiment was canned as David Blunkett felt it was too costly, even though the initial results were very promising.

Prob 4. What causes the crime in the first place? Is it poverty? Changing social attitudes - a lack of societal cohesion? A greater exposure to violence and lawlessness through the popular media? The Failure of the police - too much red taped bureaucracy not enough crime-fighting? Rap Music???!!?! Actually it's a mixture of all of that (with the exception of rap music - which doesn’t cause lawbreaking at all... except maybe illegal music downloading Napster stylee).

Sol 4. A systematic, wide ranging and far reaching Government programme to tackle each of these issues. Helping to eradicate the worst forms of poverty will help (not just lowering crime rates - but also helping the people living below the breadline). Better schooling - teaching kids at an early age how to empathise with other people, showing them that harming each other is bad. Promoting forms of media which enforce a feeling of community and empathy with the victims of crime, whilst campaigning in the media industry for the self regulated toning down of the depiction of criminality - show it for what it is - don't glorify it. Reform the police services - cut down red tape, hire more cops (use the army if necessary ) - but above all make it easier for good cops to do a good job.

Cost 4. Mega-bloody-expensive. But it has to be done... and done properly.
_____________________________

Looking at all of this - I hope I have made my position clear as to why capital punishment is not yet desirable, and some of the many alternatives there are out there to resolving the prison/punishment crisis.

Whatever be said and done - the one key factor in all of this is going to be money.



Yes - and some would argue that this is one reason why you pay taxes. To keep the bad guys locked up. Also the VAST majority of the 75,000 inmates did not commit a serious arrestable offence. Our prisons aren't filled with 75,000 murderers, rapists, paedophiles and armed robbers. The majority are crooks, sometimes even repeat offenders - but people who haven't done enough to warrant execution.

To reform the system (and I feel that some kind of reform is needed), the government is going to have to spend even more of your tax pounds than they already do. Snuggle's post indicates that she (I think you're a she - sorry if you're a he) is not too happy with your cash being spent on evil-doers... perhaps we should look at it another way - our money is being spent on protecting us (and the rest of society) from harm... and if we feel that the government is failing in it's job - the bad news is - we're gonna have to pay even more to make it better.

it's kind of ironic to be killed because of killing someone...if murder is so wrong how can you justify using it as the punishment? it reminds me of 'do as i say not as i do' don't kill, but i'm going to kill you... if authorities don't want it to be done, don't do it yourself.

basically, i do NOT believe in capital punishment

the end

Just my humble opinion, but I don't think any crime deserves execution.

I fail to see what good there is in murdering a murderer.

Kitten, that was an amazingly comprehensive post. When and where are you standing for election? You have my vote.

Should've seen her on communism...I'm her beverage supplier.

Anyway, an overwhelming amount of Americans are in favor of the death penalty. But killing your problems isn't going to cut it. Does anyone know if it's illegal in any state? I feel shamed living in a state that it is legal, almost.

Illegal in New York, Vermont, and many others. Google it.

It can be an effective method of punishment IF the right cultural engineerign were to go on around it. I see no difference between death penalty as it is and a couple hundred year sentence. However since DNA evidence is becoming an increasing prover of innocence, the death penalty is starting to lose its faculties. It was and to a point is an effective means of social and governmental control. It however is growing increasingly archaic, therefor eit is a system that is time to depart with.

If we were to close all the prisons and destroy gun control, the problem would sort itself out.

On a more serious note, It is a basic human instinct to destroy thy enemy,
murderers ussually kill people at random, therefore since your are his enemy he is your enemy, and we should eliminatethem.
I somebody were to kill my father, I would avenge his death by sending the beast to the living hell that he did my father, or worse. Call it cruel if you wish, but my instincts tell me to destroy.

Proof?Are we ruled by our instincts? If we are to have a rational component, must we not rise above the animal part of us? This statement has no rational basis.Then you are just as bad as the murderer.

While we must not quash the animal of man, we cannot let him roam free. Such is destructive to man. In stone age times, such freedom of the animal is necessary. However in modern times, the animal must be stifled.

Then I'm an animal, At least I would be able to rest knowing that my fathers murderer has been slain.
And how about trying to put yourself in such a situation, it seems to me that you would not have any wish to kill the murderer. But what if you were next? would you want your death avenged? Probably not, but that's your opinion. I have no wish to kill a man unless he has done such a wrong to me, and if he does, may God have mercy on our souls.

I would feel bloodlust, this is true. However there is a huge difference between feeling and acting. If you cannot differentiate between those lines, you represent the primal man that disgusts me.

If we all killed people becuase they "wronged" us, what would we all be? It seems to me your moral code is severely shot. Perhaps you do not know the consequences of vengeance on a mass-scale.

This is what we have morality and laws for, to protect people against people who kill.

A cashier could wrong me by not giving me change. Can I kill him? What if I really really really wanted that change? You see what I mean by skewed perception? Can you see where this would lead man?

I do. The death penalty is directly killing someone, the hundred-year sentence is keeping them alive in prison as long as possible.

Let's be real. We intend to keep them there until they die. Either way they die in prison. Life sentences, sentences of 900 years, how are they any different from capital punishment? Because we aren't using the needle? Don't think so. A life sentence is a death sentence, so is one of 100 years, unless you are extremely lucky.

Prison is not Death. Alive in a prison until you die of natural causes and death not of natural causes are very, very different things. As Kitten said, " If you're still alive in prison - you can still try and argue your case."



Isn't that a GOOD thing? The DNA tests will prove innocence, and less innocent people will die!



"archaic"? please explain how it's growing archaic. I just don't see that at all, what with all the technological advances. Yes, it is a means of control as you also stated, but so is life imprisonment.

I am not in favor of the death penalty, because of such things like DNA evidence. However, what I dislike is when people say "we ought not kill people for killing others". Sticking them in a box for a lifetime is a death sentence, they will not leave that box alive.No arguement here. I did not state it as a negative.Advances like DNA evidence are making the death penalty an archaic system. Proof is too easily found, after they are dead. It is also archaic because it lacks the "wow" power that it had in tribal and village settings, where it was more commonly used and had a bigger social point around it. It was always designed as a preventetive. It is not effective anymore, hence it is archaic.

...meaning they won't leave the prison alive. But they are kept alive by having their needs supplied. With needs supplied, I don't think it's any more of a death sentence than a normal human being has.


Well, I see your point, but archaic is a bit of a strong word in that context. I didn't even consider that reason to dump it.

Think of a world of gray and orange. You are trapped 24 hours a day inside that gray box, with very limited exposure to the outside. You can get killed in a prison riot, become another inmate's plaything, be abused by uncaring guards, and now, think about that for the rest of your life. Prison murders the soul, afte rin that box for 2o years, I wouldn't be surprised if you are ready to die.

It's not life in prison, more so maintenace of your biological functions.

*bows down to Overfriendly Kittens superior knowledge and understanding*

THAT'S what I've been waiting for.

I'm afraid that Burglary was not a typo. He sees it as invading someones space in the worst possible way. It's not like they just walk in, grab a TV, then leave. They go through all of your possessions. Some people who have been the victim of burglary have had to move out of their home because they just don't feel safe any more. And what about the guy who breaks into an old womans house and smacks her one to get her out of the way so he can nick her pension?

A life sentance is not a life sentance. To be quite honest, it's an empty threat. If you play the system correctly you can be out in twelve years, or at the very least in a catagory C prison (minimum security). It's a joke.

The prison my partner works in is cat C. I've been in there numerous times and I tell you what - it's like Butlins. They have Sky Television in the Recreational rooms. Some of the cells have en - suite showers. They have an amazing gym. Nice countryside to look at. They have murderers, rapists and peodophiles there at the end of their sentances. What a scary prospect that must be for would be criminals.

Don't get me wrong (which I think many of you have), I've met a lot a criminals through my partner (and my father who is a screw) and on the whole they've all been perfectly nice, normal people. But I do believe that there has to be a certain degree of punishment to go hand in hand with rehabilitation -or what's the point.

A lot of the posts here are focusing on the criminal, and his/her rights - what about the victim? That seems to have been over looked.

And I am a girly, Overfriendly Kitten, nice to meet you.

The victim has the right to reimbersement. Of course this is only possible for tangibles, posessions. Howevr a victim has no right to hurt because s/he was hurt. You do not have the right to vengeance, which is the reimbersement of intangibles(life, joy, virginity, etc.). Therefore the eye for an eye system is not only morally inept, but has no positive place in modern society. In primitive societies it had its place as a way to maintain order, yet even then it was not an effective one.

To quote from Babylon 5, if we were to use a reimbursement standard for intangibles "we would live in a place where everyone is blind and toothless".

I think captial punishment is better than making the convict stay in jail for hundreds of years. Quicker death is less painful then just wasting away.

Precisely why life imprisonment is the better choice, more deterrent, if social engineering follows.

Your biological functions intact is still life. (I don't think I'm going to budge on that, don't waste your time)

And I agree...not only does the criminal seem to get off easier, it *is* eye for and eye when the government kills someone for killing.

yea the death penalty is just as bad as lynching, hanging, or punishing by means of guillotine. any punishment by means of executing falls under the catagory of 'cruel and unusual'

I personally think that its a breach of human rights.

About year ago a guy was realeased from jail after serving 20 years, nearly all of his life behind bars due to a charge of murder. He all ways protested his innonece, and when it was finlly proved, they realeased him. Now what if they had hung him? You can't ressurect the dead. And since theyre so many flaws in the legal system, innocect men have been killed for crimes theyre didnt commit.

Those were at times the death penalty. Curel and unusual is required for the death penalty to be effective. Mass executions in public with torutre is the only way to make an imprint and have it be an effective deterrent.The story you give below doesn't seem to be one of human rights. It does however show the flaw in the death penalty hence why I am against it.

Which is another reason why it should be abolished...fourth amendment rights. Ohhh yeaaaah.

Actually eighth ammendment. A mistake in my opinion.

The death penalty is not always the clean, swift death we imagine it to be. It is cruel and unusual. (To quote a mate on her speech concerning the inhumane usage of the death penalty and why it shouldn't be allowed to come back/ should be abolished: "...and their skin turns purple, and their eyes pop out...") Also, there are many instances in which the first go at killing the person is unsuccessful...meaning they run more voltage or wotnot into a live, suffering person.

I am deeply opposed to the death penalty. Who lives and dies is not up to flawed humans; by dictating who does, we are playing god, and are just as bad as those we murder.



I agree--And in order to make it "work again", what are we supposed to do, bring back drawing and quartering? Obviously, however, the penal system is flawed, or else why is there so much crime? In Tokyo there is so little crime many people do not even lock their apartment doors. Off the bat I don't know why this is, although I do know that no-one is allowed to purchase guns (despite what anime has rotted most of our brains into thinking, even most law enforcement officers do not carry guns, let alone citizens). I'll do some research on this later to-day.

Perhaps instead of fighting over what to do about the effect, governments should focus a bit more on the cause.

That's how life works. Every action we take could potentially end the life of another human being.Tokyo is not America. There are so many different cultural, social, and political factors that make the two unique. What works well for one will not work well for another. For example, the American fascination with guns makes abolishment quite impossible. Americans are more prone to buy off the black market which cannot be regulated, and crime will not be helped. Just because the penal system is flawed does not mean we should become like other nations. Much of the problem is a social issue, one that society must work out. The government needs to do what is necessary to prevent crime, and criminals are criminals, why should we be forced to treat them to nice resort-prison?

You guys all act like killing someone for a really heinous crime like mass murder is wrong. The only valid reason I've heard is that they might actually be innocent. While this is true, you all are forgetting how hard is actually is to get a death sentence. It's by unanomous vote by TWELVE people who obviously believe he's guilty. And also, do you really believe that someone who killed many people like in the Oklahoma bombing should really be shown mercy for his crime? Well I certainly don't think so. That's a reason I dont like the lethal injection; it shows way too much mercy towards the offender. I personally think they should bring back the electric chair, firing squad, and hanging in all states. It costs a lot less to us, the tax payers, to just kill them than to house them in prison until they die.

The issue is not to bring justice to people. Those who can be reimbursed are those who have died, and life cannot be reimbursed. Cruelty is a preventetive. Justice ought not be the priority.