I think I've heard it before on this web site, but it should be repeated, often and loudly.
Life imprisonment is justice.
The death penalty is revenge.
It makes absolutely no sense to say that murder is wrong, and then to punish a murderer by commiting his crime against him.
It's bloodlust, pure and simple.
And everyone who complains about the comforts of prison ... in the course of one short life span, is the comfort level of the prison really going to matter when the criminal must deal with the comfort level of his soul?
Because he has cushy surroundings, is his crime less heinous?
I believe a criminal will suffer more from the spiritual implicatons of his crime, than his physical situation could ever make him suffer.
So there is no point to the death penalty as people believe in it, and it is a crime as well.
The penalty is particularly contradictive because in some cases, the criminals are being punished for murder. So their punishment is... murder? You're killing someone to tell them killing is wrong?
Even worse, a couple of years ago, Proposition 209 was passed in California which makes juveniles eligible to be tried in adult court when they are as young as 14 years. And being tried in adult court makes you eligible for the death penalty.
Imagine being sentenced to death when you are only fourteen years old! I think the youngest ever executed in CA was 16!!! Can you believe it? They have their whole lives ahead of them, time to change, time to grow up, but no... they are murdered.
Why is anyone even afraid of the death penalty anyways? I'm not afraid of it. I think that by the time you're killed someone, your sorta out of life. the death penalty is too soft, personally. Murderers get to lounge around and wait for their trial, then if they are convicted, they get a nice painless injection which puts them to sleep forever. They should be left to rot in a place like Alcatraz.
I think that as it is currently implemented, the death penalty is unfair. I think that funds for representation in capital trials should be equal, that is to say that when it comes to trial time, the poorest defendant is legally represented as well as the richest (optimally our entire judicial system would work this way, but at the very minimum it should be this way when the accused might be put to death).
But I have no moral opposition to putting someone to death for a crime. First of all, I think that some crimes are so aggregious and in such violation of of a civil society that the perpetrators just plain deserve to die for their crimes, and the members of that society have the right to ask for it. More than as a punishment or as a retribution killing, I think of the death penalty as a necessary evil to ease the collective outrage of society and its members.
I also think that a functioning capital punishment system does a good deal to deter would-be capital offenders, although statistically this is less of a benefit than I like to think. I think that if someone is remorseless or criminally insane or has a history of violent behaviors that culminate in a murder, I have no problem with killing that person to prevent future crime.
Let me say again that as it functions currently, the death penalty is unjust and stacked against the socio-economically disadvantaged. But my objections are not moral...sometimes people deserve to die.
I don't beleive in the death penalty, even though I can see why some of you do. I think that prisoners would learn more by sitting in solitary confinement and thinking about what they did every day until the day they die. Maybe, they'll become sorry for what they did, or they'll find some sort of religion. Just killing them seems like we're giving up on them.
I'm sorry if I didn't communicate my point well. I said: "Many say that the death penalty is good because it prevents the possibility of a criminal being released later on, yet a simple verdict without the possibility of probation or reward for "good behavior" would solve this problem."
My point in this part of my writing that the possibility of probation is not a good thing. "Good behavior" should not be grounds for probation, either. I guess I should have said that a verdict without the possibility of probation and without reward for good behavior would solve this problem.
I agree, it would not be fair to release a killer on to the streets, which is why I would support a verdict that called for life in prison without parole. (Like I stated in my first post.) I'm sorry if you misread my first post, but it sounds like you and I agree on this part of the issue.
As for your call to shoot the criminal or just inject street drugs into him/her... this is just a bit unconstitutional. The 8th amendment does protect residents from cruel and unusual punishment. Now while I think some people have elevated the constitution to a level similiar to that of an idol, I do agree that everybody (criminal or not) should not be cruelly/unusually punished. Yes, the things those on death row have done are horrible... but that does not give us a right to murder them. Like just about every mother has said at some point in time: "Two wrongs do not make a right."
It is not the government's role to decide when somebody should die. It is the government's role to protect its people, which it would be doing by keeping these type of criminals in jail for life...without parole.
quote:Originally posted by jstar555: First of all, I am against the death penalty. I believe that it is hypocritical. Many say that the death penalty is good because it prevents the possibility of a criminal being released later on, yet a simple verdict without the possibility of probation or reward for "good behavior" would solve this problem."
Good behavior?? Would you feel this same way if they had killed your child, your parents, your best friends?? I honestly wouldn't; I'd be willing to kill them myself. I suppose it can be hypocritical A kills B, so C kills A--C is still a killer too, I guess I see. But what reward does that dead child get, what rewards will the Smart family get? nothing, they get nothing. but the killer, oh well he gets off on probation, out on parole on good behavior.
"Second of all, for those of you quoting the Bible, saying an "eye for an eye", please keep in mind that Jesus reformed this ultimatum by saying that it is no longer an eye for an eye, but now to practice humility (like he did on the cross) and and love (like he did on the cross.) (see matthew 5:38) I acknowledge that my faith based explanation does not apply to all, but for those of you who are Christians and those of you who are interested, I urge you to read John 8. This chapter includes a story of a woman sentenced to death; Jesus told the men who were about to stone her that "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Nobody could make this claim, and Jesus, though the only one "without sin," did not stone the woman."
Actually, I didn't get it from God, & I don't even worship him {whole other story}. I believe this way simply because everyday, I see on the news that someone somewhere has been killed, & slim to none of the killers are caught; those who are get out within 10 years!!! "Many say that it costs the taxpayers less to kill a man than it does to imprison them for life. This is not true. Also, many say that the death penalty causes less crime. This is also not true. Crime has not decreased, and research has shown that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent." Cheap enough, put a bullet in the head, inject the street drugs into 'em! "I'm not saying that murderers and the like should be on the streets. I believe that it is our responsibility to eliminate the danger caused by them, but not through murder.
" Yes you are! You say they deserve a 2nd chance. WHY? Does Susan Smith deserve to live? Does Andrea Yates deserve to live? Do the Maryland snipers deserve to live?? Does Charles Manson, of all people, deserve to live?!? I'm sorry, its a real touchy subject for me. sorry. Faula420@earthlink.net
First of all, I am against the death penalty. I believe that it is hypocritical. Many say that the death penalty is good because it prevents the possibility of a criminal being released later on, yet a simple verdict without the possibility of probation or reward for "good behavior" would solve this problem. Second of all, for those of you quoting the Bible, saying an "eye for an eye", please keep in mind that Jesus reformed this ultimatum by saying that it is no longer an eye for an eye, but now to practice humility (like he did on the cross) and and love (like he did on the cross.) (see matthew 5:38) I acknowledge that my faith based explanation does not apply to all, but for those of you who are Christians and those of you who are interested, I urge you to read John 8. This chapter includes a story of a woman sentenced to death; Jesus told the men who were about to stone her that "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Nobody could make this claim, and Jesus, though the only one "without sin," did not stone the woman. Many say that it costs the taxpayers less to kill a man than it does to imprison them for life. This is not true. Also, many say that the death penalty causes less crime. This is also not true. Crime has not decreased, and research has shown that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent. I'm not saying that murderers and the like should be on the streets. I believe that it is our responsibility to eliminate the danger caused by them, but not through murder.
I understand that point of view, but these criminals aren't rotting in jail. they're living it up, for free! they get food, shelter, clothing, TV, not to mention weightrooms, gamerooms in some places as well. They get more than homeless people get. He//, they've got it better than most 'middle-class' families. Put them in a dank cell to literally rot, then yeah, I'd agree with it, but now this world. And in a way its not really hypocritical, you kill someone, you should have the same thing done to you, the same way. All these ppl on death row, what ^ with that?? If you're sentenced to death, why don't they kill you. Sorry, getting riled ^^! Faula420@earthlink.net
You're prosecuting someone for commited a crime for, let's say.. murder. So you're going to turn around and take their life for killing someone else? That's doing the exact same thing they did, just the legal way. It's hypocritical.
I believe criminals should be left to rot in jail. They should spend the rest of their lives in Hell-on-Earth. They could be forced to do community service or something.
I don't advocate killing under any circumstance, but that's just me.
I think this is a great idea...a bit back, there was mention of a small middle eastern country dealing with a rapist. They dealt with him by putting him a cloth sack and tossing him over a cliff. If he was still alive at the bottom, they shot him. I like it!
I've got a reason. You kill someone, you deserve to die the same way! eye 4 an eye, why/how is that wrong?? If I ever kill someone, I'll expect them to kill me, not waste taxpayers' money to give me food, shelter, clothes, & tv!!!
Susan Smith should be locked in a trunk of a car, & the car be pushed into a very large body of water! Andrea Yates {no relation} should be drowned in a bathtub, & revived 5 times for each of those boys who had to die, and then she should be drowned 1 last time, for good!! Charles Manson should be dead, long time dead! But no, they just stick him in a cell to rot! What does Sharon Tate get, DEATH to her & her unborn child, and friends; what did manson get, FREE tv, food, clothes, shelter, a bed, & even an occasional "bubba"! Amy Fisher shot her lover's wife in the head, & she survived. So?? So, shoot Fisher girl in the head, see if she lives. robbery, burglary? cut off fingers, hands. rape, incest? cut off 'members', 4 womyn remove uterus. okay, get the point? Faula420@earthlink.net Faula@bolt.com
It is not a good thing, but let me tell you, I used to think it was bad, but now that I see the opain in others faces, I do belive that it can be applied to anyone who makes a big bad impact in our society.
(sorry if my spelling goes a bit funny im really bad!! )
I don't belive in it at all because if you kill some one for doing some thing bad there getting away with it. if you keep them in jail they have to live with the gilt and it eats them up inside until they freak out so why give them the pleasure of being killed because they know they will get away with it cause they wouldnt be alive to hear the people they've hurt and upset the familys they a torn apart thought murdering people! why should they be let of and us live with out our love ones because of what they did! where's the justice in that!!
murders take it apon themselves to kill someone. making a decision that only god can make. (i'm just bringing s\he in this because most people who support the death penalty are usually religous;lets not a big deal about it please).
So why do exactly the same thing? taking a life away; that should not be up to us. why do we desire revenge for a life that we CAN NEVER BRING BACK! no matter what we do. does it actually help?
plus if you truly want to follow the whole eye for eye thing, murderers should be GIVING THIER LIFES (life in prison, second payed for second stolen). we shouldn't be taking thier's away.
Topics 
)
