the death penalty, and why i think it should return

[axis]

before you comment i don't mean sentence people to death over small things e.g. shoplifting
i mean bring it back for serious offences, murder, child molestation etc
let's just face it our punishment system is not very effective. why should paedophiles be allowed to walk the streets again after only a few years just to molest again or a murderer who shows no remorse for the lives they've taken be released on bail
these are my views on the subject and feel free to comment

[PandaPanic!]

I agree with this to a certain extent that yeah people like that shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets and also it costs us a lot of money keeping them in jail for the rest of their life where they are kept in the warm and are fed and have everything done for them, but at the same time it is pointless because the Death Penalty obviously don't work ... it is only really a deterrent to crime and won't stop it because obviously it has had to been used against people who have broken the law so all we would be doing is killing people for doing something bad ... but i think the whole point of these is to prevent crime from happening to begin with so it is pretty ineffective in that sense.

Also you will get people saying it is wrong because a lot of people have actually been killed and then later it has turned out they was innocent to begin with so at the same time that is another flaw with the death penalty and i am sure you would see it from a different sense if you knew you was going to die for something you never did and all sorts of other complicated stuff but yeah i do agree they need to change something with the law system personally i think they should be shackled and made to mine coal or something to pay for their care while they are locked up but then again this government is a mess so nothing will ever be done until someone else takes it over.

[Nagisa24]

i think they should have it for proper heinous crimes. say for people like ian huntley or those kids who murdered jamie bulger. as for the problem of killing people and then finding out theyre innocent that isnt a huge problem now because things like dna tests etc. make it less likely that a innocent person is gonna be imprisoned.

[Laika]

Did you read the news the other week? I guy was released after 27 years of false imprisonment, under the suspicion of murder.

So under your proposals would he have received the death penalty after the guilty verdict? How do you weigh it up, what constitutes as being 'bad enough' to warrant the death penalty?

[Haza103]

Did you read the news the other week? I guy was released after 27 years of false imprisonment, under the suspicion of murder.

So under your proposals would he have received the death penalty after the guilty verdict? How do you weigh it up, what constitutes as being 'bad enough' to warrant the death penalty?

Well, that was 27 years ago. Back then they didn't have the technology we have today. We can find the smallest detail and link it to the person who did it. They probably closed the case on this guy and threw away the key. I'd be very suprised if they made the same mistake today.

[Nagisa24]

exactly right. it'd be extremely rare that it would happen now. plus for the death penalty the person getting deaded would have to be guilty beyond all resonable doubt.

[axis]

Did you read the news the other week? I guy was released after 27 years of false imprisonment, under the suspicion of murder.

So under your proposals would he have received the death penalty after the guilty verdict? How do you weigh it up, what constitutes as being 'bad enough' to warrant the death penalty?

im glad you've brought this up
im glad to hear different opinions of serious subjects after all i never said the death penalty was flawless
and again if you all agreed with me then there wouldn't really be much point in making this forum

[Amoras2]

Did you read the news the other week? I guy was released after 27 years of false imprisonment, under the suspicion of murder.

So under your proposals would he have received the death penalty after the guilty verdict? How do you weigh it up, what constitutes as being 'bad enough' to warrant the death penalty?
He was found innocent because of DNA tests that weren't possible in those days. The technology has improved dramatically.

I think that the Death Sentence should come back. The Islam teaches that you should murder someone who raped or killed someone else. I agree with this, especially because we have DNA tests and things like that so we can be sure. It would be weird if someone had his sperm on a raped dead girl and later he would be found innocent. If they find your sperm on a girl, you've been there for at least 3 minutes :P

But who am I to decide? This should be done by "professionals" who know a lot about this.

[TaFfinSki]

But who am I to decide? This should be done by "professionals" who know a lot about this.

I agree on that 90%
First of all, if you kill or rape, you're sick between the ears.
If you get cought with 100% evidence against you (dna, blood samples, sperm etc.)..... Should we kill 'm? Is that a solution?
I can not think of any reason to kill somebody. He (or she) may be the worst person in the world, killed 100 people, rapped all our daughters, but should we kill him?

He killed, so we should kill him too? Yeah, why not!
The Bible states that you should not kill. He went wrong, that does not mean we can go on killing the ones that killed .... I'm not a Bible man, but this states a rather good resume doesn't it?

I believe those person should never, ever get loose again. Study them, learn from them but never put them out in the world again. They should be locked up untill they're dead.

Killing them is not the answer. Kiling them is the easy way out.

Just my thoughts on the subject......

[PandaPanic!]

Like most things in life technology is relied upon too much sure the DNA you find might match the DNA of a suspect or a random person in the street but how do you know the DNA wasn't planted by someone and you would be supprised because this as actually happened before. A doctor was accused of sexually assaulting a patient or something similar a few years ago and he had his DNA on her body so obviously everyone thought this guy really did it and he was locked up (would of been killed if the Death Penalty was intact as it has been suggested) and his wife left him.

In fact he was completely innocent and the person who did this was just seeking attention and she actually got the DNA by going down his trash and finding used contraception which explains how the DNA was found on her body when the police did things and stuff. So i guess this proves if someone is determined enough they can frame someone else with their DNA and i don't think it would be very easy to persuade them that it was framed to begin with although in this case the lady finally confessed but at the end of the day she ruined his life and his wife who he loved left him and she was probably broken to pieces hearing these accusations about her husband which in the end were false.

I guess this just goes to show you that DNA is not fool proof to some extent and as it is what most law enforcement agencies use to determine the real possibilities of what happened i think a lot of innocent people are getting caught out as these days it seems that just DNA on it's own is enough to accuse someone of a burglary or similar without any eye witnesses or other evidence present.

[King_Ubu]

why should paedophiles be allowed to walk the streets again after only a few years just to molest again or a murderer who shows no remorse for the lives they've taken be released on bail

Because justice is about finding a balance between the crime and the punishment without turning the state and it's citizens into the criminals they are attempting to convict.

If a criminal shows no remorse for their crimes, then the punishment reflects this with increased jail time and is brought up during any release hearings.

The death penalty as a system of punishment is oxymoronic in that it acts as purely a revenge system of consequence as apposed to the legal requirement, to punish and allow the criminal to learn from their mistakes.

[Noscaasi]

Which is more cruel, killing someone and putting them out there misery or locking them up for life?

Think id rather die than spend life in prision so for that reason i dont agree...

[Oyarsa]

I'd rather have them kill a child molester, rather than using my tax dollars to feed the retard for the rest of his life.

All this left wing liberal crap needs to quit in my eyes. Some people simply don't deserve to live. Don't worry about putting them out of their misery. Put the world out of its misery and remove these parasites.

[Amoras2]

I'd rather have them kill a child molester, rather than using my tax dollars to feed the retard for the rest of his life.

All this left wing liberal crap needs to quit in my eyes. Some people simply don't deserve to live. Don't worry about putting them out of their misery. Put the world out of its misery and remove these parasites.
Couldn't say it any better :D

I think that the rapists and murderers should be killed or starved to death. But only when there's enough proof.

In my opinion, the Islam's teachings are the best when mixed with today's technology.
The Islam says that rapists and murderers should be killed and with today's technology we can prove whether they were guilty or innocent.

[Prospero]

...allow the criminal to learn from their mistakes.
To an extent, I agree.

I disagree with the arguments regarding today's technology that have been stated though. Yes, there may be less doubt of a defendant's guilt, but there is always the chance of a wrong guilty verdict.

In theory, if a defendant is found guilty it is supposed to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt" every time. But in practice, there will always be the occasional misinterpreting of the facts leading to innocent people being found guilty.

I recommend capital punishment but only for repeat offenders.
Allows criminals the opportunity to repent and learn from their mistakes while limiting the chance of falsely killing an innocent person and prevents feeding more tax dollars into a lost cause.

[axis]

Because justice is about finding a balance between the crime and the punishment without turning the state and it's citizens into the criminals they are attempting to convict.

If a criminal shows no remorse for their crimes, then the punishment reflects this with increased jail time and is brought up during any release hearings.

The death penalty as a system of punishment is oxymoronic in that it acts as purely a revenge system of consequence as apposed to the legal requirement, to punish and allow the criminal to learn from their mistakes.

and don't you deserve revenge when this has happened?

[Laika]

and don't you deserve revenge when this has happened?

I assume you mean revenge in the very old testament 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' sort of way? Ironically wrath is one of the seven deadly sins. Surely by them getting punished by means other than death is certainly a more humanitarian and, in some ways, more punishing than an eye for an eye?

[Oyarsa]

Sins, evil, judgment, religion, ethics, etc. None of that matters in certain situations to me.

If my daughter gets raped, God's going to sit that one out.

[Richie]

People say that letting people live a life in jail is more punishing than death. Part of me feels like this but then I hear of all the perks that some of these jails have and quite frankly it's sickening that we should be paying to support that.

Jail time for a max of 5 years should be the case, in cases where people have been wrongly accused and are innocent, that should be enough time for the truth to get out. Also gives first-time offenders time to reflect and maybe change their ways, in which case they may be let out and put under supervision.

People who do not change in jail, repeat offenders or those who commit crimes so hideous to begin with should be given the death penalty after those 5 years (or in some cases immediately). We shouldn't have to pay to support these people while they're in jail, plus we already have a jail overfill problem.

The threat of the death penalty will also make a lot of people think twice before they commit a crime in the first place.

[Laika]

Not true Richie, the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent. States with the death penalty have murders rates similar to those which don't.

Furthermore: clicky clicky. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf)

[axis]

Sins, evil, judgment, religion, ethics, etc. None of that matters in certain situations to me.

If my daughter gets raped, God's going to sit that one out.

couldn't have put it better myself

[Nirvlime]

I don't really care if it's a deterrent or not. Wasting money on murderers and rapists? Kill'em all, God will sort his own!

Man, I love Texas.

[Prospero]

People say that letting people live a life in jail is more punishing than death. Part of me feels like this but then I hear of all the perks that some of these jails have and quite frankly it's sickening that we should be paying to support that.

Jail time for a max of 5 years should be the case, in cases where people have been wrongly accused and are innocent, that should be enough time for the truth to get out. Also gives first-time offenders time to reflect and maybe change their ways, in which case they may be let out and put under supervision.

People who do not change in jail, repeat offenders or those who commit crimes so hideous to begin with should be given the death penalty after those 5 years (or in some cases immediately). We shouldn't have to pay to support these people while they're in jail, plus we already have a jail overfill problem.

The threat of the death penalty will also make a lot of people think twice before they commit a crime in the first place.

Good idea Ritchie. 5 years would give some time for new facts and an appeal.

Laika's right about it not being much of a deterent though.
I think the people sick enough to do some of the shit out there probably aren't too concerned with the consequences.
But at least it'd prevent them from doing it again.

[Oyarsa]

Yeah, over the years people MIGHT change. Furthermore, if you rape little girls, and murder them afterwards, what makes you think I want you to change? I want you dead. Not only that, you're apparently so fucked up that any change that comes most likely won't fix anything. It'll make you crazy, instead of insane. Hurray.

Yeah, it's a vengeful world. It's not all butterflies and rainbows. There's revenge, there's evil and there's hatred. All 3 apply to me when certain situations arise. Again, like I said, if someone rapes my daughter, I'm hunting that person down and he will not make it to the next week. I don't care how that portraits me - at least I'm honest. Yeah, partially it would be because I would never want him to do it to anybody else, but mostly it would be because, in all honesty, he will pay for what he did. In blood.

Not only that, I don't want $100,000 a year of tax dollars spent on criminals that have been sentenced to 200 years without probation. Yeah, people have rights and what not. But the moment you commit such crimes, you forfeit those rights, and that's a choice you yourself made by committing the crime in the first place.

Taking a man's life is not an easy thing. You take what he had, has and ever will have. And in the example mentioned earlier, that's good, because I'd want to take everything from him. Judgment calling.

[Nirvlime]

Yeah, when I was younger my cousin's uncle (from the other side of the family) was spending the night - he was having some sort of money troubles or something - and he raped and murdered her in her sleep. She was only 5. I mean, that's awful. He definitely doesn't deserve to live.

[vJamiev]

personally i would agree to the death penalty to make a return, obviously to be used on the worst of the worst and with proof beyond reasonable doubt their guilty, and i understand people saying oh we shouldn't kill thm because of the bible stating thou shalt not kill, but keep in mind in another testament it was written that if thy neighbour does not aknowledge me thou shalt smite him so it depends on which testament you follow really, then there are those who say it's not our place to take a life of another, and yes while this is true at the same time people agree this life should be used to better yourself, now let's say you have a daughter, and some bastard comes along then rapes and kills your daughter, will you be able to accept a possible lifetime of free bed and board (which you pay for via taxes) in a secure facility where YOU can't reach him as justification for the loss of your daughter?, now it don't matter how you live your life, deep down when put in that situation the only thing to cross your mind is "this person is not worthy of the life he leads".

of course it's not goingto PREVENT crime but nothing else in the god damn system DOES so .....what do we have to lose? just what i think

[Haza103]

Theres too much human rights in all this capital punishment stuff :S

I mean, you can't kill a man who commited a murder because it would be against his human rights. But hasn't he taken away the other persons right to live?

God, i hate god damn hippies. More than Eric Cartman :P

[timmah-owned]

I agree with bringing back the death penalty.
however, ever now and then they get the wrong guy for the crime. What would you do then if you sentenced and carried out teh death penalty?

i believe that the number of wrong guys for the crimes is in the minority so therefore the death penalty would be worth it. As the amount of criminals killed would massively out weigh the wrongly convicted. However, this would throw up the case that the families of the wrongly convicted people that are killled will most probably sue the testicles of the government.

So i'm not sure. I definiatley believe we need a new law enforcement sytem, but is the death penalty the correct decision? Do we need to invent a completely new law enforcement programme?

^^there food for thought. :)

[Hazel1558]

Something needs to be done with our legal and justice system because its failing thousands of people. The thing is they get punished and have a cushy life on the inside. If they get released they do another (if not similar) crime so they can be put back inside because they have got it easy inside.

Sorry my point is for those crimes where someone has taken someones human rights away from them and the evidence is there to prove it then their human rights should be taken away from them as well. How I see it if you take human rights away from someone you dont have any. If I had my way and the death penalty was brought the criminals should be made to suffer as the victim did if not 10 times worse.

You hear about some horrific stories of how people have been murdered and you think if the criminal was put to death I wouldn't do it by leathal injection thats to easy for them, they should be made to suffer as there victims were made to suffer.

(Sorry if I sound sick but it really gets my back up when do gooders stand up for criminals and their human rights. These do gooders need shooting)