The Death Penalty

[xXxMeltedHersheyBarxXx]

I don't agree with the death penalty. It is really just plain wrong to kill someone this day and age, no matter who you are. I think the solution would be that if someone is not able to function in public society then give them their own society.
Apperantly most prisons are autonomous. Meaning that they don't depend on tax dollars and can make enough money from their labors to provide the prison with eveything it may need: clothes, food, shelter, soaps and the like, etc. I think that they would be quite productive members to the country in this way. It also eliminates the mistake of killing an innocent person. Another thing is that many people that are considered murderers or vigilantes are people that were born in the wrong time period. Because back in the middle ages it was considered honorable if one man were to kill another in battle.
So the death penalty is a waste of time and even profit, because prisoners don't get payed they are practically slaves(Slaves by choice and actions mind you).  

[Der Freischuetz]

You're thinking along the lines of something like Australia once was, yet they would have to work for society. I think this is a good idea for lesser crimes, but for thing like murder it really isn't a punishment, and I'm not sure what the public would think of simply turning convicts into forced laborers.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Der Freischuetz

You're thinking along the lines of something like Australia once was, yet they would have to work for society. I think this is a good idea for lesser crimes, but for thing like murder it really isn't a punishment, and I'm not sure what the public would think of simply turning convicts into forced laborers.

Been there, done that, prisoners used to build the very prisons that contained them. Damn good idea if you ask me. Now they're dining on roast beef dinner and French wine. Get them lifting rocks again.  

[Efstathios]

NOCTVRNVS

Der Freischuetz

You're thinking along the lines of something like Australia once was, yet they would have to work for society. I think this is a good idea for lesser crimes, but for thing like murder it really isn't a punishment, and I'm not sure what the public would think of simply turning convicts into forced laborers.

Been there, done that, prisoners used to build the very prisons that contained them. Damn good idea if you ask me. Now they're dining on roast beef dinner and French wine. Get them lifting rocks again.

You've got a point.  

[Der Freischuetz]

We could make them into a mandatory service military unit! Wait...s**t. The French beat me to the punch. And it's voluntary.

So much for my idea.  

[Israk]

The death penalty is mor ehuman than continual life sentences. In Canada, they say life sentences, you go for 25 years, they let you out. In the States, same sentence, but after 25 years, you go back to court, they say, give him another 25, and they keep doing it until you die. Personally, I'd rather be executed quickly then die in jail, in fact, I'd probably go so far as to take a shiv to myself if I was getting a life sentence without death penalty. Luckily I don't live in the states.  

[Shadow__Dweller]

I think there are worse punishments than the Death penalty, and I'm all for those instead. Solitary confinement can mentally ruin a person...so I say more of that! A person left with only themselves to "talk" to..with only their own brain for company, left with the consequences of their actions, is a much better form of torture than anything else I can think of, and it's totally humane.

I believe that punishment in today's day and age is awful. People get sent to prison for "life" that's only about ten years. That's not life. There is no incentive to stop people from commiting crimes...prison is like a holiday. It's not enough punishment. Plus, here in the UK, if a person admits they are guilty, they will be let out of prison before their sentence is over, if they plead Not Guilty and are thought to be guilty, they have to serve the full sentence, if not more. How...stupid..  

[Israk]

life sentence is twenty five years, and people get lighter punishment for pleading guilty because it's suppossed to be a sign that they know they commited a crime and understand what they have done. Also, it's illegal to lie in court, that includes pleading not guilty when you are guilty. And how is mentally destroying someone humane? Torture is frowned upon in this world now, and not everyone IS affected by solitude, so it wouldn't always work.  

[Shadow__Dweller]

Israk

life sentence is twenty five years, and people get lighter punishment for pleading guilty because it's suppossed to be a sign that they know they commited a crime and understand what they have done. Also, it's illegal to lie in court, that includes pleading not guilty when you are guilty. And how is mentally destroying someone humane? Torture is frowned upon in this world now, and not everyone IS affected by solitude, so it wouldn't always work.

But seriously how often is it that people actually feel sorry and understand what they've done? if they aren't stupid they're going to say guilty so they can get out quicker.

who said it has to be humane? I don't think prisoners of the harshest crimes, like rape and murder, should have human rights...I think they should either do tests on them instead of animals...or ship them all out to the moon and let them all go in space with no oxygen..(that last suggestion is a joke xp )  

[Israk]

But would doing soemthing like that not make you just as bad? And you have to remember, it's only in more recent times that rape has become such a serious crime, things like murder and rape were common in the past, just not as big of a deal. Rape wasn't something terrible to due probably because women had little to no rights in the past. And if murder is such a terrible crime, why is it that the president of the united states can send in the big bad military to kill off the taliban? They are still humans too.  

[Shadow__Dweller]

I debated that to myself in my head...whether or not it would make the person doing it just as bad...but which is why I thought of solitary confinement because that doesn't involve human contact. There are people out there who give injections and stuff for the death penalty, so if they can do that then they could test on humans just the same I guess.
And yeah, true that rape wasn't such a big thing, because women didn't have any rights. But we do now..and I consider rape to be a serious crime...because a woman has the rights to be free and not to be used etc..and so does a man, cause men can get raped too...so if a rapist invades the rights of a woman by raping her, then why should he be allowed human rights?  

[Miniar]

My view on this topic is a touch cold and a fair bit cruel, I know that much.

I don't see people as any better than dogs. If a dog becomes aggressive and causes harm to a human being, our instincts of self preservation kick in and we cry out and the dog is subsequently put to sleep.
Much in the same way, I believe in the "justice" of self preservation. Repeat offenders and violent criminals, in my opinion, should all be "put down" simply for "preservation of the species" reasons.
I feel that in the most of the world, where we put humans in cells smaller than their natural behaviour requires, grouping them together to often create offender and victim relationships within their captivity, allowing them to clash with other human beings and often get into fights, etc, etc, is far more inhumane to subject a person to this kind of treatment than it is to simply put them down.
It's also cheaper than feeding, clothing, and medical attention to keep them alive until the end of their "natural" lives, not to mention far more efficient.
And can we really afford inefficiency when it comes to self preservation?  

[AngelBlackChaos]

It is a little difficult for me to decide. One part of me believes that human life is sacred, and we should even waste one that has wasted life. Another part believes in the eye for an eye, and elimination of a waste of resources.

It also depends on if they have a relatively normal state of mind. For example, when Bill Clinton was a governor of Arkansas, he allowed a man that had killed someone and then lobotemized (sp) himself to be killed. If they are not in the proper mind to defend themselves, then a court ruling for that defendants death can not be concluded as final or rightfully given as it would have been for someone of a stronger mental compacity.  

[penguin1534]

To the post ^^ above (no not the happy face :0)
Yes, it's a bit cruel but that would probably never pass. I completely agree with you on the repeat offenders. However, you also have to consider the sanity of the general public. You'll have people coming at you complaining about the un-democraticness (is that a word!?) of what you've done (even though it has nothing to do with democracy)

So for the repeat offenders, you're pretty much screwed. However, giving people solitary confinement and lack of human rights would be the limit for one-time offenders  

[AngelBlackChaos]

penguin1534

To the post ^^ above (no not the happy face :0)
Yes, it's a bit cruel but that would probably never pass. I completely agree with you on the repeat offenders. However, you also have to consider the sanity of the general public. You'll have people coming at you complaining about the un-democraticness (is that a word!?) of what you've done (even though it has nothing to do with democracy)

So for the repeat offenders, you're pretty much screwed. However, giving people solitary confinement and lack of human rights would be the limit for one-time offenders

What drives me nuts is when they are more aggressive on drug users than those who maliciously killing people with no remorse.

Another question for the common man: how can you determine how far someone has to be to be considered insane. Obviously (with some exceptions) those that commit murder are at least slightly deranged.