The Death Penalty.. Yes or No?

[JimBowen]

True, okay that may have been a bad example, but if the death penalty were to be reintroduced, it should only be used as a last result and only if the accused was 110% guilty og the crime.

The british judicial system is a shambles, every month you hear of at least 1 case, be it on the news, or in the papers, of people literally getting away with murder, for some stupid reason or another, or of people who have been imprisoned, then, years later,released, because of flawed evidence which was used against them.

This case is a prime example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4435989.stm

This poor mother, and others like her were acused of killing their children, based on the evidence of a single professor, whose evidence was later found to be significantly undermined.

On the basis of that, would you say that a woman who kill sher child should be killed, if you are to answer yes, then when the evidence was found to be unfounded it would be to late, becase she would have been killed.


we cannot trust our goverment and local authorities in the current climate, let alone one where capital punishment is accepted.

 

[sabashuali]

.....whose evidence was later found to be significantly undermined.

That is my point precisely. Trust or believe in the system. The poor woman was acquitted, or her sentence changed, after appeal.
The appeal is apart of the system and is there for this exact reason, to give the defence/prosecution another opportunity to try reverse a verdict.
Gone are the days where people are convicted and executed the next day. Some people stay on death row for years.

The other side of this coin is – a suspects who get away with it. Then released and allowed to offend again. So an appeal might find them guilty.
If you want to play this ‘other side of the coin’ game – what about a murderer who gets away with his crime only to kill again.
This ‘next’ victim is also a waste. Isn’t it?

The death penalty will kill (bad choice of words…) two birds – court cases will have to be carried out a lot more carefully and people practicing law will be scrutinised much more.

To end my contribution, every system has its pros and cons. There are miscarriages of justice on each side of the argument.
I truly believe that the pro’s far outweigh the con’s. Just MHO….

 

[beretta9m2f]

Ok, Justice aside, court aside. And i want everyone who's posted to asnwer.
If you SAW the dude killing your loved one in the house and he ran out. Six 1/2 days later you saw the dude in the woods, (forest of your choice) and you had a sniper rifle cuz you were hunting deer, would you shoot the guy and kill him for slaying your loved one?

I would, in a heart beat. first in the leg to incapacitate, then walk up to him and let him know it was my family, then finish it.
And so anyoen whos gonna try and get technical, no one finds out you did it b/c ur in the woods and you unleashed a pack of wolves to eat him then u burried the bones and fed some berries to a bear.

 

[sabashuali]

Are you for real?
And I would let my dogs feed on the :swear:

Or is this a trick question?

Am I going to be banned now?

ohhhh :swear:

 

[beretta9m2f]

Alright i guess killing your killer is about revenge and the death penalty is about justice. Honestly, if those sympathetic to life are altruistic in their beliefs i applaud and commend you because it takes a certain level of patience and true value of life to allow a killer to live on the notion that all life is precious; however, I honestly feel that death is a requirement for some heinous crimes.I agree with Big B on this topic, others plainly disagree. Jimbowen made a good argument about the miscarriage of Justice and that would be my only reason for understanding the other side of the argument. It is a logical reason, however I still feel a murderer should be killed, and just b/c there's no decent working legal system to carry out the sentences doesn't mean that murderers should live. and to the "country A nukes country B theory" what do you propose? get nuked, stay nuked, and conquered?

 

[ProcalX]

Ok, Justice aside, court aside. And i want everyone who's posted to asnwer.
If you SAW the dude killing your loved one in the house and he ran out. Six 1/2 days later you saw the dude in the woods, (forest of your choice) and you had a sniper rifle cuz you were hunting deer, would you shoot the guy and kill him for slaying your loved one?

I would, in a heart beat. first in the leg to incapacitate, then walk up to him and let him know it was my family, then finish it.
And so anyoen whos gonna try and get technical, no one finds out you did it b/c ur in the woods and you unleashed a pack of wolves to eat him then u burried the bones and fed some berries to a bear.

Beretta, your post is imature, unrealistic and childish. I'd appreciate it if you kept it on subject please. This is a serious chat about a serious subject. We are talking about the death penalty and the justice system, not "oh i'd do this to like this and this slowly if i ever caught em".

Plus each bullet has an individual identification tag on it, which would be tracked back to you, the bullet would also hold your finger prints / dna sample on it, unless you wore gloves the whole time, and the likely hood that you would actually hit the person involved is very unlikely.

 

[Impotence]

Back to the debate!

That is my point precisely. Trust or believe in the system. The poor woman was acquitted, or her sentence changed, after appeal.
The appeal is apart of the system and is there for this exact reason, to give the defence/prosecution another opportunity to try reverse a verdict.
Gone are the days where people are convicted and executed the next day. Some people stay on death row for years.

What if it was 15 years before anyone knew any diffrent from the current view of science, the best example i can think of is cot death. (where the accused is belived to have murderd the children)

 

[Anti-Trend]

Yes. And more rapidly and painfully so for convicted corrupt politicians and lawmakers.

 

[Big B]

Just do add, i don't see why this was moved into the "War Zone", this is not a rant or an arguement, it's general conversation & debate. There's a difference.

perhaps we should have a debate forum for things like this?

That's part of the function of the War Zone, not just blowing off steam. Stuff that could get heated can go here.

In response to an earlier question, no, people that die, by state executions are not accidental (at least, I would think not).

There will never be any 100% perfect system, however, in the US, you're innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe it's changed, but I recall the system in the UK being guilty until proven innocent, and proving someone's innocent is a little trickier to prove than someone being guilty.

I would rather run the risk of accidentally covicting and then executing an innocent person the 1:1,000,000 chance than let all the Charlie Manson's and Jeffery Dahlmer's get off. If someone can come up with a better system where Manson get's his dues in Mr. Sparky and let every innocent JoeBlow off 100% of the time, I'm willing to listen. The appeals process is pretty lengthy, so, while, yes, the very occasional person may unfortunately slip through, there comes a point where somethings are redundant. Even if someone has changed, they can still suffer the consequences of their actions. Having executions do have a side effect of saying that you do have a price to pay, and that can help others hopefully think twice. It won't stop everyone, but it might convince some that the justice system isn't a gray bar circus with free room and board.

If there's a doubt that someone may have not done it, but they can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, I don't have a problem with someone getting life. However, I'm getting tired of these people that are guilty as sin of slaughtering people, and getting five years in the big house. I kinda think keeping people on death row for 20 years should classify as 'cruel and unusual'. I mean, isn't the wait, especially for an execution kind of a torment itself?

 

[sabashuali]

What if it was 15 years before anyone knew any diffrent from the current view of science, the best example i can think of is cot death. (where the accused is belived to have murderd the children)

Then there will be a terrible miscarriage of justice. Just like it would be if a person killed someone and got off for lack of evidence (maube he managed to get the only witness killed?).

That is the flip-side of capital puishment. You can sit on the fence forever but if you take a certain side, there are consequences to live with.

 

[beretta9m2f]

Beretta, your post is imature, unrealistic and childish. I'd appreciate it if you kept it on subject please. This is a serious chat about a serious subject. We are talking about the death penalty and the justice system, not "oh i'd do this to like this and this slowly if i ever caught em".

Plus each bullet has an individual identification tag on it, which would be tracked back to you, the bullet would also hold your finger prints / dna sample on it, unless you wore gloves the whole time, and the likely hood that you would actually hit the person involved is very unlikely.

Perhaps in the UK guns are so easily tracked, but most of the killing done in gangs in the US are with black market guns. If that were the case then every crime would be solved in the east and west coast of the United States. I apologize if i seemed facetious, but what i wanted to know was if people are merely against capital punishment or against revenge in the form of killing. I could understand being against capital punishment, but i don't agree with it. Yes an innocent person may die or get life imprisonment; however the flip side is that a killer may go free or underpunished. Still with Big B on this one. Again sorry about the jocular post.

 

[Addis]

I'm not in favour of capital punishment in most circumstances. While I don't agree with the likes of people getting 10 years for murder etc, I don't think killing them is the answer to every murder case. The system is not perfect, and there will always be exceptions. Psychotic serial killers I can agree with capital punishment, but I think life for cases for which they are not 100% certain, even if it is beyond reasonable doubt. I know my opinion has its flaws, but killing every killer doesn't seem like the answer.

And on the subject of revenge, it doesn't achieve anything. You kill the murderer, you're left with a depressed and guilty life. Justice to me should be about punishment but also prove a warning to other would be criminals.

I have been in a situation where I have been accused of doing something I didn't. I don't blame the person who accused me, if I were them I would assume the same thing. I had everything against me, a motive and a witness prior to the incident, in the end however much they were saying "can't you see its obvious its him" I was not responsible; and it took a person with a clear view and unbiased opinion to clear me. (it wasnt a crime btw)

This subject isn't black of white, you'll always get the different tones of grey. But I think killing an innocent person for a crime someone else committed without 100% certainty and no other possibility would be the ultimate miscarriage of justice. Because in the end, its another person's life. One innocent person has already died because of the crime, its not right to make it two. That doesn't mean they can't be imprisoned, capital punishment just wouldn't be the answer.

 

[Nic]

Justice to me should be about punishment but also prove a warning to other would be criminals.

Fair enough. In this situation though they should make jail more severe but the warning thing I disagree with Id say death is a better deterrent than any punishment.

 

[megamaced]

I am completely against the death penalty. I don't feel it should be issued to any crime, no matter how serious the offense is. The person who executes the killer becomes a killer himself. Two wrongs do not make a right.

We are setting the wrong example by handing out death penalties. All we are doing is simply covering up the problem, instead of tackling it head on. Let's say for example, you have accidentally cut your arm playing football (or golf, whatever you want). You can cover the scar up with a plaster and hope for the best, or you can see a doctor and get it looked at. The same principle applies. These people need help, they need the right care and attention. There is always a reason why these people feel the need to carry out a crime; be it poverty, abuse, or whatever. We should be concentrating on better family education, better schools and services. We need to make these services available to everyone, no matter what racial or financial background they come from. That way, no one is left out, no one feels let down by the system, no one feels the need to act out revenge.

I think most people commit these crimes because they have been let down. Maybe they were neglected as a child, or perhaps they come from a poor background and never felt they could get what they deserve. They turn to drink and drugs because there is nothing else; just one long downward spiral.

I don't believe someone can commit a cold killing. I believe everyone who has killed shows remorse; they're really hurting inside. They may put up a face and hide it because that is what they have become accustomed to, due to neglect over the years. These people are ill, it's as simple as that. And like most diseases, there is a cure; we just need to work it out. We need to show love and compassion, these people need to know that someone does care for their well-being.

The human race as a whole needs to start looking after each other more. We are quick to discriminate and point the finger, but we rarely look in the mirror.

[ot]I laugh when people call themselves Christian and accept the death penalty. I'm sure one of the ten commandments was 'thou shall forgive'. Then again, most Christians don't follow the religion properly. They are quick to point out you are going to go to hell, yet another commandment says 'thou shall not judge'. If you are anything like me, you would have worked out long ago that religion is all a load of crap! Religion starts wars, and is a large cause of discrimination, fact.
Christians do not believe in ghosts, so why do they perform exorcisms? If Jesus created the world in 7 days, what happened to the dinosaurs? A Garden of Eden? Get Real! I could go on for hours about why religion is fake, i could talk about Darwinism for instance, but to do so would veer off topic.[/ot]

I can see a very bleak future for our race. If any of you have read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, you will know what I am getting at.

 

[Matt]

We every one is so hell bent on revenge what is that saying on society in general.

But then again its pretty crap that there are people out there who would even think of killling another person.

Why cant people just treat others and their lives the same way they would want to be treated. Cuz shurely the guy who rapes and killes some one els' daughter would be prety pissed if some other dude rapes his daughter