Life Sentence vs Death Sentence

[KFranchise]

This came across my mind today and I just sat back thinking about the Troy Davis situation and the Travyon Martin situation (when George Zimmerman gets convicted). Do you think it is right to give others the death penalty?

 

In my mind, it's not right. In the US of A, we execute people, to show others, that killing someone is wrong. The logic in this is absent. Killing someone that killed someone else is not gonna bring anyone back. It doesn't fix the problem, you just have two dead people.

 

Giving someone life in prison, in my opinion, is the worst thing you can do to a person. He or she has to watch there back for life from getting raped or stabbed. That's how you make murderers suffer, you destroy the mind, not the body. Death is setting them free, it's the easy way out.

 

Sorry for the rant, but let me know what you guys think.

[lil weasel]

Executing removes the cause so that it won't happen again by that person.

Life means keeping a worthless creature at Tax Payers expense for continued torture.

Execution should be carried out in two week, not more than a year after conviction.

 

[KFranchise]

Executing removes the cause so that it won't happen again by that person.

Life means keeping a worthless creature at Tax Payers expense for continued torture.

Execution should be carried out in two week, not more than a year after conviction.

It costs more tax dollars to execute a person, than to keep them in jail for life.

[roebuck34]

death then keeping them locked up and having to feed them.

[Chunkyman]

I generally think the only time it's morally acceptable to kill others is in self defense, therefore I don't support the death penalty. Another problem with the death penalty is when they end up killing innocents. Sure, one can argue that we just need tougher criteria for the death penalty to be used, but the risk will always be there and you can't undo an execution, whereas you can release the wrongfully convicted.

[lil weasel]

It costs more tax dollars to execute a person, than to keep them in jail for life.

I've been hearing that CRAP for years.

Figure it out yourself with a pen and pencil.

It costs 20,000$ a year to house a prisoner.

The Crap about the expense of executing a convicted criminal is all based on the Lawyers billing. Make the Lawyers do it for free and see how much it co$ts.

The Lawyers are fine and dandy with keeping the prisoner in the cell.

But the Lawyers go into a feeding frenzy to keep a Convicted Criminal on death row.

Execute the Convicted Criminal in two weeks and you won't have any of that Expen$e.

[TellEmRye]

I do believe the death sentence is deserved of people who take anothers life, why should they live if they don't respect others will to live?

[Adler]

 

Giving someone life in prison, in my opinion, is the worst thing you can do to a person. He or she has to watch there back for life from getting raped or stabbed. That's how you make murderers suffer, you destroy the mind, not the body. Death is setting them free, it's the easy way out.

I fail to see what making murderers suffer will accomplish. Just like the death penalty, this will not bring victims back to life. There's nothing you can do to them that will equal the damage they have done so what's the point?

[Shogun Of Japan]

Castration instead of Death sentence. Alright!

[lil weasel]

The point is reducing Taxes. The point is ending recidivism.

 

[epoxi]

There are some cases in which the majority of people believe death sentences are justified, but it's always more expensive to have capital punishment with a proper appeal process than it is to have no death sentence at all.

 

/thread

[lil weasel]

t's always more expensive to have capital punishment with a proper appeal process than it is to have no death sentence at all.

Wrong. A proper appeal system doesn't work past a year.

After that it merely becomes a Pork Barrel for the Lawyers.

Everything has to have an end. When you keep moving the end how can it ever end.

Execute the Convicted Criminal in two weeks, end the drain.

It's not like life *energy* isn't reborn to a new life.

OR let everyone register as pro life or execution.

Then let the pro life group support the entire cost of keeping the Convicted Criminal in warm storage.

[ForumName]

 

Executing  removes the cause so that it won't happen again by that person.

Life means keeping a worthless creature at Tax Payers expense for continued torture.

Execution should be carried out in two week, not more than a year after conviction.

 

Nailed it. I will never understand why people are against the death sentence. Why should we spend all this money to keep some scumbag alive? The person whom they killed didn't have a second chance, why should they? If anything I think our laws as far as the death penalty are way too lax. It takes years upon years to actually carry the damn thing out. You should only get one short appeal and after that you should be brought out back and shot in the head the same day. Really that is more humane then being marched down a long hallway, strapped to a chair, having the needles put inside you, and feeling the poison enter your body anyway.

Edited April 15, 2013 by ForumName

[sivispacem]

Wrong. A proper appeal system doesn't work past a year.

Right, because there's absolutely no way that something like DNA could come along and vindicate innocent people who've spent 20 years on death row, is there?

Some of the statements you make leave me entirely speechless.

[Pyrrhic]

I have very very strong feelings supporting execution/the death penalty. Majority of the assignments I've done in the last three years have been abut the benefits of the death penalty and it's re-introduction in Australia.

 

A close friend of our family was raped and murdered by a serial killer, Paul Denyer, in 1993 I believe the year was, and her last assignment she did (she was 18 years old) was an argument supporting the death penalty.

 

The killer is now serving three life sentences in prison and is using OUR tax payer money to become a transgender MtF. I think that the government should be ashamed to be forcing the FAMILIES of the three people he raped and murdered to be PAYING for his oestrogen and hair extensions etc. etc.

 

lil weasel hit the nail on the head.

[Chunkyman]

I have very very strong feelings supporting execution/the death penalty. Majority of the assignments I've done in the last three years have been abut the benefits of the death penalty and it's re-introduction in Australia.

 

A close friend of our family was raped and murdered by a serial killer, Paul Denyer, in 1993 I believe the year was, and her last assignment she did (she was 18 years old) was an argument supporting the death penalty.

 

The killer is now serving three life sentences in prison and is using OUR tax payer money to become a transgender MtF. I think that the government should be ashamed to be forcing the FAMILIES of the three people he raped and murdered to be PAYING for his oestrogen and hair extensions etc. etc.

 

lil weasel hit the nail on the head.

The state forces you to pay for all kinds of things, I don't think that's a valid justification for killing people.

[lil weasel]

Right, because there's absolutely no way that something like DNA could come along and vindicate innocent people who've spent 20 years on death row, is there?

Some of the statements you make leave me entirely speechless.

Apparently not speechless enough,

Who cares about 20 years from now, let alone 2 years.

Execute them NOW. Don't worry about some pie in the sky future.

[Secura]

Right, because there's absolutely no way that something like DNA could come along and vindicate innocent people who've spent 20 years on death row, is there?

Some of the statements you make leave me entirely speechless.

Apparently not speechless enough,

Who cares about 20 years from now, let alone 2 years.

Execute them NOW. Don't worry about some pie in the sky future.

Kindly f*ck off.

 

There's a number of reasons public execution isn't done here anymore, simply because it's always possible that some proof could come along and prove a person's innocence.

 

The other reason would be the fact that in order to give the time needed for an execution to take place it'd have cost far more to have them killed then to let them live in prison with no possibility of parole. Don't even bother spewing that execute them in two weeks as that's completely asinine. Vindication whether you like it or not Weasel is always a possibility.

 

Lastly are we really any better then the damn criminal if we see killing as the only form of appropriate punishment? We are not children so surely we should work to rehabilitate or at least teach the criminal a lesson rather then simply ending their life as they would've done back in the Dark Ages.

[lil weasel]

 

Who cares about 2 years from now, let alone 20 years. Execute them NOW. Don't worry about some pie in the sky future.

Kindly <> off.

There's a number of reasons public execution isn't done here anymore, simply because it's always possible that some proof could come along and prove a person's innocence.

[...]Vindication whether you like it or not Weasel is always a possibility.

[...]urely we should work to rehabilitate or at least teach the criminal a lesson rather then simply ending their life as they would've done back in the Dark Ages.

You might want to get off your knees and look at history. Rehabilitation doesn't work. Prison time is training time for criminals. And, if (s)he isn't going to be let out why keep them alive. We can't have Hard Labour, as that just turns into Slave Labour. (Check out Chain Gang history in the U.S.)

If a person committed a crime worthy of the Death Penalty and IS found Guilty we the TAXPAYERS shouldn't be burdened with supplying a warm storage place for them to live out their lives. Execute them. "Let God sort them out" is an adage that works in more than wars. IF they are innocent let one of the Gods give him/her a better time in the next life.

 

[Belaphron]

Morally justified, but the chance of killing an innocent is too great.

[lil weasel]

Morally justified, but the chance of killing an innocent is too great.

it doesn't matter IF a person is innocent. Execute them right away and their suffering by being caged is ended. Most 'criminals' spend a few years in Jail before they even are tried. When tried the Jury decides the outcome based on what the prosecution presents, and what the defense presents. The judge decides what (s)he will allow as evidence. So any false conviction is dependent on these 15 people and the investigators/CSI. Once the trial is over and the year of appeals is ended... Done. We can't be going on forever worrying about which of the Convicts MIGHT be innocent.

 

It's as bad as those poor people being kept alive in hospitals, in pain, just because SOME DAY, maybe in the next 5 minutes or so a Miracle Cure will suddenly be found, oh yeah, it will still take another FIVE years before it can be used...

Doctors love keeping the mortally wounded (especially burn victims) alive as long as possible to experiment on.

 

[EgyptianStar]

Executing  removes the cause so that it won't happen again by that person.

Life means keeping a worthless creature at Tax Payers expense for continued torture.

Execution should be carried out in two week, not more than a year after conviction.

It costs more tax dollars to execute a person, than to keep them in jail for life.

That's weak argument against the death penalty it implies that we should find a cheaper way. I'm personally against the death penalty.I believe its unethical. And I can risk convicting an innocent person to death. Life Sentence with rehabilitation maybe they'll die in peace in Prison.

[EgyptianStar]

 

It doesn't matter IF a person is innocent. Execute them right away and their suffering by being caged is ended. Most 'criminals' spend a few years in Jail before they even are tried.

Do you even believe in our Justice System and Constitution or even the concept of Due process. Ever heard of Innocent until proven guilty.

[KFranchise]

Executing  removes the cause so that it won't happen again by that person.

Life means keeping a worthless creature at Tax Payers expense for continued torture.

Execution should be carried out in two week, not more than a year after conviction.

It costs more tax dollars to execute a person, than to keep them in jail for life.

That's weak argument against the death penalty it implies that we should find a cheaper way. I'm personally against the death penalty.I believe its unethical. And I can risk convicting an innocent person to death. Life Sentence with rehabilitation maybe they'll die in peace in Prison.

How is it a weak argument? It is a proven fact that executing someone is more costly than the life in prison sentence...

[lil weasel]

Don't Double Post, use the EDIT button to add/delete/change your unanswered postings.

 

It doesn't matter IF a person is innocent. Execute them right away and their suffering by being caged is ended. Most 'criminals' spend a few years in Jail before they even are tried.

Do you even believe in our Justice System and Constitution or even the concept of Due process. Ever heard of Innocent until proven guilty.

 

The Court system works fine, but for the nonsense laws.

 

Due process worked fine until the Lawyers found they could leech off the Tax payers by appealing and re-appealing, and re-appealing, and re-appealing...

Take away their incentive for beating the dead horse and see what happens.

[Straznicy]

Not a deterrent, does not bring the victim back, jeopardy of killing yet another innocent as well as being logically laughable (killing is wrong, ergo kill killers?).

 

The ilk of states which retain it as a punishment speaks miles of its perceived benefits.

[EgyptianStar]

Executing  removes the cause so that it won't happen again by that person.

Life means keeping a worthless creature at Tax Payers expense for continued torture.

Execution should be carried out in two week, not more than a year after conviction.

It costs more tax dollars to execute a person, than to keep them in jail for life.

That's weak argument against the death penalty it implies that we should find a cheaper way. I'm personally against the death penalty.I believe its unethical. And I can risk convicting an innocent person to death. Life Sentence with rehabilitation maybe they'll die in peace in Prison.

How is it a weak argument? It is a proven fact that executing someone is more costly than the life in prison sentence...

That's implying we should find a cheaper method like a rope and pole. If you want to go against the death penalty I would go against the notion that it some how is a fulfillment of Justice. To me the death penalty is unethical because of the number of innocent people wrongly executed.

[Tyler]

Not a deterrent, does not bring the victim back, jeopardy of killing yet another innocent as well as being logically laughable (killing is wrong, ergo kill killers?).

 

The ilk of states which retain it as a punishment speaks miles of its perceived benefits.

Pretty much sums it up here. The adverse effects of having a death penalty are so much worse than the (non-existent) tax reduction benefits. It's ineffective for justice, it's crude and unethical, and it doesn't do anything to help friends of the victims.

 

The problem lies in an ineffective prison system. Once we treat that, we'll see a reduction in crime, and less re-offenders. At least, that's how it looks for the U.S.

[Mr.Mordecai]

It's weird, I actually have to debate this tomorrow at school.

 

I'm anti capital punishment, because it'd be cheaper to keep them locked up, it's hypocritical /ironic, poor minorities are often treated unfairly, and its basically getting rid of the sorry saps misery, which they should have to deal with in jail.(EXCEPT who ever bombed Boston/Terrorist)

[lil weasel]

The problem lies in an ineffective prison system. Once we treat that, we'll see a reduction in crime, and less re-offenders. At least, that's how it looks for the U.S.

To reduce crime you repeal unnecessary Laws.

To reduce prison co$ts you remove the prisoners.

 

With the passage of the 'new' gun control laws. Thousands of honest citizens became felons.

There is no sensible reason to keep persons in warm storage for crimes that won't allow them back into society.

Prisons don't rehabilitate criminals, it just makes them worse.

I'm talking about the Great Majority, not that wimp (1 in 10,000) who was flushed into 'crime' by an over eager legal professional.

We are not looking for revenge, punishment, or rehabilitation.

It's been said that most murderers (using the term loosely) only do it once.

So give them a fine and let'em loose. if they do it again, then hang'em high.