Yared
That Guy
Is there any evidence to suggest that death penalty worked as a good enough deterrent back when it was legal?
Oh. So you didn't do that on purpose.It's not my idea. William II Rufus of England used that very same idea to keep sexual crimes low.
Life imprisonment isn't a light sentence. People who commit murder simply do not consider the punishment they might face.
Also, notorious gang members can often survive longer on Death Row than out on the streets, simply because they're protected from violence and appeals take so many years, often using public lawyers, I fail to see how simply locking them up normally is not any cheaper.
Get rid of the death penalty, and you'll get better convictions in the first place.
Killing people solves nothing. If you really want to have an appropriate crime for rape, you castrate the offender. It's much simpler.
Pro-lifers would be against this.
Pros:
It prevents repeat murders. Also arguably celebrates the dignity of the victim by saying that thou shalt not murder(first, anyway).
More expensive than life - to the tune of 1.1 million more per person.
Because our appeal system is insane, allowing TEN YEARS, sometimes more, of appeals. I understand appeals are necessary, but since the Feds have no control of punishing crime, SCOTUS has no right to be involved in the case. And the State Court, while constitutionally allowed to be involved, should not be. One appeal, if you feel there is a breach of justice and you weren't tried fairly, and that's it.
Death is not the worst of fates as easy as it is to believe. Mercy killing, anyone?
Well, allowing the government to TORTURE people would be more of an abuse of liberty. While I might like to see it in some cases, its still morally wrong. Just kill the scum and let God judge them.
1/4 of death row inmates die of natural causes.
Again, because appeals take too long.
Can't be reversed.
Neither can life once its been served.
Gives an arguably detrimental power to the state: the power to take the right to life away from its citizens, the most sacred right from which all others are derived.
I personally believe killing murderers is a part of natural law (I cite Gen 9:6 to prove this), and that the government NOT killing murderers means it is not doing its duty to protect its citizens. There are exceptions certainly, such as insanity, but I believe that as a general rule they are obligated to kill murderers.
Its primarily about punishment. While rehabilitation is indeed attempted, its not always successful.
Well, if we are going to enforce laws against things like drugs for "People's own good," rehab had BETTER be the goal. For moderate crimes, such as theft, this should be the case as well simply because a thief can be redeemed. A murderer however, took someone else's right to live away, so they lose theirs, just as a criminal (Should) have to pay restitution for his crime, the murderer must pay with his life.
Whats immoral about putting someone to death that has been shown to murder others. Doesnt it keep them from killing even more people in the future?
On average yes, but it should because of the mandatory appeal process of the death penalty. If we made appeal mandatory for life sentences, you would see the costs involved there increase significantly as well.
And then they'd say "Well then sentence them to less than life" and we'd come to a worse situation.
So I'd A: Reduce appeals overall and B: Make them mandatory for any long sentence (10 + years.)
False. In fact, even to date, there has never been a confirmed innocent person wrongfully accused, and even those suspected are less than a handful. Thats out of thousands upon thousands of executions via our system. I would say thats plenty accurate enough.
There's no such thing as "Accurate enough" short of 100%, but we are doing pretty well. In places like China where trials aren't determined fairly, I'd say they should eliminate capital punishment. But not here, we are doing as well as we can. Not suggesting we shouldn't improve, but we are doing well.
No, as there is a difference in an innocent child and a murderer.
Because Gandhi was perfect
Because Gandhi was perfect
I'm pro-life, and I'm not against this. Serial Killers and innocent children aren't one and the same.
Well, allowing the government to TORTURE people would be more of an abuse of liberty. While I might like to see it in some cases, its still morally wrong. Just kill the scum and let God judge them.
Or rather "Because everyone pokes someone's eye out."
Either you hold human life sacred or you don't.
No... if you kill the guy then you're the one dealing out judgement.
Well. What is left but to wish you a happy journey on the denial boat.
I hope climate change deniers, creationists and islamophobes make for a decent game of cards.
We could execute you. And me. It would keep us from killing people in the future.
Unfortunatly cruelty is a completely relative and subjective thing.
The marginal difference (between execution and life imprisonment) in preventing further death is negligible, and is outweighed by the possibility of innocence, and the simple fact that execution involves killing someone.
Well, I think one has to be particularly sadistic to think of punishment as an end, rather than a means of deterrence.
However, this doesn't hold. I can hold INNOCENT life sacred, but I can say GUILTY people lost that right.
From a secular point of view, I would consider it a natural law along the same vein of retribution. You pay back an equal price for your crime. By taking someone else's life, you owe them your life. Since the victim is not able to ask the state not to execute you, you should be executed.
No, no. You are such a massive hypocrite if you talk about the sancity of life, whilst advocating executions. Both are incompatible and you should be called out on this!
Guilty of what? And if they're guilty of a crime, that made them less than human?
The only thing that distinguishes executions from murders in general is the law that made exceptions for state-sponsered killing of convicts.
Sorry I didn't realise that you knew what God's view on life was, Thanks for telling me what God believes.
If you take the premise that all life is sacred and then say "oh but well you know, this man he can hang..." then not only is it hypocritical, there is no consistency.
The only thing that distinguishes defending yourself in war from murders in general is the law that made exceptions for state-sponsered killing of enemy soldiers in combat
Thus I prove killing =/= murder, unless you agree to my modification of your post.