Should there be the death penalty?

[Jon]

Very contentious. But that is what this area is for.

 

[Vassago]

Definitely. But only for the most heinous of crimes that are repeat offenders. There have been far too many innocent people put to death that are pardoned post-martem because of new evidence.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I would say this:

Do away with an automatic death penalty. But for folks who have committed the most heinous of crimes such that they get hundreds of years of prison sentences to run consecutively, give them the option to voluntarily end it all.

Let the volunteers have a nice dinner, a visit with a loved one, and maybe a generally pleasant day, to be followed by a strong sleeping pill. Then, while they are asleep, give them something permanent. Reserve this only for criminals who will NEVER see the light of day or smell freedom because of their crimes. And if they want to spend the rest of their lives in small, cramped cages, that's OK too.

 

[fortion]

yes....they have to be used as a detterent for the most heinous crimes and such people can only be made an example of by death....

 

[Salinger]

Interesting view there, The Doc Man, it being voluntary and for repeat offenders, otherwise I have no trust in the legal system that someone wrongly accused wont end up being killed unnecessarily.
And I'm not sure what it's saying that one kind of killing is allowed to punish another kind.
But the voluntary idea could be an option. Open to abuse though maybe?

 

[scott-atkinson]

I would say this:

Do away with an automatic death penalty. But for folks who have committed the most heinous of crimes such that they get hundreds of years of prison sentences to run consecutively, give them the option to voluntarily end it all.

Let the volunteers have a nice dinner, a visit with a loved one, and maybe a generally pleasant day, to be followed by a strong sleeping pill. Then, while they are asleep, give them something permanent. Reserve this only for criminals who will NEVER see the light of day or smell freedom because of their crimes. And if they want to spend the rest of their lives in small, cramped cages, that's OK too.

My only problem with this is the nicety of it all, people who would qualify for this would almost certianly have not given their victims the same level of respect, so why should they be treated to a nice sedate dignified death...

 

[Salinger]

Because in that way we show that we are different to them.

 

[scott-atkinson]

Because in that way we show that we are different to them.

We already treat many criminals differently by provideing them with 3 square meals a day, access to cable TV, and recreational activities, may of these are considered luxuries by hard working class people on the bread line...

If you commit a crime, you should be treated like a lower class person, not put on a pedastal and given everything...

Recent cases of criminals winning claims under the Human Rights Act for even more quality of life is ludicrous, if you commit a crime, in my mind you should lose all your Human Rights until such a point that you can demonstrate that you are indeed a Human again.... After all, did these criminals consider the Human Rights of the people they committed a crime against, no of course they did not...

 

[nanscombe]

Perhaps we should only have the death penalty for suicide bombers but perhaps it wouldn't be appropriate for Brazilian electricians.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

My idea would have applied to Ariel Castro, the kidnapper with the 1000-year sentence and enough physical evidence to assure that it was nearly impossible to have made a mistake in charging him. He took the short way out.

As to the question of whether we deny justice to the persons who were his victims, I have this question: Did we want justice or was that creeping into the territory of revenge? Society CANNOT put itself into the revenge business. Only people can exact revenge.

Society can, however, perform deterrent acts to put an end to predation. After that, society has the very practical question: Which is cheaper? To keep a schmuck in jail until he rots, or let him take the easy way out without incurring a tremendous number of expensive appeals. But if the perpetrator wants to play the system for appeals, allow it. (We have those appeals now anyway, so what's the difference?)

 

[MarkK]

If it is wrong for me to murder someone then I don't see how it's right for the state to do so.

Yes, a society has a right to self-defense, but incarceration is a sufficient remedy. I think a state should use the least amount of violence to protect itself and killing a human being who is already incarcerated--who is already neutralized as a social threat--is gratuitous violence.

Also, if we kill murderers, why don't we chop off the hands of thieves? How is there a moral difference between corporal and capital punishments? One of those we commonly deem barbaric.

Violence is immoral, therefore "justice for all" should be implemented using the least possible degree of violence.

 

[Vassago]

We would have far less people in jail and prison if we would stop sending non-violent crimes there for ridiculous amounts of time. That would save plenty of money.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Vassago, I'm with you on that. Let's attempt to get some sanity on non-violent drug possession charges for starters. All "possession with intent to use" should be a low-level misdemeanor with minimal jail time and maybe a fine. Maybe just a fine. Certainly ineligible for contributing to any form of "three strikes you're out" law.

Lagbolt, I actually agree with you but make a distinction between your position and my proposed position. The person to be executed in my suggested scenario has to volunteer for it or they just rot in jail. Society, which has chosen to limit that person's freedom already, has made it impossible for him/her to take an easy exit. So my suggestion is to let people have their easy exit anyway.

Granted, it's a fine line, but we have faced the issue of suicide before in society. We have to draw the line on assisted suicide when someone else has to actually do the deed, though we DO allow someone else to set up the method if the person in question is still able to push a button to trigger the final moment.

Jack Kevorian crossed that line and got taken down for it, but the state of Oregon, USA, very clearly said that suicide when faced with a terminal situation cannot be considered as a totally irrational act. I certainly don't want to push anyone into ending it all.

 

[pr2-eugin]

For a SPAMMER like you.. I think it should be

allowed to punish

 

[MarkK]

"possession with intent to use"

I think "possession with intent to use" should not be the business of the state. Period. The state does not prosecute adultery nor should it. The state should also not prosecute other altered states one might wish to indulge in.

Like, nobody wants to be addicted to cocaine. Drug abuse, like adultery, provides it's own self-embedded punishments, and I don't get why the state feels a need to get involved. Like, how to kick people when they are down: criminalize them for drug offenses. Addicts already feel enough shame.

There is, and always will be, a market for drugs. We can play at fighting it, making it illegal, calling it wrong, being morally superior, but whatever we do, there is, and always will be, a market for drugs. Let's accept it, understand it, tax it, and start helping its victims.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

lagbolt, I'll add this thought to yours. Not only legalize it - but by making it legal, make it subject to "normal" competition to reduce prices - and kill the high-profit black market by making it not worth the effort for the cartels. They are driven by profit motive for a high-risk - and therefore high-cost - item. Kill the profits. I think that would help with a lot of the drug-gang wars. Heck, might even give them an incentive to become legitimate tax-paying businessmen.

Which, by the way, would help reduce prison populations and reduce the number of people sent to prison for killing a drug-gang rival - which leads us back to the death penalty. If we get rid of one of the motives for killing people (eliminating your rivals), we make the death penalty less of a concern. (As I sneak back to the original topic...)

 

[MarkK]

Very sneaky there, but I totally agree with where you are going with that. People of the future will look back at how we handled drugs, crime, and punishment, and think we were barbaric.

 

[Vassago]

Very sneaky there, but I totally agree with where you are going with that. People of the future will look back at how we handled drugs, crime, and punishment, and think we were barbaric.

Don't we do the same? Salem witch trials. Unfair small city racial punishments. We look at our ancestors as pretty barbaric too.

 

[Salinger]

I agree with you lagbolt about drugs, surely the laws have to change soon, especially when people can freely buy cigarettes and particularly alcohol which must result in a huge cost when you consider the health/social implications.

 

[Fifty2One]

I dont think the tax payers should have to cover the cost of keeping certain convicted elements for long periods of time. The death penalty would save a lot of money and resources which could be put to benefit more deserving members of society. Making it a public event would further the revenue stream: charge admission to witness the sentence being delivered and justice being rendered. It would also serve as a deterrent for those who might be dissuaded from certain deeds.
Public dismemberment (specifically but not limited to child molesters and rapists) could also be included to round out the event on public execution night.