Death Penalty

[EricaofRenais]

I guess I am of the opinion that as long as the really bad people are locked up I am fine with life sentences, but I feel like parole is given out too lightly in some cases and if the death sentence was done away with completely I would want it set in stone that the people who would have faced death will never ever be let out of prison. I have some very strong views of certain laws that I won't get in to, but I don't know how evil (for lack of a better term) people who get caught doing horrid things should be punished.

[Nym]

That treatment is different than treating them as non-humans though. Treating them as non-humans could mean to treat them as animals. Which it isn't the case in the judicial system in Canada. Losing rights or respect does not make you less human. Nor should it be a reason to treat someone as less of a human.

The criminals treated their victims horribly and indeed left their life in a terrible state. I am not saying they should not be put in jail or make their sentences less severe/shorter. But I am saying that they should not be seen as non-human. To see them as monsters or animals (because most people don't normally see humans as animals) would easily allow the judicial system to institute cruel punishment and tortures.

An animal who kills a human is killed for the sake of others. Why should we treat a person who kills another person differently if they are non-humans?

I didn't mean ''treat them as animals''. They should lost something out of it. Right now, if almost feel like they go in vacation for free while we paid for their stupid ideas.

Also, let me ask you a question: do you think there would be less crimes if we directly told to everyone that in prison, we are going to beat the shit out of you. Yes, torture is not a good thing but you know what? They would have deserved that punishement.

[Shin]

I recently read a book on psychopathy, which made me think of an interesting dilemma.

To everybody, do you support the death penalty for psychopaths? There is pretty much no prospect of rehabilitating them and making them productive members of society. These are the most irredeemable of irredeemable, but it is due to a mental disability. Does this mental deficit make their crime more deserving of punishment or less?

I'd be very careful swinging around an opinion like that if I were you. To execute someone for being mentally ill really opens up a can of juicy ethical worms regarding the mental healthcare system.

The death penalty itself does very little in terms of saving money on prisons. Roughly 3000 people are on death row in the US, whilst there are roughly 2 million prisoners in the US. Considering that the average length of stay on death row is roughly 15 years, the death sentence doesn't really provide any sort of economical benefits.

Research on whether it actually lowers crime seems a little more mixed, there appear to be papers suggesting either way. I'd probably give a little more on this if I had a chance to read into it! There are likely to be far more factors than just the penalty. I'm not personally a plan of it, whilst it removes the culprit, it's often poorly implemented and personally I have some moral objections with killing people to get rid of them - even if they've committed murder.

[Excellen Browning]

Lol I can remember some friends' ex-girlfriends who completely ruined their life, and still they moved on. Its the same for me, but its not my ex. Its also really overused in the criminal sense, because the large majority of them do not include rape/homicide, homicide and other extremely brutal acts. Basing your legal system on the outliers is just inane.

Also against death penalty. It might have a place in our legal system if it were infallible, but its not and there's no way it will ever be.

[Rezzy]

I'd be very careful swinging around an opinion like that if I were you. To execute someone for being mentally ill really opens up a can of juicy ethical worms regarding the mental healthcare system.

The death penalty itself does very little in terms of saving money on prisons. Roughly 3000 people are on death row in the US, whilst there are roughly 2 million prisoners in the US. Considering that the average length of stay on death row is roughly 15 years, the death sentence doesn't really provide any sort of economical benefits.

Research on whether it actually lowers crime seems a little more mixed, there appear to be papers suggesting either way. I'd probably give a little more on this if I had a chance to read into it! There are likely to be far more factors than just the penalty. I'm not personally a plan of it, whilst it removes the culprit, it's often poorly implemented and personally I have some moral objections with killing people to get rid of them - even if they've committed murder.

I'm not totally sure which opinion you refer to. In my opening post, I said I was against the death penalty. I was just curious about others opinions on the punishment with psychopaths.

And I mean psychopaths who commit murder, not just executing psychopaths who did not commit a crime.

[Dwalin2010]

Also murder is a murder. I know this is a very ''black or white'' ideology but killing is never good, crime of passion or not.

Killing for protection is one thing. Killing for vengeance, love or fun are another.

I disagree with some points here. Killing for vengeance isn't the same as killing for fun (at least, in many cases it isn't). Whoever kills for fun is by default a sadist, a manifestation of pure evil. Killing for vengeance is a wide concept. It may be vengeance over an insignificant thing, like when a street gangster feels "disrespected" because a passerby gave him a "wrong" glance or something like that. It's another thing when, for example, a powerful gangster killed many people and always got acquitted due to his connections, then some grieving relative whose family was slaughtered by him goes and kills him, since he hasn't anything to lose anymore and doesn't care about going to prison. With that action, he might have saved somebody else's life by the way.

In my opinion, in REAL LIFE situations in which not only does the victim definitively deserve to die, but the murderers make feel bad for them and deserve compassion, such situations are quite rare, but theoretically they are possible. For example, I don't know if anyone here has watched the Japanese detective anime series like "Detective Conan" and "Kindaichi shounen no Jikenbo". In those ones (for some reason which I would like myself to know) the victims are almost always presented as ultimate scumbags, while the murderers are originally good people who turned to private vengeance only after seeing the law enforcement wouldn't do anything to punish the original perpetrators (who later become "the victims" during the plot), so the only way to stop the crimes committed by those individuals and to make them answer for the deaths of their victims is to kill them, since the law is either inept or corrupt. I understand that those situations are 95% not realistic and made up just to create an entertaining murder mystery with an element of drama. I quoted these examples just to say that, in my opinion, it would be too simplistic to classify all murders as equally "bad". There are different cases, I think it's impossible to feel equally bad for a whacked gangster and a child killed by a serial killer; or, it would be strange to feel the same disdain for a robber who killed an elderly person for 2 dollars and a ruined businessman who killed a mafia boss responsible for the slaughter of his family and protected by the corrupt police.

As for my position towards the death penalty, I would say I am against it. Mostly because there can always be wrongful convictions, but also because, even if the criminal is 100% guilty, somebody has to be the executioner. How would the family of this person feel if it's his/her regular job? I mean, they come to dinner after work in the evening, their family asks them "how is it going today?". He answers "oh, nothing, just electrocuted 2 gangsters, had a lethal injection for a serial killer and hanged 3 robbers who shot shop owners". I mean, it would be a quite creepy atmosphere to live in, when you know your family member has to be surrounded by death everyday and actively participate in it. It's as if the convicted criminals extended their malefic influence on somebody's families, condemning them to live a life where they are continuosly reminded of death, death and death again etc, and can't even be sure that their family members who work as executioners, won't turn violent themselves sooner or later. After all, if they have to kill convicted criminals every day, it's very much likely they become either cynical and stop appreciating human lives, even those of innocents; or they can simply go crazy after seeing so much death, if they aren't psychologically strong enough.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Dwalin2010

[Shin]

I'm not totally sure which opinion you refer to. In my opening post, I said I was against the death penalty. I was just curious about others opinions on the punishment with psychopaths.

And I mean psychopaths who commit murder, not just executing psychopaths who did not commit a crime.

I'm referring to psychopaths who commit murder, which can be gathered from context. The term psychopath is pretty poorly defined, and execution after a crime because rehabilitation is considered fruitless does raise several moral questions.

[Water Mage]

I'm not totally sure which opinion you refer to. In my opening post, I said I was against the death penalty. I was just curious about others opinions on the punishment with psychopaths.

And I mean psychopaths who commit murder, not just executing psychopaths who did not commit a crime.

But here's the tricky part, it's very likely that the psychopath that comitted murder because they do not truly understand that killing is wrong,

Would it be fair to execute someone because of something that they were born being unable to understand that?

At he same time, is it fair to the loved ones of the victims to let them go unpunished?

It's something that doesn't really have a good answer.

[Moblin Major General]

I mean, they come to dinner after work in the evening, their family asks them "how is it going today?". He answers "oh, nothing, just electrocuted 2 gangsters, had a lethal injection for a serial killer and hanged 3 robbers who shot shop owners".

This is why firing squad is my preferred execution method. Every executioner is a volunteer, meaning they do not have to go through killing more than 1 convict. Also, anywhere from 1 to 3 of the usual 5 guns involved has a blank chambered in it so that no one knows which gun actually killed the condemned. Those who volunteer for a firing squad usually have little qualms, if any at all, about killing, and are trained marksman, meaning botching this style of execution is also proportionally rare. There is also far less risk (if there even is any) of an executioner acquiring a taste for blood because they probably can only volunteer once throughout their career. I've read interviews of executioners, and they are actually usually disinterested and professional, and many have no regrets about what they've done, unlike their victims. It's fine to oppose capital punishment, but people become executioners by choice, and would be stupid if they didn't steel themselves every day they knew someone had to die, just like a soldier, police officer, security guard, etc.

[Zanarkin]

I didn't mean ''treat them as animals''. They should lost something out of it. Right now, if almost feel like they go in vacation for free while we paid for their stupid ideas.

And yet you don't explain why we shouldn't treat them as animals, if we can treat them as non-human. Their humanity is not something they should lose. I agree that certain rights should be lost (and they are). They lose a lot of the freedoms you an I take for granted. What makes you think prison seems vacation-y? What part of having 10-50 years of your life dictated by someone else sound vacationy? Are they provided with food, water, a roof and the most basics for human survival? Yeah, but that is a good thing. Why shouldn't they be provided?

Also, let me ask you a question: do you think there would be less crimes if we directly told to everyone that in prison, we are going to beat the shit out of you. Yes, torture is not a good thing but you know what? They would have deserved that punishement.

Maybe, i don't know. Although, it is already known that tougher sentences are not a detriment to crime. Otherwise the war on drugs would have been successful. Yeah tougher sentences does not equal guaranteed torture, but if you think you are going to get away with the crime or are desperate enough to commit the crime, do you really care what the consequences are?

I also think better methods of crime reduction are possible. For one, people deemed at risk (i.e. juvenile delinquents) should get more attention and rehabilitation. We shouldnt wait until they kill someone to really try and help them become better members of society.

Also, not all crimes deserve physical punishment (I wonder if any crime at all deserves physical punishment). It would not be okay to be severely beat up someone for consuming drugs or having drugs in your possession.

[Nym]

And yet you don't explain why we shouldn't treat them as animals, if we can treat them as non-human. Their humanity is not something they should lose. I agree that certain rights should be lost (and they are). They lose a lot of the freedoms you an I take for granted. What makes you think prison seems vacation-y? What part of having 10-50 years of your life dictated by someone else sound vacationy? Are they provided with food, water, a roof and the most basics for human survival? Yeah, but that is a good thing. Why shouldn't they be provided?

Look, I just think that right now, something's wrong with the justice and prisons. The problem is that we are stuck in a bad loop: if we free a prisonner, there's a very high chance that he will do a crime again because he cannot live a normal life anymore. What I can't count with my bare hands is the number of times I've heard that someone who raped or killed was not actually his/her first time doing this. And what happens next? We do everything again until the criminal dies.

But we can't all keep them because the prisons will end up being full and we will have to build more which, will cost more money. And don't get me started that we have to pay for them if they are sick.

That's my point, that they keep their rights or not do not matters in the end, since we paid for their stay in prison anyway.

Maybe, i don't know. Although, it is already known that tougher sentences are not a detriment to crime. Otherwise the war on drugs would have been successful. Yeah tougher sentences does not equal guaranteed torture, but if you think you are going to get away with the crime or are desperate enough to commit the crime, do you really care what the consequences are?

I can guarantee that if punishements were harshers, a few would think twice before commiting a crime. Those would still do it would 100% deserve the punishement. Of course, this is only on paper.

I also think better methods of crime reduction are possible. For one, people deemed at risk (i.e. juvenile delinquents) should get more attention and rehabilitation. We shouldnt wait until they kill someone to really try and help them become better members of society.

I agree

Also, not all crimes deserve physical punishment (I wonder if any crime at all deserves physical punishment). It would not be okay to be severely beat up someone for consuming drugs or having drugs in your possession.

Again, ​if this person, that takes drugs, ruins someone else's life​ then yes, it should deserve a punishement.

Consume or sell drugs when it's only yourself on the matter should not be the same thing.

[Zanarkin]

Look, I just think that right now, something's wrong with the justice and prisons. The problem is that we are stuck in a bad loop: if we free a prisonner, there's a very high chance that he will do a crime again because he cannot live a normal life anymore. What I can't count with my bare hands is the number of times I've heard that someone who raped or killed was not actually his/her first time doing this. And what happens next? We do everything again until the criminal dies.

But we can't all keep them because the prisons will end up being full and we will have to build more which, will cost more money. And don't get me started that we have to pay for them if they are sick.

That's my point, that they keep their rights or not do not matters in the end, since we paid for their stay in prison anyway.

Fair enough, I can agree to that. Since prison as it stands right now does not really treat the reason people are committing the crimes.

I can guarantee that if punishements were harshers, a few would think twice before commiting a crime. Those would still do it would 100% deserve the punishement. Of course, this is only on paper.

How can you guarantee that?

Again, ​if this person, that takes drugs, ruins someone else's life​ then yes, it should deserve a punishement.

Consume or sell drugs when it's only yourself on the matter should not be the same thing.

Never said drug use that affects others shouldn't get punishment. I said it shouldn't get physical punishment, by which i meant torture (i.e beatings). I don't know if you mean physical punishment or just a lock-up here, but if you do mean that they should get physical punishment, what constitutes as ruining someone's life?

Edited November 11, 2016 by SlayerX

[NekoKnight]

I'm for the death penalty but under strictly controlled circumstances. The death penalty should only be for people who show no signs of rehabilitation and are convicted of heinous crimes. For people who are undeniably guilty of heinous crimes and dangerous mental state, like say Anders Breivik, there is no reason to keep them alive.

First and foremost, however, we need to think more about prison reform and how we can rehabilitate people before we think about harsher punishments. A lot of people re-enter the prison system because our prisons aren't focused on getting people back into society.

My stance is that the death penalty is inherently flawed. First and foremost, if there's even the possibility that the person is wrongly convicted, there is no way to take it back. Second, the cost associated with it is more expensive than life imprisonment. Third, with the secure prisons we have today, escape is very unlikely with life sentences, so they are not a threat to society. Fourth, there is the problem where certain races and classes that are far more likely to be sentenced to death than others. Fifth, debatable, but it may go against the statute forbidding cruel and unusual punishment. Lastly, my personal belief is that all human life is sacred and even criminals do not deserve this punishment.

1. There are no take-backs on death, true, but there are also no take backs on the time lost to someone wrongfully convicted either. It's the most serious punishment we can give people so I'd reserve it for when the crimes can proven without a shadow of a doubt.

2. It shouldn't cost so much to sentence someone to death.

3. True, but it's still a waste of resources to hold people you aren't going to release anyway.

4. That prejudice is not intrinsic to the death penalty.

5. I'm not sure what is cruel or unusual about the death penalty.

6.I don't believe all life is sacred. The hurt an individual can do to others and society can outweigh the value of their life.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I am against the death penalty, but not strongly. I feel that the "against" camp has the better arguments (particularly the issue that there's always the risk of executing an innocent) but at the end of the day it's not one of the more important justice-related issues. I can see the case for using exeuction in the most vile (and doubt-free) cases, such as McVeigh or Breivik.

I can guarantee that if punishements were harshers, a few would think twice before commiting a crime. Those would still do it would 100% deserve the punishement. Of course, this is only on paper.

As mentioned, the ludicrously high mandatory minimum sentences for drug use tried in the drug war did not, in fact, decrease drug crime. You can google the colossal failure of California's three strikes laws if you aren't familiar with it; that's one of the best examples off the top of my head.

Most people who commit crimes either (a) aren't being rational, (b) don't think they'll be caught, or © don't care about the consequences. Therefore increasing penalties does little to alter their behaviour, provided the penalties are already stiff enough to discourage rational actors. A few centuries ago humans had all sorts of horrific punishments for people (you've probably heard of thieves having their hands cut off, or the gruesome execution method known as being "drawn and quartered") but crime rates are lower now than they were then... by around an order of magnitude or more in case of the best-documented crimes (such as homicide).

This suggests that the best way to prevent crime is by removing the circumstances which lead to it in the first place (such as poverty, and untreated health issues, especially those related to mental health and addiction). I would also say it is helpful to have a prison system that emphasises rehabilitation of criminals (see Norway's highly successful prison system). It's ludicrous to say that prison is a "vacation" in most countries given the high rates of violence and sexual violence that are documented within them; that isn't going to help prisoners become functioning members of society again even if it might make a few people feel good to think the criminals are being "punished".

[eclipse]

So because they were born with a mental or personal disorder they should be isolated for their whole lives?

I see it as quarantine, until there's some way to fix whatever causes it. Until then, they're a danger to society, especially if they're already in the prison system (which shows a disregard for society's rules). Whether society's rules SHOULD be followed is another argument entirely, one that deserves its own thread.

I am against the death penalty, but not strongly. I feel that the "against" camp has the better arguments (particularly the issue that there's always the risk of executing an innocent) but at the end of the day it's not one of the more important justice-related issues. I can see the case for using exeuction in the most vile (and doubt-free) cases, such as McVeigh or Breivik.

I'll have to disagree on the death penalty not being important. The system itself costs a lot of money, and the appeals take time - both of which could be spent elsewhere if there was no death penalty.

This suggests that the best way to prevent crime is by removing the circumstances which lead to it in the first place (such as poverty, and untreated health issues, especially those related to mental health and addiction). I would also say it is helpful to have a prison system that emphasises rehabilitation of criminals (see Norway's highly successful prison system). It's ludicrous to say that prison is a "vacation" in most countries given the high rates of violence and sexual violence that are documented within them; that isn't going to help prisoners become functioning members of society again even if it might make a few people feel good to think the criminals are being "punished".

Assuming that prisons magically reform, the other large issue IMO is employment. Many places aren't too keen on hiring convicts (especially felons). I think there needs to be more job opportunities for released prisoners, even if I do sympathize with the employers (since having the new hire steal everything/shank someone looks really bad).

[Nym]

How can you guarantee that?

One example that I can give: one of our problems that we have in my country right now is using the cellphone while driving.

My father still tell me that if the police would confiscate a driver's license at least for 2 years when the said driver got caught. That would probably do the job, especially for those who need a car for going to work.

Of course, how I would translate that for a prison, I have no clues.

Never said drug use that affects others shouldn't get punishment. I said it shouldn't get physical punishment, by which i meant torture (i.e beatings). I don't know if you mean physical punishment or just a lock-up here, but if you do mean that they should get physical punishment, what constitutes as ruining someone's life?

Dunno what sort of punishement, it's very tricky to tell, especially like this.

Running someone life is basically that the victim will have sequels, physical or mental.

So, if you consume drugs AND you attack someone with a knife, this is 100% your fault.

As mentioned, the ludicrously high mandatory minimum sentences for drug use tried in the drug war did not, in fact, decrease drug crime. You can google the colossal failure of California's three strikes laws if you aren't familiar with it; that's one of the best examples off the top of my head.

Correct me if I'm wrong: that drug war was about people having drugs on them?

If that's the case, then that war was a lost cause right from the start.

I don't have a problem that you consume drugs, alcohol or even cigarettes ​as long as you don't force it in someone else's throat and you don't hurt someone while being under their effects (not about cigarettes, of course).

​​Yes, drug is illegal but unless you want to hunt every single person that sell drugs in almost every single country, this will never end, unfortunately, but I try to be realist.

Most people who commit crimes either (a) aren't being rational, (b) don't think they'll be caught, or © don't care about the consequences. Therefore increasing penalties does little to alter their behaviour, provided the penalties are already stiff enough to discourage rational actors. A few centuries ago humans had all sorts of horrific punishments for people (you've probably heard of thieves having their hands cut off, or the gruesome execution method known as being "drawn and quartered") but crime rates are lower now than they were then... by around an order of magnitude or more in case of the best-documented crimes (such as homicide).

I know, and this why it's so tricky to found a solution for this.

This suggests that the best way to prevent crime is by removing the circumstances which lead to it in the first place (such as poverty, and untreated health issues, especially those related to mental health and addiction). I would also say it is helpful to have a prison system that emphasises rehabilitation of criminals (see Norway's highly successful prison system). It's ludicrous to say that prison is a "vacation" in most countries given the high rates of violence and sexual violence that are documented within them; that isn't going to help prisoners become functioning members of society again even if it might make a few people feel good to think the criminals are being "punished".

Look, I just think that right now, something's wrong with the justice and prisons. The problem is that we are stuck in a bad loop: if we free a prisonner, there's a very high chance that he will do a crime again because he cannot live a normal life anymore. What I can't count with my bare hands is the number of times I've heard that someone who raped or killed was not actually his/her first time doing this. And what happens next? We do everything again until the criminal dies.

But we can't all keep them because the prisons will end up being full and we will have to build more which, will cost more money. And don't get me started that we have to pay for them if they are sick.

That's my point, that they keep their rights or not do not matters in the end, since we paid for their stay in prison anyway.

We can't, that's the problem. After being in prison, you are marked FOREVER as a criminal.

Like I mentionned, most criminals that have been freed will do another crime to go back in prison because they can't have a job.

Not only is this a waste of time and money, the criminal also ruins someone else's life in the process of going back in prison.

So, who should be blame for this? The society who is inable to forgive a criminal?

No, because let's be real here, would you really trust a former criminal? And I'm not talking about a thief who stole a chocolate bar at a convenience store or something. I'm talking about someone who killed or raped.

I would never do that because I'm not that naive enough to do that.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Nym

[Dark Holy Elf]

EDIT: Didn't see the third page, sorry! The first part of this response is to Eclipse.

I definitely agree.

I'll have to disagree on the death penalty not being important. The system itself costs a lot of money, and the appeals take time - both of which could be spent elsewhere if there was no death penalty.

This inspired me to go digging and okay, yeah, I had underestimated the cost difference. I always knew it was more, but I am (unpleasantly) surprised at how much more.

Correct me if I'm wrong: that drug war was about people having drugs on them?

If that's the case, then that war was a lost cause right from the start.

I don't have a problem that you consume drugs, alcohol or even cigarettes ​as long as you don't force it in someone else's throat and you don't hurt someone while being under their effects (not about cigarettes, of course).

Well, we all agree about that! "Drug crimes" does not refer to crimes people commit while on drugs, it refers to possession and distribution of illegal drugs. I'm not an expert in legal systems everywhere but in most places, if you willingly get intoxicated (be it with a legal substance such as alcohol, or an illegal one), you are absolutely responsible for any crimes you commit under the influence.

We can't, that's the problem. After being in prison, you are marked FOREVER as a criminal.

Like I mentionned, most criminals that have been freed will do another crime to go back in prison because they can't have a job.

Not only is this a waste of time and money, the criminal also ruins someone else's life in the process of going back in prison.

So, who should be blame for this? The society who is inable to forgive a criminal?

No, because let's be real here, would you really trust a former criminal? And I'm not talking about a thief who stole a chocolate bar to a convenience store or something. I'm talking about someone who killed or raped.

Well, if you are speaking only of rape/murder, you should be specific about that. Most crime is not rape or murder; theft, for instance, is more common by far. And if you use punitive prison sentences in awful conditions to punish these thieves, they will be unable to rehabilitate and will either cost the state a lot of money during their over-long imprisonment, or cause society problems when they are released, unrehabilitated, and commit more crimes.

If you were speaking only of rape and murder, I will re-iterate that the sentences for these (when a conviction occurs, at least; getting a rape convinction to stick is difficult but that is a whole 'nother can of worms) are certainly high enough to dissuade any rational actor.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Dark Holy Elf

[Tryhard]

No, because let's be real here, would you really trust a former criminal? And I'm not talking about a thief who stole a chocolate bar to a convenience store or something. I'm talking about someone who killed or raped.

It's quite amazing how Norway's (and I believe Scandanavian countries in general that happen to also have some of the lowest rates) system focuses on rehabilitation (in prisons with better conditions) and more lenient sentences and happens to have the lowest reoffending rate in the world IIRC. What do you think of that?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12

Edited November 11, 2016 by Tryhard

[Nym]

It's quite amazing how Norway's (and I believe Scandanavian countries in general that happens to also have the lowest rates) system focuses on rehabilitation (in prisons with better conditions) and more lenient sentences and happens to have the lowest reoffending rate in the world IIRC. What do you think of that?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12

As much as this article shows a good step in the right direction, you have to keep in mind that:

The majority of crimes reported to police there are theft-related incidents, and violent crime is mostly confined to areas with drug trafficking and gang problems.

I don't need to have a diploma in whatever to know that this project works more for theifs but less for rapists and killers.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Nym

[Tryhard]

As much as this article shows a good step in the right direction, you have to keep in mind that:

I don't need to have a diploma or something to know that works for theifs but less for rapists and killers.

Yes, it's not that I necessarily agree with their system, it's just that people show restraint for vengeance even in the face of monsters like Anders Breivik. I know that I would definitely not be able to in the case of murder or rape, but I wouldn't want to go as far as killing them. The state killing murderers or rapists seems more than hypocritical.

Maybe you could say that the lower crime rate is also related to their state.

[forsety]

I don't agree with the Death Penalty system, but I do understand why some people are are all for it; especially, those who have lost loved ones. 
I think the U.S. spends way more money on the death penalty than keeping people alive (if I got my facts right, I think it's right, though). I would much prefer the people to have life sentences in prisons rather than accidentally killing someone who didn't deserve it. 

[Life]

On 1/20/2017 at 7:51 AM, forsety said:

I don't agree with the Death Penalty system, but I do understand why some people are are all for it; especially, those who have lost loved ones. 
I think the U.S. spends way more money on the death penalty than keeping people alive (if I got my facts right, I think it's right, though). I would much prefer the people to have life sentences in prisons rather than accidentally killing someone who didn't deserve it. 

As I said before, the issue with the death penalty is the lack of expediency. If expediency wasn't an issue, the question would then come down to "is it moral or not".

 

For me, I believe that some crimes are so evil that they simply rip the moral fabric of society and require us to do something incredibly unpleasant in order to heal that wound.

[Flee Fleet!]

I'll be honest  here. I don't find the death penalty too cruel as many make it out to be.

 

This is mainly because I don't think all human life is sacred enough to live. Second, some crimes are just too evil, I guess... to be finished with just imprisoning the attacker or terrorist or murderer or whatever. 

 

Thirdly, I think a person who committed several crimes that have mainly involved taking away people's lives, deserves a death penalty, especially if the family of the victims of these crimes would want this to happen.Besides, if the person somehow changes their soul and believes they can become good, they will still have a regretful life, and will probably have to face crap like people calling them murderers, or being scared from them, obviously.

 

Finally, I believe that anyone who continues to commit crimes despite spending several years in jail, deserves death penalty, mainly because it's likely they will stay the same way regardless of their time spent in prison. Otherwise they're just scum that don't deserve to live.

 

 

P.S My English was too awful here, well, I think so, sorry.

[Tryhard]

Depends on if it is indisputable beyond reason. There's a statistic that at least 4% of US prisoners who went to death row are completely innocent.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

When it's someone like Dylan Roof where it is obvious he did it and there's no hope for rehabilitation, then I can understand it.

[Rezzy]

7 hours ago, Flee Fleet! said:

Thirdly, I think a person who committed several crimes that have mainly involved taking away people's lives, deserves a death penalty, especially if the family of the victims of these crimes would want this to happen.Besides, if the person somehow changes their soul and believes they can become good, they will still have a regretful life, and will probably have to face crap like people calling them murderers, or being scared from them, obviously

The law should treat all victims equally, and the families affecting the sentence would be a bad idea.  One instance would be if it's, say a trans person who's been disowned by their family, and didn't have any people around the mourn their death.  A second would be honor killings where it's the victim's family who killed them in the first place.  The government should be the neutral party that stands up for everybody.