I do think its application should be tweaked and streamlined.
I believe it should only be used in the cases to where it is factual that the suspect committed the crime. You know... where the lawyer spends all the energy trying to make you feel sorry for their past and upbringing or tries to get them declared mentally incompetent.
Now, for all the cases in which it is circumstantial. They have to use evidence and detective work and a long accumulation of clues to show that there is a very high possibility that suspect X did it... but it wasn't caught on video, there weren't 4 witnesses who saw them do it... they weren't caught in the act... they didn't find 10 corpses in the guys freezer... etc., if it is circumstantial then life without parole should be the max.
Death penalty should only apply to those cases where they are guilty. Like the guy in Wisconsin that drove his car through a Christmas parade and killed a bunch of people. We know WHO did it. That is the kind of case the DP should be applicable on.
I really don't know. I lean against it because it doesn't even appear cost-effective. It can cost more to execute a convict than to keep them in prison all their lives. On the opposing side though, I've heard it suggested that the threat of the death penalty alone can have some pros that result in more plea bargains and reduce costs that way.
The ideal scenario to me is if we could figure out how to rehabilitate criminals optimally and release them back into society without a high risk of them becoming repeat offenders.
One thing is that none of my thoughts are motivated by hatred or maliciousness even to the worst of criminals. I find hatred and malice to be largely useless emotions that don't help us find the most productive solutions. The question to me is what's best for society and everyone involved, including the convict.
On a psychological note, I don't believe the threat of the severest of punishments to be a particularly good deterrent against crime. After all, we're talking about criminals who are often already risking their lives committing their crimes, and the threat of prison should already be a decent enough deterrent from the punishment side. I think what motivates people more to be good and productive citizens in society comes more from being encouraged to be so and valuing that. So I see it as more about education and encouragement than the threat of punishment.
It really doesn't have to be. There is many fast ways of killing a person instantly, that would be extremely cheap. They just don't leave the body intact.
Only for the most heinous crimes that they can never undo or repay back. Not for something that even though they'll likely never be able to pay back something like stolen money, they should instead be forced to work and pay it back.
Someone who is a child molesters, a rapist or a pre-meditated murderer should get the death penalty because they will do it again if they get out.
I could be convinced to not support it, if life in prison actually meant life in prison, but too many life in prison people get out.
I think there should be a bigger deterrent than just a few years in jail, in England a police officer raped and killed a girl, he should be put to death he was in a position of trust, people that kill children or babies also should be put to death
Voted "No." The purpose of the law in general and the penal system in particular is first and foremost, to protect society, second to punish the guilty and third and least, to reform the criminal if possible. In that order.
Capital punishment, generally speaking, does not seem to afford those benefits. First, it is the surety of punishment, not its severity, that is a deterrent to crime. If an individual is sure that they will be punished, they will likely not act. If that individual believes that they might get away with it, they will likely run the risk.
So in that sense, capital punishment fails its first and most important test. It does not deter and therefore it does not protect the society. Throw in that it applies only in cases of premeditation - crimes of passion are not premeditated - and the range of those whom capital punishment applies becomes proportionately smaller.
Secondly, it is axiomatic that we shape our laws and then our laws shape us. In that context, capital punishment reflects - and is a result of - the society's treatment of life as a means rather than an end. In this it is the parallel of the abortion argument. The planted axiom of liberal abortion laws is that life has no value save that which each individual attributes to it, therefore the law has no proper standing to afford it protection.
Capital punishment is a case of the society deciding that the value of life is contingent rather than absolute. That action decides life's value rather than life's inherent worth. When the society places vengeance over any inherent value to life, it will apt in its larger context to see more of the former and value the latter less and less.
To be sure, in the matter of capital punishment that is at the margins and dealing with decidedly unsympathetic individuals. Arguably the case can be made that "killing the killer" suggests that society places a much higher value on life. However, on balance, the inspiration of capital punishment is vengeance and not justice and thus both the value of life and the value of justice is undermined.
Beyond that, humans are imperfect and there are issues related to failings of the legal system. In the question of justice, the accidental execution of the innocent is not an injustice that can be undone. Indeed, it is what suggests that vengeance - and not justice - is what inspires laws that condone capital punishment.
In short, capital punishment harms society with too few countervailing benefits.
I agree with longs if the crime is full proven to be them. Crimes that have no reasonable doubt. Your stuff like ted bundy would of course be easy to sentence or anyone caught on camera. Eye witnesses are eh because they can be unreliable. I know this from personal experience even.
Any crime with reasonable doubt should never be allowed cause that death of what could be innocent is wrong. So in theory not many would get put on death row realistically but those who do will truly deserve it.
For the right crime, absolutely. Any public shooters, serial killers, child killers, child rapists, first degree murder, murder of any law enforcement or fire fighter or paramedic during the course of their duty, repeat rapists (2 or more), child pornographers, pimps/human traffickers, drug dealers where more than one fatal overdose can be tracked back to the dealer.
Of course stringent irrefutable proof is a must but if any of the above can be proven, absolutely. The perpetrator doesn't deserve to continue to live.
If a man pre meditates hurting a child a woman an animal if a premeditated yes in their life to take it away or the family of the victim should get the last say but insane all of that when somebody does something that horrific I was wanting to stay in jail for the rest of their life killing them isn't going to matter it does matter but that's not good punishment
I believe in an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth but since it’s no guarantee they have the correct perpetrator (framings and or; shoddy investigations) or it’s a case of involuntary man slaughter (which is also murder), life sentence with an appeal option should supersede. There have been cases where appeals have succeeded after a more than 20 year incarceration which wouldn’t be possible if that innocent soul was already wasted.
Here are my thoughts. It should be done away with. They often have the wrong person. It takes years. It costs too much. We have no fool proof way that we all agree upon. who are we to be a God. Lets say we resolve ALL of this? I would rather see that person dwell for the rest of their lives on what they have done in a small lonely cell! Going to sleep is way too easy way out!
@Agagagagaga I do not think I know! Its not just housing cost. Prosecution, public defender, housing a death row inmate cost five times as much as a regular inmate! the court fees again for the state to carry out the death warrant, execution cost the state millions! preparations, drugs, doctors, mortuary service and burial. www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/.../
It’s pretty amazing to me that so many people are comfortable with allowing the government to kill its citizens when it fucks up so many other things. Are you willing to be the innocent wrongly convicted of a crime and put to death? It’s not like that can’t happen.
Why should our tax money be wasted keeping alive a piece of scum that'll never walk the streets again? Put them out of our misery!! Instead of releasing people because of over-crowding of jails, get rid of all the murderers and psychos that'll never be put back into society ever again! It'll also give potential murderers something to think about BEFORE they choose to commit the crime, in the first place!!
yes i think it is immoral to show humanity to all people equally. especially evil people.
violence is not immoral. it is morally neutral; its what you build with it that matters. the death penalty builds a safer society where we respect laws and get rid of criminals cheaply
I have no moral problems with someone being killed for certain crimes. There have been way too many people who have been in prison for years and then later found innocent to implement the death penalty on a large scale. If we had a system with no errors I would be all for the death penalty or forced labor.
I'm for it, for certain crimes, we just have to make sure that the person accused and executed is actually guilty of the crime committed, so rapists, terrorists, murders, people who sexually abuse children.
Looks like the Step-Down Hospital Equipment room I worked at 21-24. I mean not exactly as we had lots of machinery for those Occupational Therapy Fixes 🎯 ♨️
It seems sick. I don't agree with responding to sickness with more sickness. Especially when it's state sanctioned. Theoretically, the state should know better.
No I jus believe in you get what you give, so if a person kills someone, that person should also be killed, the same way, right away, no imprisonment, jus kill.
And if someone steals. Someone should steal something from them... And so on...
I have mixed feelings on the subject, on one hand some people do Heinous crimes and show no remorse and on the other, there have been many innocent people that have been executed and it’s been used as a racist tool in the past as well
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
