“To continue to house, clothe and feed them for the remainder of their natural life at taxpayer expense makes a mockery of justice.”
Personally for me, I think that murderers forfeited their right to live the moment they took someone else’s. While I agree that the death penalty cannot be reversed (in cases where people are wrongfully accused), I think that PROVEN murderers MUST and SHOULD be executed. Why should murderers live in relative comfort in prison after taking another persons life in cold blood? In cases where the death penalty is not imposed, I strongly think that they should be forced to partake in penal labour and not live the rest of their lives at the expense of taxpayers.
Thoughts?
STRAITS TIME NEWS: S'pore mum, 30, escapes death penalty, 28-year jail term upped to life imprisonment for scalding son, 5, to death.
No, I do not support the death penalty as it does not serve the purpose it is assumed to. 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. In effect, capital punishment vindicates the ethic of the murderer.
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 you. A prosecutor can bring a capital murder case to court, but after the guilty verdict is given, the judge has the option to sentence someone to life imprisonment if they think there's possible doubt.
In cases where they KNOW someone is absolutely guilty, I have no problem issuing a death sentence to be carried out within 1 year of sentencing. People like Charles Manson, any of the school shooters, Jeffrey Dahmer, and similar cases need to end with a death sentence. Even that POS who drove through a Christmas parade last year in WI needs to have a capital murder case against him, followed by a 1st class hanging. Cases like those have absolutely zero doubt who the perp is. Letting them live the rest of their lives at taxpayers expense is stupid. The last thing I want, is for those idiots to remain in jail, teaching a whole cadre of convicts how to do the "job" when some of them get out of jail.
I also don't care to house and feed known murderous convicts for life. Contrary to popular leftist statements, the death penalty DOES have a deterrent for potential criminals. It definitely removes them permanently, and sends a message the state isn't playing games with handling murder convictions.
Thank you. I keep telling everyone else “when the court KNOWS someone is absolutely guilty” and they don’t get what I mean. They say that’s not how the law works. What you shared is EXACTLY what I think. I fully agree with what you said. Thanks again for sharing. Very well said.
Oh you read that article too? Inhumane sia. I don't know much about the penal code here but im pretty sure nobody wants to see the parents in this case anyway. Plus some death penalties are not considered or waived cuz of the offender's mental health. AFAIK you can request for psycho evaluations and Court might grant them? Also, the sentence depends on the intent of said offender. Intentionally causing hurt resulting in unintentional death is not the same as murder.
But maybe the idea is to let them live with the regret their whole lives, I don't know, rotting in Changi Prison.
Really sickening tho. They didn't even get the boy treated soon enough. I read the original article also. Real disturbing NGL. Original sentence was 27 years 24 strokes (caning) for the father and 27 years 1 year (in lieu of caning, women cannot be caned) for the mother.
I beg to differ. If u saw CNA documentary "life in max security", you'll think twice. It sucks.
And they did not intend on murdering the boy. They intended to hurt him, not resulting in murder. Although he did die. Charge type is based on the intent of the action, but penalty severity may depend the outcome of the criminal action.
Well if u want them to suffer, just send them to Rocky Hill Camp and let 3SIR tekan them there haha.
It’s comfy for a MURDERER 😂 considering that they don’t deserve to live after committing such a heinous crime. I watched the Netflix series “inside the world’s toughest prisons” and you’ll see that Changi prison is considered to be extremely comfortable. Too bad they’re civilians. They’ll not last a week in DB.
Depends Did the Killer Kill someone bad or someone That Has Lived there life trying to be the best version of themselves? If the killer Killed a gang member then I don’t support killing the killer and in my mind the killer will be considered a hero 🦸♂️ for getting someone real bad off the streets murdering Bad people prevents future crime they will commit. But if the Killer kills a Good man That works at a movie Theater cleaning The theater because he likes theaters and thinks People should be able to walk in the theater and enjoy a good movie in a clean place and he wants to be the one to Help make The theater clean then Yes the killer should be Put down. Killers that Kill bad men are hero’s that should be Seen as a hero and never Thrown in jail prison or given death penalty. But Killers that Kill good people should be Put down.
Generally, no. The person who kills has already condemed themselves, not repenting. People will get what they give. No earthly penalty is not a free ticket to continue killing. They that are killed will go to be with God. They that kill taking pleasure in it will lose and infinite gift. There are hard hearts who are determined to kill God's sheep using every excuse to do that. They are a wild lose cannon. They don't have Jesus rulling over them. They need to be slain. I don't like saying that. Some people need to get what they give. Some kill just to kill. Others think they are doing God a service. God is longsuffering with people not wanting anyone to perrish. Some kill, thinking they are guaranteeing Paradice. Muslims do that. They are dangerous people to have around.
Are you saying you believe a few innocents put to death is a risk you’re willing to take? I guess the question is, if you do believe it’s an acceptable trade off, which of your family members are you willing to sacrifice as the innocent wrongly executed? “I think that PROVEN murderers MUST and SHOULD be executed” Every single person found guilty in a court of law is considered to be PROVEN guilty, so this caveat won’t prevent innocent people from being executed.
Absolutely. I believe proven murderers deserve the death penalty. If there is a video captured, DNA proof or otherwise that clearly indicates that the person committed the murder, then they deserve capital punishment.
In cases where we have enough evidence to lock them up, but not enough to 100% confirm without any doubt that the person was the killer, then it should be life without parole.
I also believe in the death penalty for rapists as well. I don't think the punishment for the two worst crimes is enough, and unfortunately there are people who live past their sentence and are released back into society.
US penal system should be better at rehabilitation, and everyone deserves a second chance. Repeat offenders and those who can’t or won’t be helped, with convincing evidence of their crimes could be executed and it wouldn’t hurt my feelings any. Doesn’t even have to stop with murderers. Won’t stop jaywalking? Public hanging. Done. NEXT!
I used to be for it, but I've changed my mind. Yes, it's a lot of expense, to keep them in prison. But it's actually more expensive to put them through a capital punishment trial. Additionally, I think that it's a more harsh penalty to spend your entire life in prison than simply be dead. And then there's the irony about killing people for killing people.
See the documentary of the Furuta murder in Japan, teenagers tortured a girl for 40 days till she died. They went to prison for up to 8 years and after that one even continued to murder.
Thats where every reasonable human being would say, there is no place for such monsters on earth.
Kind a sort a. It should be seen as financial liability. If a guy kills a person he is taking away income from some family may be or not. Actuaries should be able to put number on humans life. If they can say you are worth this much for insurance why not in that case? Intentions motifs and all should be taken in account. Insurance companies should be allowed to regulate penalties to recover their money.
No, supporting it makes you a hypocrite and murderer as well. Plus God said thou shall not kill, it is He that gets a say in when person lives and should die. Only time it's acceptable is when you have to defend yourself or family.
I think for most offenders, prison is more painful than execution cause most of them don't care whether they live or die - they just don't want to live a painful life. They aren't religious people who believe in heaven or hell.
If you kill somebody for a government as a soldier or policeman does that make a killing OK? I understand what the knee-jerk response is going to be, but think about what amount of conditioning it took to make that a knee-jerk response.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
+1 y
I abstain. I'm not for it. But I'm not against it. But I do think anyone against the death penalty should have to house and care for those that would otherwise recieve the death penalty.
The pope is against the death penalty. Well that's fine. I think the Vatican should take all those prisoners and be responsible for rehabilitating them then. They'd be in the right place. Mercy is all around them right?
What possible difference does it make. Whether murderers are given the death penalty or a long prison sentence has near zero effect on me and 99% of the American public.
I see no problem in killing a murderer but the problem is that there is a risk that the legal system is punishing the wrong person and that would make them murderers.
In general yes. Keeping them alive is expensive, carries risk (as most would be dangerous to giards), its a waste of resource when there's a cheap solution to put them down. If a dangerous dog bites someone we put it down.
I do if there is rock solid clear evidence that the person did it like witnesses and camera recordings and if they didn't do it out of self defense or to protect their family let's say burglary.
Executions should be in public and broadcast/streamed on the Internet for all to see. If we, as a society, can't do that, then maybe we shouldn't be executing people.
Sometimes. Other times, like the girl who was trafficked and killed the guy who did it, I do not even support prosecution. For completely unjustified, premeditated murder where the murderer is indisputable, yes.
Alright if we start doing this... those who crave more chaos, especially the woke, will work harder to brainwash everyone into materialism, wipe the idea of an afterlife so nobody would give a shit with their YOLO.
11.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Sure, you can be the executioner. What you miss here is that normal people who kill others, even in legal executions, are badly damaged for life by doing these acts.
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 
Most Helpful Opinions