Death Penalty: Your Views

Scroll to see replies

How many convicted serial killers do we have walking the streets enjoying their lives?

There are actually a few around the world. Maybe not in places like America or UK, but in countries in South America there are a few.

Reply 181

Everglow

Original post by TheSoulWithin

There are actually a few around the world. Maybe not in places like America or UK, but in countries in South America there are a few.

I'm sure they're not meant to be free. No country willingly let's serial killers loose.

Do you have any examples of these criminals in South America?

Reply 182

TheSoulWithin

Original post by Undisclosed 15

You are inflicting pain for their entire life without the possibility of freedom. You yourself said that it is worth than death, the only thing worth than death is torture.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I wasn't the person that you quoted.

You may be inflicting pain on them mentally but they still have the chance to eat 3 meals a day, have some freedom, talk to other prisoners, keep busy in the prison by getting a job etc. I agree torture is worse than death, but I would still not say that life imprisonment is torture, but it also depends on the state of the prison. Some prisons allow the prisoners to have some freedom in the prison while others don't.

Reply 183

TheSoulWithin

Original post by Reluire

I'm sure they're not meant to be free. No country willingly let's serial killers loose.

Do you have any examples of these criminals in South America?

Erm...yeah. I was wrong about them only being in South America and there are some free in Canada, Kazakhstan, Sweden/Finland. There are also probably more serial killers free.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16998_5-horrific-serial-killers-who-are-free-right-now.html

Reply 184

silverbolt

Original post by Three Mile Sprint

For it for certain offences.

this.

but only if there is irrefutable proof that the accussed is guilty. There can be no doubt.

Better 100 criminals go free that 1 innocent goes to the gallows

Reply 185

Prit B

Original post by superdarklord

Opinions on the death penalty?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Depends

Reply 186

HAnwar

Original post by Wade-

Well firstly if that happened it becomes murder as well not just rape. No I wouldn't be ok with them walking down my road but I'd be ok knowing they're in prison for a long time.

It's one thing for an individual to act barbarically but completely different for the state to do so

Posted from TSR Mobile

In my original comment I said murderers and rapists. I don't think a lot of people would be happy knowing that their offender is in prison, with full cooked meals, having the privileges of TV and so on.

The state should take more extreme measures as it would ensure more protection of its citizens.

Reply 187

Wade-

Original post by Zen Baphomet

Barbarism is more than the act, it is also defined by the intent, state sanctioned justice/revenge is a clinical process, not a barbaric one.

State sponsored revenge, how moral.

Original post by HAnwar

So you meant people who rape and murder not just one or the other? Executing murderers is one thing but to execute a rapist would be disgraceful.

I agree the criminal justice system needs to be made tougher but there's a middle ground before you get to executions

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 188

ForgetMe

I've always been for death penalty but then thought it's an easy option for convicts to escape. Instead, there should be rough punishments that would teach them for life. Prison is not the right solution because some of the prisoners have a better life there than people living outside who have never committed anything in their entire life. For example, prisoners in my country can get free education whilst some people have to pay to get it... That does not seem to be right at all..

Reply 189

HAnwar

Original post by Wade-

Both. Rapists and murderers and rapists who have committed murder.

How would it be disgraceful? What about if the person raped a child? What about if the rapist got a 9 year old girl pregnant? What about if they somehow escaped from jail, and committed this crime again?

And what's the middle ground?

Reply 190

Truths

Original post by HAnwar

Both. Rapists and murderers and rapists who have committed murder.

How would it be disgraceful? What about if the person raped a child? What about if the rapist got a 9 year old girl pregnant?

And killing them would rectify that some how? Chances are wicked people are victims of their environment, a good portion of rapists have been victims of sexual assault themselves. Why kill them when you can rehabilitate them?

Original post by HAnwar

What about if they somehow escaped from jail, and committed this crime again?

And what's the middle ground?

lmao. You're not even a serious person. Here's an even more better question: What if they were falsely accused of a crime they didn't commit? The innocent Brian Banks lost years of his life facing a 41 year sentence of the rape that he wasn't even guilty of. But if it were up to knuckle heads to you he would be dead today right?

Reply 191

Zen Baphomet

Original post by Wade-

State sponsored revenge, how moral.

Agreed, there is nothing immoral about revenge.

Reply 192

RCous

I'm not sure about anywhere else, but in Britain, it costs the country (tax payers money etc) in excess of £40,000 to keep ONE prisoner a year.. So imagine how much a murderer would cost the nation when they're serving a life sentence. Not only that, but some prisons have TVs, games consoles, sky etc (so there's a lot of incentive for the homeless to commit a crime so they have shelter and good food).
I'm pro death sentence, but only for murder and rape and crimes of the same nature, but only in the case where the person is 100% proven guilty or they plead guilty.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 193

ubi1

Original post by superdarklord

Opinions on the death penalty?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Nobody can kill another regardless of what they have done instead throw the criminal in prison for life or something depending on the magnitude of the crime. :redface:

Reply 194

Implication

Original post by RCous

If I recall correctly, it typically costs the state more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life. I mean, just think about it: you're saying that it should be used only in the cases where there is 100% proof of guilt, but even if we assume for a moment that this is possible (it isn't), that kind of trial isn't going to come cost free. And the convict is still going to need to be imprisoned up until their execution.

Reply 195

Implication

Capital punishment is a measure of so-called "justice" that is based on revenge and the idea that "bad" people deserve bad things, and really it's just juvenile. We live in a society now where it is trivial to recognise that individuals are never the ultimate authors of their own actions, and so it just does not make any sense to punish people "because they deserve it."

If we were making the argument that capital punishment should be reinstated because it actually reduces crime rates, acts as a deterrent etc. then that would be a different argument altogether. But, of course, that doesn't add up either: prisoners who are securely locked up are no more able to commit further crimes than if they were dead, and there is obviously more opportunity for rehabilitation. On the deterrent front, there is extremely limited evidence that it works as a deterrent at all and in fact there is some evidence suggesting that it brutalises the population and drives violent crime rates up.

As I say, the state should be aiming to rehabilitate, prevent and protect; not endorsing medieval acts of vengeance.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 196

RCous

Original post by Implication

How can it be more expensive when a murderer, who might for example serve 25 years, would cost the state 25 x 40000? That's a million pounds just for one murderer. From what I've learnt, an execution for one person doesn't cost more than £1 million. And that's only if they're serving 25 years which is roughly what a murderer will serve, but they can be in prison longer.
Well the person could plead guilty. Or what if there was video evidence from multiple different sources all showing the individual to be guilty? I would say that was pretty strong evidence showing the person is guilty.
Yes, but it will be less time than if they were to serve a life sentence.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 197

DarkWhite

What is it with this *******s about it being fine as long as we are really sure that they are guilty?

We already only put people into prison when we are really sure that they are guilty.

If you genuinely think we're putting people we think might be innocent into prison then we have a much bigger problem with our criminal justice system than the level of 'punishment'.

The problem is that mistakes happen, and you can never fully prevent them. We should not risk killing innocent people, as happens quite often with the death penalty.

Reply 198

RCous

Original post by DarkWhite

People are put into prison when they are innocent a lot of the time and have to serve many years before the truth is found and they are released. Just google it and you will find plenty of cases.
Exactly, and you won't be killing innocent people if they admit to doing it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 199

DarkWhite

Original post by RCous

I know innocent people are imprisoned; that's the point. If they were subject to the death penalty, they'd be dead. You can try and make amends if someone is innocently jailed, and you have preserved the sanctity of life; neither can be achieved if you've just shot them.

People have admitted under pressure plenty of times before, or been bribed/blackmailed into pleading particular ways. It's also illogical because if you know that the worst case scenario for pleading guilty is death and the worst case for pleading not guilty is life in prison, then there's no incentive at all to plead guilty, whereas currently you can get a lighter sentence, so everybody would just plead not guilty and nobody would be executed.