Death row - right or wrong?

Have just seen The Green Mile and it got me thinking. Today if you live in some American states and are convicted of murder you might be given a lethal injection or sent to the electric chair. Is this right or wrong?

Reply 1

Unregistered

Haz

Have just seen The Green Mile and it got me thinking. Today if you live in some American states and are convicted of murder you might be given a lethal injection or sent to the electric chair. Is this right or wrong?

A mass murderer I would quite happily see fry, and so yes, in certain situations i believe it is right.

Reply 2

Unregistered

Haz

Have just seen The Green Mile and it got me thinking. Today if you live in some American states and are convicted of murder you might be given a lethal injection or sent to the electric chair. Is this right or wrong?

From a perspective that does not claim to ascribe to any metanarrative, bar the rejection of metanarratives themselves, the death penalty seems like rather a strange cultural phenomenon. Why a particular society chooses to kill off a subsection of its population is in many ways understandable, but not necessarily necessary.

Personally, the possibility of an innocent person being executed means that any moral high ground that the death penalty can claim is ultimately without grounding.

Reply 3

Unregistered

A mass murderer I would quite happily see fry, and so yes, in certain situations i believe it is right.

what if your not guilty bro .............................oh ooooooooooooo

Reply 4

Unregistered

Haz

Have just seen The Green Mile and it got me thinking. Today if you live in some American states and are convicted of murder you might be given a lethal injection or sent to the electric chair. Is this right or wrong?

Wrong. Used disproportionately against certain ethnic and social groups anyway so vastly unfair and the risk of it being used against someone who is innocent is too horrific to comprehend properly.

Reply 5

Pencil

16

It's right - but only after two chances and 130% evidence identifying someone as the criminal.

Reply 6

Lucy

I say wrong. Even sometimes when there is '130%' evidence, one piece of evidence can still make everything shown in a different light and by the time it's found the mistake can't be undone. I know it sounds clichéd but we shouldn't have the right to take others' lives when there is the possibility of mistakes being made.

Reply 7

Pencil

16

Ok, so lets say a deranged killer goes into a busy shop with a machine gun. He pulls the gun out and kills around 40 people screaming insane words. Afterwards, he laughs at it and says that he had no regrets what-so-ever...

So, what happens to him?

He's locked up with drink-drivers, Lord Archer and people who don't pay their TV Licence. He's given three meals a day, he gets weekend release, a comfy bed and entertainment facilities. Now, while he's enjoying this, a kind-hearted tramp somewhere is struggling to survive on food scraps.

Reply 8

byb3

8

Haz

Have just seen The Green Mile and it got me thinking. Today if you live in some American states and are convicted of murder you might be given a lethal injection or sent to the electric chair. Is this right or wrong?

Is it cheaper to kill somebody than to keep them in prison for 15 years? It may be expensive to legally kill somebody, I wouldn't know.

Ad

Reply 9

Rich

2

Haz

Have just seen The Green Mile and it got me thinking. Today if you live in some American states and are convicted of murder you might be given a lethal injection or sent to the electric chair. Is this right or wrong?

I would only condone the death penalty in cases of overwhelming evidence (i.e. totally indisputable) and for what the americans call 'first degree murder' (*).

The electric chair though is unnecessarily barbaric and inhumane, there exist far more efficient and humane methods of ending a human life.

(*) The first definition of first degree murder is causing the death of another person with either the intent or knowledge that the conduct will cause death and with premeditation. Premeditation is often described as "malice aforethought," which basically means that you probably considered the consequence of your conduct for at least a second before you committed the act.

The second definition of first degree murder is causing the death of another person while committing or attempting to commit another crime like sexual conduct with a minor, sexual assault, molestation of a child, various drug-related crimes, kidnapping, burglary, arson, robbery, escape from jail, child abuse, or unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle, or while fleeing from the scene where you committed any of these offenses.

The third definition of first degree murder is causing the death of a law enforcement officer in the line of duty while intending or knowing that the conduct will cause the officer's death.

Reply 10

Lucy

Ok, so lets say a deranged killer goes into a busy shop with a machine gun. He pulls the gun out and kills around 40 people screaming insane words. Afterwards, he laughs at it and says that he had no regrets what-so-ever...

You're sitting at home playing with your kids while your wife makes dinner. Suddenly your wife screams and officers charge into the room taking you away. You fit the exact description on the videotape in the shop. At court you realise your punishment, lethal injection.

One year later, new evidence arrives proving actually it's not you who is the deranged killer, it's some cook in the take away next to the shop. Oops oh well you're dead.

Reply 11

Rich

2

byb3

Is it cheaper to kill somebody than to keep them in prison for 15 years? It may be expensive to legally kill somebody, I wouldn't know.

Ad

Hmm... I would say jail for fifteen years is far more expensive. Just think of all of the domestic care, e.g. meals etc.

For an execution, you just have to pay for any materials used (chemicals etc. in the case of lethal injection), a last meal request, a doctor to perform the administration of the chemicals and to officially certify death and maybe some of the paperwork involved would amount to a small cost. This is clearly the cheaper option.

Reply 12

Rich

2

Lucy

Ok, so lets say a deranged killer goes into a busy shop with a machine gun. He pulls the gun out and kills around 40 people screaming insane words. Afterwards, he laughs at it and says that he had no regrets what-so-ever...

You're sitting at home playing with your kids while your wife makes dinner. Suddenly your wife screams and officers charge into the room taking you away. You fit the exact description on the videotape in the shop. At court you realise your punishment, lethal injection.

One year later, new evidence arrives proving actually it's not you who is the deranged killer, it's some cook in the take away next to the shop. Oops oh well you're dead.

A videotape alone does not constitute overwhelming and totally indisputable evidence in my opinion. Videos can easily be modified.

Reply 13

Lucy

rahaydenuk

A videotape alone does not constitute overwhelming and totally indisputable evidence in my opinion. Videos can easily be modified.

Obviously a videotape would not be the only evidence. As Pencil easily simplified his story, I thought I would do the same.

Reply 14

Anna

5

i think the death penalty should not be allowed,because i just think that its too horrible,im quite a sensitive person,so if i was given the death penalty,id totally be scared

Reply 15

Unregistered

Pencil

Ok, so lets say a deranged killer goes into a busy shop with a machine gun. He pulls the gun out and kills around 40 people screaming insane words. Afterwards, he laughs at it and says that he had no regrets what-so-ever...
So, what happens to him?
He's locked up with drink-drivers, Lord Archer and people who don't pay their TV Licence. He's given three meals a day, he gets weekend release, a comfy bed and entertainment facilities. Now, while he's enjoying this, a kind-hearted tramp somewhere is struggling to survive on food scraps.

Enjoy prison? I dont know if you'd noticed this but the suicide rates for prisoners are on the high side which rather suggests that being banged up isnt that pleasant. The case you suggest (and how typical is that of your average murderer, really?) sounds to me, admittedly no legal or psychiatric expert, like he's more in need of sectioning then anything else.

What about someone who has been sentenced to die, in the US disproportionately likely to be of an ethnic minority and poor, who is entirely innocent and has been found guilty due to corruption, incompetence, lying witnesses or whatever? It is not an unknown situation after all. This would be someone who knows he (and its usually a him, women tend not to be put to death so often) has committed no offence and yet is about to be deprived of his life by the state, meaning that even if he's later discovered to be entirely innocent theres not a fuck of a lot anyone can do to bring him back. A far more horrendous situation then the one you describe, if we're going to conduct this discussion on the basis of extreme cases.

Reply 16

Pencil

16

Prisoners should be sent to the army.

Reply 17

Bumblebee3

OP

8

Pencil

Prisoners should be sent to the army.

Surely the army needs people working as a team - I don't see that convicted killers would be an asset in a situation where soldiers are under extreme pressure and need to work well together. Being a soldier isn't just about killing people e.g. peace keeping missions.

I believe that any government sanctioning the murder of a person living within their jurisdiction for whatever reason is wholely wrong. Firstly humans are fallible; a court can never be sure of guilt no matter what the evidence and a court is unfortunately not free from corruption.

Also when we as a society perceive criminals being served the death penalty it lessons the value of life in our eyes IMO. The death penalty says to the people that a group of politicians should have the power to judge and take life. While I wouldn't be sorry if a tree landed on a mass murderer, I cannot support a system that sanctions the taking of his/her life. Apart from the moral implications, it is bad for society.

Reply 18

Xenon

11

I think it's wrong.
Say a guy kills many people, by killing him, you are stooping down to his or her level. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Prison would hopefully prevent the person from going on the streets, without bail. I still think that when they give life sentences, it should be for the prisoners whole lives. I mean maybe the person MIGHT learn, but what if it doesn't. The person is back on the streets, and people might be in danger. I reckon that mass murderer deserves to be jailed for life, literally!

Reply 19

LH

15

Pencil

Ok, so lets say a deranged killer goes into a busy shop with a machine gun. He pulls the gun out and kills around 40 people screaming insane words. Afterwards, he laughs at it and says that he had no regrets what-so-ever...

So, what happens to him?

He's locked up with drink-drivers, Lord Archer and people who don't pay their TV Licence. He's given three meals a day, he gets weekend release, a comfy bed and entertainment facilities. Now, while he's enjoying this, a kind-hearted tramp somewhere is struggling to survive on food scraps.

A mass-murderer would be in a high security prison and would not get weekend release.

Lord Archer was in an open prison.

Drink drivers and non-TV licence payers would usually be fined or would be in a normal prison.

At least the tramp has the freedom to do what ever he wants within the boundaries of the law.

The prisoner can do nothing. He would never be let out of prison, ever. He will spend the rest of his life in a few rooms. Or he could die and it will all be over. Which is the worse punishment?

Death row - right or wrong?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you