the criminal is the bullet fired from the gun of society.
Serial killers are a different story, they're mentally damaged. Because of this punishing them is very difficult. They are in a distinct minority, alhtough their crimes tend to stand out because of their nature. The majority of crinimals however are able to feel empathy and understand the weight of what they have done. It sounds very strange, but frequelty councelling with the victem and crinimal can make the crinimal understand their crime. Often those who commit crimes have distanced themselves from their victems and so don't understand what they've done.
Most criminals are insane, but go to jail anyway. The rest are poor people commiting crimes to feed their families. Only crimes of passion, serial killers, and rap.ists deserve the chair.
human6: Being a psycopath is a medical condition, this is not generally found in normal crinimals. I don't understand your statment that most crinimals are insane, what lead you to this conculsion?
I understand more the last two on your list of people who 'deserve the chair' although I don't understand the crimes of passion part. Wouldn't pre meditated murder be worse?
I meant crimes born out of anger, jeolosy and such, as opposed to say crimes born out of hunger or political feelings.
I'm against it because it's immoral, but it's also extremely impractical. It costs MORE to kill someone than to let them live out the rest of their lives. And before all the pro-death penalty people start screaming about how the actualy process is cheaper, it's just the legal system, the legal system is PART of the process. You can't have the death penalty without a legal system that allows you to challenge it. Otherwise innocent people will start being executed. True, the legal system is backed up and slow, but even if you sped it up a little it would still be more expensive. I would rather rehabilitate these people so that they can put this awful event behind them and contribute to society. It won't work with everyone, but it work with some. But lastly, I just don't think it's our place to decide when people live or die. What doesn't make sense to me is when these so called "Christians" are like, must stop abortions!, but when it comes to the death penalty they're all for it.
The prisons are horrible torture chanbers, they should be abolished. The victim is owed restution, not rehibilitation, or punishment, both are theft.
Morally, rap.ists SHOULD be executed. However, it would be a horrible, horrible idea to legally implement this, as I said before. Some didn't understand what I said. My reasoning is as follows:
Under our current system, a rap.ist killing their victim is a gamble for the rap.ist. Yeah, it removes a witness, but if they get caught they'll be subjected to harsher penalties than if they had not committed murder as well. However, if the penalties for murder and rap.e were both execution, then the rational choice for the rap.ist would always be to murder their victim, because it's not like they can be executed TWICE.
true, I think rap.ists should be ca.strated
Savetheplanet- Sorry, but what did a fetus do to deserve death?
I've never really cared about whether or not the death penalty is fine or not until the execution of Troy Davis a few months ago. This man did not kill this guy and there was evidence to prove it. Yet the state of Georgia refused to hear it, and Troy was executed for nothing.
I didnt bother reading all the comments but pesonally im for it because some actions deserve the death penalty.(if Hitler didnt kill himself do any of really think he would have deserved to live?) Im fine with the death penalty as long as the person in question is guilty without a doubt.
Ok, so a lot of what I'm reading is that SOME criminals are this and SOME criminals are that. Ok, the legal system doesn't just make exceptions all the time. Take for instance, Mark Wiles who was just executed in Ohio on April 18th. At his last clemency it was brought up that he was remourseful for his crime and there was evidence of him having mental problems during his murder. And yet, Ohio didn't listen, and he was executed. If you are going to say only the guilty, only the sadist murderers, only the people who knew exactly what they were doing should be executed, the legal system is going to include EVERY SINGLE CRIMINAL THAT IS GIVEN THE VERDICT "GUILTY." Keep in mind that not every with a guilty verdict is actually guilty. Just like how every person given the verdict "innocent" may not actually be innocent (cough, cough Casey Anthony).
Let me see if I understand your argument- the death penalty should be abolished because it is not applied uniformly.
No, Imaginedangerous, I'm saying that when people say "I'm for the death penalty but only if these people aren't killed and if they only use this type of execution, etc., etc." Then I use the argument that the death penalty is very inconsistant and so basically you either have to be all for it or all against it. There really aren't that many people, who believe the death penalty should be used in every case of murder or rape. But, to be clear, I believe the death penalty should never be used in any case in any country ever.
Yes and no, Imaginedangerous. See usually when I have debates I have counterarguments ready, such as the one above about the death penalty being inconsistant. I want to abolish the death penalty for reasons having to do with money, the moral implications of executing criminals, non-deterence, etc. But when people say something about wanting the death penalty for only the no-doubt-about-it-guilty criminals, I don't really think they realize that that isn't how it works and that innocent people can be killed for the crime of another. Most people only believe the death penalty should be used in certain cases, but the truth is if you aren't the judge or the jury in that courtroom in that state, you can't exactly decide who gets what punishment. So basically you have to be all for the death penalty or all against it. There is no consistent middle and I guess the reason for that is simply because the death penalty is not applied uniformly and thus it is a major unfair flaw in our justice system.
Well, I'll agree that the occasional misconviction is a trdgedy, but it beats having criminals go free. And I don't think true justice can ever be consistant- since every crime has different degrees of seriousness. Of course you can't apply the death penalty to every single conviction. But you also can't apply life in prison to every single conviction, or community service. That doens't mean that they should be abolished.
So you're OK with having an innocent person die because of someone else's crime as long as there are some criminals who "get what they deserve" and die for their crime? See, at that point of thinking, a person's morals really shows how much they care for all of human life.
I think that, although I do see the point of view of the people who are for this argument, that we do not need to take the life off someone, even if they have killed. I mean what if they are innocent are we going to be like "we killed them and they're innocent so what?" People do make mistakes and don't have to be severly punished for it. How do we even allow that, they killed somebody, so we kill them. That's twisted logic in my opinion.
HappySappy: Of course I'm not happy with getting innocent people killed. That means that we need to reform the justice system. That doesn't mean the death penalty is never appropiate. We can't stop doing everything just because we might do it wrong once. What if we put someone in prison for life, they die there, and then we find out that they were innocent? Does that make life sentences wrong?