Is The Death Sentence Really Needed In Laws?

[Joon]

Yeah, that's the point. You're saying it's unethical and cruel to kill them, and then you vouch for keeping them alive because they'll suffer more than way.

It's not really suffering. It's remorse, which they should be feeling.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Who gave us the authority to decide what's worthy of living and what's not? Do you really think it's man's place to be the judge over life and death? Is that not a self given title? It's quite selfish to give ourselves that level of importance.

No one gives us the authority. We take it.

It's not really suffering. It's remorse, which they should be feeling.

You said three posts ago they should be left alive to suffer. Stop the backpeddling.

 

[Deadlift]

Yes it's needed. It's not to be taken lightly or awarded in a hurry but is still needed.

BTW half of your post didn't make any sense and seemed like unrelated rambling. If you have a point in there it's not clear.

Would you like to make your point a bit clearer? Why do you say it's so needed?

OT: No, it's not. First of all it's barbaric. Second it's absurd to kill someone because he killed, and you have to prove to the world that to kill is wrong and therefore you kill who kills. Third it's a huge waste of money, forced labors are way better. Fourth, how do you deal with the condemned's parents? And his wife and kids and whoever loves him? You are punishing lots of innocent people for the wrongs of just a man. Fifth: It's useless, since violent crime rate is higher in places where death penalty is in act.

 

[Joon]

No one gives us the authority. We take it.



You said three posts ago they should be left alive to suffer. Stop the backpeddling.

I'm not backpedaling. If the Prison System is made for rehabilitation, then murders feeling guilty - or remorse - about what they had done is ethical and just (although, in my eyes, it is them suffering). It is better than sending them to their death which is unethical and down right contradicting to law: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.


(We basically legalize murder)

 

[Filosoofis]

There is nothing wrong with the death penalty especially in terrorist cases

 

[-PK-]

It depends on what kind of case we are dealing with.
Death Penalty could suit one, while another case deserves life sentence and another deserves torture.
That depends on the type of crime that was done the kind of criminal we are dealing with.
Some feel remoarse, some don't. So it is kind of complicated.
Only problem with death penalty is killing an innocent.
If there no doubt whatsoever who the culprit is and who shows no remoarse is, just torture or kill.
I am not the one to keep the trash lying around.
Sometimes a quicker solution is better.

(I don't usually post so this post doesn't really convey all my points and isn't well structured)

 

[Mari Makinami]

I believe that only those who are 100% confirmed to have committed the direst crimes should be executed. But on the other hand, sometimes being imprisoned for life can be worse than death.

 

[Jack Spicer]

100% yes. In fact, I think the death penalty should be used more. None of this life in prison jazz. If you kill people, innocent people, or rape children, then sorry, you've lost the right to live. No more time, air, life, or money should be wasted on keeping a monster alive. Maybe I sound heartless here, but that is how I feel. I believe people can change, but not after a certain point. After a certain point, where they take the life of an innocent and feel no remorse, they lose that chance.

 

[kimb]

On average, no. Average time spent on a life sentence:

You must be registered for see links

Average time spent on death row:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

: $900,000 - $1,500,000 (life imprisonment) vs. $450,000 - $750,000 (death row)

You must be registered for see links

.

At first glance, this might make it seem like the death sentence is cheaper, but

You must be registered for see links

. So death penalty cases start off with this huge leap in expenses that more than covers the difference.

So on average, the death penalty does not save any money at all, and is significantly more expensive. Where there are savings, it's pretty minimal. Either way, doing away with the death penalty entirely would definitely save a lot of money (because no more expensive death penalty cases). You gotta ask yourself whether what amounts to personal vengeance is worth so much disproportionate public investment from a judiciary that's supposed to be disinterested and impartial.

Should criminals convicted of capital crimes be allowed to cost the public millions of dollars per case, in addition to the violence and trauma they inflicted with their original crime?

And this is without going into literal miscarriages of justice, like that

You must be registered for see links

The death penalty costs too much and risks too much.

(Argument is based on the way the U.S. does things.)

So from a economic standpoint, a life sentence is cheaper than the death sentence. I already stood against the death penalty because of how unethical it is for the state to have control over who lives and dies, but this is even more backing.

 

[-PK-]

I'm not backpedaling. If the Prison System is made for rehabilitation, then murders feeling guilty - or remorse - about what they had done is ethical and just (although, in my eyes, it is them suffering). It is better than sending them to their death which is unethical and down right contradicting to law: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.


(We basically legalize murder)

Let's say some relative of yours who barely did any wrong in their life and was overall a nice person gets killed in an alley because an alcoholic person needed money to drink?
The criminal gets caught, gets sent to jail, feels no remoarse and gets fed, gets medical care, gets to sleep peacefully yet your relative who deserved all that is no more?
Is it fair?
Would you be okay with that?

 

[Wabbit]

There is nothing wrong with the death penalty especially in terrorist cases

This^^
Some people just deserve to die, to be eliminated from society. Some are to be made examples.

 

[Punk Hazard]

I'm not backpedaling. If the Prison System is made for rehabilitation, then murders feeling guilty - or remorse - about what they had done is ethical and just (although, in my eyes, it is them suffering). It is better than sending them to their death which is unethical and down right contradicting to law: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.


(We basically legalize murder)

Murder is taking the life of another person without a justifiable reason. Executing someone for a heinous crime isn't murder because it's justified.

 

[Itachi Minato]

Only issue I have is you might kill an innocent person. Some people just deserve to die. And killing a murderer doesnt make you the same as them. That's a stupid point

 

[Joon]

Let's say some relative of yours who barely did any wrong in their life and was overall a nice person gets killed in an alley because an alcoholic person needed money to drink?
The criminal gets caught, gets sent to jail, feels no remoarse and gets fed, gets medical care, gets to sleep peacefully yet your relative who deserved all that is no more?
Is it fair?
Would you be okay with that?

That's hypothetical bullshit TBH. Their death solves nothing. It does not bring your parents back. So, it does not matter if they sentence to prison or the death pentaly.

Murder is taking the life of another person without a justifiable reason. Executing someone for a heinous crime isn't murder because it's justified.

In that case, I shouldn't go to jail for murdering of a crinimal.

 

[Kishi Uzumaki]

There's no death penalty in my country ( in Sri Lanka at least death sentences was not carried out after 1976 ) so even ones who sentenced to death spend their time as if it's like sentenced to life in prison even some criminals of underworld who killed many .

and many people here doesn't like the death sentence but there's cases that some people killed more while the first case been heard because they knew they won't be killed and personally I'm thinking it's needed at least to the ones that are ruthless killers, child rapists and killings after rape etc .

 

[Pukkake Pokayo]

I made a thread on this about a week and a half ago. It's about 20 threads below this one and is 7 pages long.

XD

Rapista, serial killers etc deserve it instantly if enough concrete evidence is brought. Waste of resources otherwise.

"Life long imprisonment is worse" Would you prefer they're tortured first then?

 

[Punk Hazard]

That's hypothetical bullshit TBH. Their death solves nothing. It does not bring your parents back. So, it does not matter if they sentence to prison or the death pentaly.



In that case, I shouldn't go to jail for murdering of a crinimal.

Actually you should, as you don't have to authority to carry it out, which makes it illegal, and if anyone can just enact execution on anyone then that'll just lead to disorder and more chaos.

Also, stop calling execution murder. It's not.

 

[Claymantan]

Actually you should, as you don't have to authority to carry it out, which makes it illegal, and if anyone can just enact execution on anyone then that'll just lead to disorder and more chaos.

Also, stop calling execution murder. It's not.

Whether or not the state itself even has the moral authority to authorize the execution of a criminal is a question that we should be asking ourselves. It's not self-evident. If the state can kill, what else does it have the right to authorize?

Just as the U.S. Bill of Rights holds that certain rights cannot ever be denied to humans, it is possible that the right to life is another such inalienable right that the Founding Fathers did not at the time perceive as necessary. Many other countries do however forbid the death penalty based on these grounds.

The law is, ideally, founded upon inalienable principles which are above the state (i.e. the state is accountable to the rule of law, not the other way around), and beyond the capacity for the state to legislate and invalidate. E.g.: The United States cannot unilaterally remove due process, because this goes against the constitutional principle that people are entitled to a trial by jury - regardless of public support for removing due process or for legislative decisions/proposals.

Whether or not we feel that personal vengeance is a justified reason for execution ("threat to society" doesn't really hold valid; if you want to lock somebody up, you can damn well keep them locked up in the modern world), it's irrelevant if the state does not have the legal authority to execute people.

If the state does not have the moral authority to conduct executions, then yes, all state-sanctioned executions are the equivalent of murder.

But this is a grey area (nothing is self-evident), so that's why I mainly argue against the death penalty on the pragmatic grounds of what it actually accomplishes (wasting a lot of money, deterring no crime whatsoever, and providing closure to only a few after a decade or so).

 

[YellowFang]

Yes,
It's mostly based on the equality, you kill somebody, ethically you lost your right to live too. Well, if someone's polite enough to believe in your ability to redeem and takes you off the death row, that's another case.

My take.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Whether or not the state itself even has the moral authority to authorize the execution of a criminal is a question that we should be asking ourselves. It's not self-evident. If the state can kill, what else does it have the right to authorize?

Just as the U.S. Bill of Rights holds that certain rights cannot ever be denied to humans, it is possible that the right to life is another such inalienable right that the Founding Fathers did not at the time perceive as necessary. Many other countries do however forbid the death penalty based on these grounds.

Gonna stop you right here. The right to live is indeed an inherent right. Everyone is born with the right to live. Once you take someone else's life without justification or damage the value of theirs beyond repair(rape, torture, etc.) then you lose this right.

Whether or not we feel that personal vengeance is a justified reason for execution ("threat to society" doesn't really hold valid; if you want to lock somebody up, you can damn well keep them locked up in the modern world), it's irrelevant if the state does not have the legal authority to execute people.

The moral authority means there's no reason it can't be a legal authority, especially when coupled with the logical authority.

If the state does not have the moral authority to conduct executions, then yes, all state-sanctioned executions are the equivalent of murder.

They do.

But this is a grey area (nothing is self-evident), so that's why I mainly argue against the death penalty on the pragmatic grounds of what it actually accomplishes (wasting a lot of money, deterring no crime whatsoever, and providing closure to only a few after a decade or so).

As Joker said before, there's no need for all that. Trials are expensive and a necessity anyways so there's no way to make it inexpensive. Just shoot em.

It's not meant to deter crime, it's meant to provide punishment.