Debate Capital Punishment

With my vote it is now at a tie.

I voted for capital punishment. If you did the crime and then you should pay the time. Plus if the crime is sever enough then kill them off.

Capital punishment isn’t really cruel or “inhuman”. What about the crime that they committed? Wasn't the crime committed cruel or "inhuman?" Humans are the ones that are "inhuman." Is it just murders that get the death penalty or do they kill off the average Joe for tampering with the mail? I would hope just murders or terrorist.

Isn't the death penalty hardily ever done? At least in the U.S. I think it isn’t done that often. Considering one state had finally (a year ago or so) had a death penalty in like ten years.

 

Agreed.

 

I have been thinking a bit more about this lately due to the Green River Killer. Does anyone remember him? When I was kid growing up in Washington State, in King County (where he did his stuff), he was the stuff of urban legends and nightmares. (this was early 80's).

DNA evidence finally wrapped him up, and he just plead guilty to 48 counts of murder. I really wouldn't mind seeing him removed from the planet. Unfortunately he agreed to plead guilty and lead police to the victims in return for life in prison instead of the death penalty.

This man showed no remorse and discussed who he chose and why. just sick.

Of course, one musn't let one's senses be ruled by a single sensational case. I really don't have an opinion, as I can't claim to know all the facts about it.

If it's done away with, it can always be left to the other prisoners (Jeffrey Dahmer knocked off by a fellow lifer for example). That is of course completely uncivilised, but once again I find it hard to feel sorry for the guy.
Musings on Dahmer's demise and the death penalty Someone else's article. Not really my point of view (since I don't have a well fleshed out one), but it is interesting.

 

Death is death, it happens so often it no longer has special sacredness. It happens everyday, so why have a big controversy over the death penalty? it is such a common occurence so why care as to the fate of those we perceive as consummate miscreants acting without conscience? Of course the said statement is really wrong as you cannot ignore that the person who is facing the tide of ignorance is you not some stranger upon the street, but you could be the one who was innocent but now is destined to die a martyr for the perpetrator's sake. We cannot forget that no matter how horrid the crime, it is not always without margin that our judgement was wrong and so was the punishment as well.

The reason I say no to the death penalty is because unless we have absolute certainity in their responsibility, we could be annulling a perfectly innocent person, whilst the real miscreant blends in with society deriding the mistakes of those who try with utmost care to find justice for the victims of his actions. I believe that in order to preserve justice we must take steps to make sure as to the utmost certainity that it is the right choice we make, not in taking for granted that the guility has been punished as assumed by the facade surrounding it. So therefore unless we are 100% sure that the person held in bondage is the right person not an unfortunate person who just was in the wrong place at the wrong time and fit in seemingly with all the circumstances, we should relinquish the right to punish with death, but rather hold onto the hope that their pleas are not lies but could be the reality that everyone else failed to see.

 

Obviously the fact that if we slip up and kill the wrong guy, we can't exactly make it up to him. Additionally, many believe that this would not be right (in that 2 wrongs do not make 1 right)

Furthermore, who are you to say that death has lost it's sacredness? Wars are nothing new, you realize. Nor is murder. If all people were just chucked into a massive garbage pit, THEN maybe you could say it's lost its sacredness.

Does a person not have the ability to change, to reform?

what

Well, la dee fricken da, you answered your own question. Why ask then?!

Essentially right but can be summed up much more easily in this form...

"We can't always be 100% sure, and we can't reverse a mistake that kills."

 

because it was a rhetorical question? FFS he was obviously setting up a fallacious argument that he could then tear down with the second part of his post. I did enjoy seeing you rip into him for the sarcastic first part of his post though

"the said statement is really wrong" - translation: I don't really mean what I just said, I was playing devil's advocate. Now hear why the sarcastic stuff I just spewed is really flawed.

This topic sure does bring out the emotion haha

 

Well hell, we're debating, not writing essays here. Ones argument should be straight-forward and to the point.

 

Generally, I don't favour capital punishment. Like some have said, it's an extreme punishment that has no way of being undone. That said, I do believe that there are some cases where capital punishment is the only sensible choice, not in terms of 'vengeance' or 'justice', but to remove from society a person or persons who threaten it. Questions of morality aside, death is the final solution, one that cannot be circumvented. Our sensibilities may be offended by the thought of capital punishment, but when all is said and done, it does its job: to remove the threat permanently.

The difficulty lies in determining just when the sentence of capital punishment should be implemented. I believe it should be used for perpetrators of heinous crimes, those that cause extreme physical and mental trauma to their victims. By this I mean rapists, serial killers, mass murderers, and repeat offenders of serious crimes. The determining factor should be whether the said perpetrator would be a threat to society while still alive. Jailing them would, in my opinion, be insufficient. What happens if they escape, or if their time is up? You say give the criminals a second chance to redeem themselves, I say you're giving them a second chance to commit the crime again. It is precisely to prevent such a re-occurence that I believe capital punishment should be used.

Not all heinous crimes would be applicable for capital punishment if one were to follow my reasoning. Some crimes of passion should be exempt from it, for various reasons. If a murder (which is considered a heinous crime) is commited by someone who has a grudge against the victim, then it is more than likely that the suspect would not pose such an extreme threat to the rest of society. The reason for the crime has disappeared, after all. Then, the suitable punishment would be the maximum penalty short of death — life imprisonment in most cases.

Rape, no matter the reason for it, should be punishable by death. I admit that I am a bit biased in this regard, being a woman myself, but a crime such as this that shows such a lack of regard for the sanctity and inviolability of another human being deserves no quarter. The rapist has already shown himself incapable of viewing women as decent human beings worthy of respect; even if he is incarcerated for a lengthy span of time, there is no guarantee that his views have changed. The threat will always be there.

With everything that's been said, even perpetrators of heinous crimes deserve due process. A judgement of death should only be reached after intense and careful deliberation.