Death Penalty

How do you feel about the death penalty?

Too harsh? Just right? Not harsh enough?

Many people see the death penalty as unjust or too harsh. If you look at it from a normal point of view, that's been around since the ancient Greeks and Romans, "An eye for an eye". In modern day society, I believe the dealth penalty should be used for only people who murder, rape, both, or goes on a spree either one or both ways. These actions are unmoral and deserve punishment. When someone murders/rapes someone, all human rights of that person is lost, because those actions are unethical. One way of looking at people who do such things, no matter what the reason, is to see them less as a person more as a dangerous, rabid animal that needs to be put down. It isn't wrong to quickly execute a prisoner who has committed such actions and proven 100% guilty.

But then again I cannot judge someone for their actions such as murder, but there's no explaination for rape.

I think it's worthless. It would be better for people to rot their entire lives in prison rather than be killed and never have to deal with the problems of life.

If there is a hell, why send them straight there immediately? Let them live behind bars for some good decades, and then they can die and be sent to hell. That's a better and more humane punishment.

I think it's worthless. It would be better for people to rot their entire lives in prison rather than be killed and never have to deal with the problems of life.

If there is a hell, why send them straight there immediately? Let them live behind bars for some good decades, and then they can die and be sent to hell. That's a better and more humane punishment.

It is, I agree to an extent but we can't have prisons being more crowded and crowded. Soon enough, we'll have to open or expand prisons, which costs alot.

When i was a little boy i watched as my uncle be put to death by electric chair for his role in 13 counts of arson and murder. It was the pivotal point that changed my life and i know this to be true. What i saw through that fogged glass, the arcs of electricity i saw, the smell i smelled, it all played a role in my life. I still have and from time to time i clutch the baby blue baseball jacket he gave me when i was much much younger. I actually went on to write several poems for and of him and what i saw on that day, those are some of the poems that i have excluded from my book of poetry. Aside from him being my blood family i do believe it was necessary, as i remember being a little boy and my uncle and i use to be mad cool mad cool with each other. We use to sit up allllll night and play Mario on the regular Nintendo, you know the one you can't turn off or save? Yea that one it was bad ass actually but yea any way he use to tell me after the first person he killed that he was drunk, he was walking by the home when he had the insatiable urge to burn it to the fucking ground and if i was given a second chance i would do it again and again and again. His words not mine, well upon setting it ablaze the owners woke in a panic where he ruched in to save them to twist the event so that he would be a hero. Well after that arson is when he got the taste in his mouth for more and more so a series of fires took place where he would bind and gag the residence of the house and set it on fire while listening to their screams. This behavior constitutes one to be put down in my eyes, you can not go around harming people that is morally un ethical, so i have to say that i do agree with the death penalty IF the culprit has no remorse and will kill again then yes he/she needs to be put down bottom line.

[/hide][/spoiler]I'm in the US, so anything I state is in my view of the United State's system.

The death penalty, in my view, is a violation of the simplest and fundamental natural right: the right to life. As a society, we pick and choose what philosophies to use and the certain points that they are used. The eye for an eye philosophy is outdated, times change and the interpretations of life should evolve along with that. The only idea that is supported by the death penalty is revenge, you kill this guy and you get killed to serve that man justice. The fact is, you can't give justice to a dead man, it just doesn't work. What we can do is protect our current state of being for those of us still here. Rehabilitation should be focused on in the case of a crime committed, as we advance in the areas of psychology we will discover better and newer ways to rehabilitate those in the potential death penalty situation so they can become a productive member of society.

Another note that can, and is used against the death penalty is costs. It costs less to allow a person to live their life in prison than it does to commit to the death penalty. The death penalty doesn't allow for mistakes (mistakes happen, yet another opposition to the penalty) so legal work is extremely high and can take years. Taxpayers end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in just legal fees, tack on the years spent in prison and the costs of the actual execution and you have a number that wouldn't be easily agreed to if the general public could easily find.

[/hide][/spoiler]I'm in the US, so anything I state is in my view of the United State's system.

The death penalty, in my view, is a violation of the simplest and fundamental natural right: the right to life. As a society, we pick and choose what philosophies to use and the certain points that they are used. The eye for an eye philosophy is outdated, times change and the interpretations of life should evolve along with that. The only idea that is supported by the death penalty is revenge, you kill this guy and you get killed to serve that man justice. The fact is, you can't give justice to a dead man, it just doesn't work. What we can do is protect our current state of being for those of us still here. Rehabilitation should be focused on in the case of a crime committed, as we advance in the areas of psychology we will discover better and newer ways to rehabilitate those in the potential death penalty situation so they can become a productive member of society.

Another note that can, and is used against the death penalty is costs. It costs less to allow a person to live their life in prison than it does to commit to the death penalty. The death penalty doesn't allow for mistakes (mistakes happen, yet another opposition to the penalty) so legal work is extremely high and can take years. Taxpayers end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in just legal fees, tack on the years spent in prison and the costs of the actual execution and you have a number that wouldn't be easily agreed to if the general public could easily find.

Absolutely disagree, i come from a family where many of my family members are killers this is not a prideful moment in my life but truth none the less, You say an eye for an ey is unjust ok i see your logic sure but are you to say that we should house these men and women, feed them, permit them to bathe free men and women or at least with more rights than that of a dead man? Who are we to afford rights to someone who willingly took anothers life? We pay to house them they get three hots and a cot. My uncle I LOVE YOU TO DEATH UNCLE TIMMY. But he was not a good person at all he told me himself if i get the chance i will kill and kill again, we can not permit these kinds of people to partake in activities that are harmful to out society. Tax payers pay regardless of the outcome, the time it takes in housing an inmate on death row until he is executed still cost just as it does to house him for 35 years or until death. I will say however if we would utilize the options we have and that is to pick their brains then we could learn far far far more than just killing them. However in the end a swift hand of justice must be applied. I use to live in the same exact apartment complex as Jeffrey Dahmer, i walked past his apartment in Oxford Apartments everyday to go to school but fortunately for me i was far to young for his taste. Had he kidnapped me, raped me, killed me, then eaten me i would to be another victim but none the less that would still mean that his actions call for a reaction.

I believe it's not harass and used in our system enough. Only a handful of states in US still use this and it's very little. If you are proven for armed robbery, murder, rape and illegal acts such as these, you should be put to death. I'd rather these people die than my tax dollars go to them in prison.

[/hide][/spoiler]I'm in the US, so anything I state is in my view of the United State's system.

The death penalty, in my view, is a violation of the simplest and fundamental natural right: the right to life. As a society, we pick and choose what philosophies to use and the certain points that they are used. The eye for an eye philosophy is outdated, times change and the interpretations of life should evolve along with that. The only idea that is supported by the death penalty is revenge, you kill this guy and you get killed to serve that man justice. The fact is, you can't give justice to a dead man, it just doesn't work. What we can do is protect our current state of being for those of us still here. Rehabilitation should be focused on in the case of a crime committed, as we advance in the areas of psychology we will discover better and newer ways to rehabilitate those in the potential death penalty situation so they can become a productive member of society.

Another note that can, and is used against the death penalty is costs. It costs less to allow a person to live their life in prison than it does to commit to the death penalty. The death penalty doesn't allow for mistakes (mistakes happen, yet another opposition to the penalty) so legal work is extremely high and can take years. Taxpayers end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in just legal fees, tack on the years spent in prison and the costs of the actual execution and you have a number that wouldn't be easily agreed to if the general public could easily find.

Absolutely disagree, i come from a family where many of my family members are killers this is not a prideful moment in my life but truth none the less, You say an eye for an ey is unjust ok i see your logic sure but are you to say that we should house these men and women, feed them, permit them to bathe free men and women or at least with more rights than that of a dead man? Who are we to afford rights to someone who willingly took anothers life? We pay to house them they get three hots and a cot. My uncle I LOVE YOU TO DEATH UNCLE TIMMY. But he was not a good person at all he told me himself if i get the chance i will kill and kill again, we can not permit these kinds of people to partake in activities that are harmful to out society. Tax payers pay regardless of the outcome, the time it takes in housing an inmate on death row until he is executed still cost just as it does to house him for 35 years or until death. I will say however if we would utilize the options we have and that is to pick their brains then we could learn far far far more than just killing them. However in the end a swift hand of justice must be applied. I use to live in the same exact apartment complex as Jeffrey Dahmer, i walked past his apartment in Oxford Apartments everyday to go to school but fortunately for me i was far to young for his taste. Had he kidnapped me, raped me, killed me, then eaten me i would to be another victim but none the less that would still mean that his actions call for a reaction.

I do not claim to support releasing these individuals right back out into society, but the death penalty is not the answer.

As an example, California could save $90 Million per year if it had replaced the death penalty with life in prison without parole. (http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/reports/d...ee1988.pdf) so the idea that we still pay is true, but we don't pay near as much.

The person killed is just that, killed. A dead man has no rights, there is nothing to give the rights to. The said dead individual should not be treated as a living human as they are not a living human. The person receiving punishment (in a perfect society: Rehabilitation) is still a living human and should still have the rights of a human.

I do not claim to support releasing these individuals right back out into society, but the death penalty is not the answer.

As an example, California could save $90 Million per year if it had replaced the death penalty with life in prison without parole. (http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/reports/d...ee1988.pdf) so the idea that we still pay is true, but we don't pay near as much.

The person killed is just that, killed. A dead man has no rights, there is nothing to give the rights to. The said dead individual should not be treated as a living human as they are not a living human. The person receiving punishment (in a perfect society: Rehabilitation) is still a living human and should still have the rights of a human.

The next crippling issue here is population, what are we to do with that many murders when everyone knows that we will house you and not kill you? Build more and more prisons and engulf the land we have already allotted to a free abiding society. As far as saving money in this country yes that is always always a plus however checks and balances must come into effect. At what point do we make a stand and put the foot down as it were. If i murder 13 people will you house me so i can live a comfortable life and KNOW that i will get three hots and a cot at night? After all i am in prison for natural life so my survival is based on the premise that you will feed, bathe and clothe me! If i have any problems with anyone while i am in your establishment then i will just kill then and get them the fuck out of my way and you will continue feeding and housing me. After all what is the worst you will do to me, kill me?