Do you think the Death Penalty is Fair Justice?

"let's not also forget that there are hundreds of innocent people being put to death today who are proven innocent after they are dead."

Uh, where did you get this from? Are you talking about just the US?

Also, I don't think putting people to death actually ends up making people feel better.

im not sure my stance on this as a whole.

but i do know, that if i had commited crime that resulted in either life in prison or the death penalty, id want the death penalty.

LOL. how many threads you create in a single day TC ? =P

The question somehow reminds of some lines in Papillon.

[judge in dream]:You know the charge.

[Papillon]:I'm innocent.I didn't kill that pimp.You couldn't get anything on me and you framed me.

[judge in dream]:That is quite true,but your real crime has nothing to with a pimp's death.

[Papillon]:Well then, what is it?

[judge in dream]:Yours is the most terrible crime a human being can commit.I ACCUSE YOU...OF A WASTED LIFE. THE PENALTY FOR THAT IS DEATH.

[Papillon]:Guilty...guilty...guilty...

I think it depends on the crime.A murder usually is expected to receive death penalty, but I'd say it depends on whom he's murdered.I mean if he'd kill some scum, we might as well thank him.

Whereas I believe rapists should be burnt alive.

I vote no. Life in prison is a fate worse than death. I say let them rot.

I don't really care if a punishment is "fair" or not. Justice systems should be oriented towards maximizing public safety and quality of life, not fulfilling primitive and irrational notions of what people "deserve".

I'd rather that all murders lived than one innocent man get executed which is why I don't support he death penalty. There's just too many innocent people in prison...

@Barbariser: But the real question sparks of whether or not to have freedom and privacy over public safety. It was a big philosophic question mentioned in the Judge Dredd comics since cities were WAY over-populated. Is safety more important than privacy?

going to start a thread on this.

otherwise i do agree with you.

Capital punishment is one of the many punitive measures the US uses to demonstrate to the public how punishing they are toward offenders. It has nothing to do with prevention or "justice", it's mostly political. Rather than curbing the conditions which enable criminal behavior, the state would rather punish the offender severely to illustrate how "tough" or "no nonsense" they are. It's a total farce.

let's not also forget that there are hundreds of innocent people being put to death today who are proven innocent after they are dead.

Referring to a specific country?

No, I think the person should be given life, there's people who later might be able to prove their innocence.

Plus:

Of course.

Child molesters do not deserve to live.Their death should be slow and as agonizing as possible.

The fact that the death penalty still exists is sickening.

I've also been rethinking my views on life without parole, and am leaning towards abolishing that as well.

I'd rather perform seppuku than do life in prison.

i wouldn't rather commit sudoku than life in prison

I don't support the death penalty.

I've never had a problem with the death penalty. Keeping prisons running aint cheap, ya know. And we have 7 billion people on this planet; what's the harm in killing off a few more every year?

To the people who are saying how innocent people are getting killed by the death penalty and that is the reason for it to be abolished: wouldn't the better idea be to improve the justice system and such so that innocent people never get wrongly convicted in the first place?

I'm not against the death penalty, but I don't really support it either.

Today the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to get the conviction for death; if there's even 1% chance the man is innocent they're suppose to get life without parole as a maximum sentence.

For example, Do I think Stanley Williams deserves the death penalty? Yes, he shot a man point blank in the back who was laying down on the ground.

Do I think Aileen Wuornos deserves the death penalty? Yes, she would lie stating men raped her and use that grounds to kill multiple men across the state of Florida.

Do I think someone like Charles Manson should be in prison for life without parole? No, he never committed any crimes other than conspiracy. He also suffers from multiple learning disorders. I feel he should be an some sort of mental institute, but not prison.

No problem with it when the has person committed multiple heinous/really bad crimes like murder & rape & being convicted. Should just be 3 strikes & he forfeit his life to live.

While it could be necessary in some places of the world considering lack of proper prison facilities it shouldn't be used unless necessary. It is vengeance, not justice. Once you've put someone to death you can't undo it, even if it turns out they were in fact innocent. So many people push for it because they are consumed with emotion and want payback for the hurt that has been caused them, not justice.

It actually cost more to execute from my understanding because the death row inmates have to be isolated due to even one slip up by law enforcement they'll probably kill the officers.

For example,

If you ever been to a prison you'll notice police don't carry guns. A police officer might give X-inmate a hard time or disrespect him, and X-mate will remember officer Dick giving him a problems, and when that one day officer dick doesn't watch his back, which is inevitability going to happen X-inmate might retaliate.

Which is why I noticed law enforcement officers tend to respect a man sitting in death row a lot more than someone in your local jail cell.

Special housing + multiple appeals = a lot of tax payer dollars

Also add into the fact lethal injection is expensive, and sometimes physically painful they should probably simply use a bullet to the temple.

Ok.

i'm against it

The death penalty, in a first-world society with the infrastructure to house criminals away from the general public, has no place. It is about, for all intents and purposes, making the victim's family feel better. It doesn't serve any additional purpose, and if it ever is used on an innocent person, then that blood is on the hands of every single member of the society, whether they agree with it or not.

And atrociously, many innocent people have been killed at the hands of the state in the name of "justice" (in the US). The very idea of that sickens me (even as a Canadian). To quote the fictional Rachel Dawes from Batman Begins: "Justice is about harmony, revenge is about making yourself feel better".

Why is it expensive and painful? What drugs do they use?

When they euthanize animals, they give a massive overdose of sedative - quick, painless, peaceful, and inexpensive.

They usually use some sort of Neuromuscular drug, Barbiturate, and Potassium - that cost more than a $0.03 22LR.

If the drugs aren't administered correctly the person goes into the ugly looking shock; resembles a heart attack, and a fish out of water. I assume a heart attack is painful I never experienced one.

Technically lethal injection is against the law because Doctors are breaking their Hippocratic oath to always preserve life, but I guess Uncle Sam makes an exception or there's no supreme court cases on the matter yet. Unless medical doctors are not the one administering the drugs I can see it being legal.

Add all the sterile needles and medical supplies it cost more than a simple military surplus bullet to the head.

I'm fine with it.

The critical factor for me is that innocent people get the death penalty from time to time, and there is way to even partially reverse it, and I am not comfortable with that.

I'm down for the occasional DP

Whether I agree with or not this guy quoted RACHEL!!!, so he gets my vote.

The death penalty is just, and should be used more commonly in murder cases that are beyond in certainty. It is bizarre that most murderers, even the ones we know for sure did it, just get life in prison.

Why does it matter if they're killed or get life in prison?

On the aggregate level, yes, it should.

In that when a system consistently convicts some people that it shouldn't, ideally it should punish them in a manner slightly more reversible than death.

Technically, they should be convicted by a jury based on the same level of certainty

Scaled to the macroscopic level, the certainty that you do not convict innocent people degrades considerably - there isn't a way around that.

Macroscopic...come on, it's a saturday

But yes, I think the point is that their shouldn't be some sliding scale of punishment based on how "certain" people are of guilt. Ideally, if someone is convicted the jury should be certain they are guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt). But yes, on the large scale of the criminal justice system innocent people get put in prison or put to death. And it is the later that quite a few people have an issue with.

Although, my personal objection to the death penalty is that I just don't see how it serves any purpose, especially versus the total cost

I agree that people, individually, should not have their sentences vary due to degrees of certainty.

People against the death penalty should be careful to not fall into traps with their arguments. The moral case should suffice and the day it doesn't that is the day you should start rethinking your position.

So it cost more to execute someone (because of the legal stuff) than to keep them incarcerated. So? So the day it doesn't does that means the death penalty all of the sudden becomes ok?

So sometimes innocent people are executed. So if we have video proof and 100 witnesses is the death penalty is ok?