Death penalty. For or against?

Post Reply New Topic

If that was a true statement ie that we have a choice between decent prison conditions and the search for cancer I would still go for the decent prison conditions. Prison should be reserved only for those that cannot live safely in mainstream society. So many influences contrive together to cause someone to rape, murder, torture etc that I often consider the phrase 'there but for the grace of god there go I' of course it has nothing to do with god but the sentiment is the same, if things in my life had gone a little differently who knows it may have been me on the TV.

Recently we had a father throw his 4 year old off a bridge 60 metres high, was he evil? I don't think so, after the act he drove to the family court and begged the security guards to take his other 2 children off him, when arrested he was a blubbering mess. This man cracked, we may never know why. I feel pity for all involved including the father, who knows why he cracked and who knows whether given the right circumstances if we would commit the same act.

The death penalty is wrong, hardship in prison is wrong, imprisoning those that can live a constructive life within free society is wrong.

Our present system of justice is centuries old, it has always had poor results. Inhumane treatment of people who for whatever reason have committed atrocities has a negative effect upon society. Yes we need to be protected from these people, but we also need compassion for them as well, we only get one life and theirs is a mess, they did not ask for the convergence of events that led them to prison.

I am not a Christian but I love the message in the bible of the stoning that Jesus stops, telling those involved that only if they are without sin have they the right to cast a stone.

Oh and by the way if the western world was not carrying out a vicious and murderous war against Iraq there would be plenty of money to fix the prison system, pump billions into cancer research, bail out the finance sector and still be in surplus

Yes, but only some, as opposed to all.

I take a stance of merely observing this debate, as I have very little, if anything, to contribute.

I do not see the point of an extensive prison system at all: There are a few criminals which do by their very nature constitute a real danger for society and which must locked away for the rest of their live. But those are a rare minority within the prison population.

I think the whole concept of "punishment" and "justice" is outdated, illogical and inhuman, nothing else than an institutionalized system of revenge. The idea that there is something like "justice" in punishment I never understood. Crime is a problem and it had to be solved in a way that is cost effective and works. Prisons do neither.

An approach of a "Repair Unit for harmful Behaviour for Others and Society" would be much better.

I would rather replace the primitive and ineffective vengeance-based system of punitive "justice" with attempts to actually rehabilitate criminals so they can be productive members of society.

But that's just me.

I seem to have been misunderstood.

People seem to think I prefer the Death Penalty, over rehabilitation.

If people *can* be rehabilitated, then of course, I prefer that. The case with the father that was described, I don't think he should get the death penalty at all.

Also, Death Penalty for vengeance is wrong. The Death Penalty should only be done in rare cases, the most extreme ones, the people who cannot be rehabilitated, and who would be a danger to society, and even to the people in prison.

But that could lead to a compassionate society, which is prepared to take an objective view on its behaviour towards its less fortunate members, extrapolate this further and you could get a society that is repulsed by the very thought of war



Bloody heck Orwell that's dangerous and subversive thinking

Hm, I must be a thought-criminal.

No you are just a christian that actually identifies with, and attempts live by the teachings of your boss

Mmmmm that probably does make you a thought criminal, best watch out the inquisition will be coming for you

Rehabilitation is difficult for most and impossible for some. Rather than punish I prefer to isolate and separate the most vicious evil doers from the rest of society. I think the French had the right idea with Devil's Island. Basically it was a nearly escape proof prison, but the prisoners were not put to death. They were forced to live apart from normal society, the source of their victims. In the exceptional case rehabilitation might be tried before giving up.

The death penalty is a trivial reduction of isolation. Death is the ultimate isolation from the living. Unfortunately it is irreversible so that errors cannot be undone.

ruveyn

I am against the death penalty in all cases. As far as I am concerned, killing one another moves us in the wrong direction as a species, from a spiritual perspective. Not to mention the fact that our society has not proven it is equipped to consistently and fairly determine who is deserving of CP, and who is not.

As has been mentioned earlier, the experience of imprisonment is a far harsher punishment, particularly for the most violent offenders, than death could ever be. It was stated in an earlier post that "Death is the ultimate isolation from the living". That may be true, but if your concern is the worst punishment, the most retribution sought against an offender, then put that individual into solitary confinement 24 hours a day for the rest of their lives. And then proceed to watch as the very essence of what humanity that they have left erodes from their conciousness. The confinement inflicted upon violent offenders is a form of torture, in my opinion. Even if you drug them to the gills, death would be a release from this existance, and therefore a relief.

As for rehab for lesser criminals, wouldn't that be a utopian ideal? I am all for it. However, when I begin to think of the practical considerations behind instituting a system-wide infrastructure to support rehab, it boggles my mind. These people would have to undergo intensive interventions, all within the context of living amidst a closed-off, violent subculture. It would take a tremendous amount of money and resources to enact such a change. And then, the rehab would have to yield real results - - criminals becoming useful and safe contributors to society.

And I think this option really speaks to the underlying values in our society. We are so very far from embracing any kind of sympathetic treatment of criminals in this way. The reality of the situation is that society just wants them out of the way, by and large. Our actions in the entire justice system reflect that.

I think that having the death sentence is necessary in some circumstances. I think most cases of murder should mean capital punishment. However if the murder was such that it is unlikely to occur again then imprisonment is better, such as a "crime of passion".

Well lets hope that you never get wrongly convicted - Just one of the many reasons why capital punishment is abhorrent

Besides the fact that murder is a rare crime (155 total cases of homicide, including murder and manslaughter in London(1) in 2008). So the likelihood that someone will kill me next year is roughly: 1 : 55'000. But more interesting is that the most cases happen inside the family (2); crimes which are most like done because of passion or emotional distress.

---

(1) http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/index.php
(2) I found that quickly on the number for scotland: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 5850/14170