Capital Punishment, what are your views on it?

Post Reply New Topic

I know this is a rather random topic, but I've been reading about capital punishments, and the method used to carry out capital punishment (which in the United States is primarily lethal injection, which is considered to be the most "humane" method of execution, as opposed to the electric chair, which is used with a lot less frequency now, due to it being considered cruel and unusual punishment). I know capital punishment is a highly controversial subject, but I want to hear your opinions on it.

Personally, when I was younger, I was all for capital punishment. I thought that it was fitting that those who committed extremely violent and repetitive crimes, like serial killers, rapists, etc., deserved to die. They deprived their victims of their lives (or psychologically marred them for life), so wouldn't it be a fair exchange if they were deprived of their lives? That was my train of thought. The same mentality as "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" mentioned in the Old Testament, although Jesus rebuked this rule in the New Testament in Matthew 5:38-39.

I read about the various execution methods, which are: death by electrocution, death by lethal injection, death by firing squad, death by gas chamber, and death by hanging. The last three I mentioned are not even used anymore, and the electric chair is used with much less frequency due to it being considered cruel and unusual, which is a violation of the 8th Amendment.

I honesty believe now that the electric chair is cruel and unusual, as it is passing electric currents through the body, and they run a cycle of small to medium to high shocks). I watched a video that explained what causes death in the electric chair, and it isn't being cooked by electric current. Death is caused by over-stimulation of the brain. When you are shocked by electricity, you feel a stimulus, which is the electricity touching you. The stimulus sends a message to your brain, and your brain registers that something isn't right and it goes into defensive mode. The brain sends a message back to the effected area, registering it as physical pain to protect you from doing it again. That is for one individual shock. If someone was in the electric chair and being shocked, their whole body would be coursing with electricity, and messages would be sent all over to the brain, and the brain would try to respond back. Once the brain is overloaded and can't respond back, it shuts down, causes death.

Lethal injection I am not entirely familiar with, however I do know that they use three chemicals, and the first chemical that is used is a sedative to relax the prisoner before the other two take place. It is a chain reaction, the sedative, then the next chemical, and the final one, which results in death.

Well I'm typing a lot here, so I'll wrap up my opinion. I am now against the death penalty? Why? Well I have many reasons. First and foremost, the death penalty DOES NOT act a criminal deterrent. Criminals will still continue to commit crimes and they won't be scared off by the death penalty. Secondly, I consider the electric chair cruel and unusual punishment, although lethal injection is the main method now. Thirdly, there have been instances where there have been botched executions (although I really don't consider this a reason, consider that most executions are done with great care and efficiency).

Fifthly, it costs MORE to execute a criminal than it does to have life imprisonment, that is a fact. For instance, in Indiana, the death penalty expenses are 38% greater than the total cost of life without parole sentences. Sixthly (I don't know if there are sixthly, I'm just on a roll), I have read that a lot of criminals have said that they would rather die than have life imprisonment. True, depriving one of their life does ensure that they won't commit another crime. However, I consider it psychologically crueler to make a criminal spend the rest of their life in a cell without parole. Think how lonely that would be, they probably would go a little mad too.

Also with life imprisonment, as extremely rare as it may be, there is a slight slight slight chance that the criminal might redeem himself and be rehabilitated. He might accept religion and make amends for his sins, religiously speaking. Of course, under life imprisonment without parole, he would never be an active member of society ever again, but there is a chance for his to try and become a civilized human being.

These are my thoughts, what are yours?

I think it should only be used on serial killers, I know that there have been cases of botched execution and whatnot, but these are rare.

Abolish them --- we do not want an innocent fool who is paid by criminal organization to confess a crime that calls for that!

And yes, I also think the old ideas of work brigades for prisoners can be considered if they can help build the country through hard physical means. (Not torture)

I am for capital punishment for all serious crimes.

You know, serial killers are a tough choice to make as to whether they deserve capital punishment or not. A serial killer is defined as someone who murders 3 or more people in a span of 30 days or more. Now, considering that if a serial killer has killed 3 or more people, logic would dictate that if he or she already killed more than three people, that they are very well capable of killing even more if released back into society.

By this reasoning, one would believe that serial killers SHOULD be executed, because they have shown that they are willing to kill multiple people without any regret whatsoever. Prisons are for both discipline (in the form of taking away certain privileges and freedoms) and rehabilitation. If a criminal shows that he or she refuses to be rehabilitated, then they should be in prison, because they threaten the overall safety of society. However the severity of serial killing seriously puts into question whether serial killers can be rehabilitated.

I don't know, I guess it is a matter of personal opinion. Logic would dictate that a serial killer should be killed, but as I said, I personally believe in life imprisonment without parole.

I oppose capital punishment.

Prisoners should be allowed to commit suicide with the assistance of a doctor. I also think they should be used for experiments, but they would sign consents so it is not against their will.

Omitting the issue of being certain you only execute someone who is guilty beyond any doubt (an important issue by itself), I do not debate the morality of the death penalty when it is used for the most heinous of crimes.

Life without parole is easier only because of the long and expensive appeal process that the convicted have a right to (if they can find grounds upon which to appeal). It is cheaper for pretty much the same reasons and advocacy groups who will fight just for the sake of opposing the death penalty.

However, it is certain that the punishment is needed. It makes no practical sense to sustain people who are such a threat to society that they must be incarcerated for life to protect the general population. More so, criminals commit crime because they don't fear the consequences. So, either up the ante (stiffer penalties) or eliminate the subjects. It's hard to prove how well the death penalty works because you can't prove a negative. There will ALWAYS be people who will do the crime knowing it could lead to their being executed for it. However, there is enough evidence to suggest that the threat of punishment does deter many from doing something criminal. Likewise, we see that as prisons become more like country clubs and not institutions of punishment (to the criminal, losing one's freedom wasn't enough of a deterrent to not do the crime), criminals are less afraid of the consequences of their actions. Some prisons are nicer than public housing for the poor. Think about that.

Define serous crime.

I am totally opposed to capital punishment, but then I am opposed to our present penal system as a whole. I believe that prison should be used only for those who cannot safely live in free society e.g serial killers serial arsonists, paedophiles, serial rapists . This most likely means life imprisonment for those who fit this criteria, any one else convicted of a crime gets very severe community based orders, or a means tested fine

I probably shouldn't step my foot in, but ...

I am opposed to Capital Punishment. For a whole variety of reasons, and I think the OP stated the case well.

While there are a few points I could add ... maybe another day.

I also am opposed to capital punishment. The criminal justice system is too flawed and sends too many innocent people to prison as it is. Just recently someone was found innocent and released after a 30 year term. Two wrongs, as they say, don't make a right. They can put convicts to work to support their keep and then some rather than putting people to death. Death is an easy way out and for those who are guilty, they deserve a long and enduring punishment.

Last edited by Meadow on 02 Jan 2010, 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Capital punishment systems in liberal democracies - especially those in the United States - are very costly and inefficient. It's just too difficult to recouncil such an classically cruel and authoritarian practice with any liberalist legal system. For that practical reason alone it should be scrapped.

When we come to moral reasons - any system that makes a virtue out of vengeance, over-personalizes crime to the extent that attention is drawn away from its structural roots, and is final to the point where any wrongful convictions are unchallengeable, fosters the wrong value system.

The different standards of evidence for the well-financed and those dependent on public lawyers further makes a mockery of the capital punishment system.

It should not be permitted in any developed, first world nation.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 02 Jan 2010, 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think capital punishment is wrong and hypocritical

I'd like to see it used for politicians. I think the electorate should be allowed to select at least two of them to swing every year. Ticket sales for the execution could be used to pay-down the national debt.

You make very good points here, and I agree with almost everything you have said. You said "It makes no practical sense to sustain people who are such a threat to society that they must be incarcerated for life to protect the general population." I agree with that, especially in the sense of serial killers and those who commit extremely violent crimes (like crimes involving the use of torture, physical mutilation, rape & murder, and anything else with extreme sadistic intent), they do not deserve to be housed with the general population. Instead, they should be housed in solitary confinement for the severity of their crimes.
Of course, my beliefs are all personal opinion and are not going to be implemented by prison authorities.

I also agree that prisons are becoming soft on discipline, as you said "becoming more like country clubs, and not institutions of punishment". For instance, someone who had a long sentence, like 40 years to life sentence, might get a consider deduction on his sentence for good behavior and doing charitable work. Prison, as I said, is more about rehabilitation now than it is punishment. But then again, the point of prison is both to punish the offender by stripping away some of personal freedom, AND it is an attempt to try and rehabilitate him/her so that they can go back to society. You are right, criminals won't take the legal system seriously if the legal system is willing to cut them deals in return for their cooperation.

You know, it is a tough situation. Criminals should be punished for their crimes with the suspension of their personal freedoms, and they should be sentenced equally according to the severity of their crimes. They should serve out their sentences in prison. However, if they aren't actively worked on to be rehabilitated in prison, once they get out, they'll continue to lead the lifestyle of crime they lead before. It would be repetitive, and criminals wouldn't learn anything.

However, if they learn that what they did was wrong, and they actively seek to make amends for their crimes by changing their behavior and attitude, theoretically, if they are changed in their time in prison, and realize the severity of their actions, when they get out (if they get out), they might become an active part of society again. Who knows?

Ascan, its good to see we can continue to rely upon you for rational and intelligent thought.

Limited vengeance is insufficient. Crooked politicians and those who send of young people off to dumb wars should be properly roasted while alive in public and eaten by the parents who watched their kids get killed for no reason. With beer and potato chips.