What do you think about the death penalty

Post Reply New Topic

In Poland, the death penalty has been abolished.

In 1988, a pedophile murderer, killed and raped four boys, for which he received four death sentence.
Unfortunately, our stupid government abolished the death penalty, because they wanted to please the European Union.

At the beginning of 1989, the highest dimension of punishment was the death penalty, the next in order were 25 years of imprisonment, we don have life sentence at this time
Life imprisonment was introduced to the Polish Criminal Code in 1997, as a replacement for the abolished the death penalty.

As the first free government in Poland abolished the death penalty in 1989, this pervert got a penalty of 25 years imprisonment, the highest possible at the time, was released yesterday.

Prime Minister Tusk's government proposed a bill which passed parliament in November. This law provides for the most dangerous criminals who are the greatest risk of recidivism can be placed in a special psychiatric hospital. To make this happen warden before the end of the sentence must file an application in court on this issue. But the court can't examine the request before this guy left prison.
Unfortunately this pervert already out of jail, our retired judge of the Supreme Court, said f*****g stupid thing that court shouldn't condemn a man twice for the same offense, that it is against our Polish Constitution.
As if that bastard was still some human rights, after he raped four boys.

Chief Commander of our, Polish state police, granted gave him 24h protection, so people do not lynched this bastard, and so as not to hurt the other boys.

In my opinion, granting police protection to such a bastard is a mockery and a waste of Polish taxpayer money.

If someone lynch the bastard, it would do just what executioner should have done a long time ago.

According to me, Poland foolishly did that abolished the death penalty after the change of regime.

if the death penalty is effective, then murder or serious crime rates would be far less than those countries that don't have the death penalty.

The empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

Besides, the death penalty seem to be less about satisfying justice and more about satisfying a primordial bloodlust within ourselves. an eye for an eye makes the world blind.

The death penalty is about revenge, not justice. Two wrongs do not make a right, and killing to set an example an example for potential killers, seems a bit ironic. A person risking the death penalty, has nothing to lose, and will thus be more likely to kill both investigators, police officers and witnesses to escape punishment... not to mention the threat he may pose to other inmates or prison guards.

Killing paedophile child killers is tempting, but life (in which case "life" really means life) in prison is a better way to solve the problem.

I believe there are certain crimes to which you don't deserve to live. Willful murder, forceful rape, rape of a child, large scale fraud/embellishment.

There are crimes that are so heinous that you don't deserve to live.

That said, there should be clear and convincing proof you committed the crime. If there is, you should be executed within 1 year of your sentence. Executions should be done by hanging, quickly and painlessly.

You could make it a lot cheaper than life in prison, and even then I don't' care that much. I'd rather spend the extra money and have him put to death than to know he is spending the rest of his life in prison, getting free food, free medical care, free cable tv and relax for the rest of their lives.

They need to feel the pain their victims felt.

The governor in the state of Washington is talking about getting rid of the death penalty as well. He isn't against it he said but his reasons were inmates are rarely executed in their state and it's cheaper to house an inmate for the rest of their lives than putting them to death. Here it's expensive to put someone to death than it is to house an inmate.

Although I have posted at length about my opposition to the death penalty (especially for crimes other than murder, like rape) I have recently come across another argument against it.

This, however, is specific to the United States, as it is a US tradition.

If one has the death penalty as a possible sentence, one needs to have a Death-Qualified Jury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death-qualified_jury

From the Wiki link:

I believe inmates should be executed within a year of their sentence. If you don't have the evidence, life in prison.

I am very aware of the issues of executing an innocent person. Exactly why I believe we need a standard of evidence higher than reasonable doubt to execute. It needs to be clear and convincing. I would make a rule that no death penalty without DNA evidence.

When I talk about fraud, the reason I include it is because fraud can almost be a death sentence. Imagine the old lady who is defrauded out of her money, she now has no money to provide for herself.

I certainly would intent it more for Bernie Madoff level fraud.

Ultimately, these debates on law and crime leave a bad taste in my mouth because they serve to detract from the underlying, root debate.

We ought to worry first on how to raise the least of us before we deal with the worst of us. People are not innately evil; most of these crimes are the product of the problem of poverty and social decay that have not been dealt with. Replace this rotten system and with it will go most of the motives and opportunities for crime.