Yes. Because it works. It cuts the repeat crime rate by getting sick bastards that do things to deserve said penalty out of the way.

Because it makes things more complicated than need be.

---

But in order to have an opinion on whether or not it is right to kill people for killing, you have to have a moral standpoint to base your opinions on. A discussion like this, in which everyone is coming from different backgrounds and different moral views will naturally bring in a plethora of ideas and beliefs upon which people base their opinions. Religion is something which many people use as a basis for their moral code, and particularly in a discussion like this which has a large moral component can't be discarded or discounted.

Also, at which point did this discussion become not complicated?

@lemony and others: Anyway, on the issue of "Capital punishment works", exactly what are you basing that assertion on? Is there some sort of hard evidence that the presence of capital punishment as a deterrent in society has a significant reduction on the amount of violent crime? That's what I take it to mean when you say it "works", though if you're referring to something else, please elaborate.

My statement is plain logic- sick bastards that get the death penalty, barring voodoo or other things that don't exist in real life, logically can not get chances to become repeat offenders.

Neither can those who are never released from prison, so I reject that argument.

But alright, if that ISN'T what you meant by "working" then let's take a look at it. Does anyone have any hard (or even not-hard) evidence that capital punishment is or is not an effective deterrent? Has any sort of study been done on this?

If no one knows of anything offhand, I'll take a look into it when I have a chance and see what I can find.

If you say so Regy, (about the moral thing. But still, this is exactly the moment I was waiting for)

I don't believe Capital Punishment works. And here is the reason why:

Murders and other crimes punishable by death still happen. The death penalty has been around for centuries. You'd think it would at least take the edge off of crime a bit, perhaps even stop it. But it doesn't. It doesn't work, because people seem to not be scared of it enough to not murder. Thus, it's ineffective.

Now, one would argue that life in prision would be ineffective for the same reason. However, it should exist over capital punishment because if it weren't for life in prision, those crimes that aren't severe enough to be punishable by death may be sentenced, or get a lighter sentence than life. However, removing the death penalty, they still have life in prision, which is a seal on your life anyway.

---

I'm opposed to the death penalty, with the following reasoning:

What if they aren't really guilty? John Grisham's The Innocent Man is an example of this (it's a true story).

---

> No it doesn't. For instance, a drug dealer living in the streets of Chicago has a higher chance of dying any given year than a prisoner on death row from Texas has the year of his supposed execution. In more general terms, the people who are the most likely to commit a crime that would get them the death penalty are also the most likely to die in an even more horrible way.

---

I would never believe anything John Grisham ever wrote were true stories

EDIT: Apparently it IS a true story. Unbelievable...

---

---

I think I pretty much agree with this post. I'm not going to say "all murderers should be killed!" or anything, because there ARE gray areas. Say, for instance, a woman was convicted of murder - but she only killed the person because he had just murdered her husband was was trying to kill her. (I don't know if that would still be classified as 'murder,' but for argument's sake lets just say it would be.) Then there's some other guy, who raped a whole bunch of ten year old girls over the course of several years. Without even taking capital punishment into account, I would personally say that the rapist had committed a more serious crime. So the sentence depends on the type of crime, how severe it was, what the circumstances were, etc. That's why we have a jury and a judge and the court system in general, instead of just having a person go "ok, you murdered someone, you're going to be executed." It depends on the circumstances.

With that being said, I do think that there are some circumstances where capital punishment should be used. However, I also think people need to be VERY careful that an innocent person isn't executed.

I guess my point is that I'm not against capital punishment, but I don't exactly think it should be used all the time - only in extreme situations. But it's hard to define when exactly it should be used. That's pretty much up to the discretion of whoever is doing the sentencing.

---

Make us bitch.

---

Haven't been on for a year....but anyway, absolutely pragmatic and sound thinking. Personally, I don't really care whether it's there or not, but granted that in the postmodernist world we live in, it is undeniable that our time is very fragmented. Opinions and social "norms" change, opinions are allowed to flow freely, and that affects the way people think and feel, especially the younger generation (like, 10 and under). People get confused really easily, and they make mistakes too. I'm not saying that's an excuse to commit a crime, that's more reason to think things over before doing anything, now more than
ever.

Basically, what I"m trying to say is, because there is such a clash of opinions, it's frustrating, and pretty much annoying to live in a world like this, because you start thinking one way, then something comes up and it changes your mind. Such that many people felt suicide is the easiest way to go, and sometimes fuelled by anger and/or the desire to take revenge on the world (which is rare, this is mostly called insanity, and most people in these cases get sent to a mental institute), will try to commit a crime for a sort of justified death by execution. It's a weird and complex thing, so there's just no "logical" explanation for this.

However, the justice system isn't established to help people kill themselves, two main goals of the judicial system are a) to rehabilitate criminals, and b) to act as a deterrent. Killing the criminal does not exactly deter them. It does stop them from commit crimes, but it's not as if they'd know any better, because they're killed. To deter is to stop and prevent, not kill. Ultimately, killing is seen as punishment, not deterrence. Something the judicial system is NOT established for is revenge and punishment.

Finally, I don't really think capital punishment is that much of a good idea, because it is perhaps even more ofa punishment for the criminals to live and look back, and regret forever for what they did, then to kill them off cleanly. Sometimes, that's a bigger punishment than anything. There's no punishment like self punishment by conscience (unless the criminal had no conscience, that's a different story, like Paul Bernardo).

Of course, I see where people who suport capital punishment are coming from. Yes, ther are definitely a considerable amount of criminals who really don't regret anything and are seriously asking to get executed, and otehrs who would lie and say they reformed just for the sake of getting out of punishment, and nothing more. Again, we never know whether they are sincere or not, but if we're not sure, then it may not be such a good idea to kill them off.

Well, good! Get the sick bastards out of the way before they kill someone. My logic still stands- a sick bastard that gets the death penalty, by nature of the laws of physics, does not get a chance to become a repeat offender. You CAN'T deny that, that's just plain logic. People that are dead do not get to kill again.

> The same could be said of life imprisonment. The only difference with the death penalty is that people don't get the chance to kill someone because you've decided to kill someone instead.

---

Thus leading to fact that you yourself would be a murder, Robbie, and no matter what you tell yourself, THAT is an undeniable fact.

---

Murder= The killing of innocents. Murderer =/= innocent. Thus, killing a murderer is not a murder.

lolwat?

---

As far as I'm aware, Murder = Killing, not necessarily of innocents. Therefore, killing a murderer is murder.

---

Where the hell did you get that idea, Robbie? Murder is murder. Killing is killing. There ARE no exceptions.

---

Murder, noun. The premeditated killing of one human being by another.

---

I don't have time to read the entire topic, so I'm going to post my opinion and come back and read the rest later.

I am 100% against capital punishment.

Apparently we (And I say it generally) have the right to kill people, to give death as a punishment, because these people have killed? Death for death? I don't see how that makes any sense. There are reasons why people commit crimes, and I believe that there needs to be a larger emphasis on rehabilitation. Of course, capitalists hate this idea because it requires tax money to fund for these things. After all, it's so much cheaper to just kill people, right? Who cares about getting to the root of what the problem is. I mean, using the death penalty to prevent murder has worked so far, right?

---

That doesn't change my point in the slightest. Murder is murder, and killing is killing.

---

I think he was agreeing to your point, not objecting to it.

---

It was hard to tell, to be honest.

---

Then killing a murderer is murder in itself. Therefore, you, as the executioner, ought to be killed in turn.

Fantastically logical, a chain of killing is started, then.

I haven't read what everyone else has said, so I'm sorry if I'm just repeating what has been said before.

Yes Yes Yes!!! I hate capital Punishment, and I am thankful that I too live in the UK, but they reckon that if were up to a public vote it would be brought back. There are many problems with it, firstly, it is a hypocrisy to kill someone because they are a murderer. Secondly, in a system with capital punishment, it is inevitable that some of the executees will be innocent. Finally, everyone except psychopaths has the ability to repent, so psychopaths should be sent to secure mental institutions, and others should work towards rehabilitation. If their blood is spilt, what is gained?

---

This is a hard debate. I can see a lot of good arguments on both sides, but nevertheless - I think it's fair to say that I am against death penalty. The thought of a government, an institution based on popular opinion, deciding who gets to live and who doesn't - this thought sickens me. No matter how many people deserves death, there are equally many who doesn't. We should eliminate the opportunity of killing any of these. I'm glad we don't have death penalty in these parts.

I was just thinking about this today! Glad this was brought back.



This. Some might argue the family of the deceased want justice, but then think about the MURDERER'S family. They can miss people too. And want justice.

---

Actual, that's justified self defence.
(last seen in case 2-2)

If he tried to attack her, it would be self-defence. If he had only killed her husband and she killed her in a fit of rage, that's murder, but there's special circumstances.

---

Alright, I've read through just about the entire thing, and I'm not gonna quote anyone. I had quite a few eye-roller moments, but that's unimportant, so here's my opinion.

As it has been stated before, the Death Penalty is a necessary evil. Yet, it is also a justified cause. To take a life, to steal innocence, to violently commit an act against a fellow man is horrid. In my honest opinion, we don't have enough executions. Crimes like this occur daily, and we have scum sitting day in and day out in our prisons. I believe banning executions will help us. This is not to say it cause a vicious blow to society but it would definitely hurt us.

Many have stated reasoning for it to be banned. What if they are innocent! Oh he didn't do it! So, I have to ask, how often does this honestly happen? New advances in technology allow great strides into proving whether or not he/she is truly guilty. There are numerous cases where they have found something that supposedly proves him innocent, but I have to wonder... could it be something along the lines of the Number 23? What I'm saying is, whoever is looking again is obviously desperately wanting the criminal to be innocent, so their judgment might be clouded. They'll find evidence that isn't really there. Don't believe me? If you're really looking for something, you'll soon find it. Try it yourself, look for a number in your Address, your Phone Number, etc. You'll find some kind of pattern, but only because you were looking.

Now, the next reason. It's also been stated that those who take the lives of the killers are no better than the killers themselves. How? Is it not justified? I hate to bring religion into this, but is it not forbidden in most religions? Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, all reject it. In Christianity it is even blatantly stated as one of the Ten Commandments, given by god (There may be some who claim that Islam does support murder, but that is a radical interpretation of the jihad [struggle to defend the faith] by Muslim extremists). One point I'd like to make is that, in executions, there commonly are numerous (usually four) executioners, who all do "the deed" at once, so no one truly knows who dealt the fatal shot, injected the killing chemical, or pulled the switch on the chair. If you think about it, they can't consider themselves as true murderers, even though they feel slight guilt that they had a part in it. Do any of you really think that executioners have some joy in what they do, as compared to the people they are relieving from this world?

Next up, insanity, temporary or not. I find this plea to be very ludicrous. Almost 100% of the time, if you are deemed legally/criminally insane, you are sent to a mental institution. I have to say, where is the logic behind this? If their mind is so skewed that they lack all sense of morality that they would purposefully take another human being's life, that's not something that can be "reformed". I know I sound really cruel, but people this mentally retarded or insane, also deserve the death penalty. Not life in a ward. Consider this as well. If someone is horrid enough to do that, they are likely tormented and suffering inside. A torture that we just can't "reform". In some cases, we'd be freeing them from their suffering. I will not lie there are some cases that they knew not what they were doing, and these should be taken into individual consideration. Now, a situation was stated that, perhaps they were violently drunk, and couldn't comprehend what they were doing. This brings me back again, I've seen many people I know get really (and I mean really) smashed, but did they go and kill someone? No, if you're messed up enough where it takes alcohol and you get really violent, then you need to see someone about it before something goes wrong, because when you take a life, you surrender yours.

I agree with those who say a life sentence is a bit ridiculous, if they do something horrible enough to merit a life sentence, then (in many cases) they've done enough to merit CP. It is very expensive to keep a life prisoner for a long period of time. Some have have given the rebuttal that an execution is also expensive. But allow me to put it into perspective here: Let's use some figures (these aren't actual costs just some numbers). Say an execution costs $10,000 to perform, (which I doubt), a lot of money. But consider basic living costs of a year for one person. Food: $2,000, Shelter (Prison) $3,000. Not to mention the likely $20,000 salary for a prison guard. So that adds up to $25,000 for a year, and lets say our prisoner lives for about 50 years in prison. That adds up to $1,250,000. Times the roughly 1.5 Million inmates we had in 1995, it adds up to $1,875,000,000,000 in taxpayer dollars over the course of that fifty years. I know it's not exactly the most realistic figure, but it's likely pretty close. Comparatively, lets say, that there is a rate of 600 executions per year, over the course of fifty years. Comes out to $300,000,000. A lot less money.

I hope I've made a fairly convincing argument, the death sentence is justified and should be used more in our society, and don't you dare try to quote me out of context.

---

If it was a neccisary evil, then Britain wouldn't have gotten rid of it.

---

That's just because the British are silly liberal fools.

Nah, just kidding.

What are you trying to say here Gerk? I said it was a necessary evil, not that everyone has understood or agrees with that yet.

---

I was trying to be like HH or Zuddy, and post a stupid one liner.

On topic, I disagree with Capital Punishment because a miscarrage of justice is a lot more terrible. Since there is no way to completely prevent such things from happening, innocent people will die. Whereas, they'd just be in jail if there was no capital punishment, and could be set free,

---

ya capital punishment is stupid... but I live in Canada so I fdon't have to worry about it, but it still sucks

Wonderful contribution there.

---

I know eh? theres my opinion

EDIT: Since I don't wanna look like a complete tool, I just think killing some one for killing another person has no moral in it and it's murder in its self. I also personally think that getting life in prison is worse because you get to do nothing with your life then basically just rot there forever. Which I personally think is worse then being dead. Also if the person is innocent then they have that possibility of getting out and such since technology is getting better and people can be proved innocent that were once guilty with the advances of technology which is good for them and then they wouldn't end up being killed for no reason. I only agree with capital punishment if its with a serial killer and there is absolute hard evidence that that person is guilty. There's my opinion on the whole matter.

Far more often than you're obviously willing to admit. Ur durr.

---

I said honestly, did you read the entire paragraph? This likely isn't the most common happening, and probably isn't 99% accurate. Read my full post. I never said I wasn't willing to admit anything. I just said that this wasn't very common. Not that it never happend. Ur durr.

---