Death Sentences

@ kafka.
I understand that. But in my hypothetical perfect justice system where you are 100% certain of what happened and there is no corruption, they wouldn't be necessary. I am only talking about my hypothetical perfect justice system. I'm not talking about today's justice system where appeals are definitely needed for the reasons you named as well as others.

So if we could all read the part where I'm talking about my hypothetical system and stop accusing me of things I'm not saying at all, that'd be great.

---

Did I say I showed no interest in their opinions/experiences or anything of that nature? No, I did not. I didn't even say I thought every rapist deserved the death penalty. So again, not shoving words in my mouth is great appreciated.

I personally believe in the death penalty- in VERY extreme cases. For example, there is this man called Ian Brady who was part of the murder and sexual assault of 5 children, afterwards he buried them in the moors. Then he admitted up to it and spent the rest of his life torturing the mother of one of the killed boys over the body's location. He even asks to die and claims he never wanted to be released. What is the point in keeping a psychopathic man like him alive? By being alive, he is hurting the families of the murdered children by sending the police to wrong locations and by giving the families false hope. Also, by keeping him in a secure hospital since 1985- it has cost a supposed £7.3 million. But in a large majority of cases; I'm against it because when a person is dead, you can't bring them back.

However, I also believe that prisons are way too nice nowadays. It has gotten to the extent in which people commit crimes to go to prison, simply because it has better conditions than life on the outside. Prison shouldn't be a place people want to go to, it should be a place to make people suffer for their crimes. That doesn't mean I believe we should go back to the dark ages and leave them to rot in some danky cage. I think we need to council them and educate them; but they don't need all the plush extras, like fancy gyms and TV's. If people realised that going to prison meant no TV, no telephone and hard work- they might think twice before committing a crime.

So that's my 50 cents. Sorry if it's kinda confusing to read.

@ cocoa4ever
Do you have stats for the the number of people who commit crimes to go to prison because it's better? And the number of those people who are on death row?

@ miserable dru.

I don't have stats on the number of people who commit crimes to go to prison because it's better. But I have found a couple of news articles, which detail about the luxury conditions of some prisons:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2178097/Rapists-enjoy-choices-dinner-today-s-luxury-prisons.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4602255/Lag-of-luxury.html
I'm probably being really stupid here, but why do I need stats for the number of people on death row?

@ cocoa4ever
Well, this is the death sentences thread so I assumed your statement linked back to the topic at hand somehow.

As for the luxury of a choice of "five meals"; I hardly consider that a luxury. If someone is going to prison for a choice of "five meals" (which probably suck if they are comparable to the jail food I had while held under false charges) they have serious problems. If they are going to prison for access to TV, they also have serious problems. I found nothing else in your articles I could really consider a "luxury".

@ miserable dru.
Additionally, the sources cites are really not reliable considering both are notoriously right wing.

@ cocoa4ever
Your first source is extremely biased, that's very clear from the way the article was written. The author of the article very clearly holds contempt for all prisoners. I wouldn't really consider that one to be a very factual source at all because of the very biased way it was written. It's more of an opinion piece than a factual story or even a real news story at all.

With that said, since when is food considered a luxury in prison? Yes, it's true some people don't have enough for even a basic meal but that does not mean we should starve prisoners or take away their basic right to religious freedom. Starving prisoners is not the answers to solving the hunger of people in the 'outside world'. Prisoners should have options for their meals if it is because of their religion. We should not be forcing prisoners to consume something their religion forbids them from eating. If we take away the religious rights of prisoners, then we are starting ourselves down a dangerous path. Religious freedom is a basic human right in my opinion and we should not be violating anyone's human rights. Food is a basic human right and it's disgusting enough that we already have people on the outside who can't have that basic human right. Prisoners should be given at least the three 'important' meals of the day. Food shouldn't be considered a luxury in prison because it's not. Reading some of the comments on that article, some of those "suggestions" make me cringe. Most of those people want to go back to the age of torturing prisoners.

Now I don't know how UK prisons are but in the U.S, most of our prisons are very far from "luxurious". Most no one would ever call them luxurious unless those people wanted to go back to the ways of torturing people. Food in American prisons is absolutely horrible, it's hardly fit for human consumption. Many prisoners are sent to isolation for simple things and isolation is a very dangerous thing for humans, we need contact with other people and being isolated can take a terrible toll on a person's mental state. A lot of prison guards are often at least mentally abusive, some even physically. They're just not luxurious at all, American prisoners are more built for punishing people than rehabilitating them.

@ Airi.
Not to mention how privatized the American prison system is. Private citizens profiting from the crimes of others.

The idea of a dude who raped, tortured and/or killed several people being thrown in jail where he eats thanks to tax payers' money disgusts me, especially in a country where thousands of young men and women are denied a college education because their parents aren't rich. Shouldn't tax money help intelligent and talented youngsters build a future for themselves and this country?

Anyways, here in Portugal the heaviest sentence is 25 years in jail, but it rarely is applied. Maybe you've heard of Renato Seabra, the Portuguese male model who murdered an older man in New York. He almost got life in jail for that one crime, while serial killers (here at least) would be out after 25 - or even less - years.

We, as human beings, shouldn't be entitled to choose whether someone lives or dies. Maybe these criminals should work to serve the community rather than have tax money feed them for years.

As far as the death penalty goes, I'm not that crazy person who is screaming in the background for an execution to get started, but there are many cases where I would say...well yes for someone to fall under these cicumstances.

I've been reading a few other comments on lethal injection and others in which many believe that the accused culprit should live in jail mainly to rot.

The way I see it, there are some cases where I would honestly applaude to see someone who committed absolutely horrifying crimes befall that of the death penalty.

Really though, I don't think that's enough for someone who commits intolerable crimes. It infuriates me, really

@ Grotesque.

Then what is the difference between you and the person who commits the crime if you would "applaud"?

@ joan.

Well, I'm not the one having the audacity to take the life of an innocent person.

@ Grotesque.

You're still celebrating the ending of a life, at the end of the day.

And you assume that everyone you execute is "guilty" of the crime of taking the life of an "innocent" person.

@ joan.
Okay then, and where do you stand in this topic if you're obviously not for the death penalty?

All I'm saying is that there are a majority of the cases that I find suitable for an execution.

@ Grotesque.

I am against the death penalty since death does not feel like a legitimate form of punishment.

1. It is not foolproof - there is no way in this world to ensure miscarriages of justice do not happen so there is the distinct possibility of executing an innocent person. This is more disturbing when you consider that you guys still find the Reid Technique as a perfectly legal interrogation technique which is notorious to leading into false confessions.

2. Death is inevitable. Giving someone something that is unavoidable anyway is just nonsensical.

3. It is illogical to punish a murderer by killing them. Even if we go into a simple tit for tat exchange, you can't repeatedly kill someone if they've killed more than once.

4. It cements the concept that they are a martyr in the eyes of twerps who might idolise them.

@ joan.
I will admit, that yes, you do have amazing key points in being against the Death Penalty

Unfortunately, I don't agree with you on being against the death penalty, but of course, we all have our own opinions when narrowing it down just to that.

To me, I couldn't find a better way to punish a person found guilty and yes, there could be a possibility of executing one of the innocent, but, the basic fact is, is that the death penalty is still active. Of course, pros and cons come into effect here. We can say that a pro would be that this would rightfully punish the 'guilty' who have ideally committed something unspeakable of (rape, murder, etc) and then we have our cons which could consist of ethnic discrimination, um, what else, oh, yes like you said, the possibility of executing one of the innocent. Then we do have the main fact that the justice system does treat you better if convicted as a rich and wealthy being than that of one of the poor.

I guess where I'm standing at the moment is mainly the fact that yes, I am for the death penalty in which it may be used only when necessary instead of having everything just spiral out into anarchy or something but as for seeing your cons as well as more cons listed by the ones who also stand against the death penalty itself, I understand that it too goes against beliefs and constitutional rights itself. Justice to me, would be better served with the death penalty actively.

Then again, I also respect your words being against this as well. Like I said, we all have our opinions, this is just how I see it to be portrayed even with the slight hint of all the cons running amok.

Also, can you clarify what you meant when you had said, And you assume that everyone you execute is "guilty" of the crime of taking the life of an "innocent" person.

This discussion is probably long over, but I'm commenting anyway.

I'm against the death penalty mainly because I personally think it's an implication of hypocrisy and a scare tactic the government enforces on the citizens of the US to basically say "You do anything really bad, we'll kill you". My opinion also has to do with my religious beliefs and moral values, but let's just push those two aside for a bit.

Why is the government allowed to say who dies and who doesn't? I am NOT talking about war when I say this (even though all the dozens of bogus terrorist reports the cause drone attacks, killing hundreds of civilians in the Middle East ties into my point) but US citizens and people in general. Did any of you guys know that Congress has the power to kill a US citizen when they have NOT been charged a crime, when they are completely innocent until proven guilty of the crime (that they probably didn't commit) on US soil? I'm hoping those reading this are totally disgusted by this.

So what makes a person in jail any different? Regardless of whatever they've done, they are still a person. Probably a fucking psycho who deserves to rot in a hole, but a person. You don't kill someone to make something right. You don't pretend like murdering another person will make up for the crime they've committed. Like, who are you to say whether or not someone dies? Personally, I'm almost certain the death penalty is instituted because the government can't pay for all the criminals in jail.

As I was saying, we're basically letting people die by supporting the death penalty. People in general are disgusted by murder. Now let's take death penalty supports out of the general population. They still say murder is awful and disgusting and truly terrible BUT they're going to support killing someone.

Because that makes sense.
Because it's not total hypocrisy.
Because, you know, killing someone for killing someone else and supporting it makes the situation better.

That's my opinion. Bring on the hate.

I'm kind of indifferent on the death penalty. Some people do really cruel things and letting them die, well, that's just giving them a sort of freedom isn't it? But at the same time, it costs taxpayers over millions of dollars to keep ONE person in prison a year. I personally would rather have my money go to better things then keeping someone locked up when they've murdered and raped people. I'd rather send them to death row.

But on the other hand? ALL methods of the death penalty are still in play, and that's something I'm not to fond off. I really like the idea of lethal injection and I think that is the only method we need. But some states use firing squad and hanging -- why? Does that make them feel good about themselves?

Madame Stark;:

But at the same time, it costs taxpayers over millions of dollars to keep ONE person in prison a year. I personally would rather have my money go to better things then keeping someone locked up when they've murdered and raped people. I'd rather send them to death row.

Death row... you mean the place in which it costs loads of taxpayers' money to keep people?

@ Alex; periphery.
There's a set price for someone on death row (which recently went down for a regular prison cell), depending on how soon they're set for death. The other prison sentences vary between where they need to be placed and how much special treatment they get.

It would help a lot of it there was less controversy with the death penalty because then perps wouldn't be sitting there for 50 years or so.