Capital punishment: is it right to kill the killer?

We have all heard about it. The murdurer getting killed by lethal injection, the drug dealer dying by firing squad.
But is it really up to us? As mature people we all know that two wrongs do not make a right.
There are many reasons capital punishment exists apart from the obvious.
It costs the government ALOT less to have a convicted criminal killed instantly by lethal injection instead of paying for their food and other expenses for life.
Jails are becoming fuller and fuller, its alot more economical to kill a crim for the space instead of building a whole new jail.
Human emotions, who is to say that the guards dont have it in for the criminal?
Now, as people we know that murder is wrong full stop. You can justify yourself for forgiveness but ultimately the act is wrong, to tell yourself its right leads to loopholes, when you start to tell yourself things are right it starts to get messy.
Now reasoning for and against:
It would make people less likely to commit crimes assosiated with the death penalty
Closure for the family
Ridding the country of criminals
BUT
Instead of reducing crimes, it could just encourage criminals to become sneakier. (hence the lowered crime rate)
Killing someone for killing someone is a bit hypocritical.

Also, there have been many cases of people actually being INNOCENT. thas another thing to ponder..
What are we teaching here? Apart from serving their time, arent jails ment to be a place where people are ment to learn from there mistakes?
Instead of focusing on just plain punishment, would crimes be reduced if we had better psycological services in our jails?
But ofcourse, thats not to say that all people will change. But the executioners have alot of blood on their hands..
in a way, arent they just as guilty as the murdurer?
We are killing people for killing people, thats like punishing a child for stealing, only to go do it yourself.
Even though it can benefit the country in some aspects, does that make it ok?

I support Capital Punishment. The reason I see it as some killers deserve to die. A lot of killers have been captured and even made progress. On the other hand a lot have been captured and never shown remorse or even cared to make progress. As well some people just have problems. I do see killing a prisoner like Charles Manson, Richard Ramirez and many others as justifiable to kill. You can't help them, no one want's to take care of them and why would you release them back in public?

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


I agree with you on the terms that many of them do not show remorse for their actions and they are very cold people.
But why kill them instead of locking them up for the rest of there years?
If you think about it, that would be alot more painful than just dying i think.
And even more so, they cant hurt any of the public in jail. So we kill them to keep them away from people?
As much as i think people need to be punished, its hard for me to think its right because in cases it is extremely hippocritical.
If we lived in an eye for an eye society, we all would be slaying our neighbors and stealing crap.
imagine that, you killed my brother so im going to kill you, then that guy gets killed by that persons best friend then the best friend gets killed.. so on.
Not to say that people dont deserve punishment, im just not so sure if we are going about it the right way.
Thanks for your opinion though

reply to post by littlecloud


Well there are numerous reports of criminals and gang members killing in prison and still those people are given life. I mean it's like a dangerous animal that kills other animals and yet people want to imprison it instead of killing it.


As seen in this MSNBC special. You can see why it's more wrong to lock of prisoners for life or a large number of years. Then kill them. Call it hypocritical. But I see it as justice! I don't reward a child for breaking the rules or hurting anyone.

I, personally, do not support capital punishment for many reasons.

Inherently, I do not see where the "threat" of capital punishment does one iota of deterring crime. Do you? Does one who is intent on killing another research whether or not they live in a state where capital punishment exists, whether or not they will "get away with it or not", and whether or not they will be sentenced to capital punishment before committing the murder? If someone is intent on killing, then these thoughts do not enter the picture. Deterrence is a ridiculous argument for those pro- capital punishment.

In reality, the states that carry capital punishment have higher crime rates than the states that do not. The South, predominently the states where capital punishment is legal, has the highest regional murder rates.

It actually costs the states (therefore taxpayers) where it is legal more money than less money to support a capital punishment program in their penal systems.

Yes.

Why should schools go underfunded, children be stuck living in poverty and people all around the world starve whilst these criminals get to spend the rest of their lives with a roof over their head, cable tv & guaranteed meals a day - all at the taxpayers expense?

*puts on sun proof flame suit*

Murder is murder no matter how many coats of paint you throw on it. Capital Punishment is a great of example of that. What we need to do instead of Capital Punishment is: eliminate the possibility of murder (I'm talking all forms) from a genetic perspective. We have the technology. So, we need to suck it up, and start manipulating the human mind through dna. We need to break away from our animal instincts, that primal programming that is behind the fight or flight response, that is behind the thrill of the hunt, and many other aspects of the mind that make murder possible... The best way to do that, would be to somehow discover the process behind which evolution occurs and speed that up, if possible. If that doesn't work, or is not possible, then we have to take responsibility and get out the hammer and nails.

reply to post by Scottoffee


I agree with you there, we should not give our money to them when there are people who need it more and deserve it more.
But are we going about it the wrong way? Why is it we need to end others lives to stop murder.
Also, as someone who posted before you said, where there is capital punishment there is actually higher crime rates.
Maybe we need to do more in an act of prevention instead of a cure, its almost like an easy way out.
But i guess in some cases there is no choice as the individual poses a massive threat to society both socially and financially.
And what about the executioner, imagine writing that down on a resume.

reply to post by sliceNodice


Murder definately is murder, does not matter what else you call it.
But DNA altering? Is that not a bit drastic?
We have animal instincts for a reason, we are in reality still animals
We need to eat sleep and be loved, and these come from our animal instincts.
Then you get our more developed instincts or our 'conciousness'
what do people learn if you just automatically make them not able to murder, life is a learning experience ultimately, so is that not cheating?

Capital Punishment should be a looked at strictly by the numbers and its value to the taxpaying public.

After all, does it cost us more or less to implement, in truth, not in theory?

Aristotle is quoted as saying, "The law is reason, free from passion."

Don't let personal feelings get into this.

I struggle with this myself at times (Fred Phelps, in particular), however, why let the people who kill off the "hook" by killing them after a costly, years long stay in a nice, solitary cell on death row, and numerous, taxpayer funded expensive appeals? That is the reality of capital punishment. The true reality.

Death row, a costly separate wing that is heavily guarded.

They can stay in general population for the rest of their lives with all the other killers and have a roommate or two, confined, no freedom. Crappy food, an hour of sunlight a day. Have fun, pal.

Originally posted by littlecloud
Also, there have been many cases of people actually being INNOCENT. thas another thing to ponder..
What are we teaching here? Apart from serving their time, arent jails ment to be a place where people are ment to learn from there mistakes?

I know if someone committed a horrendous crime towards any of my family I'd want them ripped to pieces then and there, but to keep someone in jail for a long time with their death hanging over them seems a bit of a strange set up. Cruel in a macabre way.

I remember a man who'd done something awful and was on death row for years. This was a famous case but I forget his name. In jail he repented, found religion, and he educated himself to a high degree and worked really hard for causes. He became GOOD. At the last minute someone high up refused to grant him a Whatyacallit?? and he was killed. That was a shame.

Just recently I've been reading about the West Memphis three. They were three teenage boys found guilty of the horrific and very ugly murders of three little boys. Two got life without parole and the third, the ringleader, is on death row.

I believe, and so do thousands of other people, that they're completely innocent of that crime.

www.wm3.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.trutv.com...

If you're ever stuck for a movie to watch try In The Name of the Father. Based on the true story of the Guildford Four. They were accused of planting IRA bombs in London pubs and sentenced to life. The judge told them while sentencing them that if the death penalty were available they would surely have got that. If that was the case then they would already be dead. We would never have known that they were completely innocent all along and that their inocence was covered up for years by police and authorities.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by littlecloud


The reality of capitol punishment is that it is not a means of vengeance. It is not an exercise of an eye for an eye. Capitol punishment is not about "killing the killer".

Capitol punishment is actually a last ditch effort to protect the herd from that which is incorrigible and beyond socialization. It is the act of removing a cancer from the body. It's the modern version of exile.

When we are faced with a person who is so utterly broken or devoid of humanity that they are not capable, at all, of being allowed back into the group because their lack of regard for others is total and pathological , then capitol punishment is the only means we have to protect the many from the one.

Of course, the reality of capitol punishment doesn't always live up to this standard. The innocent are sometimes accused, and killed. Some states have made capitol crimes of offenses that probably shouldn't carry this ultimate penalty - morally speaking. And our sense of justice seems to be far from racially unbiased, judging those with dark skin more harshly than those with light skin.

In theory I firmly believe in the concept of capitol punishment. In practice, I think we have a long way to go before we will have it right in practice.

~Heff

kill em, no 20yrs on death row on our expense.

make sure they are guilty and do it.

bye bye!

the victims relatives and friends have to live without them and they are are watching discovery channel.

too bad.

is this the right answer?

The fundamental problem with capital punishment is that it's statistically inevitable that an innocent person will eventually be wrongfully accused, wrongfully convicted, and put to death for a crime he or she didn't commit. It's happened more than once, and guaranteed to happen again and again.

reply to post by thegoodearth


Yeah, i agree with you.
If i had someone who killed any member of my family i would want them dead. Full stop.
Even though it is hypocritical is there any other option?
I think its a very hard issue to discuss

It's almost a tough thought to entertain.

Well, if there wasn't a death penalty, there wouldn't be much of an example...and we'd be paying so much more to house the murderers, not that half as many are getting the death penalty anymore.

Some murderers are terrified of death, as odd as that sounds.
A good example would be the truck driver that went around killing people, randomly, and then was caught in Wyoming, US.

He said he would fully confess as long as he didn't get the death penalty. He was absolutely terrified of dying even though he had murdered women and got caught attempting to murder a teenage girl with some ninja weaponry.
No, I don't have a link, readers. I don't care about Google. You may do it if it's important to you.

I believe "innocent until proven guilty" should be taken more strongly so that no one wrongfully gets convicted.

There are quite a few holes in the way it's done..

Another great example for this next point would be the time some guy's house got broken into.
He was beaten and tied up in the basement. He managed to get loose and crawl to the neighbors.
He calls the cops...they get down there, get some negotiator person out to try and talk them down.

Long story short, by the time they get the guys that did it, the man's wife and daughter had already been raped and killed...then after, like, 7 years of them being in jail, they're still going to court and still going through the politics of the legal system.

It happens all the time.
It's depressing. I also don't think it should be made out to be a big ceremony. It should be done fast and cheap; a bullet to the head.

I can't really look at it as two wrongs.
It isn't like that of revenge. It's something more. Without it, things could be worse.

I absolutely think it's necessary, but that it should work differently, cheaper.
A lot of people believe that housing them would be a worse punishment.
Maybe it would be...but if that is the case, then it's all the more humane to kill them in stead.


Great post, by the way. One of the most interesting topics covered on here that I've seen yet.

reply to post by Hefficide

Capitol punishment is actually a last ditch effort to protect the herd from that which is incorrigible and beyond socialization. It is the act of removing a cancer from the body. It's the modern version of exile.

When we are faced with a person who is so utterly broken or devoid of humanity that they are not capable, at all, of being allowed back into the group because their lack of regard for others is total and pathological , then capitol punishment is the only means we have to protect the many from the one.

Very well put. Applause to you.

No, no DNA manipulation, no exiling the convicted killer/pedophile (pushing our societies garbage off on someone else) but exactly what you stated. Cut out the cancer in society to protect the rest.

It's my belief society need to take a step UP and take responsibility for these 'creatures' society has either produced, or, are delinquent in stopping.

And no, this does not include keeping these men and women 'protected' on the inside of the prison.
If they're imprisoned, it's right along with everyone else. If society can't take a stand and cut these criminals OUT, someone on the 'inside' can.

So, yes, I agree with capitol punishment. The problem arises only in who deserves the sentence.

It's too bad, in a way, there is no system for the society as a whole to 'vote' on each and every candidate for the death penalty. I know I know, pie in the sky and unrealistic, but I can dream can't I.

peace

Capitol punishment is the only way of placing value on life. 99.9999999% of people know that murder, in many places, is punishable by death; they know the rules. If someone takes a life in a certain way (it varies), they know it might cost them their own life. When they take that life, in effect they have agreed to a contract whereby, if found guilty by a jury of their peers, the state has to fulfill their end of the contract and put the guilty to death if that was his sentence..... because they are too cowardly to do it themselves.

New Jersey's stance for it's repeal of capital punishment is that "Who are we to play God and to determine who lives and who dies?" and "It is up to thier maker to carry out the punishment and not mankind as there are too many prevelant issues to worry ourselves over".

Downside is that it gave a stay of execution to Jesse Timmendequas who in 1994 raped, bound, gagged and murdered 7 year old Megan Kanka got his sentenced reduced to life in jail with no possibility of parole or pardon leading to the passage and implementation of Megan's Law.

I am against the death penalty, because i think if you are depraved enough to deserve it, you are so mentally disturbed that you should be pitied, not hated. Plus I don't see how anyone could think eliminating the death penalty is not progressive.

I also reject the claims that it provides closure for the family or deters - these people are nuts, you can't deter them, and the only thing that will provide closure is time.

Revenge is not justice.