The Death Penalty

[Charles Darnay]

There's a difference between being for the death penalty and thinking people deserve to die. There are plenty of criminals who I think deserve death, the latest being this lunatic who shot up the movie theater.

Actually the latest is the man who shot up the Sikh temple.


I used to be very against the death penalty, and I am have not changed too much. There have been, continue to be, and will always be instances where the judge and jury screw up - they are human, they screw up.The death penalty creates this terrible system of "whoops, my bad....oh well."

That being said, I think there are people who deserve the death penalty - Montreal, Colorado, and Sikh Temple shooter all included. I agree with everyone here who says that it is not a deterrent for such people: it is not. But there is something to be said about justice for the victims families. Let's take the States as an example: there are some convicts who are living better lives than non-convicts in the US. The reality is, unless you are talking about the Turkish prisons, prisons are not inhumane people, so these sick, twisted pieces of **** do not deserve them.

Yes it may cost more to execute than keep in prison, but at least hat money is going towards justice and not feeding the man/woman who killed your child/parent/friend &c.

In short - I am not wholly for the death penalty, but I am glad Colorado has it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And honestly, do you really think anyone who goes on a mass murdering spree is sane enough to think out the consequences? The majority of them plan suicides at the end of it anyway.

I had this exact same thought. Great minds.

Actually the latest is the man who shot up the Sikh temple.

I thought of him, but didn't feel like he was an appropriate example since he was shot dead by police, thankfully.

[stlukesguild]

As a parent I imagine for a moment being the mother of one of those crazy killers and ask myself if I would be standing in line asking for a lethal injection for my child and every time the answer is a loud, resounding no.

Interesting that you would base your position upon thinking of yourself as the mother of one of the mass-killers as opposed to the mother of one of those innocent bystanders killed.

[Delta40]

As a parent I imagine for a moment being the mother of one of those crazy killers and ask myself if I would be standing in line asking for a lethal injection for my child and every time the answer is a loud, resounding no.

Interesting that you would base your position upon thinking of yourself as the mother of one of the mass-killers as opposed to the mother of one of those innocent bystanders killed.

I don't see why. So often people hypothesize if they were the parent of the victim - well anyone can do that and find sympathy but who ever asks if they were the parent of the perp? Let's be realistic on both sides of the coin here. The love for my child and their right to live is going to be far more tested under these circumstances aren't they?

[Alexander III]

I don't see why. So often people hypothesize if they were the parent of the victim - well anyone can do that and find sympathy but who ever asks if they were the parent of the perp? Let's be realistic on both sides of the coin here. The love for my child and their right to live is going to be far more tested under these circumstances aren't they?

I am 100% sure that if I ever became dictator of Italy and decided to exterminate 6 million jews, my mother would forgive me and beg that I be spared my life. A mother shall always stand by the side of her son. I will grant that she is a victim, but she is a victim not of the state but of her son. Lets not blame the state here, it was not the state which decided to buy a assault riffle and go on a killing spree and ruin the lives of dozens or more of families, it was her ****ed up son. Her pain and ruin comes form her son, the state's first priority should be taking care of justice.

The question isn't whether execution is a deterrent or not, but whether it is a better or equal deterrent to imprisonment, and the majority of evidence points to the fact that it is.

What evidence, logically it is only natural that the death penalty, when it is enforced well, is a deterrent. Does your evidence mean the U.S.A, were being on death row lasts about 30 years and those 30 years are pretty cushy?

The removal of death penalties from most societies resulted in no changes to crime rates.

It most likely has to do that when most civilized nations got rid of the death penalty it coincided with a huge wealth increase of the average population. It takes no genius to infer that the wealthier a nations citizens are the less crime. There are far to many variable which are not being taken into account.

Countries that do not have death penalties tend to actually have less crime than those with the death penalty.

Once again, (expect for the U.S.A) think about the countries which do and don't have the death penalty. England, Italy, France, germany do not have the death penalty. Congo, Ethiopia, Chad, Suddan - all have the death penalty. Now are you seriously trying to imply that the only reason the latter countries have more criminality is because of the death penalty? Or are there just a myriad of variables which are completely ignored in most of the studies.

And honestly, do you really think anyone who goes on a mass murdering spree is sane enough to think out the consequences? The majority of them plan suicides at the end of it anyway.

I am in agreement with you here, virtually all of them have severe mental problems and many are willing to die. But the question I ask of you is, even if the death penalty just deterred 1 man out of 500 from going on a mass murder spree- would it not be worth it? Is it seriously heavier on your consciences that 500 mass murderers die, rather than 500 mass murders live in jail and even more innocent civilians get killed? You would prefer the death count be 0 mass murders and 2000 civilians, rather than 500 mass murderess and 1900 civilians. If that is the case, then that is were you an me fundamentally differ. Surely is is only just that when a man is willing to take he life of another innocent man (let alone a woman or child) that he forfeits the right to his own life.

[OrphanPip]

I am in agreement with you here, virtually all of them have severe mental problems and many are willing to die. But the question I ask of you is, even if the death penalty just deterred 1 man out of 500 from going on a mass murder spree- would it not be worth it? Is it seriously heavier on your consciences that 500 mass murderers die, rather than 500 mass murders live in jail and even more innocent civilians get killed? You would prefer the death count be 0 mass murders and 2000 civilians, rather than 500 mass murderess and 1900 civilians. If that is the case, then that is were you an me fundamentally differ. Surely is is only just that when a man is willing to take he life of another innocent man (let alone a woman or child) that he forfeits the right to his own life.

No it wouldn't, it is far more likely that innocent people get executed than a mass murder not be deterred, given the extreme rarity of mass murders.

And besides, even if the penalty was a deterrent I wouldn't approve of it because it is state sanctioned murder. Focusing on punishment is a misguided approach to justice all around; rather than prevent the crime through effective public policy, it just produces a useless system of public appeasement that makes people feel better about the crimes that do get committed.

There are numerous ways to prevent crime that are more effective and don't come with the reprehensible, perverse lowering of society to the level of the criminal.

Once again, (expect for the U.S.A) think about the countries which do and don't have the death penalty. England, Italy, France, germany do not have the death penalty. Congo, Ethiopia, Chad, Suddan - all have the death penalty. Now are you seriously trying to imply that the only reason the latter countries have more criminality is because of the death penalty? Or are there just a myriad of variables which are completely ignored in most of the studies.

One can look at the statistics within the USA, there seems to be little to no effect of death penalty laws. Some of the states with the death penalty have some of the highest murder rates (Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland) and some are amongst the lowest (New Hampshire, Idaho, Utah). At the same time those without the death penalty appear near the top (New Mexico) or way at the bottom (Vermont). It seems that if death penalties deterred murder there would be some noticeable trend.

[stlukesguild]

The question isn't whether execution is a deterrent or not, but whether it is a better or equal deterrent to imprisonment, and the majority of evidence points to the fact that it is.

The removal of death penalties from most societies resulted in no changes to crime rates.

That would seem to be an argument in favor of the death penalty. A quick bullet to the head... a lot faster cheaper than years of incarceration.


Personally I am somewhat ambivalent on the issue. In a great many instances of random mass-killings or serial murderers I almost think a quick death is too good. My own thoughts have also been impacted by an occurrence that struck far too close to home.

A few months back some lunatic killed his entire family at a restaurant just around the block that my wife and I frequent quite often. It seems that the wife had announced that she wanted a divorce. She then took her two daughters, one of whom was celebrating her birthday, out for dinner. A few minutes after sitting down to eat her husband screeched into the parking lot with his pick-up truck. He began circling the building at which time she informed the manager and both called the police. Before they arrived, however, he stormed the restaurant and shot the wife repeatedly with a shotgun. He then hunted the two young daughters (12 & 8) down who were hiding in the women's restroom, and he shot both of them point-blank with the same shotgun. Exiting the restaurant he engaged the police in a gunfight, clearly suicidal, before being killed himself.

Had he survived I cannot think that a quick lethal injection in anyway approached real justice.

[stlukesguild]

I don't see why. So often people hypothesize if they were the parent of the victim - well anyone can do that and find sympathy but who ever asks if they were the parent of the perp? Let's be realistic on both sides of the coin here. The love for my child and their right to live is going to be far more tested under these circumstances aren't they?

So in other words you identify and sympathize more with the murderer and his/her family than that of the victim.

[stlukesguild]

And besides, even if the penalty was a deterrent I wouldn't approve of it because it is state sanctioned murder.

And what is war?

[OrphanPip]

And besides, even if the penalty was a deterrent I wouldn't approve of it because it is state sanctioned murder.

And what is war?

Well that assumes I approve of war.

Edit: And the "is" was a typo it was meant to be "isn't".

[cafolini]

I find this thead lacking any clear thinking and filled with unconscious bit of hatred and revenge.

[Delta40]

I don't see why. So often people hypothesize if they were the parent of the victim - well anyone can do that and find sympathy but who ever asks if they were the parent of the perp? Let's be realistic on both sides of the coin here. The love for my child and their right to live is going to be far more tested under these circumstances aren't they?

So in other words you identify and sympathize more with the murderer and his/her family than that of the victim.

Be realistic. No parent is going to give an objective answer imagining their child bound, gagged, raped and mutilated now are they?

It is however alot harder to be the parent of the killer isn't it? and that's a reality for alot of families who have to travel that road so don't pretend it isn't or it doesn't exist and there is only one side of the story because there isn't.

When weighing up whether I would endorse the death penalty, I ask myself the simple question 'if my child was a killer, would I want them put to death?' Answer? NO! So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander - end of story.

[JuniperWoolf]

Speaking of reactions - I always find it unsettling to see crowds (typically fraternitiy types) cheering and having parties outside the prison during these exuctutions. And the media interviewing people like it's some sort of pep rally.

Right?!? The thing that disturbs me most about the whole issue is the attitudes of "normal" people. When I see people getting all excited over the killing of another human being who yes, has caused immeasurable suffering to other people who you've never met, but who hasn't caused one single ounce of suffering to the person who's reaction to the crime I'm witnessing, it's just... ech... it reflects poorly on their own mental and emotional state, and that of humanity as a whole. They're just the crowd that used to gather to enjoy a good hanging, except now they have to pretend to actually give a **** in order to enjoy the show.

[cacian]

''revenge is a dish served cold'' or so they say and the death penalty is perhaps merging on this saying.
Death Penalty and revenge are not very far out and therefore I think it wrong completely.
Taking a life for another reminds of terrorists taking others' lives and theirs at the same time.

[Alexander III]

Be realistic. No parent is going to give an objective answer imagining their child bound, gagged, raped and mutilated now are they?

It is however alot harder to be the parent of the killer isn't it? and that's a reality for alot of families who have to travel that road so don't pretend it isn't or it doesn't exist and there is only one side of the story because there isn't.

When weighing up whether I would endorse the death penalty, I ask myself the simple question 'if my child was a killer, would I want them put to death?' Answer? NO! So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander - end of story.

But the problem with that reasoning is that you are putting being a mother a more important than being a good woman. I will agree with you that 99% of mothers are first and foremost mothers and then all else, but there is a 1% which I deeply admire which are first and foremost Good Women and then all else, and if their son were a mass murderer they would be content to see him get the death penalty as it would be better for them and him and the victims for his life to end. I think in such arguments as this you can't let subjective personal feelings get in the way of what is just and what is not just, if you do the system of Justice fails as a whole to provide justice for everyone equally.