Is the death penalty still appropriate?

In today's modern Western society, most countries have already abolished capital punishment because of a variety of factors. The one notable exception is the United States, with about 40 executions in 2013.

Aside from being a direct violation of the UDHR (right to life), capital punishment is also completely irreversible. In the case of a wrongful conviction, any other punishment would at least be able to provide some form of compensation, however adequate it may be. With the death penalty comes a sense of finality meaning that no matter what evidence is brought up in the future, nothing will be able to be done about the victim of the wrongful indictment. Cases such as with Leo Jones make me genuinely fearful of the death penalty and the judicial system in general.

NB: These are just a quick amalgamation of my thoughts with no proofreading at all.

Any further opinions?

 

Still appropriate? I'd say so, but it depends on the circumstance. In many cases that involve it, I would rather have that person be in jail for life rather than giving them the easy way out. It's impossible to come to a consensus because many look at the value of life differently.

I don't think the reasoning that we "might make a mistake" is strong enough for abolishment. Capital punishment isn't a one and done deal type procedure. Many cases take years with those sentenced to death waiting in death row for appeals and probable habeas corpus' to be issued.

 

Case by case circumstance; however, people who do despicable things do deserve the worst, and do deserve to be put to death. In a sense, while this may sound very cynical, it is cleansing the population. Now if only the court system could actually do it effectively.

 

I was once a staunch supporter of the death penalty (among other things),but now not so much. I may still myself looking at some crimes and thinking "wow, that person needs to die", but then I think I do not have the right to revoke their life (really my thoughts on life itself has changed drastically).

I'm not one for taking another's life, I am all for punishing an individual for their crimes (within due reason and for crimes that should actually be crimes), but I am not comfortable with ending someones life. There is always room for change, life happens just once, and I do not think we have the right to revoke someone else's life.

 

If they aren't sent to death, they would probably be in jail for life anyways. Would it still matter if they changed? I'm sure many good people have killed others on impulse. It's more punishment than rehabilitation.

 

Well living in jail is living, just heavily confined. Depending on said country jail conditions can vary from hotel-like to horrific conditions. I used to think would life in jail be worse then the death penalty? But inmates often aren't just left in a cell just to rot. There are outlets available to inmates (painting, reading, writing, etc) and just things to do.

I am definitely right-to-die though and if someone is sentenced to life in prison, perhaps they should be given the option to choose the death penalty.

"Good" people can certainly kill other people and prison is definitely more punishment than rehabilitation (that being part of the problem with the U.S. prison system.)

 

Humans do not have the right to decide who is worthy or living, or who is worthy of dying. We were all given life for a reason, and punishment for serious crime, of course, is necessary. This being said, the death penalty is not appropriate at all, and I personally view it as border-line barbaric. It is the type of thing you would expect to see the government conducting in say, North Korea. The death penalty and death row are not appropriate at all. Everyone deserves a second chance...

 

I agree with no human should have the right to decide whether another human should live or die. I think that with laws and rules we do have a responsibility to protect other citizens by separating the people who do do horrible things, but killing in response to killing seems rather barbaric.

 

You can look at this from the other side.As you said noone should have a right to take someones life.Thats the issue with the most death penalty worth crimes.In my opinion, if the court is 100% sure that there will be no mistakes made, death sentence is appropriate for really hard crimes.However if there is some doubt, i think life time jail would be the right decision.

 

It is impossible to be 100% sure of anything and there are plenty of situations where individuals have been convicted of horrific crimes who were later found not guilty. Yes, this includes people who have spent decades in prison and have even been executed.

Furthermore, even if someone has committed said crime, it is plenty possible they believe they were in the right. This could come down to mental illness, or a situation where the individual was scared and thinking irrationally.

For example: Aileen, hailed as the "first women serial killer in modern U.S." was executed. She killed multiple men, but in every scenario she believed she was being attacked and raped. She was tried, convicted, and then sentenced to death so the governor could have a nice example (keeping the death penalty legal was part of his platform). Her execution was incredibly unjust, she was very schizophrenic and needed help. She did not need to be killed.

Convictions are suppose to be made "beyond a reasonable doubt", but again that's not always the case.

 

Recently the death penalty was proposed in my country but was denied. Literally it would be way better because here criminals get a really low time sentence, get out and keep doing the same shit. I think in a country like mine where there is no infrastructure to make a real rehabilitation on criminals, death penalty should be approved, not because it will scare criminal to not commit crimes, but it will then stop the same violent criminals to go out on the streets doing the same. Another option for those criminals IMO, is that they should go into medical trials, experiments instead of the death penalty

 

In a country like my country, such a law will be used to get rid of people they dont want to speak !

I believe no one has the right to take any1 else's life , unless its self defense for your family... not because at some times it isnt fair, but because we have seen corrupted governments all over this world and we should not give them additional power to abuse!!

 

Actually i disagree with what you are all saying. i think it needs to used alot more. this is from personal vendettas a have against sex offenders. if you hurt a child. you dont deserve life anymore. no exceptions

 

There is no deep thought or at least no explanation in this post please do not spam in this subforum.


The death penalty is kind of barbaric and my opinion is very split. Although there are certain people who i believe deserve a punishment worse than death I don't think the government should kill its citizens and I certainly don't want them to kill innocent citizens.

My opinion is mostly formed around some really fundamental principles I have which are that rehabilitation is almost always more statistically effective than only punishment and that the government should never put itself in a situation where it needs to execute civilians. This is not taking into account that many people are executed prematurely before they are found innocent.

But it's a tricky one for sure. When someone is assassinated for doing some really fucked up shit I almost feel good about it but I still think wholeheartedly that the assassin should be punished for murder just like anyone else.

 

My dad is a public defender in california who handles death penalty cases, and he always tries to persuade both the prosecution and defense to accept some kind of plea bargain to allow for life without parole.

His reasoning?

I don't know how it works in other states, but in California, contrary to popular belief (i think?) a judge doesn't just bang his gavel and a week later you are taken to an electric chair.

Death row is the absolute worst prison you can be in. 23 hours a day in a cell by yourself, and three or four times a week you can go to a slightly larger cell, still by yourself for an hour of "recreation".

All the while you are kept in the same company as the worst criminals who have slowly mentally deteriorated over decades, and spend most of their time howling and flinging feces. Once in death row the appeal process will take many many years. You cannot simply ask to be killed. A state appointed appellate lawyer will petition for you whether you want it or not. Simply put by being sentenced to "death" you will enter 10-30 years of extreme isolation and depravation, before eventually (maybe?) being killed.

As opposed to state prison, where in california there are lvls 1-4 (all lifers will start in a lvl 4 facility) -- You stay out of trouble, maybe focus on religion for 10 years, and you can eventually move down to a lvl 3. Lower security ect. Another 5 years and you can find yourself in a lvl 2 facility, which is basically just dorm rooms fenced in. Shower whenever you want , walk around , classes ect and maybe most importantly no one is trying to kill or rape you ( and you don't have to do that either) because most inmates in these facilities are scheduled to be released in >3 years , and politics will have a much smaller role .

I guess I haven't really taken a stance on this issue, but if I did I would have to probably be against just based on never really know for sure , I hope I have provided a little more insight into the options and realities of prison life (?)

Another interesting article that might make you think a bit more about the justice system.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire

 

Death is so harsh, no matter the crime. I feel they deserve it, but also that they don't. Maybe they should be punished with 24/7 confinement by themselves. That ought to be a pretty shitty existence, consistent with a awful crime. Idk how the current system works. So spitballing. That's also a waste of money on a terrible person.

Years ago in school I had a Norwegian transfer student give a presentation on Norwegian prisons. Apparently the prisons are pretty sweet. And even murderers don't have to go away for too long compared to the USA. Also the rate of repeated crime is really low compared. Basically his point came down to the fact that our system here in the US is shit when it comes to results. I was convinced. Although somehow I still think people deserve the punishments they're given.

 

Capital punishment is a matter of a worldwide polemic.
Death penalty saves a lot of money. For example, prison does not have to provide acommodation and food for the prisoner.. Further more, victim's family might feel safer and satisfed knowing the fact murderer is gone from this world.

But yet again, I think life can sometimes be much bigger punishment than death. If we can call life in prison "life" anyways. This is matter of ethics, and ethics will always be discussed, and argued about.

 

I don't personally believe that the death penalty is appropriate, but I'm also very ideological in nature. I don't believe that the government has the right to be the executor of life and death, as that gives the government too much power on a fundamental level over civilians. There has to be a line somewhere that the government cannot cross, and I think complete and utter power over a person's life is that line.

Yeah, there are practical arguments both ways and very few people agree with me for the same reasons, but whatever.

 

This is in the united states.

Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population.

source - deathpenaltyinfo.org

Also they won't be executed for a long , long time

 

So let's take a look at that line of yours.

Complete and utter power over a person's life?

Complete and utter power implies that the government can, at any given moment on a whim, decide to end someone's life. Now of course, I agree that that should definitely be the line the government cannot cross. However, is that what's actually happening? No.

The government doesn't decide to kill someone for the sake of killing them. There are laws, regulations, and precautions set by the government to protect its civilians. If every person is part of the social contract between the government and the people, then they are quite obviously aware of the power the government has over them. By being a citizen of a country then you are voluntarily handing over your rights to be determined by the judicial system. If you don't follow the laws, then you are punished accordingly. If the punishment is death, then why shouldn't it be carried out if you already knew that?

The day a government official knocks on someone's door and kills them for absolutely no reason and then gets away with it, they have complete and utter power over a person's life. Luckily, we barely live in a non-barbaric society so that isn't going to happen.