The Death Penalty

The death penalty is effectively over in Canada, but it still exists in some places throughout the US and other countries. I think that the death penalty is a valid punishment for some people. Namely, serial killers.

Consider, for example, Ted Bundy:

He escaped custody a few times, one incident involved him jumping out of a second story window and escaping the prison, another when he purchased a hacksaw blade from a fellow inmate (paid for in cigarettes). He continued his spree of raping and murdering women. The actual count remains unknown, but it is estimated to be over 100 (although he only confessed to 30 murders).

Obviously people like him are incapable of remorse (or he would have shown it after being caught) and are a constant threat to society unless they are taken care of. The death penalty does not allow for people to escape after they are subjected to it.

Also, I believe that if people really want someone killed they will be killed regardless of whether the area they are in has a death penalty or not. Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who had raped and murdered several men and boys and cannibalized their remains lived in Wisconsin, which has no death penalty. He was sentenced to 957 years in prison but about a year or two following his arrest the guards left him on cleaning detail with a huge black inmate, and left them completely unsupervised in the gym for about 10 minutes. They came back to find Dahmer dead from damage to his head and face. It's kind of obvious that that was an inside job.

My argument here is that even if a region does not have the death penalty, if it's a notorious enough criminal, they will receive it anyway, and therefore there is no reason why the death penalty shouldn't be an 'official' punishment to be handed out at the discretion of courtroom judges.

 

A failed system which allowed Ted Bundy to escape should be improved, not just equipped to kill the problem. Same goes for your argument about lynch mobs. Killing by the state isn't any more moral than killing by private citizens.

 

How can you base your judgment on one case? Sure there are cases like this, but what about the cases where they are put on death row, and killed only to be found innocent in a few months/years later.

I personally think life imprisonment is the best way, thank god we don't have the death penalty in Australia. It is proven that life imprisonment is CHEAPER than the death penalty, 48% more than average trials for life imprisonment. Then at least if the defendant is guilty they at least have a shot of appealing and bring forward their case.

Ref: Death Penalty costs

 

I think they should just do the "one shot wonder" execution style. If they need to be killed come over to my house .410 with more than a billions of bullets

 

So what you're saying is that because Teddy didn't like his sentence and decided to 'beat the system' and escape justice, the prison is responsible to hunt him down and return him to his cell? I'm sure that after they learned of how he managed to escape (each time), they made sure to prevent anyone from escaping that way again. Ted showed that he would continue trying to escape and keep on killing, why should people bother to return him? Even if they managed to keep him locked up, he would have been killed by other inmates eventually. No one likes people who commit crimes against women and/or children, and rapists are usually eventually killed by other inmates when in prison.

 

I still think that not enough blame is placed on the people who let him escape.

How does a man escape from prison 3 times without the guards thinking he is a fucking danger and needs extra caution? It's ridiculous, and not a fair representation of most felons.

 

I agree, make them rot.

Or if it were the death penalty, kill them the same way the killed the victim.

 

as long as its not cruel or unusual, then go ahead.

 

Simple answer:

Man does not have the right to decide when ones physical actions should end their life, or the life of another.

Its up to God.

 

In a secular society, for the governing body to take you seriously, you must have secular reasons for your conclusion on this matter.

 

Where do we draw the line on how much power we want our government to have? Honestly, I'm undecided on this subject

 

The Death Penalty is a lot more humane then prisoning someone for the rest of their life.

 

Don't be so ignorant, the death penalty is a SERIOUS thing, not some 'fly-by joke operation' of the government!

My only opinion of the Death Penalty is this, if they escape,harm anyone in jail,threaten an officer more than twice OR attempt escape, The Death Penalty belongs. Sadly for the family members of the party on trail, this would be an unquestionable punishment.

 

i agree with macroman

 

It's natural to do this, but you underestimated Bundy. He was an extremely intelligent killer, and a stellar law student before his arrest(s). But yeah, given that, I suppose he should have been kept under a close watch in the first place.

How do you know many people contemplating murder or other crimes worthy of the death penatly have decided not to, to avoid being killed for it?

The law =/= religion. You and I both live in secular societies.

Since when is the law interested in revenge? The death penalty acts both as a deterrent and as a method of preventing people from continuing their crimes should they escape custody (which is not unheard of).

Again, the death penalty does not exist for revenge.

Not always. As with Ted Bundy, and others who escaped prison, society is not protected from them, are they?

True, but when have the courts cared? If they are considering putting someone to death to protect society from them and prevent others from following their path, then they will do it regardless of cost.

Actually, the whole point of criminal sentences, death or otherwise, is to
a) Protect society from them
b) Protect them from society
c) Prevent others from following the same path
So if a guilty party is given the death sentence then something will be gained from it.

The law isn't interested in sympathy for the families of the guilty.

 

Well, there have been certain cases in the past where people have been sentenced to death - only to find out 20 years later that he was actually innocent.

However, I do agree with your point for a death penalty. It might scare the shock out of would-be offenders.

This death penalty should only be used when they have sufficient evidence that the accused is guilty, like 5+ eyewitnesses/video recordings/the accused admitting to the crime/etc.

 

In the UK i think we need the death penalty back to be honest because Im always hearing how prisons are overcrowded so people dont get jailed as often for the lesser crimes so if death was brough back then jails would be freed up much sooner so the problem would be pretty much solved

 

terrible realy, he deserves the penalty!

 

If he or she is proven guilty in a court of law with sufficient evidence for multiple murders/killings or similar serious offences then it should be death
Some people may believe death is too harsh a penalty but it isnt seeing as the only people that you'd expect to get it would be people who'd given other people death so they deserve it if you do all that eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth stuff

 

"The jails are crowded. Let's kill a few criminals to make more room."

That is essentially the argument that you propose.