The Death Penalty

the death penalty is the way to go, some people just do not deserve to live anymore, putting people like Ted Bundy into prison means that you (the tax dollars that you pay) are feeding a mass murderer, and he has a chance of getting out of prison; as SMR said, many people have escaped prison before, if michael scofield can do it twice, obviously other people can too

 

The issue will not be decided for monetary reasons.

Why do they not deserve to live?

 

It was never about whether someone 'deserves' death or not - the death penalty acts to, as I said before, perform the twofold purpose of both protecting society from the individual and to act as a deterrent.

 

If the jailing system is competent at all, the criminals will not be able to escape.

The death penalty is not an effective deterrent.

 

personally i think the death penalty is cruel, but if i had to do life in prison, it would be hell of alot worst then death (slow torture)

 

But history has proven that prison escapes are not uncommon. The jailing system will likely never be competent enough to completely prevent someone from escaping if they put all their time and effort into it.

How do you know it isn't? How do you know that thousands of people have decided against murder/rape/other crimes worthy of the death penalty, because they don't want to be given the death penalty if they're caught?

 

Killing criminals to prevent that is unacceptable.

For impulsive crimes, people usually do not stop to think about whether the consequences are life in prison, or death. For planned crimes, I doubt it would make much of a difference (10-15 years on death row, great chance of avoiding it, etc.). In fact, I don't know whether people would prefer to be executed rather than rot in prison.

 

Well I think its kind of alright to have a death penalty...if you see the one person on cnn who was sentenced to be put to death for killing the women and unborn baby but they didn't hes servings years in prison. He will be dead by the time he gets out or even before.

 

Besides the fact that these killers may be innocent or not. If you read the book by Capote "In Cold Blood", you'll see that even a killer may be mentally ill. I'm not defending what the killers did, but the one who commited the act needed quite serious help. Watch or read the book and it will definetly make you think twice on your position on capital punishment.

 

See my reply to a similar comment made by Darby (first page). If someone decides they don't like their sentence, and escapes a correctional institution, that institution should be responsible to return them to where they're given free food, shelter, clothing, etc? I disagree with that. It would be far more acceptable to just kill off the people who don't want to stick to the program that has been given to them for both their own good and society's good.

@ Impulsive crimes, sure, you're probably right about that.

As for the latter, suppose there was no penalty for rape or murder - I'm sure the count for both would be significantly higher. And people value their lives, I mean, John Wayne Gacy turned himself in to the police so he wouldn't get the death penalty for his crimes (though he did), Ted Bundy cried like a little girl when he was led to the chair, and I'm sure that less famous people who received the death penalty felt the same about their lives.

 

That's why the 'not guilty by reason of insanity' defense exists. And yes, the judges usually do hand this out fairly. Ed Gein, perhaps a worse serial killer than Jeffrey Dahmer (who was pretty bad), was judged to be legally insane and spent the rest of his life in a mental correction facility, rather than being sentenced to death or prison.

 

Prison life is hardly a bundle of joy. There's a good reason why they escaped - it sucks in there.

If there was no penalty, of course they would go about doing it. If the penalty is life in prison vs. death, I'm not sure that there would be much of a difference.

 

But the prisoners are receiving their food, shelter, and clothing at the expense of the state. The state shouldn't be responsible to find people who commit crimes and don't want to serve their sentences for it, and then return them to prison. If someone doesn't want to appreciate that they're living at the expense of the state, and the same people who they committed crimes against are paying taxes to fund them, and escape, then yes, they should be killed.

 

If the state makes a commitment to keeping them as prisoners, then they should have to find them, or better yet, prevent them from escaping.

 

i cannot belive i am saying this but ia gree with you DS, its the prisons fault, but take a look at texas's death laws then restate your arguement

 

ya death enalty for some but used quite rearely

 

Here's an alternative: Lock the person in a room. The walls would be covered with pictures of their victim(s) (what they did to them, etc.) The prisoner would never be allowed to leave the room, and would essentially be re-living the crime over and over in his head for the rest of his life.

 

Why not life in Prison, like I mean killing him will only end his suffering state, while if he has to spend the rest of his life in it, locked up and alone it would be much more painfull then death.

 

Yes, but the state having to pay his living costs is ridiculous. Im not paying for a serial rapist to hang out with his friends in a building for 50 years.

 

Death Penalty: It's not good, I dont think this LAW is Humane. I actually think this law shouldn't be applied in any cases.

Life in Prison: This is a law that I think is much suitable for those INSANE SERIAL KILLERS out there. This law is the one that I think can be applied to the killers, This will dealth much more damage on the person's mind as being lonely and locked up forever is hard-ER than Getting the Death Penalty that they will only feel for like 2 secs.

I want the person to feel the pain that they gave to the families of the victims are feeling, and by this law I think this will be fair.