Most of my information is going to be in terms of the US, because that is where most of my knowledge is.
To address some of the things so far:
Death penalty does not reduce crime, at least do some research before saying that.
It could be the result of the fact that not all states have it, and those that have it have a large number of requirements to be applicable, a ton of processes to go through, and (in general) a media very opposed to it. It is great that there are many, many screenings you go through before executing someone, which is why many pro death penalty people flaunt the fact that the US has not executed someone that was later proven innocent.
Well, I dont think its moral for imperfects to determine the life of a person. To take a life, you must give a life. What if the person is inocent? What do you gain from taking that persons life? What if that person is mentally ill?
Again with the US, there is something we have that allows people plead guilty due to mental disability (after an examination by a professional) that allows people with such mental illnesses to not face the same treatment as those in their right mind. I also go back to the point I made above that as far as I know, there are no cases of someone that has been executed and later found innocent as far as I'm aware.
And I said the death penatly itself does not decrease the the crime rate. Why is austrailia and Canadas crime rate lower then the US? Why is it that in the 1960s that when california established the death penatly the crime rate doubled?
Again, it could be a number of things. How tough it is to actually get someone killed? It could be all of the people who for some reason believe that after being convicted of killing 10 people the person who did it has as many rights as I do. It could be the fact that in many places of the world it is pretty much guilty until proven innocent. There a ton of things that could lead to it, and that was going on 50 years ago, times change. That fact is long expired.
There's never any justification for the state to claim lives. It doesnt deter criminals because most of the people who are deemed "worthy" of the death penalty do things because theyre fucked up, like pedophiles or serial killers. The death penalty simply brutalises society and makes criminals who are committing offenses more desperate, taking greater measures to protect themselves from the law by for example carrying guns.
Wow... bit by bit.
There's never any justification for the state to claim lives.
Yes there is, it is when people are convicted by an impartial group of their peers in a system that favors the defendant who has a large number of opportunities to appeal, deal with the state (plead guilty to take the DP "off the table"), and they are screwed up to the point that in modern terms they could pre-meditate the murder of someone else, but in my opinion it should also include things like cop killers, child rapists, and any murders that involve any premeditation or forethrought.
You ruin a life, you forfeit yours. If you kill someone trying to protect us and it gets someone the same punishment as someone that murders their husband for the insurance money, something is wrong. If a 8 year old will never be able to trust people as long as they live because the person who is supposed to teach a child took advantage of the situation. Someone that knowingly takes someones life obviously considers the raminifications.
It doesnt deter criminals because most of the people who are deemed "worthy" of the death penalty do things because theyre fucked up, like pedophiles or serial killers.
So why let these people that are "fucked up" stick around to maybe get another shot at commiting the same crimes? There are plenty of incidents of escaped convicts, and if you kill 15 people in a park I'm sure you won't hold any more respect for life when you get out.
The death penalty simply brutalises society and makes criminals who are committing offenses more desperate, taking greater measures to protect themselves from the law by for example carrying guns.
Good point. If (by todays rules) I had just commited mass murder or another extraordinarily horrible crime in a state where they allow it, I wouldn't consider traveling around with a gun. Because hey, even though I just killed a ton of people I wouldn't even dream of trying to fight anyone who trys to apprehend me with deadly force because I obviously have a great respect for human life.
It's not like the death penalty is for carjackers who would become aggresive to save themselves. The people we are talking about have commted horrible crimes to the extent where I'd bet that they could care less if its life in jail or the needle when the cops come for them.
I personally don't believe there should so easily be an exception to the 6th commandment unless there is reason to believe the person would still be a threat to others if he were locked up.
Not saying that people in maximum security lockup have a huge right to life, but again with my arguement that people who are eligable for the death penalty probably do not respect human life, so they are a danger around anyone.
As far as them being a leech of government funds, I think labor camps should be made. If anything, the prisons could generate a little profit even.
Making such things would be extremely difficult and controversial. I'm uncertain about specific aspects of it, but I know I don't agree with death penalties.
As much as I wish, this would just make prisions more vulnerable to someone getting out than right now... and like you said too many people would whine.
"A study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The costs of appeals were 29% of the total expense, and the incarceration and execution costs accounted for the remaining 22%."
So, when people argue it costs less to convict a person for life than to death is correct. Here's the costs they don't consider.
- Cost of an inmate per year (About $22,000 per year times a minimum of 25 years for 1st Degree Murder - $550,000+)
- Prisons are becoming overcrowded. We need to purchase more land, build the prision, pay for the extra security for maximum security jailing, have more guards, energy, and resources (Some estimate this to be about $56,000 per inmate) being used for someone that could easily be pur in a $100 box of wood in a small plot of land.
- Limiting the number of appeals could save court costs.
- When there is actually a set death time, one may be more inclined to confess before their execution to any crimes (saving $$ from investigations) rather than one day just not waking up.
- Had someone like Hitler been caught if we outlaw the death penalty. (If you're thinking yah, but that was mass murder... where do you draw the line at? NO death penalties means NO death penalties. You're saying he should have been allowed to live if we catch him.)
- More Lives - The potential someone escapes and kills more.
Nobody would be convicted if that were the case. 100% proof doesn't exist.
Yes it does. If someone gets caught on camera in McDonalds shooting 10 people, I call that 100% proof.
----
What gives these people the right to keep what they take?
