How do YOU feel about the Death Penalty

[Viktorkrum77]

In America, or where you live.

 

 

 

How do you feel about the death penalty/capitial punishment?

 

 

 

I personally beleive that if proven guilty, and you took someones life, you should be executed. A life for a life(s). And the tax dollars it costs to house murders is alot.

[Barihawk]

Search around, there's a 14 page topic on this. I think it was locked, because of the enevitable flaming that it, and most likely this topic, will bring.

[logic-is-overrated]

It costs more to kill em then it does to keep em. <-There's something wrong with that.

[deloriagod]

I'd have to agree.. If you've killed someone or done something bad enough that your sentence ends up being longer than you're going to live then why should the taxpayers have to give money to keep them locked up!?

[Barihawk]

It costs more to kill em then it does to keep em. <-There's something wrong with that.

 

 

 

What are you talking about? Mind giving us figures?

[BlueLancer]

I think capital punisment (execution) is a medieval thing in a modern world. The worst offenders could be put to forced labor; At least they are of some use then.

 

 

 

You are also entirely missing the costs of capital punishment by comparing it to housing prisoners.

 

 

 

Some background:

 

 

 

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

 

 

 

"Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution."

 

 

 

Is it worth spending so much money just to punish a murderer? Believe me, even if my family member was brutally killed (which I don't hope), I would not want death penalty for the offender. Not only are my tax dollars being totally wasted, but the criminal gets the easy way out. Let him serve the country by working in a mine for 40 years. If he doesn't like it, tough luck since he killed a person and his other option is "not existing".

 

 

 

Just the financial spending is ridiculous and very ineffective. All western countries have already banned the practice; Except for the United States.

[RebelAssassin]

i would love to see it implemented in Britian, anyone who murders perposly should be killed.

[BlueLancer]

i would love to see it implemented in Britian, anyone who murders perposly should be killed.

 

 

 

If you've studied your own country's history, you'd know it has been implented. England also had one of the most brutal ways in human history of punishing a human being; Quartered after being dragged on a road and hanged. Just think of all the things "quartered" can mean. Yep, while the person was alive, his guts were ripped off and his body sliced in four parts.

 

 

 

Given that execution is today a less painful process, Britain has stopped using it because there are numerous cases where executed people allegedly had "murdered" somebody, and later research proved them totally innocent. Waste of human life?

[logic-is-overrated]

It costs more to kill em then it does to keep em. <-There's something wrong with that.

 

 

 

What are you talking about? Mind giving us figures?

Highlights from DeathPenaltyInfo.Org:

A New Jersey Policy Perspectives report concluded that the state's death penalty has cost taxpayers $253 million since 1983, a figure that is over and above the costs that would have been incurred had the state utilized a sentence of life without parole instead of death.

$ Kansas Study Concludes Death Penalty is Costly Policy

 

In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases. The 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 counted through to the end of incarceration and 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%. In comparison to non-death penalty cases, the following findings were revealed:

 

 

 

The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.

 

The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).

 

The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.

 

Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.

Total cost of Indiana's death penalty is 38% greater than the total cost of life without parole sentences

 

A study by Indiana's Criminal Law Study Commission found this to be true, assuming that 20% of death sentences are overturned and resentenced to life. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002)

North Carolina spends more per execution than on a non-death penalty murder case

 

The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993).

Florida spends millions extra per year on death penalty

 

Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post.

Texas death penalty cases cost more than non-capital cases

 

That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, I don't know. It just seems that killing em seems more expensive.

[No_OnE]

If it didn't cost so much money to perform an execution, I would be all for it. If you take someone's life, you should have your own taken as well. I don't think that painful executions are right though. Then again, would you rather be killed or serve a double life sentence?

[Vashinred]

There is always going to be somone who disagree with this but that persen should admit that poeple do have to die. it may not be natural but if this rapist didnt die then what are we going to do with him? he should die for his crime yet even though hes costing alot of money, poeple want him to live becuase they think he has a right to live. where is that right? its taken away as soon as that guy raped that girl and as soon as the guy next to him killed some man.

 

Its jail and if you want to go be a hippy about death then watch The green mile. Otherwise watch The shawshank Redeption.

[Barihawk]

Oh, the expense is easy to figure out.

 

 

 

The actual execution is not that expensive, but it's the lawyer costs and such that the State incurs in the prosecution and appeals of those on Death Row. Lethal Injection is cheap, lawyers are what sucks up the money.

[BlueLancer]

 

Its jail and if you want to go be a hippy about death then watch The green mile. Otherwise watch The shawshank Redeption.

 

 

 

I've watched both and don't get your point. You are also quite light-handed at judging people and sentencing them to death. If you have absolute proof somebody has murdered another person with full intent and doesn't regret it, harsh punishment methods like this could be used.

 

 

 

If you are unsure and the person cries, insisting he is innocent, how can you put him to the sword? What about those people who already died, yet 20 years later it was discovered they had nothing to do with the crime?

 

 

 

And seldom, is there absolute proof of a crime like murder. I'd think twice before ending a human's only life.

 

 

 

Oh, the expense is easy to figure out.

 

 

 

The actual execution is not that expensive, but it's the lawyer costs and such that the State incurs in the prosecution and appeals of those on Death Row. Lethal Injection is cheap, lawyers are what sucks up the money.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter what costs (though it's true that legal costs exceed all other costs in this matter), what matters is the fact that each time a person is executed, millions of tax dollars are burned on 'punishing' one person.

 

 

 

Why not at least put him to jail for 40 years? Not only does it cost less, it makes the killer suffer himself. How can you suffer or feel punished when you are dead?

[darkmage099]

Oh, the expense is easy to figure out.

 

 

 

The actual execution is not that expensive, but it's the lawyer costs and such that the State incurs in the prosecution and appeals of those on Death Row. Lethal Injection is cheap, lawyers are what sucks up the money.

 

 

 

If I became a lawyer, I'd do some charity and make it free for a bit :-w .

 

 

 

Seriously, I think they should do something with them rather than letting them sit there rotting away while they stare at the TV. Maybe put them to work like someone suggested?

[Guest GhostRanger]

I've never taken a stance on the death penalty and still haven't. I still have a lot of thinking and reading to do about it before I decide.

 

 

 

I've usually leaned against the death penalty, but recently I met someone who was on the winning side of a death penalty case. They brought up a very interesting point. The prosecuting side is the one who chooses to seek the death penalty. They aren't necessarily just seeking the maximum, they are seeking closure on the subject. For this person, they needed the fair trade of a life for a life to give them closure on the issue.

 

 

 

I think that's something to think about. Hopefully none of us will ever have to prosecute for the death penalty - but I wonder if we did, would we feel the same way the person I met felt? It's quite possible that it would be hard to feel closure on a case if someone raped and kill your wife and they still get to live.

 

 

 

I understand that life in prison might be worse for the criminal, and so I'm not trying to take a side on the issue. I do think, though, that it's easy to say that for us on the outside, and it might be harder for a victim's family to settle with life in prison.

 

 

 

Who knows though...just something to think about I think.

[Giordano]

I feel taking someones life, innocently is the foulest thing anyone can ever do. I dont think a pain-less injection I right... Some murders kill people in horrific ways, yet THEY just get a little injection. I like to use a lil' thing call this:

 

 

 

=

 

 

 

Its a equal sign. What happens to the vitim happens to the murder. If he tortured the vitim for days, so do it on the murder.

 

 

 

=

[ctp080188]

Then comes the time when someone is found guilty, and years later they prove he wasn't the murderer and he died for nothing.. I dunno. Murdering a murderer, just seems pointless, as you would be comminting the same crime as them, so then in turn, does that mean that the person who inserts the lethal injection should then die? Don't make no sense at all to me.

[BlueLancer]

I like to use a lil' thing call this:

 

 

 

=

 

 

 

Its a equal sign. What happens to the vitim happens to the murder. If he tortured the vitim for days, so do it on the murder.

 

 

 

=

 

 

 

Which is basically the Code of Hammurabi, the oldest code of laws to date from 1780 BC. The current western law system is based entirely on the opposite principles, as the system is very ineffective.

 

 

 

In ancient Egypt, if you built a house with crappy mortar and a part of it collapsed, as a punishment a part of your house would be broken by the soldiers. Which is especially unfair if it was a humane mistake. And the classical example, if you blinded another man's left eye, your left eye would be blinded too as a punishment.

 

 

 

It might sound good for a while but if you start excercising it to all situations and crimes it becomes not only impossible to enforce but very expensive and brutal.

[Giordano]

I like to use a lil' thing call this:

 

 

 

=

 

 

 

Its a equal sign. What happens to the vitim happens to the murder. If he tortured the vitim for days, so do it on the murder.

 

 

 

=

 

 

 

Which is basically the Code of Hammurabi, the oldest code of laws to date from 1780 BC. The current western law system is based entirely on the opposite principles, as the system is very ineffective.

 

 

 

In ancient Egypt, if you built a house with crappy mortar and a part of it collapsed, as a punishment a part of your house would be broken by the soldiers. Which is especially unfair if it was a humane mistake. And the classical example, if you blinded another man's left eye, your left eye would be blinded too as a punishment.

 

 

 

It might sound good for a while but if you start excercising it to all situations and crimes it becomes not only impossible to enforce but very expensive and brutal.

 

I'm just saying about murders...not everything. :anxious:

[bjbj1991]

Think of what you would perfer if you knew you could not get out of jail.

 

 

 

Death - A injection of some toxin and your lungs stop, sometimes your even asleap when this happens.

 

 

 

Life - Rotting in a small cell for your entire life until your body gives.

 

 

 

 

 

The only way I would be pro-death would be if they reformed the exicution method. Tie them to a tree so the relitives of the victom could do as they wish to the killer is very high on my list of acceptable reforms.

[Anesthesia]

I must say, the death penalty works as a very good individual deterrent.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I must say, the death penalty works as a very good individual deterrent.

 

 

 

I don't feel tuned in tonight. Was that a serious comment?

[deloriagod]

The only way I would be pro-death would be if they reformed the exicution method. Tie them to a tree so the relitives of the victom could do as they wish to the killer is very high on my list of acceptable reforms.

 

 

 

Heh, I'd like to see that.. Or public beheadings.. Much cheaper than the current method.

[apinagez]

How do I feel about it? Bad.

 

If I think it should be applied? Yes.

[darkmage099]

The only way I would be pro-death would be if they reformed the exicution method. Tie them to a tree so the relitives of the victom could do as they wish to the killer is very high on my list of acceptable reforms.

 

 

 

Heh, I'd like to see that.. Or public beheadings.. Much cheaper than the current method.

 

 

 

You guys are getting too brutal. :P . Killing them is harsh enough.