The death penalty is morally wrong, because "an eye for an eye" will leave us all blind. How can you condemn a person for a crime, and punish him by doing that exact same action to him?

 

 

 

Furthermore, the death penalty is irreversible. You can't be "un-death penaltied". Especially with new forensic methods like DNA-stuff, people serving life time were freed because they were convicted for a crime they didn't commit. That would be a bit tricky when put to death, now wouldn't it?

 

 

 

So I think they should be sent to a REAL prison (here in the Netherlands they are Hilton hotels with tv, internet and libraries) and be put to work (e.g. hard manual labor!) to be of service to the community.

 

 

 

First off, an eye for an eye would not leave us blind - it would leave criminals and victims with only one eye (and everyone else will still have two eyes).

 

 

 

Second off, I have a problem with this suggestion of "manual labor." Wouldn't manual labor inevitably (if it was used much more often than it is now) put the hard working lower class out of jobs? Anyone have any stats on this because I don't have a clue...just seems like it would.

I think it costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 per year to keep a prisoner in prison, so if they're serving life sentances, it's cheaper to kill them then, right? :P

 

 

 

I don't see how it can cost 3.2 million dollars to inject some potassium chloride and whatnot into someone...

 

 

 

Anyways, I think the death penalty is too weak of a punishment. If you were told you had to sit in a tiny cell for the rest of your life, wouldn't you rather just die and get it over with? I know I would, and I'm sure most of them would too. Killing them is letting them off easy. They should all rot.

I think if you have taken a life or destroyed one you should be killed. The world we live in nowadays is to soft, bad people need to be killed we're just wasting money trying to "rehabilitate" them. Line them all up and shoot them, the world would be alot better place without prisons anyway. Research has proved that they don't work, they don't "rehabilitate" anybody. A criminal gets 10 years, he serves 3 goes out and continues doing whatever he was previously. So yes I am for the death penalty even if I live in England.

I think if you have taken a life or destroyed one you should be killed. The world we live in nowadays is to soft, bad people need to be killed we're just wasting money trying to "rehabilitate" them. Line them all up and shoot them, the world would be alot better place without prisons anyway. Research has proved that they don't work, they don't "rehabilitate" anybody. A criminal gets 10 years, he serves 3 goes out and continues doing whatever he was previously. So yes I am for the death penalty even if I live in England.

 

 

 

You're not really looking into the reasons why most long-term prisoners don't get "rehabilitated".

 

 

 

1. Employers, sometimes even those of cleaning companies, will not accept workers who have any kind of criminal past.

 

 

 

2. When applying for a job, it is not exactly a positive advantage amongst the other "normal" applicants that for the last 8 years you were sitting in a prison.

 

 

 

3. If you can't even get into a crappy job, no further education possible, why would the crirminal settle to live with $1000 bucks a month for the rest of his life when he can go back to his mafia business, potentially not get caught and live with $1000 bucks a day?

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, an eye for an eye would not leave us blind - it would leave criminals and victims with only one eye (and everyone else will still have two eyes).

 

 

 

 

True, but *in theory* the punisher is committing a crime too, and thus his left eye must be blinded too. The person who punishes the punisher also blinds somebodys eye based on "justice", thus eventually all punishers will be blind.

 

 

 

 

Second off, I have a problem with this suggestion of "manual labor." Wouldn't manual labor inevitably (if it was used much more often than it is now) put the hard working lower class out of jobs? Anyone have any stats on this because I don't have a clue...just seems like it would.

 

 

 

Well, if used on people who would otherwise be sentenced to death, I doubt it. There are only a handful of convicts, and companies like Ford Motors already lay off tens of thousands of employees and that's not even a really lower class job. Jobs will be lost anyways.

Seeing as how we're on the topic of the death penalty I thought some of you may like to read this article. Death penatly given to some would-be suicide bombers.. Serves them right..

 

First off, an eye for an eye would not leave us blind - it would leave criminals and victims with only one eye (and everyone else will still have two eyes).

 

 

 

 

True, but *in theory* the punisher is committing a crime too, and thus his left eye must be blinded too. The person who punishes the punisher also blinds somebodys eye based on "justice", thus eventually all punishers will be blind.

 

 

 

Everyone in the library just looked at me because I just laughed really loud picturing a whole city of people continuously poking people's eyes out. :P

 

 

 

Second off, I have a problem with this suggestion of "manual labor." Wouldn't manual labor inevitably (if it was used much more often than it is now) put the hard working lower class out of jobs? Anyone have any stats on this because I don't have a clue...just seems like it would.

 

 

 

Well, if used on people who would otherwise be sentenced to death, I doubt it. There are only a handful of convicts, and companies like Ford Motors already lay off tens of thousands of employees and that's not even a really lower class job. Jobs will be lost anyways.

 

 

 

Yeah, like I said, I don't really know anything about it. It just seemed to me that people would complain so I was curious. You're probably right about that because not a lot of people are sentenced to death.

Indonesian prisons are Hilton hotels compared to some prisons in the world. Watch some documents where the reporters actually sneaked into Syrian, North Korean and Nigerian prisons. You won't believe that another human being could treat you like that even for the slightest crime. (Systematic flogging with iron [bleep]e-empowered whips, removal of fingers for asking why you are there, prolonged starvation, using fire on you...)

 

 

 

Many years ago I watched an undercover documentary about the Ivory Coast police, they broke the legs of WITNESSES. I shudder to think what they did to suspects.

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.

 

 

 

It costs a hell of a lot more to keep someone on death row than it does to keep them in prison.

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.

 

 

 

It costs a hell of a lot more to keep someone on death row than it does to keep them in prison.

 

Unless shoot them in the leg and wait till they bleed to death.

From an imoral standpoint

 

 

 

I say that on the one hand it seems that it costs quite a lot, prima facie, to house prisoners.

 

 

 

On the other hand, the appeal process costs about as much, and can last as long as a normal custodial sentance.

 

 

 

I don't really have a moral view on it. I think that an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth is not a justifiable stand point. If some one you love has been murdered, then you would not only want to revist that upon the murderer, but to compound it with some other punishment - for instance tourture. This doesn't sound very nice, and we are moving outside the normal moral parameters of human rights. On the other hand, there are problems with the system - not least of which is that evdidence that was accepted 10 years ago may not be accepted today, so some people that would be dead become aquitted. More over, the motives for comting a crime and the reasons bringing about the comital of such a crime are incredibly problematic to [wagon] - we would clinicaly execute someone because, in a fit of rage or whislt terminaly depressed they stabbed someone to death. This seems to be wholey different from teh crime that was commited, and, moreover, only listens to the stand point of the victim, and not the accused. What I am trying to say is that an eye for an eye punsihment system either is too strong or doesnt go far enough. You view point uslay depends on wether you have been a victim or not.

From an imoral standpoint

 

 

 

I say that on the one hand it seems that it costs quite a lot, prima facie, to house prisoners.

 

 

 

On the other hand, the appeal process costs about as much, and can last as long as a normal custodial sentance.

 

 

 

I don't really have a moral view on it. I think that an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth is not a justifiable stand point. If some one you love has been murdered, then you would not only want to revist that upon the murderer, but to compound it with some other punishment - for instance tourture. This doesn't sound very nice, and we are moving outside the normal moral parameters of human rights. On the other hand, there are problems with the system - not least of which is that evdidence that was accepted 10 years ago may not be accepted today, so some people that would be dead become aquitted.

 

Wait, tourture is a opition now??? I'll change my first vote to that.

I dont know whether people who have killed diserve the death sentence or not, but I dont think we should have it, because often enough they probably catch the wrong person. Then what? Oops sorry we thought he was the guy?

I dont know whether people who have killed diserve the death sentence or not, but I dont think we should have it, because often enough they probably catch the wrong person. Then what? Oops sorry we thought he was the guy?

 

 

 

Laws themselves have no power. They are just a bunch of letters on a paper.

 

 

 

What matters is the people who believe in it's power. If we lived in the stone age and were able to read and write, we could have a law that says 'the biggest guys of the tribe get 50% more gold and meat' and nobody would say it's an unfair law because that's what the other people believe is right.

 

 

 

Death penalty is still an option in the US because some conservative elements (but many other people as well) *believe* it's a good punishment. Europe on the other hand banned the death penalty ages ago because the people believe it's an unjust punishment, especially if you aren't sure the guy is guilty.. Just to find out 20 years later with more advanced DNA testing he had nothing to do with the murder.

I don't really know where I stand on Capital punishement. I think that everyone should be given a chance at changing thier ways and should be forgiven eventually. I am also against the death penalty because of the financial cost.

 

However, if someone is such a danger to society that they can never be re-released, then I think they should be killed.

 

 

 

And to whoever suggests torturing someone before executing them is just as sick as the murderers themselves. Torturing someone is inexcusable whatever the situation. Even if they did it to someone you loved.

I fully support the death penalty.

 

 

 

People who commit acts like murder, rape, and torture should be shot like dogs. No point wasting tax-payer's money when a bullet is free \

i totally agree....what if someone killed like 50 people and only gets life in prison....don't you think thats kind of wrong?

im against death penalty.

 

killing someone is wrong, if youre a criminal or a judge