Forums → WEPR → Death penalty: yes or no
| 96 | 37301 |
What do you think, should there be a death penalty?
Perssonalni I am against it,because of these things:
1.Death penalty vs liftime jail (well death penalty is kind of reward in this case)
2. How are we bether then him/her? Where is ours moral?
3. We must think about moral of executor.
So what do you think?
- 96 Replies
What is even the point of death sentence?
If in the best guarded prison he/she can not escape so they can't do any harm. So that would just be revenge. And that is moraly wrong because,as HahiHa said, we wouldn't be any better then them.
gbgbrody, good point.
In short, it is the judicial system playing God
I'm going to have to say no.
First off there is a certain percentage of innocent people who end up getting this sentence. You can somewhat reverse a life sentence, you can't do that for a death penalty after it's carried out.
The second issue is the cost. With all the procedures required for a death penalty the sentence ends up actually costing more than a life sentence.
Finally even with the worst of criminals who we can't rehabilitate there may still be something to learn from them. maybe something that would allow us to treat and rehabilitate others if not that person. That would be an opportunity lost by just killing the person.
On a side note I do think a less punitive more rehabilitative system would be better.
But this exposes a weakness in the death penalty as a punishment. It inherently values one person's life more than another. It says to the criminal "hey, you killed someone, so it is okay for us to kill someone". It asserts that the judicial system has the right to weigh lives and to decide who lives and who dies. In short, it is the judicial system playing God.
1 Death penalty is not punishment.
2 In what way is the life of the killed being valued more highly than that of the killer? They both end up equally dead.
3 It has nothing at all to do with deciding who lives/dies. Why woud expediating their death be "laying god" if stripping them of their freedom and their future isn't?
What is even the point of death sentence?
If in the best guarded prison he/she can not escape so they can't do any harm. So that would just be revenge.
No, it wouldn't. The point is to get rid of them and, to a lesser extent, discourage others from committing the same crime. That's it. It isn't about making them suffer or regret.
The only way the death penalty should be allowed is for raping little children or murdering someone in cold blood, then it should be slow and painful torture.
On a side note I do think a less punitive more rehabilitative system would be better.i believe they should get the punishment for their deeds. and after that punishment starting a rehabilitating program that gives them a new place in society. where they do not need to get back in contact with old friends. have a place to work etc.. and keeping them in check for a few year (dependable on crime and time given) after detention just to make sure they don't slide back. (programs starting bit sooner of course, but not from the start of the punishment.)
i believe they should get the punishment for their deeds. and after that punishment starting a rehabilitating program that gives them a new place in society. where they do not need to get back in contact with old friends. have a place to work etc.. and keeping them in check for a few year (dependable on crime and time given) after detention just to make sure they don't slide back. (programs starting bit sooner of course, but not from the start of the punishment.)
Restriction of freedoms along with reparations made on behalf of the perpetrator to the victims and community I think would suffice for punishment. Imprisonment should be restricted to those who are a danger to others or otherwise require close observation for any extended period.
But the point is to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
But the point is to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.the point of what i believe is that we shouldn't "replace" punishment with rehabilitation. but to add rehabilitation after the punishment. =) (not during the punishment)
of course should only people be imprisoned that are a danger for society. and now we are there. the question is going to be, where do we draw the line of "danger for society"... is a professional car thief and dealer, a danger for society? what he does is not directly a danger. but it is illegal and he does it multiple times over and over...
what should we do with this guy?
the point of what i believe is that we shouldn't "replace" punishment with rehabilitation. but to add rehabilitation after the punishment. =) (not during the punishment)
I'm not saying so much replace it as de-emphasize it.
Just for an example Let's say someone steals a car. They get caught and found guilty, they then would have to pay the victim the value of the car, play pay for any damages tot he vehicle as a result of the theft. They would also have to pay for all legal fees associated with the proceedings (maybe with interest or added percentage). This payment could be in the form of out of pocket or through community service.
of course the question would then be what is a human life worth in the case of murder?
of course should only people be imprisoned that are a danger for society. and now we are there. the question is going to be, where do we draw the line of "danger for society"... is a professional car thief and dealer, a danger for society? what he does is not directly a danger. but it is illegal and he does it multiple times over and over...
what should we do with this guy?
As I said in the previous post "those who are a danger to others or otherwise require close observation for any extended period." Someone who is a repeat offender would fall under the category of someone who needs close observation.
I'm surprised I've avoided posting in this topic for how often I have seen it pop up.
Anyhow; I've never approved of the death penalty.
I don't think it's necessary to remove people from our existence for committing a crime.
Like it has been stated previously, innocent people could be put to death which is irreversibile.
It's also possible if a serial killer was put to death - they could be sent to the grave guilty of other unsolved cases that they might have confessed to had they still been alive.
The only way the death penalty should be allowed is for raping little children
Why are you valuing the lives of children above other rape victims? It's possible it could harm certain adults more than children.
murdering someone in cold blood, then it should be slow and painful torture.
Don't you think that's twisted?
Yes, they may have committed a serious crime but why do we, as humans get to decide to inflict a worse punishment upon them?
Just throwing the question out there - when people have proven to be reformed after rehabilitation. Do you think they should be allowed a new identity?
Just throwing the question out there - when people have proven to be reformed after rehabilitation. Do you think they should be allowed a new identity?
That's a pretty good question. Not sure I can go either way on it. If it was allowed I would think it should be given a certain period of time before it can be done.
Just for an example Let's say someone steals a car. They get caught and found guilty, they then would have to pay the victim the value of the car, play pay for any damages tot he vehicle as a result of the theft. They would also have to pay for all legal fees associated with the proceedings (maybe with interest or added percentage). This payment could be in the form of out of pocket or through community service.
so basically you just take away their money. while poverty is 1 of the main reasons behind crime. i don't think this will be helpful.
when people have proven to be reformed after rehabilitation. Do you think they should be allowed a new identity?till what extend? i wouldn't give them a complete now start. at least for the government the old and new identity should stay linked. people can act for a very long time to get their goal.
Well, I'm not sure how often new identities have been permitted but I do know that the killers of Jamie Bulger received new identities - one of them has received a new identity four times. (Cost the UK taxpayers £250 000 each time)
Although; I guess in the situation of child convicts, governments view it as a different scenario.
till what extend? i wouldn't give them a complete now start. at least for the government the old and new identity should stay linked. people can act for a very long time to get their goal.
Of course not.
The police (at least in UK & Ireland) know the new identities so that they are aware of their residence.
As far as I know; even when ex-cons move into a new residential area - local authorities are informed but those living in the neighbourhood aren't told.
so basically you just take away their money. while poverty is 1 of the main reasons behind crime. i don't think this will be helpful.
It wouldn't have to be out of pocket. As noted it could also be through community service. So they wouldn't have to have their money taken away but they would still have to give back accordingly.
You must be logged in to post a reply!