Death Penalty

Do you agree with it? Yes, No? In Between?

Discuss it here, tell why you do or not not support it.
(I'll give my opinions later on)

 

I'm sort of in between on how I feel about the death penalty.

On one hand, the old adage "an eye for an eye" shouldn't hold true in today's society. Executing someone because he murdered someone else doesn't make much sense to me because then someone else becomes a murder and won't ever know it.

But on the other hand, it costs millions of dollars to keep people in prison for a long time, and it's actually quite cheap to execute a person.

I'd rather all my tax dollars not go to keeping someone in prison, because I'm paying for all their meals and for them to have places to work out and stay in shape and things like that. It's not worth it when my money can be going to a school or a park.

So I'm torn between whether I support it or not.

 

I don't believe in it but then again I tend to feel that people like Saddam Hussain and Hitler deserved to die.

 

I'm only torn on the part about if the person who gets the death penalty suffers more than someone in prison or not.

I'm pro death penalty since it solves more problems than it creates, but those problems it creates can't be ignored either.

I worry about the people, who execute the prisoner, health. It must have consequences for them too.

 

It's just kind of a difficult thing when you have people like Hitler and Saddam in the world. They're such terrible people, but what can you do to make up for damage they've done? You can do nothing to, like, get back at them, or repay for a tragedy like murder or rape. It's one of those mind fucks that will never really be solved. I guess prison is the solution? Just prevent it from occurring again, and a good prison can do that. Some people might say kill them, too, but what barbaric tradition is that? Kill! Kill! Kill! How about we just do what we can do to prevent whatever from happening again. That's what's really important. However, I can see, in the case with Saddam, maybe it was right because it was a great possibility that more death would occur in result of his captivity. Whatever.. are you going to be killed? Are you going to kill? Just keep yourself and the people around you safe, and stop worrying about this fucked up world and it's problems. The people will always be dumb. You will be let down. Just live and be happy. None of it really matters anyway.

 

I agree.

I think in the case of murder it's absolutely absurd that the death penalty is there to show that killing is wrong. That's the most hypocritical thing ever.

 

I personally find the death penalty awful and I completely disagree with it. Given the case of murderers, How are you any better by killing someone yourself? I say lock them in jail for life with no visitors or anything. Take away all freedom. But do not kill the person. I find it stupid.

 

I just think they should bring back capital punishment. Proper discipline in schools and the stocks in the town centre

But in the case of heavier crimes examples would need to be set to show a zero tolerance. I don't want my taxes to go to keep a murder alive when instead it could be put into education and improving the lives of the people who truly need it

I am kinda inbetween but teetering more towards pro

 

No one has the right to choose if a someone deserves to live or not, whatever the crimes.

 

I think it would probably be justified, if somebody could be proven guilty beyond doubt. It could be useful for certain things such as making room in prisons, but there are other ways of doing that without killing people.
It's a very subjective and wishy washy standpoint that I'm taking but I'd say that, if somebody could be proven guilty in a proper un-Sacco and Vanzetti type manner, and there was no chance of them reforming at all, then it would at least be justified to some extent.

 

That's true, but I'd imagine it'd be cheaper in the long run.

 

No one knows if there is anything after death and if there is nothing than killing the person is actually the opposite of what you're trying to do, which is to punish the person.
In any case I find that killing is killing, no matter what. If someone kills someone and then you kill the person whom killed the first someone then by your own logic you should be killed. Obviously you can tell that I'm Anti-Death Penalty

 

Well, that's subjective. They might not actually want to die.

 

That's true, but I was saying that if they did. I don't find it right to kill anyone if they want to die or not. That's the reason I'm also against suicide. Obviously. (sorry I'm a confusing person)

 

Those who have the urge to kill need to just murder those who want to die. No more problem.

 

Hmm. I didn't know that. I guess I stand corrected.

 

I felt pretty bad reading that, I really don't like considering money when talking about human lives. Especially since people who really do horrific things are usually not the ones being in death row- I think that Michael Moore's quote in "Bowling for Columbine" pretty much sums it up:

That is to say, our standards for considering someone to be "horrible psycho killer" and "hero" are extremely biased. And who can draw the line between a death-deserving crime and a prison-deserving one? Not to mention that in today's rotten society there's no way we can avoid prejudice in courts, the death penalty only makes it worse- I bet most people in death row are those who cannot afford a good lawyer.

Anyway, my main view is that you can never be certain about who's guilty, no DNA check can ever rule out the possibility of a set-up or whatever. This is about human lives, no matter what they've done, and there's no way of making up for a mistake. "The Life of David Gale" is a film that pretty much sums it all up.

 

That's an interesting thought... And probably quite true as well.