Death Penalty and Executions.

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

This is a debate from one of my other web-forums. i thought it would be fun to get your opinions on the subject.

1. What crimes warrant the death penalty?
2. What methods of execution should society use?


I personally believe a good short list of death-penalty crimes include....
*Murder
*Attempted murder
*Military Treason
*Engineering/Building a fatal virus/biological weapon
*Engineering a nuclear weapon
*Rape (Rape would have to be re-defined to no longer include "I was drunk and regretted my decisions the next day")
*Sex with children
*Negligence that results in death (ie. the sausage guy that let the 6 month old cow corspe get into the product)
*Grand Theft (3rd offence)

Death penalty of course being reserved for persons proven to be dangerous to society, and should be risked to freedom. 'Life in Prison' is just silly, execute them and save 40-60 years.

Methods of execution I do not think are humane.
*'The Chair". Too mnay people have been left 1/2 cooked & still alive. Electrocution is expensive, cruel, dangerous, & has too large a FUBAR factor.
*Lethal Injection. Its inhumane to make someone stare at the ceiling for upto 90 minutes while they slowly await death. Also very expensive.
*Gas Chamber. Far too dangerous for the people who have to work there.

I'm all for letting the condemned pick their own dispatch (Hey, I'm a nice guy!), and I can think of 3 humane methods of execution.
*Hanging. Longer drops prevent strangulation.
*Firing Squad/ Bullet to the back of the Head.
*Guillotine/Decapitation.

All three methods are far less expensive to the state, and are a much faster and less painful way to go for the condemned. And pose the least amount of risk to the exectution officials.

*Some argue that the "head" remains alive & conscious after the chop. That people will blink or mouth words in rare circumstances. But even if not instantly fatal, death was never more than 10 seconds late in such cases. And that is still 540,000% quicker than lethal injection considering 2 worst case scenarios.

 

[Johnd]

I don't know that I still believe in the death penalty...it seems that I've softened over the years. But, if it were to exist, I submit that there should be:

1. only one appeal
2. the appeal, adjudication and sentence (if need be) all take place in one month's time
3. that only the guillotone be used. It is swift, certain and economic (the French got something right).

 

[tbewick]

I don't support the death penalty for any crime. Firstly because you'll end up killing some people who aren't guilty. For instance, I saw something on the news a couple of weeks ago about a Brit who is sentenced to the death penalty in the US. The trial was very suspect and, to cut a long story short, he is probably innocent. I've also heard of the death penalty being used on people who are mentally ill, which I think is abhorrent. Interestingly enough, I heard on TV today that black youths sentenced to the death penalty in the US have a higher life expectancy than those youths living in the worst city ghettos.

 

[MDS]

I'm a bit reluctant to get involved in this kind of topic but let's just say that I do believe certain individuals should be executed - quickly. One thing I don't understand though is those who say they are pro death penalty but then have reservations about 'cruel or inhumane punishment'. How about the cruel and inhumane punishment heaped on the victim? Shouldn't the murderer/rapist/torturer suffer the same agony? I think Yes.

Here is an interesting (gruesome) fact:
If the judge pronounces the sentence as 'I sentence you to hang by the neck until you are dead' that means you will be strangled and the knot in the rope is placed directly behind your head. This takes a while to kill the person and is probably reserved for the most heinous individuals that should suffer.

If the judge pronounces the sentence as 'I sentence you to death by hanging' that means that your neck will be broken and the knot is placed to the side of your neck. This is practically instantaneous death.

We don't hang people anymore so I have no idea if this is still true but from what I have read that is the way it was in the old west when hanging was the punishment.

 

[mike c]

i hereby nominate MDS and ninja to congress.

aye.

aye.

I prefer to let the victim or the victim's family get the option to kill the criminal themselves.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

I've also heard of the death penalty being used on people who are mentally ill, which I think is abhorrent.

If you've kidnapped your 8 year old neighbor and locked her in a secret room under your garage for 10 years, then yes, you're probably a few waves short of a shipwreck.

I'm a bit reluctant to get involved in this kind of topic but let's just say that I do believe certain individuals should be executed - quickly. One thing I don't understand though is those who say they are pro death penalty but then have reservations about 'cruel or inhumane punishment'. How about the cruel and inhumane punishment heaped on the victim? Shouldn't the murderer/rapist/torturer suffer the same agony? I think Yes.

1. Do you want to rape somebody who been in prison for 20 years?
2. We're executing them to remove them from society. Their termination is the end result, not some macabre vendetta. If we did kill for gruesome sport, being eaten by feral dogs would probably be a valid execution method.
3. In the (hopefully) unlikely event I was wrongly sentenced to death for a crime I did not actually commit, I'd choose fast & humane, thank you very much.
4. Because the prison system in nicer than wandering thugs?

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

And for those "eye for an eye" types about rape, I assure you that the "pillory" was not designed to punish you via boredom. (Although colonial Williamsburg would prefer you didn't use them in their overwhelmingly obvious capacity).

 

[MDS]

You brought up the topic. I did not say anything about rape. I'm talking about the losers that do things that are absolutely beyond comprehension - like torturing and killing little girls or wiping out an entire family of strangers.

Of course the psychopath would choose quick and humane but that is too easy. He should suffer on a level commensurate with the suffering inflicted on the victim(s). Let's be clear - for those that are proven guilty way beyond a shadow of a doubt. They deserve no mercy. You don't want to know what I really think should happen to them but I can assure you it is not a nice peaceful drift to eternal sleep due to a lethal injection.

 

[Seth=L]

I am sure that rapists get raped, while they are in prison.

 

[jaxvon]

I am sure that rapists get raped, while they are in prison.

Mainly the child molesters and rapists. From what I've heard, they're the ones most often on the receiving end. Sucks for them...but then again they deserve it in a way.

 

[rtcp]

I'm going to quote a friend of mine.

I believe that no one, not even the courts have the right to judge someone worthy of death.
Just because someone takes another's life (or does action X), it doesn't necessarily mean that any form of authority has the right to take their life. They might deserve to die, but do we have the right to give it to them?


Of course, there is also the inherent issue of deciding when a supposed felony is beyond enough doubt to guarantee guilt.

 

[majorloser]

This brings to mind the old statement, "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out."

 

[JVC]

I believe the killer should be killed by the same means their victim died.
If the victim died by being beat to death with a baseball bat, execute the killer the same way! Why should we worry if we hurt them, during the process?

 

[stratman]

I'll go with the Major on that one.

 

[racquetman]

I'm going to quote a friend of mine.

I believe that no one, not even the courts have the right to judge someone worthy of death.
Just because someone takes another's life (or does action X), it doesn't necessarily mean that any form of authority has the right to take their life. They might deserve to die, but do we have the right to give it to them?

Everyone has an opinion. Some opinions are general opinions, others are opinions formed because an event occurred that drove you to your opinion.

It's real easy to sit up on your high horse and tell someone else that they shouldn't be able to get justice if their child or spouse or whoever is raped, tortured, and killed. "Ahhhh, you don't have the right to kill this person - even though he took everything away from you that you hold near-and-dear."

Now let's say that your child or spouse is raped, tortured, and killed - and the killer shows no remorse - and he all but laughs at you in the court room. Do you still think you'll have the same opinion?

The biggest problem with people (as I see it) is that everyone thinks their own opinion is so damn important. Especially on issues that have little to no impact on them whatsoever. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, etc. . . . Most of these "hard" issues you can't truly comprehend to begin with until you are put in the situation to have to deal with one of them. You're against abortion - until your daughter gets pregnant due to a horrible rape. You're against gay marriage - until your son comes out of the closet. You're against the death penalty - until your spouse is brutally killed.

I don't think people should say they are for or against any of these issues until they've actually been in a position where it affects them directly. Only then will your true opinion come to the surface.

 

[Johnd]

The biggest problem with people (as I see it) is that everyone thinks their own opinion is so damn important.

As "everyone" belongs to the human race, everyone's opinion is important.

Even when one engages in pure sophistry, or speaks from utter ignorance, their opinion still matters. To decide otherwise is to discount their opinion, and ultimately, the person. This inevitably leads to disrespect and intolerance.

That is not to say I give the time of day to those that engage in sophistry or speak from ignorance...I have better things to do with my time. I would rather engage in discourse that stretches the mind, whilst hearing others opinions (which stretches the mind, especially if you disagree with their opinion).

While life-changing events happen to everyone, it is the perceptive person that considers those important things that have never touched him (or her), becomes philosophical about them, and hopefully, behaves accordingly.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

I don't think people should say they are for or against any of these issues until they've actually been in a position where it affects them directly. Only then will your true opinion come to the surface.

I live in an area that already has the death penalty. My main concerns are about to whom its delt to, and how its accomplished.

 

[racquetman]

I live in an area that already has the death penalty. My main concerns are about to whom its delt to, and how its accomplished.

If you are truly concerned about it, then I guess it affects you. No one should have a problem with that. Are you truly "concerned"?

I think my real problem is with people that use religion as a basis to form their opinion and then tell everyone else they are wrong if they don't agree with them. If you think abortion is killing a life, good for you. If you think you are so high and mighty that you should be able to tell someone else they can't have an abortion, I say you are an arrogant person who needs to understand your place in society.

 

[Johnd]

If you think abortion is killing a life, good for you. If you think you are so high and mighty that you should be able to tell someone else they can't have an abortion, I say you are an arrogant person who needs to understand your place in society.

1. Abortion is "killing a life". The question is whether it is the taking of a person's life (who has rights).

2. "High and Mighty" is a notoriously ad hominem argument, which is readily discarded. We live in a society whereby the people have rights that are limited by rules that are hopefully decided by a majority through serious and thoughtful deliberation.

 

[racquetman]

As "everyone" belongs to the human race, everyone's opinion is important.

Everyone's opinion should hold equal weight. I can agree with that. Your opinion on an issue shouldn't affect the course of someone else's life if that issue has absolutely no affect on you. As an example, if someone wants an abortion and you're against it, why should you're opinion outweigh theirs? Whether that person gets an abortion or not has absolutely no consequence to you (whether you say it does or not). Is your stance more important because you are you?

If you want to get into an argument that abortion degrades the moral integrity of our society, well that is a whole other issue.

Anyway, I'm just trying to look at this issue from a humble perspective. I think people should ask themselves why they think they should be able to tell others what they can and can't do.