Should the death penalty be legal?

[Takka 13,376]

The death penalty may give a victim's family closure, though is it a morally acceptable punishment? The "eye for an eye" revenge mentality is more emotionally based than it is on fair consequences.

Additionally, the endless appeals and additional procedures bring financial costs to taxpayers several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. With prison overpopulation becoming a more serious problem, should more money be instead invested in expanding the prison system?

[Pfhunkie 3,544]

For the most part, it's much more of an emotional justice than anything else. Eye for an eye is a part of the mentality that I hope this world overcomes in the near future and I think we're getting there.

It's not cost effective and to all the people who say we need it due to prison over population, I say we stop this war on drugs that's caused the over population in the first place. Fix the laws that imprison people for doing things to their own body and create opportunities for people to make much more money illegally rather than doing honest work.

[Floofies 2,470]

With the "fire-and-forget" prison system that currently exists in america, it is but a childish excuse to say the death penalty is the only option. Rehabilitation isn't even attempted, yet everyone wants to go the quick & easy route, killing. It's akin to putting down a dog with a broken leg: you could wait for it to heal, or you could forego the suffering and kill it before it even has a chance to whimper. In this case it is a matter of money, with private prisons being the worst offenders of such a concept.

[Sceny 3,138]

I think those who cant be rehabilitated, and will be spending the rest of their lives in prison, should be sentenced to death. We waste a large amount of resources on those who do terrible things.

[WaeV 5,049]

I think those who cant be rehabilitated, and will be spending the rest of their lives in prison, should be sentenced to death. We waste a large amount of resources on those who do terrible things.

I (tentatively) agree, mostly because of this article I read from someone who has spent over 25 years in solitary confinement. He was attempting to escape jail and ended up shooting two police officers in the heat of the moment. He says that he was a stupid kid back then, but if he had any inkling of what the 25 years to come were going to be like he would have committed suicide long ago. To him, solitary confinement is a fate far worse than death.

[The Arbiter 79]

There's always the issue of incorrect convictions. If evidence comes out 10 years later that proves a guy is innocent, but he's already been killed... That's pretty much murder.

[Kavawuvi 7,026]

Eye-for-an-eye and vengeance have been present since the dawn of mankind. We're just coming up with more "humane" ways to end people's lives.

 

Objectively, the death penalty should be reserved for those who are past the point of no return, as what many above say. If there's no hope and they cannot benefit anyone in any way, keeping them imprisoned is a wasted effort, as it does neither society nor the prisoner any good. The decision should be as impersonal as possible.

 

I think we should keep the death penalty legal. To make this sound less like revenge:

• Prison is not a hotel that you simply check in and check out, it is a place where bad people learn their lesson. Time and resources are wasted by locking up people who can't be helped.
• No matter how "humane" you sugarcoat the death penalty, it's the act of killing someone, and the outcome is the same: the end of their life forever.
• Holding prisoners against their will until they die is still killing them, but much slower, and possibly painfully. This is what lawmakers consider "humane". Why waste resources? The only thing prison helps by doing this is the lawmaker's self-consciousness.

Edited October 27, 2013 by 002

[Floofies 2,470]

Eye-for-an-eye and vengeance have been present since the dawn of mankind. We're just coming up with more "humane" ways to end people's lives.

 

Objectively, the death penalty should be reserved for those who are past the point of no return, as what many above say. If there's no hope and they cannot benefit anyone in any way, keeping them imprisoned is a wasted effort, as it does neither society nor the prisoner any good. The decision should be as impersonal as possible.

 

I think we should keep the death penalty legal. To make this sound less like revenge:

• Prison is not a hotel that you simply check in and check out, it is a place where bad people learn their lesson. Time and resources are wasted by locking up people who can't be helped.
• No matter how "humane" you sugarcoat the death penalty, it's the act of killing someone, and the outcome is the same: the end of their life forever.
• Holding prisoners against their will until they die is still killing them, but much slower, and possibly painfully. This is what lawmakers consider "humane". Why waste resources? The only thing prison helps by doing this is the lawmaker's self-consciousness.

 

 

Answer this: If indeed there is such waste, and the goal is to be humane, why not invest in expanded rehabilitation? Why go straight to the easiest option that has been used for centuries?

 

Look at this prison in Norway: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

 

What exactly are they doing so differently that they have "the lowest reoffending rate in Europe"? This is my example because they have no death penalty, and instead implement "education, training and skill-building programmes", and "Instead of wings and landings they lived in small "pod" communities within the prison, limiting the spread of the corrosive criminal prison subculture that dominates traditionally designed prisons". This concept has been tested and it works, and thus comes my point that the death penalty is not the only working option, it is only the easiest and saves more money. The private and federal prison systems are both concerned with saving money, and that I believe is the only reason for even considering the death penalty in the 21'st century. Anyone else who comes into the situation with any other argument is severely missing the point, which is that the prison systems do not care about their opinions.

 

In other words, arguments of morality and civility go out the window when it comes to this kind of coupon-cutting.

[Kavawuvi 7,026]

Answer this: If indeed there is such waste, and the goal is to be humane, why not invest in expanded rehabilitation? Why go straight to the easiest option that has been used for centuries?

What I meant was that if they cannot be helped at all, then keeping them in prison for their entire life and ignoring them is no different from killing them, probably being even worse than the death penalty. I didn't say that you shouldn't try helping them, and I didn't mean that you should go straight to killing someone, as that's pretty barbaric.

Edited October 27, 2013 by 002

[Floofies 2,470]

What I meant was that if they cannot be helped at all, then keeping them in prison for their entire life and ignoring them is no different from killing them, probably being even worse than the death penalty. I didn't say that you shouldn't try helping them, and I didn't mean that you should go straight to killing someone, as that's pretty barbaric.

 

To equate solitude with death is a usual philosophical principle, and often ends with an inmate trying to commit suicide.

 

Are you saying people with life sentences should be killed? That appears to be assuming most people who enter an (American) rehabilitation program will not succeed. On the other side of the fence, we could optimistically assume that most American inmates do succeed in the program, thus offsetting the cost of those who do not. Looking at the evidence from Norway, we have reason to be optimistic.