1st off - if the number of executions in the US is rising how is the number of murders declining?
2ndly i dont think the US crime rate has much to do with the number of people executed - if i had time i would dredge up facts about the US showing that when the DP was used more, crime rates were still rising. The level of crime is dependent on better quality of life and better policing.
Yes a lot of offenders reoffend. Do you suggest we execute everyone who ever offended?
Handguns were banned in 1997 yet the crime rate was rising in 1996, before handguns were banned. Maybe the two arent actually related - crime was on the up anyway.
I disagree with the death penalty for two main reasons:
-you can never be 100% certain that the person you're executing committed the crime.
-if you punnish murder with murder you're being a hypocrit and making it acceptable. I dont think murder on any level should ever be made acceptable.
“Critically pointing a finger at one country that “practices” the DP (the US in particular) because “their” crime rate is to high for your standards is biased.”
Oh, MAN! Not this again… No one is “pointing fingers”. I’m assuming you’re a US-citizen since this “if you disagree with my US-views you’re anti-american” has become a boring but unfortunately common reply.
Lil Bitchiness’ list shows, that countries practising the DP are usually dictatorships and totalitarian countries. This should tell you, that the DP is a mean of oppression.
Of course the lack of gun-control in the US contributes to the amount of murders. It IS easier to shoot someone if the gun is right there in your hand. But the socio-economics of the US are also of a totally different type than in Europe – I prefer to live in a country where I don’t run the risk of being gunned down for merely walking in a “specific neighbourhood”. If that means I can’t go buy a gun in the nearest supermarket – Fine with me.
The statistics shown in Bowling for Columbine are correct. The question is “Why the many shootings in the US” compared to Europe?
Is it this fear/scare-tactics the government over there is using? My friends in the US are currently getting sick and tired of constant TERROR-alerts, and Fox-news blazing fear out over half the US-population.
Be it as it may – is the answer to gun-related crimes to murder even more people?
Yes, there are examples of people who’ve committed crimes so heinous it almost defies understanding. Yet what good does it do to kill those people? You can never undo a crime? Hand these lunatics over to closed mental hospitals so they can at least contribute something to society when psychiatrist and psychologists get to work on them, to find out what the heck went wrong with them. And thereby preventing it from happening again. If we don’t find the root-causes of these crimes they are bound to happen again.
There are TWO discussions here:
a) Let’s say Mr. A IS a murderer without a doubt. Every piece of evidence points to him being the guilty party. Should he be sentenced to death?
b) Should we allow the death-penalty as a form of punishment.
Naybean> “if you punnish murder with murder you're being a hypocrit and making it acceptable. I dont think murder on any level should ever be made acceptable.”
Exactly!
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
The death penalty aims to stop the individual (i.e. the murderer) from killing again. It is not aim to put a stop to any other future murders from happening. The law of the state clearly states that if you murder you will be trial and possible executed. No one can stop a human from murdering another human being. Murders will continue no matter how technological we become. There are for instances Crimes of Passion or even Crimes because of feuds. Is like Crime fighters they seek to stop the criminal but they can never stop a crime from happening. There are ways to fight crime but to put a full stop to it isn't going to happen.
On your fist reason: YES you can be 100% certain that a person is guilty of committing the crime. That's why they have things like Testimonies and most important "Evidence". If the prosecution can prove without a shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty then is up to the defense to plead for forgiveness to the judge.
On your second reason. So by that logic The state and the people that form the state are all murderers? I don't think so. When the State issues an execution is the will of the law and those that support the law. The person sentence to death has already been trial and found guilty. If the defendor (i.e. the victims lawyer) can establish some type of appeal. Then there is a chance the Judge might pardon the prisoner. If he can't then that means that Law has to continue with the execution.
Yes, If you really have all the evidence and I mean all, not what the courts allow, and of course now we have DNA testing...The courts should be revamped though....I don't really feel our court system works too well as it is now.
No matter how bad a crime is , at least for the first time a person commits a crime , maybe they should just lock them up in jail...if the person gets out and kills a few people , then maybe they should get a death sentence....i dunno , it depends what the person did...
You know thats what they will say at first, 100% clear evidence. But then the evidence is 99% clear. With very little doubt and they deicde that its possible.
Thats the problem with rules they are always broken. The death penalty is a bad thing no matter what because eventually you will start punishing people that do not deserve it. No matter how clear the evidence seems to be.
No you put them in jail, make them work for their money make them do something for the rest of their lives. Prisoners can be abused into doing hard labor for almost no money...
At the same time you can give them treatment, most of the people that do things like that have some kind of problem. Maybe try treating that. Killing people because they did something is never a good idea, especially when you later on find out that the guy is innocent. And shit like that does happen.
There've been over 100 death row inmates exonerated and released by DNA evidence in the U.S. Which equates to roughly one exonerated for every seven people executed in the last 30 odd years in the U.S. So, no, I don't particularly favour the death penalty.
Even DNA evidence isn't absolute. Someone whose found legally guilty by a jury can be innocent, while someone whose found legally innocent by a jury can be guilty *cough* OJ Simpson *cough*, it's still based on the subjective opinion of twelve men and women, thus I don't think it's acceptable to exact an irrevocable penalty.
Execution if someone is caught in the act killing little kids? I wouldn't necessarily support it but I wouldn't necessarily object to it. I still find the death penalty unseemly.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 15th, 2004 08:35 AM
