Death Penalty

It depends.  I am generally against the death penalty; however, in situations when there is no doubt to who a murderer is I am far less against the use of the death penalty.

On moral, political, religious or logical grounds it runs counter to everything I believe in. On a non-judgemental basis, it serves no purpose than to allow us to beat our chests manfully. No deterrent, more expensive and little protection for anyone else. But at least we've made the bastards suffer for what (we hope) they've done. Especially if we use the wrong type of injection or if we stick them in a chair.
Sorry but I'm an opinionated git. :-)

I guess it is a sign of our advancing civilisation that we reject "eye for an eye" punishment.

I have watched TV programs that have broadcast cases where the death penalty was carried out on an innocent person, it is difficult not to feel uneasy about it. I have also watched and read about crimes where they are so heinous you wonder why they are allowed to live.

I do sit on the fence, therefore.

Having said all that, if a similar act was committed on any of my children I would serve the death penalty, personally.

For once that is not easier said than done.

One question: Should it be all about punishing people, or socializing them so they never do this again? And if there's no way to rehabilitate them, then just keep them from harming anyone else. No need to kill anyone.

Colt wrote: Having said all that, if a similar act was committed on any of my children I would serve the death penalty, personally. For once that is not easier said than done.

If someone "hurt" one of mine, I know damn well I'd hunt them down, and take the punishment coming. Which is why we place justice out of the hands of the man in the street and serve it dispassionately.

There are definitely different levels:

To me, a monster who walks into a school or shopping mall, etc. and starts opening fire indiscriminately who is caught in the act and lives to tell about it deserves the death penalty. 

Situations like this where there is no doubt who the perpetrator is I don't really have a problem with the death penalty.  The exception to this situation might be the case where there is no doubt the person did it but they did it because someone had kidnapped their child and would kill them unless they committed this atrocity.  I would probably still give them a life sentence though because despite the unenviable situation it still isn't an excuse to kill other innocent people.


On the other hand, situations where a body is found and there are no eyewitnesses and the suspect is someone who is convicted based on circumstantial evidence, if the suspect vehemently denies committing the crime but is convicted anyways, I am more likely to error on the side of caution and that person away for life.        -  The majority of murders probably fall into this category. 

I can't think of any reason why I would support the death penalty personally.

Triceratopsoil wrote: Costs more money than imprisonment for life and has a chance of killing innocent people.  Even if I were a bloodthirsty neocon piece of shit I couldn't support it.

siLLy puPPy wrote: Too many cases of innocents being convicted, law enforcement misconduct and the like. How can a society say killing is wrong and then kill? Prison sounds like a worse punishment any ways

bartosso wrote: One question: Should it be all about punishing people, or socializing them so they never do this again? And if there's no way to rehabilitate them, then just keep them from harming anyone else. No need to kill anyone.

Answer: Happy with that but not paying for their upkeep. Do I let the appropriate governments know you're happy to pay for them all?