Is execution better than a life sentence?

You're probably right, better thousands guilty will be released as an innocent sentenced to death.

 

If you steal a car, you have violated a law. When in violation of the law, you have no rights. Please tell me which right under the Constitution is being violated when you are not given a choice of punishment.

Not sure this was meant for me, or maybe you are quoting yourself?

 

A chance to repent for their evil deeds?

 

while i am usually very much for the death penalty i like the thought of this. This gives life in prison a whole new meaning and the worst of the worst could be used as lab rats to test products for the better of us humans.

besides, i would rather save a cute bunny or mouse from such things as they didnt do anything wrong to be put in that position. Now if this were implemented into life sentences and for the truly vile of our society, not only would that be a huge deterrent knowing you will live a truly horrendous life as a lab rat or crash test dummy, but for the criminal who committed such gross acts will get tossed around like rag dolls like they should be.

but until that happens, im voting for instant death because its wasting tax dollars just feeding and clothing these jerks.

 

Life sentence with necessity to work on so heavy works , redundant sentenced workers should be executed .

 

Better for whom? I think most people would rather be executed than serve life without parole for 25 years or more, if they knew what that entailed. There's a good reason that so many convicted murderers ask to be executed.

Better for society? I can't see how. They are not a danger to society if they have LWOP. They're not escaping from a maximum security institution. It also costs a lot more to keep a person alive until his/her execution date than it does to imprison them for life.

 

That shows how little you know. It costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. Your other suggestions are inhumane, and really not suitable for a country that claims on one day to be a Christian country and the next day suggests such barbaric methods as the ones you mention.

 

If proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person is guilty of a life sentencing act, they should definitely be swiftly removed from the world. If you ask me, prison is entirely too comfortable for fellons these days. They can earn degrees, exercise, watch television, play sports, etc. They're supposed to have been removed from society, but it's as though we've brought society to them. Now liberals would have them vote, as well.

Execute 'em.

 

The reason it costs more money to execute someone, is because the legal system is so convoluted now days, that it takes a ridiculous amount of meandering through red tape and years to proceed with an execution. If we eased the process, it wouldn't be as expensive.

 

yeah yeah yeah i know that same old "it cost more to execute" argument. the only reason that is so is because of appeal, after appeal, after appeal, after appeal and the court costs that go with it.

If we just carried out the death penalty within a 2 year period it wouldnt cost anywhere near what it costs to feed and clothe the freak for life would.

so please shush with the lame argument, because its plain horse(*)(*)(*)(*) considering the manner you want to use it in. It dont cost millions of dollars to electrocute or drug someone to death.

secondly i dont give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if using the scum of the earth as lab rats is considered inhumane, i could care less about a murderers or child molesters feelings because they sure as hell didnt give a damn about their victims feelings. thirdly take your moral high ground argument and put it back in your wallet, i dont give a crap about who says this is a christian nation or not, just because we have a majority christian population it doesnt make it so because this country is not ran by a church.

so with all that aside, i hope we use the worst of the worst criminals as crash test dummies and lab rats.

thank you, come again!!!

 

that's how i approached it, how ~I~ would deal with a life sentance, you still have a chance at new evidence, someone else confessing living long enough for a medical release...escape?

still no better system devised.

 

Execution is needed for those that deserver it, we tend to be humane on those that choose not to.

If a human being takes another human beings life with out no connection to the individual and in cold blood, then in my opinion that deserves the death penalty.

 

Says who? I've never seen it that way.

 

Are you keen to a better system?

 

I suppose the question is wheter it's worth a few innocents' lives to have really bad people killed. Is it worth it? I don't think it is actually, especially not when they can be kept in prison instead. But of course, there's many cases where there's no doubt and where death is fitting. I'd like to say that I'm pro on a moral basis, but see the practical difficulties comming from our inperfect nature.

 

That's why the death sentence should be reserved for cases that are decided beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course, we must trust our peers to decide that for us. An imperfect system, just like any other, but I've yet to hear of one that's more fair and just. Although, I would argue that society is changing and the court system with it (for the worse).

 

Better for whom? We have such a backwards approach to justice and even personal responsibility that I really think it is a lose-lose either way.

 

Euthonasia is what we do to our pets to end their suffering and what should be available to our human loved ones as well. As far as we can tell, death is a “dreamless sleep”, just like the eternity before we were born. No inconvenience, no suffering, no thought, nothing. My dog deserved euthanasia when he had parvo. My grandmother deserved euthanasia when she was paralyzed from a stroke.

A cold blooded killer does NOT deserve euthanasia.

 

Then it would appera that the death penalty ought to be applied less than it currently is, because as of now there's many innocents.

But.. There's always going to be innocents aren't there? Is the life of even one innocent person worth it so that a thousand murderers could be killed? Is revenge -because it's about that, which I understand- worth so much as an innocents life? Would you feel it was ok if you were killed, although innocent, so that a thousand families could feel that sense of revenge and justice? Would it be okay if we sacrificed your mother? I don't think it's worth it. But of course, there's cases like my good nieghbor mr. breivik where there's no doubt. He should just be shot.

 

if you know of one, please feel free to name it.

 

It's definitely a tough call, that's for certain. How do you not feel guilty either way? Someone serving a life sentence, who is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, could potentially/eventually get released (just as the Lockerbie Bomber was released, due to physical ailments - albeit, that wasn't in the USA) and coordinate attacks/murders as a means to an end. Not only that, but people serving life could potentially reach the outside (through communication) and coordinate a revenge killing. It's not like it hasn't happened before with the mafia.

Will there always be innocents? The rule of probability tells us that there will be at some point. I would agree with your premise, that one innocent life is worth saving from wrongful execution, except that innocents are killed every day by villains on death row (or not). Innocent lives are taken (given the death sentence) without a court room to decide the fate of that innocent. Is that fair? Shouldn't the lives of potential victims out on the streets take precedence, so that we can at least make an effort to rid this world of demons? I would say that justice would be served if a convicted felon didn't have the luxuries of living in prison and/or simply died. If prison were as harsh as it used to be, that would be one thing... but it's not. Why would we want to be held responsible for a murderer for the remainder of his/her life, making certain that he doesn't die and gets free room and board? Seems like more punishment for us, rather than him.

Weren't most of those on death row who are innocent convicted at a time before DNA (and more advanced policing techniques) was used in the court room? Mistakes should be happening less frequently now. At least, one would hope.

Of course I wouldn't feel it was ok if I was killed, but innocent. I would curse the system for being corrupt and flawed. The court system should work... they should have to prove your guilt and you shouldn't have to prove your innocence. If the evidence is stacked against you (me), then there's got to be a reason for it. This is why there are lawyers... so you can be defended and prosecuted. It's an imperfect system...

I don't know, Swedish, sometimes I just want to throw my hands up in the air, because I don't like either side of the argument. There's really no winning argument here, because in the end, someone is killed, due to the death of another. The innocent that was killed didn't have his/her day in court. The murderer or person perceived to be the murderer did. I guess we should define what justice really is, because maybe that could help to clear the air of fog.

 

Ah of course, one needs to think about the innocent people that might get killed due to criminals getting released when they shouldn't (again due to our faulty nautre, and thus faulty justice system). Simply calcuating wheter the death penalty, while it kills some innocents, ultimately saves more from being killed by relased murderers is the way to go in determining what to do I think. Atleast morally, but I think we'd have a hard time getting the data needed for it. good point, good point.

 

I think that the fact that we're questioning this is good for society. Being uncomfortable with either answer means, I think, that we still have a soul. lol