Is execution better than a life sentence?

I favor execution of killers, let the punishment fit the crime. Castrate rapists, the old root and stem method, not some chemical trash. Cut the hands off thieves. The so-called justice system isn't really working, its not a proper punishment and it offers way too little reform from the criminals. I'd also say to enact such punishments would require some higher standards for conviction. I can see no point in warehousing criminals...

 

State-sanctioned executions - whether it is China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the US, North Korea, Somalia, or Sudan*, all of whom still indulge in the practice with the greatest frequency (If it were an independent country, Texas would ranked 7th, between North Korea and Somalia) - in their usurping a right to kill people in cold blood, either deny fallibility (a disturbing behaviour for any regime) or accept inevitably killing innocents as a matter of expediency.

No people should surrender to any government the power to kill any of its people.

Life sentences are an acknowledgement that the State is not an infallible entity - a god.


* Virtually all advanced, first-world nations, all whose ethical values are based on a Christian heritage, have now progressed beyond the practice.






.

 

This is an entirely fair argument against the death penalty. It is well stated.

I however can retort on a few sentiments here.

-Death penalty sentences can be (and most often are) appealed on multiple grounds. It is ultra rare for one to be found innocent or exonerated after execution.

-Since the introduction of DNA incrimination, the justice system has better and more accurate evidence to convict.

-Many cases never go to trial with the perpetrator pleading guilty. They acknowledge guilt based upon the overwhelming evidence facing them.

I believe we are far more civilized in the area of execution than notable areas in history. ie; the Puritan Era or the 'wild west' phase of the Westward Expanse. A system of justice may never be perfect but I believe (maybe naively) that where there is smoke there is fire. Many walk away from proper conviction because of technicalities or lack of circumstanial evidence. It's a price we must pay for living among sinister and unmoral souls.

 

Death is the right thing to do.

1 - The bastards deserve it
2 - One bullet is cheaper than a a lifetime of prison meals and all the other costs involved in looking after a bastard.
3 - No idiot left wing arse can fight to get him off so he can go out an offend again.

The Chinese method is the best: Walk through the streets with a sign saying what they did then a single bullet into the back of the head.

 

Quite a few people have been found innocent, and rare or not, why not save an innocent person's life instead of pointlessly killing them?

DNA is not always the deciding factor, so to claim the accuracy of DNA is irrelevant. It is also sometimes circumstantial, relying on the jury to believe the circumstances were not innocent. Troy Davis was executed not based on DNA, but witnesses, even though 7 out of 9 witnesses recanted, saying that they were bullied into claiming he did it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ecution-highlights-witness-unreliability.html

Why exactly is the execution of innocent people the "price we must pay?" What exactly are we getting in return for our payment of innocent lives? We're not safer because of death penalties. We're killing innocent people because of them.

 

Your ultra-Statist position and admiration for repressive regimes is noted. Not all Americans embrace enlightened democracies and Christian values.

 

The death penalty has it's purposes. It is the ugly deterrent to malicious criminal act. Without getting into the semantics of it I can simply state that it is far cheaper to execute persons guilty of reckless murder or other heinous crime than to 'house' them for decades.

I read the details on the case of Troy Davis. He admitted being at the scene of the crime yet did not implicate or accuse another of the shooting in question. The witnesses in the case were not credible to begin with as none of them were actually in close proximity to the crime scene or had sketchy credibility to begin with.

Also, Davis' criminal record was indicative of such perpetrated behavior.

I say with respect to your view and opinion: I still have reason to believe that execution is more carefully considered than most wish to believe. Adversely a 'sloppy' trial is a recipe for a mis-trial. In the case of Troy Davis, I still believe that the jury of 12 (mixed ethnicity) were presented with overwhelming evidence in the case.

Can I ask your opinion regarding those who confess to a capital punishment related crime? Should their life be spared? Is there no case deserving of capital punishment? Should we house all criminals of such caliber for the rest of their natural life?

 

Is it, though? Is it any more of a deterrent than life in jail?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

From my CNN story cited below:

The death penalty is a huge cost, and not an efficient way to deter criminals, according to people that actually enforce laws.

And isn't this like offering innocent human sacrifices to the god of crime to spare us from evil? Would you let them execute you as a murderer for murders you didn't commit, just so that others would feel safer?

Except, due to repeals, the death penalty is more expensive.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/20/death.penalty/

And the keyword here is "guilty." As pointed out, wrong people get convicted of these crimes. Do I really have to go over that again?

Well, gee, then that makes him guilty!

So, wait, this case was won on the testimony of the eye witnesses...which you say were not credible to begin with.

lol, you can't convict someone of a crime based on passed behavior. Your entire argument here was absolutely ridiculous. I certainly hope you're never on a jury.

And what exactly was the evidence? Eye witnesses that you say have no credibility?

If someone is deemed sane and they pleads guilty to such a crime for which there is sufficient evidence, they can put a bullet in the back of their head for all I care.

 

Some people would prefer the death sentence over life in prison and vice-versa. In some cases I think you should be able to decide which one happens to you after spending at least x amount of years in prison.

 

I would rather be killed than spend my entire life in jail.

But of course I would spend every moment trying to get free, through legal means or others.

I believe in the right to a speedy execution for anyone who knows and freely admits their guilt.

For people who deny the charges despite conviction, it should be delayed to allow them to muster new facts or a better defense.

 

Statism is hardly my cup of tea because it stifles the free market. A silly, baseless accusation.

I didn't express any support for China's political leadership, just their fast, cheap method of execution. Perhaps you can explain how old sparky or lethal injection is better.

Dead prisoners never re-offend.

 

Dying is far easier than living in prison for the rest of your life. Although I have no sympathy for these degenerates (that rape and commit crimes against children, or do heinous acts) and don't care if they are put to death, I think letting them suffer for the rest of their life is more deserving.

But it depends on each individual case. If there is no definitive proof that a person committed a crime other than circumstantial evidence, then I think it's better to just send them to prison. We've executed too many people here in Texas that later were proven innocent. You can't undo a death.

 

So why do it by keeping them fed and safe -to a standard not given to the lawful poor- when there's so many cheaper and more effective ways to amek them suffer? That's a really bad argument for keeping them imprisoned. If you want to make them suffer, use REAL torture, not life imprisonment.

 

Obviously you don't value freedom much. The lawful poor, thanks to Democrats, can get food and help, and they are free.

Taking someone's freedom away from them is not a cake walk. Real torture is only practiced by barbarians, which this country is not, but I see some are trying to make it into that.

 

the poor still don't enjoy as good a living standard as inmates. I for one think it's sick and disgusting beyond comprehension that a society can pay, with tax money, to give a better standard of living for people that have commited horrible crimes against society, when there's lawful people that could use that money better. It's sick that the father who had his daughter raped, the mother that had her son murded, the guy who had his house bulglarised, all have to pay taxes at gunpoint to make sure that the perpetrators of those crimes are well fed, safe and comfortable, with access to a gym and probably video games. It's just sick, very sick, and a horrible reflection on society.

But you said that you wanted to see them imprisoned for life so they would suffer more. Id est, you don't only care about conatining them, you want to make them suffer. All you is is a barbarian in denial, and a barbarian that doesn't realise that if you want to make them suffer, there are far better -cheaper and more effecitve- ways of doing that.

 

Execution should be reserved for those heineous murders where the felon has no remorse and would kill again. They shouldn't be around living people---and that includes jailers and other prisoners.

There are people who get out of prison who purposely commit crimes to be put back in. Its their "home", they are taken care of and have no responsability as far as working for food and shelter. They have their TV's, their free gender changing operations and other healthcare----to the point where prison can be preferred.

With that in mind---no, a life sentence is not worse then death and is not a deterrant. The best method of execution in my opinion is either hanging or firing squad. Quick for the prisoner and the executioner---but still a deterrant.

 

And I don't really think the majority of people who are strong supporters of the death penalty really care. "After all, they probably did SOMETHING" I've had one say. (Not here)

Mind, I support the death penalty myself but only for murder and only in those cases where the murderer is irrefutably and undoubtedly guilty and shows no remorse. There are a lot of people who seem to think that killing a few innocents is acceptable, so long as terror of the State is maintained.

As to the OP question that depends almost absolutely. The infamous Thanos case is still remembered where I live and the murderer there killed two kids specifically so he WOULD be executed. In that case there is little doubt that the dp was no deterrent whatsoever, and in fact caused the deaths of two people who would otherwise be alive today

 

So, you think the criminal should be given a choice? That's absurd, if they are convicted of a crime, they don't have any rights, especially which way they want to be punished.

 

As a non-involved and passive audience we cannot garner anything more than an outcry of injustice. As an (non-jury member) outside viewer or spectator I find it hard to devote any sympathy or relevance to his defense.

My argument is based on: "Would I support his claim of appeal for retrial?" It would be no. I believe the jury heard and motioned on the case. Any media view or portrayal has the opportunity to be slanted. The media dictates the story and sells public outcry.

If Davis is indeed innocent then may he bear evidence to support it. This is of course only because he was convicted and sentenced. I wholly support the creed "Innocent until proven guilty by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law."

If I did not believe any of it then my faith in the US justice system would be broken. It may be the difference between our two arguments here.

 

Do you make exceptions for rapists, child molesters, or those who have disfigured or maimed someone such as in the case of Carmen Tarleton when her boyfriend doused her in lye?


See her pic (graphic) View attachment 21989

I believe that there are atrocities that match the product of murder.

 

What you state here is very true.

For example: There is a vagrant living in a field near me. His life-accomodations are far from the luxuries that most inmates enjoy. He lives in stifling heat ((110* F)(Phx, AZ)), digs through garbage cans for food, his living accomodations include no t.v, internet, running water, or other sanitary provisions.

While I do not know his exact predicament for arriving where he is at, I cannot regard him luckier than a prison inmate serving life. A matter of perspective maybe.

What I do know is that we house dangerous, repeat criminals without the realistic chance of re-entering society as a productive member, and treat them better than we treat the elderly in a convelescent home. The very elder that raised children and sent them onto college and beyond. They very parents that spent an entire lifetime obeying the law and doing their best to survive and pass on to their children the comforts and successes of life.

Our priorities have become skewed and reversed.

We spend more time adhering our expertise on the rights of the shady individual than the forgotten demograph that has spent an entire lifetime working for and deserving it.

Perhaps just a little food for thought.

 

Maximal statists do not believe it, apparently, by States are notoriously fallible - whether China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or the United States.

Advanced nations - especially those that evidence a Christian ethos - have abandoned the practice, but it should be conceded that, of the above leading practitioners who have not yet reached that stage, in the US, it is now only inflicted in more primitive regions - and even then , without fail - only upon poor people. No person with the means to retain impressive council is ever killed.


Life imprisonment with the option of suicide.

Next case.


.

 

It was my understanding that rights were absolute, and universal. I fail to see how the 'objective' structure of reality disintegrates because you steal a car.

The whole concept of objective rights to begin with is flawed. Strange thing for a Libertarian to say, but what the hey.

 

I voted no, but for some crimes like severely child molestation, drug crimes, killing of many peoples the capital punishment should be continued, if it proved, that delinquent is really guilty on this crime. No one innocent should be sentenced to death.

 

The only way to achieve that worthy goal is not to surrender to the fallible State the power to kill citizens.

Virtually all advanced nations have renounced the practice.