I'm not sure if i've made a thread like this one in the past, or whether one exist by anyone else, but after reading an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/26/damien-echols-i-survived-death-row) I've been wondering what people's opinions are of the death penalty and of sentencing in general.

I'm not completely for or against the death penalty. I do have a problem with giving someone the death penalty without it being 100% positive that the person is guilty. But if it is certain, depending on the crime committed, I believe that the death penalty is in a some cases, the most just punishment.

This makes me want to re-read Crime and Punishment.

 

I think murder is wrong no matter why or who is doing it. The law says 'don't muder', but we'll murder you if you murder. The death penalty is barbaric and what if on the off-chance that person was innocent, somehow? It's better to err on the side of caution, always.

I believe that the death penalty is in a some cases, the most just punishment.

 

Please expand.

The death penalty is the easy way out for the criminal.

 

They should be made to spend the rest of their lives living on an old oil-rig which has been turned into a prison. Run by the person whom did that prison out in Arizona, so it's the basics, no luxuries.

The death penalty is the easy way out for the criminal.

 

They should be made to spend the rest of their lives living on an old oil-rig which has been turned into a prison. Run by the person whom did that prison out in Arizona, so it's the basics, no luxuries.

 

Any thoughts at all on rehabilitation?

The death penalty is the easy way out for the criminal.

 

They should be made to spend the rest of their lives living on an old oil-rig which has been turned into a prison. Run by the person whom did that prison out in Arizona, so it's the basics, no luxuries.

 

It doesn't surprise me at all that your main concern would be the punishing.

 

I know its important to deter someone from doing crimes by taking away the human rights of convicted criminals, so if criminals lived very comfortable lives but were still kept safely away from committing harm to society, then if we all knew this someone who really hated a person and wanted to actually kill them wouldn't really see a downside to doing it. But the main thing is keeping them away from society, when you start to differentiate the crime to the type of punishment well eventually it'll be Guantanamo, and as Bradcock says the possibility of rehabilitation has to come into play.

Considering a prisoner gets more spent on them for food a day (£3) than a member of the army (Currently £1.90), isn't that wrong?

 

Some criminals prefer life behind bars as it's guaranteed food, drink, warmth and ents, it's returning to the Victorian times where people would do crimes just to go to a safer place.

Christ. Prison is clearly a fucking holiday.

I'm going to bed after reading that.

Christ. Prison is clearly a fucking holiday.

 

For some, it is.

For some, it is.

 

For some it would be a way of life if they are institutionalised or so far removed from society that prison is genuinely a better place for them in their current situation, but holiday I would disagree with. And hypothetically, even if that was so, then what? You'd then decide to make it harder for them and that will better integrate them into society or make you feel better? Or would you try and rehabilitate them to at least some extent in order to prevent the problem or make some progress into helping them and reducing the risk to others?

 

Anyway, bed.

I think they should lock away people who murder and never release them so they can't kill again. However, for all other crimes, rehabilitation should be the primary goal, not punishment. Murder is a little different than any other crime. I'm a fan of restorative justice overall.

Considering a prisoner gets more spent on them for food a day (£3) than a member of the army (Currently £1.90), isn't that wrong?

 

Some criminals prefer life behind bars as it's guaranteed food, drink, warmth and ents, it's returning to the Victorian times where people would do crimes just to go to a safer place.

 

I found an average of £2.30 for prisoners, got a source on the army? Nonetheless if that's true its simply not fair on people in the army, it means nothing when it comes to prisoners because you can't realistically spend much less than a few quid a day on someone to keep them alive.

 

People do indeed prefer prison to life on the streets etc. (But you mention it as if it's common enough to worth being part of this debate- its rare) but that's a different issue, if the quality of life is so bad that it becomes a widespread issue that we have people intentionally committing crimes to go to jail, then that's a problem with society, it doesn't give us the right to then go "Wow life is so shit that this place is like a holiday for them, so lets make this place even more shit than out there".

 

Inevitably there will be people who are homeless or in regular trouble with gangs and prefer the safety and comfort of basic living being incarcerated, that doesn't mean we need to make it even worse to deter them.

 

I think they should lock away people who murder and never release them so they can't kill again.

 

I'm assuming you don't mean involuntary manslaughter, but even after that it becomes very tricky. What about someone who totally tries to murder by beating someone within an inch of their life or shooting them, but the victim pulls through? Or say, a thought out and planned intention of murdering someone but the plot is foiled? Surely those 2 cases means that those people are just as capable of murdering as someone who has actually done it.

 

There's no massive gap between the mentality of someone whose officially murdered and someone who hasn't, we're all capable of it and it's deciding under the circumstances the chance of rehabilitating a murderer as well as the threat they pose to society at that moment in time, and of course this will vary for every single case.

That's a good point. I think someone that almost killed someone, or was proven to have the intention to, should be considered the same as someone who actually did kill.

Please expand.

When you have a person who murders or does something so evil and disgusting, and they show no remorse at all, they have pretty much forfeit their lives.

That's a good point. I think someone that almost killed someone, or was proven to have the intention to, should be considered the same as someone who actually did kill.

 

I mean at least it's consistent, but damn that's harsh, and a LOT of people to keep in prison until old age, of course I disagree. Say for example someone who, in the heat of a drunken fight hits someone in the temple with a bottle and it kills them, they don't deserve the same punishment as someone who turns up to someones house with a gun (To use examples that are somewhat within the same bracket).

 

Realistically that law would leave massive gaps in the way the justice system works, if a case came down to whether it was intentional or not (Still assuming you aren't counting involuntary manslaughter from neglect or otherwise) then take the bottle situation for example, if they decide it wasn't intentional then you're looking at what, 5 years maybe? If its decided it was intentional, life imprisonment. It's not the usual dilemma of deciding whether someone did something or not, everyone knows they did it, but deciding between intentional or not (Which is ultimately impossible) means the difference of a 5 year punishment to 60+, it just wouldn't work and there would be so many issues that would arise from it.

 

When you have a person who murders or does something so evil and disgusting, and they show no remorse at all, they have pretty much forfeit their lives.

 

Do we then murder the person who executed them?

Do we then murder the person who executed them?

No, because the executor isn't murdering. They've been given this authority just as an armed police man has. I know it's a little different, but when you have an evil person who would murder again if given the chance.

Who has the authority to give someone the right to take another life? What is this authority people talk of? Is the name changed for the same act, and deemed acceptable because a group people who control the military-police(everyone with guns to enforce their authority) say so? How is killing someone not murder, moral and legitimate based upon a government that has power simply because it has the guns and controls the economy?

Well, if I were to give you my answer as to who has the authority, it would start a whole different kind of argument. But I don't think we should stray too far away from the actual purpose of this thread...and since I'm not strongly for the death penalty, I don't see the point in trying to defend it.

 

But what exactly do you think would be a just punishment for those people murder innocent people, unrepentantly? It almost seems like some of these people could care less if they spent their life in prison.

No, because the executor isn't murdering. They've been given this authority just as an armed police man has. I know it's a little different, but when you have an evil person who would murder again if given the chance.

 

But an armed police man kills somebody who is a direct danger to society and is at large. An executioner kills somebody who doesn't have the opportunity to murder again at that point. People don't just get set free after the time is up. Those still considered a danger to society don't get let out.

 

As soon as you give the state the permission to end lives you are in trouble. For a nation who cling to guns because of the fear of not being able to form a militia, a lot of Americans are keen to let the very same people they fear have the ability to kill.

 

It's a thought not limited to Americans though, so I'm not just focussing on you.

But what exactly do you think would be a just punishment for those people murder innocent people, unrepentantly? It almost seems like some of these people could care less if they spent their life in prison.

 

Life imprisonment. People change a lot when in prison for a long time and many begin to regret their actions. Even some of the monsters. Some do not. But you don't kill people or you find yourself at their level. They are still a human being and they are not at large. What are your thoughts on IQ level in this debate? If they are a below a certain IQ would you spare them? And how would you handle children who commit sadistic murders?

Also (and I'm not saying this aggressively or with any anger, just speaking matter of factly) if I wasn't strongly for the death penalty I would refrain from talking so bluntly in favour of it unless from a devils advocate or hypothetical position as what you are supporting is the killing of a human being, using an argument you aren't fully behind. Seems a little strange.

Life imprisonment. People change a lot when in prison for a long time and many begin to regret their actions. Even some of the monsters. Some do not. But you don't kill people or you find yourself at their level. They are still a human being and they are not at large. What are your thoughts on IQ level in this debate? If they are a below a certain IQ would you spare them? And how would you handle children who commit sadistic murders?

Well, I guess the kind of crimes I'm thinking of are the planned out ones, mainly. If anyone is aware enough of what they're doing to have it planned out, I think they should have the same punishment. Children...well, I don't know...that's always a tough one. Putting them in some sort of prison doesn't seem right...and definitely not the death penalty. Children are constantly changing and growing and hopefully maturing, and they need good guidance and disapline. So...I don't know...

 

Sorry if my explanation is awful, I'm not good at putting my thoughts into words.

 

Also (and I'm not saying this aggressively or with any anger, just speaking matter of factly) if I wasn't strongly for the death penalty I would refrain from talking so bluntly in favour of it unless from a devils advocate or hypothetical position as what you are supporting is the killing of a human being, using an argument you aren't fully behind. Seems a little strange.

Well, I know. I was just answering your question and then other people's and I realised that I was coming across a bit more in favour of it than I really was.

I concur with what I've read from Reilly and Braddock here. I think the only role that the Law should serve is to prevent future crime, and, if possible, rehabilitate prisoners to where they can function in society. No good or justice comes from gratuitous acts of revenge or punishment. This is largely dictated by my stance on free will. Monstrous murderers are only the vehicles for an unfortunate series of causal events. This does not exclude desire, of course. But the fact that they possessed said desires is a causal accident. I generally hate horror films where the crowd applauds when the bad guy finally gets tortured and mutilated at the end.