Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
The bleeding hearts say that the death penalty is no deterrent. Oh? How many executed murderers have committed additional murders? It really is the ultimate deterrent
I am not criticizing. I am asking a legitimate question after stating that death penalty would stop (it would!) the shoplifter.
For some people the death penalty itself is a extreme measure.
As you don't believe in the Correctional System - you said "I believe a few are rehabilitated" - it must be very frustrating not to see the death penalty enforced for all the cases you believe it should.
If you are right and just a few are rehabilitated, would you consider an alternative to the death penalty?
How do you feel about locking them up on, let's say, an island? (I am not joking, I am trying to understand what you feel is right and what is extreme).
The death penalty is THE most extreme punishment and is reserved for the most extreme crimes. I am curious as to why you are concerned about rehabilitating a murderer and not concerned about the person murdered.
Since I am not the one imposing punishment there is no frustration involved. There are many criminals that escape justice and if I let each case bother me, I'd be a basket case.
Please answer this: Why should the state, that is to say the taxpayers, pay for the housing, clothing, food and medical care of a person who deliberately took the life of another human being (illegally, that is).
The death penalty was never meant to rehabilitate anyone. It is retribution.
Don't see where locking murderers up on an island would change anything. Most maximum security prisons are an island unto themselves.
We could have torture followed by death also... but we are civilized, right?...
Well. The fact that I am concerned about death penalty does not imply I am not concerned about the person murdered or its family. But we are talking about the death penalty. And the death penalty goes to the murderer.
About your question: The state should pay for that if the the state believes that a correctional system works. If people don't believe in a correctional system is coherent that they tend to be in favor of the death penalty.
You said you don't believe in correctional systems so I think you are coherent.
I think that even if the correctional system we use does not work effectively, we should develop one that does.
I am not comfortable with the ideal of killing someone because they have killed. After killing him I did the same thing I said was wrong.
If I believe that is right to kill someone after they killed someone else I would be saying that if someone kills my father and I kill him I am not a criminal.
That was not rhetorical. It was just my way of thinking. I respect yours. Please believe it.
I don't believe retribution fix anything.
I don't think concentration camps works... not even final solutions.
I guess a solution comes after reasoning... not after vengeance.
It remains to be my opinion. =)
Do you think torture followed by death is worse than just a regular death penalty?
Would you say it was a better way to achieve a retribution?
I believe we have said what we wanted to say on this matter. I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine. You are introducing torture, adding crimes to receive death penalty, etc. Won't bother to respond to those.
One thing I don't understand, are not the mentally ill "Guilty by reason of insanity" and not innocent because of it... Changing the wording makes a big difference with the scam used by some to skirt the law. The mentally ill can be more dangerous and it could be another way to protect society from some being released too soon. Give some of them life, I don't want the Manson's, Speck's, Gacey's ever to get out because of some liberal Doctor or Pardon board.
You mean to say that if there is no reasonable dought at the time you condemn an aledged criminal, if later on we learn he wasn`t really guilty, the System wasn`t wrong although the System killed an inocent man?
Teh bleeding hearts will say that they would rather 10 murderers walk the streets than 1 innocent man be executed. I believe that the good of society outweighs the good of the one and society would be much worse off by 10 murders walking the streets. Besides with dna evidence and modern crime lab techiques, today it is much less likely that the innocent will be convicted. Nobody wants to be the one out of a million who is unjustly executed, but living next door to the other 10 who should have been is a much greater danger.
>>> I believe that the good of society outweighs the good of the one
Well, that is the very definition of communism. In the USA we don't believe in communism, we believe that the rights of the individual far outweigh the rights of the community.
The bible also says "an eye for an eye" and habeas corpus does not mean that the majority of the people in this country, (who do believe in the death penalty,by the way)do not have the right to decide the penalties for criminals taking the civil rights away from innocent victims.
So you prefer revenge over Habeas corpus and you prefer "an eye for an eye" over "Thou shall not kill" ....... what a fine specimen you mankind you are!!!
BTW I don't base my opinions on what the majority thinks, only sheep do that.
>>> living next door to the other 10 who should have been is a much greater danger
Then put them in jail forever, this way if a mistake is made habeas corpus will prevail. Don't forget that without habeas corpus a government can rapidly become tyrannical.
You are assuming that the country having the habeas corpus actually adhere to its principles. It would be interesting to know if China, Russia, Venezuala and the like have habeas corpus in their legal systems.
Well, guess what? The brilliant cock sucker 'R'esident Bush suspended Habeas corpus so we don't have it either. But I don't care about those other countries, I am certainly not going to measure my country with the Chinese yard stick.
>>> You are assuming that the country
>>> having the habeas corpus actually
>>> adhere to its principles.
Actually in principal we do have Habeas corpus but again Bush made that a useless piece of paper, along with the constitution. So my country might not see fit to grand Americans freedom anymore but I sure am going to fight tooth and nail for my freedoms and that included habeas corpus as well.
Typical. Resort to profanities. You appear to admit that you are not a U.S. citizen. Where are you from. If you are from the U.S. you are entitled to your opinion. Reasoned or not.
Absolutely not. It is not right for any individual to take the life of another, and it is not right for the state to do it either. Capital punishment is bloodlust, pure and simple.
No. As a deterrent, it doesn't work, so that makes the death penalty a matter of revenge. Our reptilian brain really, really digs it when we can exact a physical revenge on a person, but it's not good for the soul. Especially for the soul of a nation.
That said, I would keep a small possibility for the death penalty in extreme cases. America kills more prisoners than any other industrialized nation, and we're on par with the likes of China and Saudi Arabia...not exactly a club we want to be associated with.
We are on par with China and Saudis Arabia when it comes to killing our criminals, but just as interestingly we are also pretty much on par with WWII Germany on attacking other countries for imperialistic reasons and we are also on par with China and Saddam when it comes to torture ...... makes ya think, don't it?
This is the group that recently defended Rush Limbaugh, claiming he had the right to privacy in his medical records. They might seem "left leaning" in most cases, since most assaults against the Bill of Rights come from conservatives who would abrogate the freedoms the US founders demanded we own. "Left-leaning" to people on the Right yes, but the ACLU stands firmly for that hallowed scrap of paper, the utopian, intentionally liberal Bill of Rights amendment to the US Constitution. ACLU is there for OUR protection as citizens, in case you didn't know....
We are talking about the American Civil Liberties Union, aren't we? The same ACLU that represents flag burners, people who dont want prayer in school, people that don't want the word God anywhere in the government, people who dont want any religious icons/displays during the Christmas season, people who want to abrogate the rights of parents in the raising of their children and what they will be taught in school and a whole litany of other anti-American law suits. Is this the ACLU you refer to?
Yes, the same ACLU -- the people who defended Rush (he is entitled to rights too, even if he wants to take them from others – see: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html ). These are the same people who fight for everyone to maintain the Bill of Rights as the founders created it: freedom of thought, gun rights, no mixing of church and state, freedom of expression, etc. I rather prefer that we keep with the original intent, don't you? To mix religion and politics poisons both. Look to Iran for a contemporary example. Or look to why the pilgrims came here in the first place - to have freedom from state-enforced religion. If Satanists happen to be in power, my guess is you would not like it much if they were able to force their religion on you by law, even if it is just a little prayer to Satan every morning in school (which your child MUST attend), or changing the national anthem as happened in the 1950s to say, “in Lucifer we trust”…. It is ridiculous to say that the ACLU is against religious expression, except where it crosses the public – secular – domain. Religious icons have their rightful place in religious settings, not in government. Read the documents of Jefferson and Madison. They specifically state there should be a “Wall of separation between Church and State.”
Pardon the conflated error in the last entry. The correction: "In God we trust" was added in the early twentieth century to COINS; the Pledge of Allegience, penned by a Socialist (the HORROR!) in 1892, was changed at the height of the McCarthy terror to include "one nation under God". None of that is original to what the United States is about, or what makes it great. It is our openness, tolerance, and freedoms which supposedly the terrorists hate, and what truly does make us worthy of envy.
No its the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime, pure and simple. A recent study refutes the idea that the death penalty isn't a deterent, and actually able to quantify that by saying that putting 1 murderer to death saves 3 innocent people. I work in a maximim security prison, and I can tell you that fear of more time, and fear of the death penalty is one of the things that allow me to return to my family at each and every night.
If you are looking for perfection, you will always be disappointed. I would suggest, however, that the USA makes more efforts to prevent innocent people from being executed that any other country in the world. It usually takes a decade or more for the appeals, etc., to run their course.
Does agreeing with this mean that we must kill the people who impose capital punishment on murderers? Will someone have to kill us then? And then someone kill them? Capital punishment IS deliberate killing. And the fifth Commandment (for Christians here) doesn't seem very ambiguous on the matter.
United States
Shock it to em
definitely
yes
The bleeding hearts say that the death penalty is no deterrent. Oh? How many executed murderers have committed additional murders? It really is the ultimate deterrent
If you apply the capital penalty for rapists, burglary and shoplifting the offender wouldn't be able to do it again either. =)
Do you believe that a Correctional System can change and rehabilitate a criminal?
You can always criticize by quoting extremes, although such may be the case in some non-democratic countries.
I believe a few are rehabilitated, but the habitual criminals frequently fake rehabilitation to seek early release.
I am not criticizing. I am asking a legitimate question after stating that death penalty would stop (it would!) the shoplifter.
For some people the death penalty itself is a extreme measure.
As you don't believe in the Correctional System - you said "I believe a few are rehabilitated" - it must be very frustrating not to see the death penalty enforced for all the cases you believe it should.
If you are right and just a few are rehabilitated, would you consider an alternative to the death penalty?
How do you feel about locking them up on, let's say, an island? (I am not joking, I am trying to understand what you feel is right and what is extreme).
Respectfully,
Bruno Accioly
The death penalty is THE most extreme punishment and is reserved for the most extreme crimes. I am curious as to why you are concerned about rehabilitating a murderer and not concerned about the person murdered.
Since I am not the one imposing punishment there is no frustration involved. There are many criminals that escape justice and if I let each case bother me, I'd be a basket case.
Please answer this: Why should the state, that is to say the taxpayers, pay for the housing, clothing, food and medical care of a person who deliberately took the life of another human being (illegally, that is).
The death penalty was never meant to rehabilitate anyone. It is retribution.
Don't see where locking murderers up on an island would change anything. Most maximum security prisons are an island unto themselves.
Hi,
We could have torture followed by death also... but we are civilized, right?...
Well. The fact that I am concerned about death penalty does not imply I am not concerned about the person murdered or its family. But we are talking about the death penalty. And the death penalty goes to the murderer.
About your question: The state should pay for that if the the state believes that a correctional system works. If people don't believe in a correctional system is coherent that they tend to be in favor of the death penalty.
You said you don't believe in correctional systems so I think you are coherent.
I think that even if the correctional system we use does not work effectively, we should develop one that does.
I am not comfortable with the ideal of killing someone because they have killed. After killing him I did the same thing I said was wrong.
If I believe that is right to kill someone after they killed someone else I would be saying that if someone kills my father and I kill him I am not a criminal.
That was not rhetorical. It was just my way of thinking. I respect yours. Please believe it.
I don't believe retribution fix anything.
I don't think concentration camps works... not even final solutions.
I guess a solution comes after reasoning... not after vengeance.
It remains to be my opinion. =)
Do you think torture followed by death is worse than just a regular death penalty?
Would you say it was a better way to achieve a retribution?
I believe we have said what we wanted to say on this matter. I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine. You are introducing torture, adding crimes to receive death penalty, etc. Won't bother to respond to those.
It was nice to discuss this matter with you.
Thank you for your patience on explaining you motives.
Best Regards
What other crimes do you think should get the capital punishment? And why stop at murder (deliberately)?
Rape should also get it.
Why stop there?
That'd be why the US has such a low murder rate compared to (say) Canada? Oh ... wait ....
Bad example =)
lol
Sorry - I was using irony without a license!
What I meant was that the USA does NOT have a lower murder rate than non death-penalty countries such as Canada or the UK.
One thing I don't understand, are not the mentally ill "Guilty by reason of insanity" and not innocent because of it... Changing the wording makes a big difference with the scam used by some to skirt the law. The mentally ill can be more dangerous and it could be another way to protect society from some being released too soon. Give some of them life, I don't want the Manson's, Speck's, Gacey's ever to get out because of some liberal Doctor or Pardon board.
Is it possible to prove someone murdered someone else deliberately and, latter on, after the death of the subject, understand that a mistake was made?
If so... how to correct the situation?
How to correct? that's not to hard.
Without a reasonable dought.
You mean to say that if there is no reasonable dought at the time you condemn an aledged criminal, if later on we learn he wasn`t really guilty, the System wasn`t wrong although the System killed an inocent man?
Teh bleeding hearts will say that they would rather 10 murderers walk the streets than 1 innocent man be executed. I believe that the good of society outweighs the good of the one and society would be much worse off by 10 murders walking the streets. Besides with dna evidence and modern crime lab techiques, today it is much less likely that the innocent will be convicted. Nobody wants to be the one out of a million who is unjustly executed, but living next door to the other 10 who should have been is a much greater danger.
>>> I believe that the good of society outweighs the good of the one
Well, that is the very definition of communism. In the USA we don't believe in communism, we believe that the rights of the individual far outweigh the rights of the community.
Wrong! With that kind of reasoning all of our criminal laws would not exist. Society has a right to be safe from those that would prey on others.
Then jail them ....... if you are a Christian the bible is pretty clear on killing other people. it does not say "Thy shall not kill least ye be bad"
Again, learn about Habeas corpus which is the foundation of freedom, there is no habeas corpus with capital punishment.
The bible also says "an eye for an eye" and habeas corpus does not mean that the majority of the people in this country, (who do believe in the death penalty,by the way)do not have the right to decide the penalties for criminals taking the civil rights away from innocent victims.
So you prefer revenge over Habeas corpus and you prefer "an eye for an eye" over "Thou shall not kill" ....... what a fine specimen you mankind you are!!!
BTW I don't base my opinions on what the majority thinks, only sheep do that.
>>> living next door to the other 10 who should have been is a much greater danger
Then put them in jail forever, this way if a mistake is made habeas corpus will prevail. Don't forget that without habeas corpus a government can rapidly become tyrannical.
You are assuming that the country having the habeas corpus actually adhere to its principles. It would be interesting to know if China, Russia, Venezuala and the like have habeas corpus in their legal systems.
Well, guess what? The brilliant cock sucker 'R'esident Bush suspended Habeas corpus so we don't have it either. But I don't care about those other countries, I am certainly not going to measure my country with the Chinese yard stick.
>>> You are assuming that the country
>>> having the habeas corpus actually
>>> adhere to its principles.
Actually in principal we do have Habeas corpus but again Bush made that a useless piece of paper, along with the constitution. So my country might not see fit to grand Americans freedom anymore but I sure am going to fight tooth and nail for my freedoms and that included habeas corpus as well.
Typical. Resort to profanities. You appear to admit that you are not a U.S. citizen. Where are you from. If you are from the U.S. you are entitled to your opinion. Reasoned or not.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyAbsolutely not. It is not right for any individual to take the life of another, and it is not right for the state to do it either. Capital punishment is bloodlust, pure and simple.
Wrong. The State and the Individual have always had the right to protect themselves from murderers.
You can protect yourself from killers by keeping them in jail forever. But capital punishment is murder and blood lust, nothing else.
No. As a deterrent, it doesn't work, so that makes the death penalty a matter of revenge. Our reptilian brain really, really digs it when we can exact a physical revenge on a person, but it's not good for the soul. Especially for the soul of a nation.
That said, I would keep a small possibility for the death penalty in extreme cases. America kills more prisoners than any other industrialized nation, and we're on par with the likes of China and Saudi Arabia...not exactly a club we want to be associated with.
We are on par with China and Saudis Arabia when it comes to killing our criminals, but just as interestingly we are also pretty much on par with WWII Germany on attacking other countries for imperialistic reasons and we are also on par with China and Saddam when it comes to torture ...... makes ya think, don't it?
Yes, but without the decades of legal delays allowed by the ACLU legal system.
Amen to that. Sometime when you have nothing better to do, check out the info on the founders of the ACLU.
This is the group that recently defended Rush Limbaugh, claiming he had the right to privacy in his medical records. They might seem "left leaning" in most cases, since most assaults against the Bill of Rights come from conservatives who would abrogate the freedoms the US founders demanded we own. "Left-leaning" to people on the Right yes, but the ACLU stands firmly for that hallowed scrap of paper, the utopian, intentionally liberal Bill of Rights amendment to the US Constitution. ACLU is there for OUR protection as citizens, in case you didn't know....
We are talking about the American Civil Liberties Union, aren't we? The same ACLU that represents flag burners, people who dont want prayer in school, people that don't want the word God anywhere in the government, people who dont want any religious icons/displays during the Christmas season, people who want to abrogate the rights of parents in the raising of their children and what they will be taught in school and a whole litany of other anti-American law suits. Is this the ACLU you refer to?
Yes, the same ACLU -- the people who defended Rush (he is entitled to rights too, even if he wants to take them from others – see: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html ). These are the same people who fight for everyone to maintain the Bill of Rights as the founders created it: freedom of thought, gun rights, no mixing of church and state, freedom of expression, etc. I rather prefer that we keep with the original intent, don't you? To mix religion and politics poisons both. Look to Iran for a contemporary example. Or look to why the pilgrims came here in the first place - to have freedom from state-enforced religion. If Satanists happen to be in power, my guess is you would not like it much if they were able to force their religion on you by law, even if it is just a little prayer to Satan every morning in school (which your child MUST attend), or changing the national anthem as happened in the 1950s to say, “in Lucifer we trust”…. It is ridiculous to say that the ACLU is against religious expression, except where it crosses the public – secular – domain. Religious icons have their rightful place in religious settings, not in government. Read the documents of Jefferson and Madison. They specifically state there should be a “Wall of separation between Church and State.”
Pardon the conflated error in the last entry. The correction: "In God we trust" was added in the early twentieth century to COINS; the Pledge of Allegience, penned by a Socialist (the HORROR!) in 1892, was changed at the height of the McCarthy terror to include "one nation under God". None of that is original to what the United States is about, or what makes it great. It is our openness, tolerance, and freedoms which supposedly the terrorists hate, and what truly does make us worthy of envy.
No its the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime, pure and simple. A recent study refutes the idea that the death penalty isn't a deterent, and actually able to quantify that by saying that putting 1 murderer to death saves 3 innocent people. I work in a maximim security prison, and I can tell you that fear of more time, and fear of the death penalty is one of the things that allow me to return to my family at each and every night.
Two words: abeas corpus
You can't reverse an death penalty, the system is human and flawed so pretending that no mistakes can be made is ludicrous.
If you are looking for perfection, you will always be disappointed. I would suggest, however, that the USA makes more efforts to prevent innocent people from being executed that any other country in the world. It usually takes a decade or more for the appeals, etc., to run their course.
If you do the crime, you should pay the punishment.
Does agreeing with this mean that we must kill the people who impose capital punishment on murderers? Will someone have to kill us then? And then someone kill them? Capital punishment IS deliberate killing. And the fifth Commandment (for Christians here) doesn't seem very ambiguous on the matter.