Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2009 04:42 pm
Why if someone gets the death penalty, does that person have to spend twenty some odd years in jail and then get executed? Considering how much it costs to keep an inmate in prison per year, would it not make more sense to cut down the time between sentencing and execution to less than sixty days?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 7 • Views: 2,490 • Replies: 10

 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2009 04:44 pm
Can one assume that you are opposed to convicted persons appealing their convictions? Or is it just in the case of those convicted of murder?
0 Replies
 
carrie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2009 04:59 pm
The legal system is so complex that there needs to be time for everything to be considered before the execution... I personally think capital punishment is a cop out, and that being forced to live with what you have done, is much worse - being educated and rehabilitated and forced to face what you have done is much more useful for everyone involved... Those twenty years can be cathartic for the prisoner, and as you say, for the innocent, it is their chance to appeal. A shortened time period would result in many innocent people dying.

I don't see why it is ok to kll in certain contexts and not others. Death row is professional government endorsed murder.
anton
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2009 07:45 pm
@carrie,
I think the US is a dysfunctional society, too stupid to realize that revenge killing doesn't work. They have more people incarcerated than any other country in the western world, their prisons are savage, violent institutions and members of their police forces and nothing less than thugs and bullies. Wake up to yourselves, you believe everyone should be allowed to carry firearms yet there are more deaths and woundings in America, from people who are allowed to carry guns, than in any other country in the world.
Americans need to stop beleving their own fiction, "The land of the free and home of the brave," what utter humbug!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2009 08:48 pm
It's good to know, Anton, that you think clearly, with an open, unbiased mind that doesn't deal in stereotypes and shibboleths.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2009 09:45 pm
I oppose the death penalty for one reason only. Erroneous convictions. Execute an innocent man, and there is no rectifying the mistake. If a person such as Charles Manson, for instance gets executed, I don't object on moral grounds. I have no compassion for him, and I don't view his mortal flesh as sacred. The law ought to work equally, for one and all. Because it never will, there should be no executions. Life without a possibility of parole could work effectively for removing the convicted ones from society, which is or ought to be the primary aim.
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Mar, 2009 10:57 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
I oppose the death penalty for one reason only. Erroneous convictions. Execute an innocent man, and there is no rectifying the mistake. If a person such as Charles Manson, for instance gets executed, I don't object on moral grounds. I have no compassion for him, and I don't view his mortal flesh as sacred. The law ought to work equally, for one and all. Because it never will, there should be no executions. Life without a possibility of parole could work effectively for removing the convicted ones from society, which is or ought to be the primary aim.



I agree entirely.

But there is an additional point to be considered. "No executions" gives us the opportunity to rectify a mistake, but all too often that opportunity is never taken.

Though not too common, I've heard of a number of cases over the years where people have been kept in prison despite it being obvious that they are innocent.

And in probably about 80% of the US, innocent people who get their conviction overturned are either not paid any compensation at all or are paid a ridiculously low amount.

We need to do more than to just have the opportunity to rectify errors. We need to actually rectify them.



(By the way, note the current case before the Supreme Court over whether someone even has the right to claim they are innocent.)
0 Replies
 
williamsa1
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 06:20 am
@edgarblythe,
I agree with the death penalty as some religious believers say that it says in the bible ‘an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ I always say that once a murderer always a murderer. Most people cannot change their ways. David Cameron says that he wants to see more people being rehabilitated as putting people in prison costs a lot of money. I disagree with him as I feel people can fake being ‘changed’ but really they haven’t. I agree with him in that fact that it cost a lot of money but punishment is punishment and people should be brought to justice. For the death penalty people should be given a fair trial to try and prove their innocence, but if they committed a crime that fits the death penalty they should be put to justice. However some people many disagree with this a that say people should learn to forgive them and two wrongs don’t make a right but if they are let off the death penalty some people may take the law into their own hands to get revenge.
0 Replies
 
97daviesh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 11:35 am
@edgarblythe,
I agree with you to a certain extent.
I agree that it is wrong if there is any doubt that the suspect is innocent as in the circumstances you have stated. I also think of the death penalty as an easy way out, some criminals would see it as a ‘blessing’ because having to live with what you have done is far worse than being executed.
Some religious believers would be against capital punishment as they believe prison is a chance to reform- help the criminal to change their way of life and to act as a deterrent - to discourage people from committing more crimes.
How could it be right in the law to execute someone who has committed a crime such as murder?
If it is wrong to commit a crime such a murder then shouldn’t the executer be punished with the death penalty as well, for he is also killing somebody? In my opinion two wrongs don’t make a right.
However from another perspective, I agree with capital punishment because I believe criminals have to pay for what they have done and I don’t think spending a few years in prison will change anything. I also think ‘once a criminal always a criminal’, who says that if someone suffers a few years in prison for a crime that they won’t do it again when they have been let out?
I also believe ‘life for life’ if someone takes someone’s life then theirs should also be taken.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 03:02 pm
@97daviesh,
There is little to no doubt that a person is guilty in the minds of convicting jurors. This lack of doubt has not made many of those verdicts necessarily the correct decisions.
0 Replies
 
andersonandgallagher
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Mar, 2013 04:25 am
This is a debatable question.I think capital punishment must be abolished from the modern world.Killing for killing is not justice.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Capital Punishment
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/28/2024 at 05:59:18