Wouldn't be my decision to execute but I can't feel bad for mass murderers who are dealt that fate by their state.

Exactly, if a guy kills 30 people and stuffs their bodies in the crawlspace under his home, is him getting three meals, a bed, showers, TV and phone privileges courtesy of the state 'justice' for his victims?

^^^^That's called teaching him a lesson.

Is Capital Punishment legalized murder, though? I know the justification saying that it is merely an 'eye for an eye,' but at the end of the day is it really just revenge murder?

No! Some crooks are just too dangerous to be kept alive. It's not about revenge as much as it is doing what is absolutely necessary.

The arguments AGAINST it are either rooted in revenge themselves(I feels these are cop-out excuses anyway) OR more likely are just rooted in an anti-punishment mentality altogether.

That doesn't mean we go execute every bum who lands in the slammer; it should be always a last resort. That doesn't mean there isn't ever valid usage of it. It's hardly the source of legalized murder in the world.

Well on one hand if the people get who executed hadn't killed people, THEY wouldn't be killed. So some could see it as just eye for an eye, but I always remember this...THEY are told that they are going to die, and told when, so they have time to prepare themselves for it...that in itself is more merciful to the killers than they EVER were to their victims.

Also, it's like FM said, some killers you just do NOT want to take a chance of they could break out of prison or some politician like Huckabee did with the guy who went out after his release and shot the four cops in a diner, could say 'oh they're young, let's give them another chance' EVEN THOUGH the guy had committed so many violent felonies he was doing a life sentence. Also, let's consider the prison population.

You hear all the time how overpopulation is aproblem, and the solution is usually turn the murderers and rapists loose, keep the junkies locked up. Why? AND, the average waiting period for a guy on death row from the time he arrives to the day he finally gets his is 27 years...hell, depending on how old you are going in, you could die of OLD AGE before you EVER get around to the lethal injection. So how is that any different than just life in prison? And you could die before the execution date anyway, you could come up hanging in your cell, maybe you did it yourself, maybe somebody helped you, a guard could beat you to death, you could be stabbed with a knife, bed spring, sharpened toothbrush, sharpened licorice stick (don't laugh, somebody online who did time revealed somebody they knew who got stuck in the hole, found a stale one and made a weapon out of it) the possibilities on how you could die in prison BEFORE they ever get around to executing you, are endless.

So you have 1. You kill somebody, this is proof that you forfeit your own rights to life, if these people had never killed, the state would have NO reason to execute them. And it's not always just the state, as somebody else pointed out a while back, everybody says the state, the government, but it's generally 12 ordinary everyday people who REALLY make the decision of 'you are going to die for what you've done', it's the juries who decide 'we find so and so guilty and we sentence them to death row'.

So you have it that you don't want these kinds of people getting out, and that they could get out by breaking out, or they could be let out due to technicality or some bleeding heart politician, or just due to overcrowding. And here's one I also think about, WHAT ABOUT THE PRISON GUARDS? Yeah, it's their job to deal with these kinds of people, but who's going to protect THEM from these killers they have to be in close contact with every day? Guards get attacked too, what if they die? Then it's just part of the job? You can be sure there are some killers SO bad, that while the guards get to see everything and people from all walks of life, there are some killers who just take the cake who the guards themselves probably wish they could execute them so they wouldn't have to worry about them.

No, especially murder. If a person is convicted beyond a reasonable doubt then I think they deserve it. A life for a life.

Kral wrote:

IMO "an eye for an eye" makes everyone blind. Don't make murder against the law and then punish people with it. I'm for throwing them in jail until they root to death, but I don't support capitol punishment at all.

Except I don't see how 3 meals a day, a roof over your head, a place to sleep, TV and phone privileges, and depending on what prison you are in, video games, and also not having to pay any taxes or bills and not having to work for the rest of your life is going to qualify as punishemnt.

Prisoners get better treatment and more opportunities handed to them than the homeless Veterans who have served this country and protected it. That's justice? A serial killer gets food three times a day from a cafeteria, and I've seen the shows that go behind bars, they make cheeseburgers, chicken, etc., and a Veteran has to dig through the garbage to eat. Exactly WHERE is the punishment coming in for these criminals? They don't have to work, they don't have to pay taxes, they get to watch TV, they get to eat, they get video games...and that's going to make them pay for taking somebody's life?

Chris wrote:

I know the justification saying that it is merely an "eye for an eye," but at the end of the day is it really just revenge murder?

What do the lot of you think?

To answer your question Chris, no I don't think capital punishment is revenge. Society has the right to protect itself from certain individuals who are just too dangerous to be punished through mere incarceration. And I say “mere” in the firm belief that being locked up is a living hell regardless of the free food and TV. There are some people who just don’t deserve to live. Those assholes who did that home invasion in Connecticut are a perfect example.

Exactly. And something I forgot to add earlier. What about the possibility of an incarcerated prisoner ordering a hit on somebody outside? It DOES happen, there are stories about cell phones being smuggled in, so the prisoners can order people killed, people who didn't do anything wrong. So HOW does life in prison help anybody then when they can still get access to people outside to help them? A dead murderer is never going to kill anybody again.

Kral wrote:

IMO "an eye for an eye" makes everyone blind. Don't make murder against the law and then punish people with it. I'm for throwing them in jail until they root to death, but I don't support capitol punishment at all.

. If it's imperative that they have it, then it must be used in only extremely heinous crimes. Executing somebody isn't punishment. It's the easy way out. Death is easy. Death is the escape. Life is hard.

I don't support capitol punishment and am against it as an option but I won't pretend to feel bad when serial killers get the juice.
It wouldn't be my choice of punishment, but I wouldn't protest it.

Chris wrote:

I know the justification saying that it is merely an "eye for an eye," but at the end of the day is it really just revenge murder?

What do the lot of you think?

The whole "eye for an eye" thing is stupid - that goes wayyy back to the Bible and here in the 21st century we should be thinking further ahead than that. It's not okay for an average joe/jane to kill and it's not okay when the government does it either - "capital punishment" is just a pretty name for it.

In my opinion, every kind of system has room for error, capital punishment included, thus some innocent people have died because of it. Why? Because capital punishment is operated by humans - only humans, not error-free robots. There's always room for errors, even in executions. Here in Illinois, over the past few years, inmates on death row have been released from prison because guess what? There was evidence they were innocent. I have a feeling those inmates in Texas aren't so lucky to get a second chance.

Something that toys with people's lives shouldn't be validated.

MandyPerfumeGirl wrote:

The whole "eye for an eye" thing is stupid - that goes wayyy back to the Bible and here in the 21st century we should be thinking further ahead than that. It's not okay for an average joe/jane to kill and it's not okay when the government does it either - "capital punishment" is just a pretty name for it.

In my opinion, every kind of system has room for error, capital punishment included, thus some innocent people have died because of it. Why? Because capital punishment is operated by humans - only humans, not error-free robots. There's always room for errors, even in executions. Here in Illinois, over the past few years, inmates on death row have been released from prison because guess what? There was evidence they were innocent. I have a feeling those inmates in Texas aren't so lucky to get a second chance.

Something that toys with people's lives shouldn't be validated.

Except it's not the government who is making this decision usually, that falls upon 12 men and women who are the jurors in the murder cases...it's a choice of either 12 of them, or one judge who has to decide if you get the death penalty or not.

And today is more of an ideal time to HAVE the death penalty because we DO have DNA tests and far more advanced forensics than we had 10 or 20 years ago, so it's a lot easier to clear or condemn people for the crimes they're accused of.

Yeah, capital punishment is operated by humans, but guess what? So is the prison system in general. And because of that, we have inmates who break out of prison and kill again, who are let out by bleeding heart politicians and kill again, who get cell phones smuggled into them in the prison and they order hits on families and kill again.

Now, in a perfect world, there wouldn't be any murders. But this is not a perfect world, this is not the planet Sunshine, this is the real world where you have a choice of if you want more dead prisoners, or more dead civilians, those are your choices, and I'm not voting for more dead civilians.

MandyPerfumeGirl wrote:

Something that toys with people's lives shouldn't be validated.

Then you are against punishment in general. It "toys" with people's lives. The person MIGHT be innocent. He could be raped or killed in jail, especially if the crime he did would be serious enough to warrant the death penalty anyway. If you wanna play the "there's a chance he could be innocent" card, you basically toss out the entire idea of punishment.

So the "they might be innocent" card, I feel is a load.

The death penalty is a valid option for dealing with the most extreme of criminals. It's not something to be overused but it should never be something we can never consider when the case warrants it.

Chris wrote:

I know the justification saying that it is merely an "eye for an eye," but at the end of the day is it really just revenge murder?

What do the lot of you think?

I don't comment on topics like this often, as I feel that my view would probably change drastically if I lived through a violent crime toward a loved one.

But, that said, I don't think that the death penalty should exist. These offenders sit in the clink for a long time anyway. The cost to house a death row inmate is huge. Better off letting him or her just sit and sit and sit forever. The end is up to God.

I supported capital punishment for a long time, but the more I learned about it, the more I came to oppose it. In the end, several factors changed my mind:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the last 30 years in the U.S., over 100 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. So, as long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much GUARANTEED to occasionally execute an innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people to oppose it. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of higher pre-trial expenses, longer trials, jury sequestration, extra expenses associated with prosecuting & defending a DP case, and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty jurisdictions. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). It could be that the high cost (see #2) drains resources from police departments, education, and other government programs that help prevent crime. Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) would love nothing better than to be put to death. In his words, "I have been looking to be a martyr [for a] long time."

5. Most governments are supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. The New Testament (starring Jesus) is primarily ANTI-death penalty. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38-39). James 4:12 says that GOD is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Dan70 wrote:

So, as long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much GUARANTEED to occasionally execute an innocent person.

Then why incarcerate anybody and risk them being raped or murdered in prison? One could argue that you are almost guaranteed to put an innocent person away and have them be victimized in prison.

Again, the "they might be innocent" card translates to anti-punishment.

As much as people hate to admit it, FM does have a point. Innocent people get punished for things they didn't do all the time. Sex-offender registry, how many innocent people are on there because somebody falsely cried rape or because they bumped into somebody the wrong way, or even because they exposed themselves in public to take a leak? So because of something like that, they have to spend the rest of their days looked at and treated like they're a rapist or a pedophile, is that fair? No, so do we just let all rapists hide under anonymity and not require them to inform everybody of what they've done when they move?

^^^^An excellent analogy.

^^^^How is there a huge difference? Being rapped can have lifelong emotional ramifications that can be as bad a punishment AS death. You can also be killed in prison, especially if you did something bad enough to merit the death penalty in the first place. And being mistreated for something you didn't do is just a lite version of being killed for it. There isn't really a huge difference; in both cases you risk inflicting punishment on a person who doesn't deserve it.

The sad truth is that it's really anti-punishment altogether that irks people. Just because innocent people may be punished doesn't mean we shouldn't punish the guilty. Be it the death penalty or life in prison, neither is something an "innocent" person should be punished with, so if one isn't bad because the person MIGHT be innocent, both are bad, and thus we basically just have to let criminals run wild because they might be innocent.

Oh I know, "it's not the same thing," until it is.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

^^^^How is there a huge difference? Being rapped can have lifelong emotional ramifications that can be as bad a punishment AS death. You can also be killed in prison, especially if you did something bad enough to merit the death penalty in the first place. And being mistreated for something you didn't do is just a lite version of being killed for it. There isn't really a huge difference; in both cases you risk inflicting punishment on a person who doesn't deserve it.

No it's not in comparison. Because at least you're still BREATHING. If someone gets tossed in jail for a crime they didn't commit and then gets killed in jail, then that's on the person in jail who killed them. Yeah, the state didn't do a good job of exonerating that person of a crime (that's another issue) but at least the blood of the inmate isn't directly on the hands of the state. It's hypocrisy to make murder a crime and you turn around and do the same thing because you feel it's the 'right' thing to do. It's premeditated murder actually. Last I checked, no human being on the face this Earth is God.

Quote :

The sad truth is that it's really anti-punishment altogether that irks people. Just because innocent people may be punished doesn't mean we shouldn't punish the guilty. Be it the death penalty or life in prison, neither is something an "innocent" person should be punished with, so if one isn't bad because the person MIGHT be innocent, both are bad, and thus we basically just have to let criminals run wild because they might be innocent.

Oh I know, "it's not the same thing," until it is.

Where are you getting the notion that being against capital punishment means being anti-punishment? Letting them rot in jail as opposed to executing them IS punishment. Nobody said you shouldn't punish the guilty. All you're doing by executing someone is giving the prisoner an easy way out. Death is peaceful.

No human being is God but that's 100% irrelevant here. (I thought God wasn't supposed to be a factor in making laws? xD)

If you're anti-death penalty because of the "innocence" card, you're anti-punishment. You can rant on all day how "it's different" but it's a moot point because the same logic applies to both. If it's wrong to execute somebody(almost always after MANY years anyway) because there's this very off chance that they may be innocent, it's wrong to toss them into certain lifetime trauma of rape and even possible murder because they may be innocent. So what the blood isn't on the state's hands? The innocent person is still dead because of them. If you throw a child into a den of lions, does it matter that the lions ripped him up and not you? Fact is, the "innocence" card can be applied to all punishment, not just the DP.

I notice a contradiction in your argument. You say it's wrong to execute because you could kill an innocent person yet death is the easier of the two options. Thus, you seem to suggest that innocent people rotting in jail for their lives is more acceptable despite being the more harsh of the two options? We can't execute them because they MIGHT be innocent; we have to make them suffer more! So let's make these people who MIGHT be innocent suffer more! xD Yeah, okay......