The death sentence.

Do you agree with it?

hmmm... personnally i think it may be admissible as some kind of solution, AS LONG as it is accompanied also by an effective social solution for poverty, drug addiction, and many other factors that can contribute to a climate of criminal behavior...

eliminating the symptom only is absolutely not a solution in itself.

i'll let others for now put forward the stats about death row and race...

I don't like the fact that thousands of people are living the easy life in prison for commiting crimes.

I agree with it's use in cases like treason and murder.

... if it was possible to prove absolutely that someone committed the crime for which the sentence is carried out.

However, I don't think that's been possible for a while now.

It's much better to have things "taken care of" at the scene of the crime.

I am completely against it.
Did you hear that there were two people on row for death sentence who were really innocent a while ago?
I heard the story on Discovery, I think.
I won't recite the whole thing here, but they become friends while in prison. One of them got out 3 months before he was to be killed, then he helped the other get out with new proof; the other one got out only a few days before he was to be killed.

Just think about how many innocent people have been wrongly accused over the years.

On the other hand, there was another famous case of new evidence for a suspect that proved he wasn't really guilty. The evidence was discovered 26 (I think) years after he was sentenced guilty, and he was set free.
Now, that also demonstrates a spectacular failure of the legal system, but at least this person was still alive when they realised he wasn't guilty.

Imagine one of your familly members was wrongly accused of murder, and "proven" guilty. Where would you rather they live;
Somewhere with a life-imprisonment instead of a death sentence, so they can be let out again if new evidence is aquired;
Or somewhere with the death sentence, where lawyers can say a few months after they are killed "Oh, whoops, looks like (s)he wasn't guilty after all. Too bad."

ya... but what i'm concerned about are those for which there isn't that kind of doubt, those who have admitted, or were caught "red-handed": Bundy, Dahmer, Bernardo (in Canada)...

these are the cases which call for attention for the principle behind it (even though the practice of it do bring forth difficulties)...

but of course, the death penalty can also, unfortunately, be used unfairly by using the sentiments of revenge to hide our societies' inabilities to deal with the causes.

I'm against, too. It's like an eye for an eye. Someone kills. That's wrong, but It doesn't mean that we have the right to kill in response. However, I don't really know the full picture, living in a country without this sentance. I would say that we seem to be just as well off without killing people as places that do have this sentance.

I am against it for the same reason as Elrond.

I don't have a problem with life sentences for people who have only good circumstantial evidence against them. But for people with eyewitnesses, confessions of murder, strong circumstantial evidence like DNA, execute them. Lethal injection, hanging and firing squads are good methods. Kill 'em quickly, and don't torture them unduly. Just have it over. I think that most people don't realize what persons like Ted Bundy or Charlie Manson are capable of. People who are missing a few essential mental pieces or a few of the essential human character traits are able and willing to commit heinous acts that most people are thoroughly (and rightly) disgusted by. Such persons are incurable, and will kill again, or manipulate others into killing for them, as Manson did. Leaving monsters like that loose is criminally irresponsible, and I fail to see why our taxes should pay for keeping them in a jail and guarding their lives from the other inmates. I don't mind paying for jails and the judicial system, but I would rather the money were used to rehab persons who can be helped to live a normal life. Thoughts, anyone?

The administration of justice is not perfect.

The cases Niffiwan cited show however that the system can work to correct injustices.

There are all too many cases of people wrongly convicted due to overzealous prosecutorial ambition.

I think, however, that DNA evidence will go a long way to exhonorate the innocent, and to convict the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If a person deliberately takes another life without just cause, it is hard to justify the expense we all bear to keep this person fed and sheltered and safely locked away.

When such people escape from prison, they invariably take more lives.

How can we justify the danger to the community they pose when we allow them to live?

For what it's worth, being pro-life, I understand folk who are against the death penalty, though I think, that like taking life in war, it has its uses. I would just as soon ship the world's violent criminals to a detention facility in Antarctica.

um... I believe that one has been tried before. To New Zealand and Australia, among other places. Although many of the people sent were not criminals but scottish. I believe at the time the two words were thought be the English to be synonymous.

Anyway. I can understand what you guys r saying, but I really don't think there is a way to justify killing anyone. I also think the example of war is a very poor one, as many wars are pointless. Like Ireland, and many other places.

I can certainly see the arguments against it, but overall, I'm for capitol punishment. There must be extremely strong evidence, eyewitnesses, DNA, etc. for it to even be considered, but if it's that certain, go ahead and execute them. If you think about it, life w/o possibility of parole is just like killing them, except you make them wait around in jail for the rest of their life before doing it!

... is that the people who deserve it don't get it. The really vicious and clever killers down in the States are clever enough to get a lawyer who'll point out every shred of doubt, whereas those poor suckers who get slapped with it have lawyers who are sleeping on the job.

Personally, I think Bernardo is a perfect example of a case in which the death sentence IS deserved. And if you don't agree, ask Kristen French or Leslie Mahaffy's parents. If I was him, I'd castrate myself.

Death sentence is totally wrong and I can't believe how some of you still think it should be practised. Especially in a country such as the U.S. which should be pioneering on everything.

A single murder or possibly incident should result in life imprisonment. With exceptions such as "mercy killing" and infanticide, which can and should be subject to parole after only a decade, the minimum time for a murder should be twenty, twenty-five years. Then, if someone is assessed to have changed they can be let out on parole.

More than one murder takes things further, and should entail a life sentence with no remission. They have not killed out of passion or for one specific case, they have repeated it. And such people should not ever go free.

Two types of murder should entail the death sentence. Firstly, aggravated murder where the victim's death has been accompanied by suffering. The perpetrators of such crimes should suffer the same fate. Second, mass-murder where many lives have been lost and the person's own life is forfeit.

Where the death penalty is applied, it should be done in a manner where the effects upon the criminal are accurately known. Break-neck hanging, for example, is wrong, because we don't know whether the criminal is unconscious during the convulsions. I do however think that when the death sentence is applied, the criminal should be made to wait before the execution and think about what he has done, on the brink of death.

Guilty/not guilty is an entirely different issue (about the burden of proof required for a murder conviction). If someone is guilty beyond doubt, they are sentenced. If not, they go free. They shouldn't be sentenced at all if it's not certain they did it.

noldo, perhaps you could tell us why the death sentence is so totally wrong? I'm fairly open minded, so anything someone says might change my views.

BTW, I live in the UK where there is no death penalty (except a theoretical one still for treason).

... the kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of two teenage girls (without getting into Tammy Homolka)?

Depends on what excuses the murderer had - e.g., previous harassment/provocation from the girls, mental illness etc etc. If e.g. schizophrenia was the cause, then the deaths should be regarded as a "natural disaster" just like a car crash would. If, however, they were entirely malicious in the horrible killing, then the concept of retribution, and the death penalty, comes into play.

I personally think death penalty should be to get rid for good of horrible criminals, not for revenge.

So, painless and quick death.
There's no need to torture.

Right.