Questioning Society discussion

Death sentance: For it or against it?



learn more at: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

Against, Poeple deserve 2nd chances, but for murder, well, that is what i dont like...

I am also against it. Giving a murder the death sentance is becoming a murder yourself.

Against!

Against. It's giving them the easy way out. I think they should get a life sentence with no parole.

Our tax dollars pay for that.

but that doesn't mean we support it. We have no choice what it is our government spends taxe collectings on.

whoa. why is e/o against? the only way murderers will stop killing is if they know they will be put to death too. A burglar Lois Vera once killed a woman who caught him snooping in her home. "yeah i killed her." he admitted. " and i knew i wouldnt go to the chair....." Hello? do we want killers to think like him?

I'm for it in cases where it's needed, like Saddam, serial killers/rapists, that sort of thing.

We have better technology now that can identify remains, DNA, and help truly solve the murder/crime. Back then, when most of those guilty then proven not guilty crimes happened they didn't have the advanced technology that we have now.

Racism shouldn't even be involved in the justice system.

Nowadays the technology is so much more accurate. And I agree, if the proof doesn't give an absolute than yes, no death sentence. But I wonder how much that'll actually happen now with the technology that we already have.

I think that if there is no doubt and if there's plenty of proof than yes, the person should be put to death. Peple like Saddam deserved it and were obviously guilty. People like Saddam, mass/serial killers, serial rapists, that sort of thing should be put to death in my eyes. Especially if we know that by their behavior (the serial part/doing it over and over again) they'll just continue to commit the crimes and possibly they'll get worse.

But as I said, the majority of those crimes and sentencing were years ago when the technology wasn't nearly as good at identifying remains, DNA, etcetera.

Serial-murder-rapists is what I meant, which is what the serial rapists tend to turn into.

Unless they or someone breaks them out. I'm not saying it's likely, I'm just saying that it's possible.

But is it really in our hands to say who can live or Die?

look- we are not g-d, nor do we attempt to be. yet our duty and responsiblilty on this world is to create the most just, most ethical society. if we dont imprison and sometimes kill the vicious criminals out there, than we are not doing our utmost to execute justice. why do we imprison thieves and crooks if we dont intend to carry out justice? the bigger the crime, the harsher the punishment. and murder is the worst crime there is. by allowing murderers to get the same sentence as common burglars or thieves, we portray a hearless picture to society that we dont value human life enuff.

do you know that Bernie Maddof got a bigger sentence (150 years) than many brutal, blood-thirsty murderers out there? a life sentencd imposed on killers is after all, only 10 years. How can we calmly allow murderers a easier sentence than criminals who have done much less harm?

The death penalty is a human invention and is susceptable to some flaws just like any other human institution. yet the alternative-life imprisonment-has many more flaws and is therefor the lesser of two evils.
Life w/o parole is more costly than death. in texas it only costs 86 dollars to execute s/o (lethal injection) but over 30,000 a yr to keep him alive (Texas Department of Criminal Justice-check it up) why shud taxpayers pay to keep alive inhuman killers?

As long as criminal is alive, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that he will strike again. Inmates, Prison guards and innocent citizens can all get hurt when they get in the way of an escaping prisoner. You may think that these cases do not happen often, but ur wrong. consider the case of Joseph Taborksy. He was let out of prison due to an
" unreliable " witness that testified in a trial accusing taborsky of killing a shopowner, Lous Wolfson.
a yr after he was released, shopkeeper began dying in a bloody killing spree that left officials baffled. after 10 terrifying weeks, Taborksy was found and arrested, but 6 innocent pl were dead and at least 4 more injured. Taborksy- also known as the Mad Dog Killer for his wild tendecy to burst into stores and let bullets fly- confessed to killing the 6 shopkeepers and also admitted to killing Wolfson a while back. This story and many more like these ( i dont have time to elaborate and i'm sure ur getting bored) clearly display the ineffectiveness of the imprisonment Policy.

u said that innocent pl may die. yet with all the suspected innocent cases being researched there is not one case where there is black on white proof that the accused was innocent! and besides, the number of innocent pl being killed is much less thatn the number of victims of killers who are set free.

i recently completed a study on this topic and that is why i am so passonate and knowledgeable in this area. ;)

okay..... the first rule you need to learn when debating an issue is not to take it personally and to avoid insulting and bad-mouthing the opposition. However, i do not mind since it keeps things interesting.
i'm sorry-i left s/t out by the taborsky story. Taborsly WAS on death row when he was released (although this doesnt disprove that life w/o parole keeps murderers behind bars-it does show how people in prison and even on death row can be released and hurt others. ) the reason why he was let go was b/c the witness to the case was later not considered "mentally stable" enuf for his testimony to be accepted. However- taborsky later admitted to the murder in question and therefore the witness is irrelavant.

while appeals can and do cost alot for both the govt and citizens-this a flaw in the death penalty that shud be fixed. Instead of saying: killers wait on death row for many years and therefor cost the state lots of money on appeals, we shud be limiting the number and availability of appeals and move for a quiker execution.
however, it cannot be denied that LWOP is more expensive since a prisoner lives a average of 40+ yrs in prison while prisoners on death row live there for an average of 8 yrs. and dont 4get that life w/o parole prisoners get appeals too. ( and b4 you slam me for spewing nonesense, i am quoting this knowledge only after research and delving into this specific area)
i didnt say it is "morally permissable" to kill s/o just b/c its cheaper to keep them alive. i said we both agree they are murderers. why shud i havta pay for them to stay alive when i think they deserve to be dead?
murderers CAN chop up little kids if they are imprisoned instead of put to death. No matter what you say, there HAVE been cases of murderers getting out of prison and continuing their murdering. And its not so seldom. laws change, so do parole boards and people forget the past. Pl DO get out of prisons and hurt others and that is not a risk i think we shud be taking.
i have more on this.... but we'll save it for later ;)

"a one paragraph report in my current events class"???? i wont even respond to that. My study was thorough and comprihensive and i know what i'm talking about. While i dont agree with your position, i respect your opinion and value your view on this issue. However, it is always good to be more open-minded to hearing and accepting new ideas. you do not learn by knockind down what you dont agree with.

understand?

uh guys? is anyone (besides 4 nathan) still there? i apoligise 4 turnig this into a two sided monologue. you can all join in with ur opinions!

all right.... does everyone agree that we need to move on over here? i enjoy bouncing my opinoins and views off other people but this is getting us nowhere. Nathan-it was gr8 discussing this with you. i have definetlly learned some things from this impromtu debate. lets just say that there will always be pl for the death penalty and always be some pl against. that's what makes this country free, y'know.

especially if ur arguing the moral argument. it's like telling s/o its wrong to steal when they have no clue why it is wrong. if you think its not moral to kill murderers-than there'e nothing i could say to change that. every person decides by himself what he feels is right or wrong. no one can make that decision for you.

how do you feel about gun rights? ( i abandoned the death penalty argument cuz i recognize a stalemate when i see one) r u conservative or liberal? democratic or republican?

as liberal as one can get? hoo boy.... i knew we were radically different! i'm pretty conservative myself and i'm anti-guns.....

i lknow, i know....its a free country and pl claim they need guns to protect themselves, but i feel the cons far outweight the pros. so many pl die from guns each year and i believe that can be changed if guns were far less available.

what say u?

Nathan wrote: "so many pl die from guns each year and i believe that can be changed if guns were far less available.

It depends on what type of gun deaths you are talking about. If you are talking about inten..."

Because saying it is okay to outlaw alcohol because fewer deaths would be caused by that is like saying no matter what they want we are going to freeze old people and the terminally ill because fewer deaths would come from natural causes same with guns

hmmm.... i like what u said about alcohol, nathan.guns dont kill people, people kill people. but with accidental killings.... i'm sure ur little kids wouldnt find or use ur gun but what about older, more desperate kids who can find that key or pick that lock and get to the gun? once there's a gun in the house... theres so much more of a chance of it being used wrongly.

intentional killings.....guns can definetly be obtained in different ways... yet i cant help wondering if the easy accesability to guns help spur more crime?

dont even want to talk about it

Raquel wrote: "hmmm.... i like what u said about alcohol, nathan.guns dont kill people, people kill people. but with accidental killings.... i'm sure ur little kids wouldnt find or use ur gun but what about older..."

Only if the kid is psychotic or an idiot. Come on, seriously? If the gun is hidden than there's no reason to be worried about accidental killings.

And as far as easy access to guns - if you look at England, when they got rid of the ability for normal people like us to have guns the crime rates sky-rocketed. When they gave guns back they fell. I think that says something.

hear, hear!
hmm...that sounds weird, i just wanted to say that.
but I agree with Nathan.

I'm against it.

Overall, I think that the death penalty is warranted only in extreme circumstances. There are far to many sick, psycotic people out there who will never get better, and the prison system is so overburdened and flawed that it's almost counterproductive to keep some prisoners there.

There are far to many sick, psycotic people out there who will never get better, and the prison system is so overburdened and flawed that it's almost counterproductive to keep some prisoners there.


Part of the reason for this is that budgets for social services have been drastically cut, forcing mentally ill people onto the streets. We shouldn't be using the prison system to address public health problems.

Sarah wrote: "Overall, I think that the death penalty is warranted only in extreme circumstances. There are far to many sick, psycotic people out there who will never get better..."

Just because the chances of them 'getting better' are slim to none doesn't mean we have the right to kill them.

Here's a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate only love can do that."

~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~

As a society we should work together. We should take care that all voices are respected so that we can effectively come to a fair conclusion.

Just a reminder to everyone to be nice- not aimed at anyone in particular. :D