Where are you on capital punishment?

1. 84

   pstraubie48posted 9 years ago

   Where are you on capital punishment?
   
   Karla Faye Tucker was put to death for a heinous murder Her story is told in a poignant, reflective film in which her life changes dramatically after imprisonment.And yet she was not spared. At her execution, the sheriff who was involved in the case said (paraphrasing here) I do not know who we just executed but it was not the same Karla Faye that we arrested... Now a woman in prison in Georgia is asking for clemency the day before her scheduled execution.
   
   
   

   replyreport
2. 79

   tillsontitanposted 9 years ago

   My feelings have changed drastically about capital punishment.  With DNA and the release of innocent people ten, twenty years after they allegedly committed the crime and were found guilty, I'm scared of capital punishment.  How tragic to execute a person only to find out they are innocent after its too late.
   Of course you make a good case for the woman who changed so completely.  She's not the same person so is she still guilty?
   My prayers are with the woman you mentioned and so many others.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Mistakes can also happen with DNA testing. Samples can be contaminated or mixed up. This is rare but it has happened.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe you should pray for the victims and their families instead of the murderers.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Pray? Who wants to pray for murderers? What an absurd idea. But do pray for whoever you like.

      replyreport
   4. 81

      frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Rod, Mary said "My prayers are with the woman you mentioned and so many others." The woman mentioned is Tucker, the executed murderer.

      replyreport
3. 70

   connorjposted 9 years ago

   
   
   I believe we need it as a deterrent, that being Stimulus-Response; however, there needs to be clemency if one has proven to have changed/normalized. It is also important to ensure the person is truly guilty of the premeditated 1st degree murder before such a final sentence is given. Keep in mind, I believe we need this type of response to prevent a proliferation of murder; anlthough, it should be a last resort if the prisoner cannot be reformed.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately admitting your guilt is often seen as the first step to reformation. But if you are innocent how can you take that step?

      replyreport
   2. 76

      CatherineGiordanoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Capital punishment does not deter murder. It does the opposite.  Sates who use the death penalty have a higher murder rate than an adjacent state that has banned it. I explain why in my hubs on the subject.

      replyreport
   3. 70

      connorjposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Catherine, I will read your hub and forgive me for assuming it is more of a deterrent. I guess I assumed it had to be because usually people fear death more than anything else.

      replyreport
   4. 81

      frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Catherine: the murder rate of individual states doesn't have much to do with capital punishment, as executions are barely ever carried out, making the punishment "toothless", as it were.

      replyreport
4. 78

   colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

   It broke my heart when Karla Faye Tucker was executed.
   
   I know nothing about the woman in prison in Georgia.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Why did it break your heart? You believe she became a different person and "Found God"? It's amazing how many people facing execution suddenly find God, isn't it?

      replyreport
5. 47

   Ericdierkerposted 9 years ago

   I just think we have moved beyond this punishment. I have never heard anyone say that they would not have killed someone if they knew that they could get killed for it. If death is a deterrent to killing someone I would be hard pressed to find that person that would be dissuaded.
   
   If it is for vengeance then I worry about that as the error rate is just too high -- say 10%.
   
   No, it is time to join the rest of the civilized world and do away with this barbaric practice.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Wow! 10% error rate is high.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Karine Gordineerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Is that 10% a fact? Because it sounded like you were guessing.
      I think in most death penalty cases the rate of error is not that high. The numbers I've seen are at 4.1%

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Even at  4.1% not acceptable.

      replyreport
   4. 81

      frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So murderers who are barbaric should be treated in a civilized way? What good will that do, make them see the error of their ways and become model citizens? CP will not stop murder, but it will stop individual murderers from ever recommitting.

      replyreport
   5. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Make a life sentence just that a life sentence. No new murders from that individual unless they do it in prison.

      replyreport
6. 68

   Rod Marsdenposted 9 years ago

   Australia doesn't have the death penalty anymore. The last person to be executed in New South Wales, Australia turned out to be innocent of the crime for which he got the maximum sentence. This was in the 1950s.
   
   In the 1970s there was a case where a man claimed that a hunting rifle had discharged while his wife was cleaning it. He said that the butt of the rifle had hit the hard wood cabin floor and the rifle had gone off, killing her. They were alone in a cabin in a forest area. No eyewitnesses. Forensic experts at the time tried to get the rifle to do what the man had claimed it had done. No such luck. The man was convicted and given a life sentence. A decade later there was a similar occurrence. Someone was shot and killed while cleaning the same type and make of rifle. This time the forensic experts were able to duplicate the action. The case against the man who had been convicted of killing his wife was eventually overturned because of this new evidence. No one can really say if he was guilty or not of killing his wife but there was now reasonable doubt. What he said which was originally not believed now added up. The thing is if he had been executed and was in fact truly innocent nothing could have been done for him when the new facts came to light. Sure he did ten years but he was still able after that to leave prison and go on to lead some kind of life.
   
   Mistakes can happen. A person who seems to be absolutely guilty might turn out later to be absolutely innocent or there are other extenuating circumstances that come to light later on that would naturally reduce the sentence. The thing is once you have executed someone you can't bring them back and say sorry. My thoughts at any rate.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      And who will bring back the original victims and say "sorry"? You are assuming all murderers are arrested by mistake? Ans what about the ones who are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt?

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Karine Gordineerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Certainly valid thoughts. In my opinion I would only want it to be used in very clear cut cases and in situations of depravity like I mentioned in my comment but truly I would prefer to find a way to stop all this violence in 1st place

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      frantisek78 I am not assuming that all murderers are arrested by mistake. I am assuming however that, as in the past, people are found guilty of crimes they did not commit. Even beyond a show of doubt can be risky.  Doubt might come too late.

      replyreport
   4. 81

      frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Rod, you seem to have a positive outlook thinking that "maybe they will found to be innocent" at some time. That is ridiculous. You are just making excuses for people who have killed someone. Australia and the US are vastly different crime wise.

      replyreport
   5. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The USA has a larger population. Health care in the USA isn't as good as in Australia nor do Americans have as good a safety net against unemployment. And, yes, some people are eventually found to be innocent.

      replyreport
7. 59

   kj forceposted 9 years ago

   Yes Capital punishment is harsh and nothing in the judicial system is fail-safe...or perfect..I do however have a problem with Pedophile murderers , repeat offenders, people that are caught in the act...with NO question of guilt, that cry constantly regarding their  "rights have been violated "..As far as I'm concerned they lost their rights when they committed the crime...so I do believe in different levels of incarceration befitting the crime...perhaps if the punishments were more fit to the crime it would set a precedent ????
   Thanks you for allowing me to offer my opinion....interesting question...

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      A life sentence needs to be that - a life sentence. There should be no possibility of a Pedophile murderer returning to the streets unless it can be proven that he is not the killer.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Karine Gordineerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes but the reality is that supposed "life sentences" can be commuted to time served. People can get pardons, etc. I agree they lost their rights when they decided they could take someone else's life.

      replyreport
   3. 67

      lawrence01posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you Rod. But keeping them in prison allows for the possibility that the innocent may one  day go free. Even if there's one mistake with capital punishment who says 'sorry ' to the family of the one wrongly executed?

      replyreport
8. 76

   CatherineGiordanoposted 9 years ago

   I've written three hubs on capital punishment.  I am against it and I explain why in the hubs. Each hub focuses on a different aspect of why it is wrong and needs to be ended.  Some states in the U.S. have abolished capital punishment, and others have just stopped doing it. Only 7 states executed people last year. Sad to say, Florida, where I live, is one of them.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe the problem is not capital punishment, but the lack of carrying out the punishment. Look at how many are on death row and how few actually get executed. There is no need to keep people on death row for years and years.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      lawrence01posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Isn't the purpose of keeping them there so that they can appeal and try to find evidence of innocence? No one wants to execute an innocent person do they? Even one in a million is too many for me.

      replyreport
   3. 81

      frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Lawrence, I'm sure you know full well that most appeals are only for procrastinating. If there is no doubt of guilt there should not be appeal after appeal, which eats away time and money.

      replyreport
   4. 67

      lawrence01posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That May be but the principle is there for the innocent. You need that failsafe there even though it can be abused

      replyreport
   5. 0

      PeterStipposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 … -death-row
      An innocent women was on deathrow for 22 years. If some people had their go this woman was already executed. saves the tax payer money!!!!!!

      replyreport
   6. 81

      frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Peter, you refuse to acknowledge what I and others here have said the death penalty is justified in cases where there no shadow of a doubt concerning the guilt of the accused. You always bring up random cases where innocent people were sentenced.

      replyreport
   7. 67

      lawrence01posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The problem is in each case I've mentioned there were numerous appeals establishing guilt beyond doubt only to find out later there was no way the accused could have done the crime!! If they'd been executed it would have been too late!!!

      replyreport
   8. 0

      PeterStipposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Frantisek I reacted on your frist comment. You said that it is the lack of punishment and that the death penalty should be executed more rapidly. if you do so, this woman would have been killed, an innocent mother. This is not a random case!!

      replyreport
9. 81

   Alphadogg16posted 9 years ago

   I have always been in favor of Capital Punishment, and now with the advancement of science, in theory you would think it would be a lot more accurate than all the mistakes made of the past. I definitely believe in an eye for eye.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I read somewhere that African Americans are more likely to face the death penalty than their white counterparts. If this is true and there is still a 10% error rate in terms of conviction there is a problem with the system.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Karine Gordineerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Rod Marsden-all misinformation.Fact check people.The percentage of error is 4.1% & it may not even be that high and actually since 1976 whites have been overwhelmingly the majority of those executed at 56% compared to 34% for African Americans

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The system is still not perfect and mistakes can happen. No one should be executed for a crime they did not commit.

      replyreport
   4. 93

      IslandBitesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind"

      replyreport
10. 95

    Rachel L Albaposted 9 years ago

    I don't really know how I feel about capital punishment.  I was against it most of my life.  I believe that only God has the right to say when a person should die.  But there are crimes so heinous that if that person has already lost his/her soul, only then would I believe in capital punishment.  But you have to ask the question, who would be able to decide that?  I don't tell anyone what they should believe, that is just how I see it.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Society has a right to decide by its laws. We are a country ruled by law, so the courts have every right to decide.

       replyreport
11. 60

    colleen cunningposted 9 years ago

    I have always believed in an eye for an eye. Granted, in the event of true rehabilitation, then perhaps the execution should be stayed/commuted to life in prison. However, life in prison is still life. When you kill someone, you end theirs, so why should you be able to continue to live when they were not given that chance?
    
    In a case where DNA is called into question, then yes, executions should be stayed until the DNA results are evaluated and the evidence in the case is reviewed. But that should be carried out in a timely manner. I believe that in a case where there is DNA that was not able to have undergone the full rigor of today's testing abilities, because the crime occurred before the advancement of DNA testing, then yes, every effort should be made to put the DNA to the test so that if the person is innocent, they are not mistakenly executed.

    replyreport
12. 72

    Marie Flintposted 9 years ago

    Ideally, we would have no need for any behavioral correction whatsoever. That would be a heavenly state.
    
    The problem with a punishment system is that the executors of the punishment take on the energy of the violators. This becomes a viscous circle.
    
    The majority of the people on our planet are good people, kind and considerate. For those that are not, most of them are lacking proper instruction from the time of their youth when they are most impressionable. We should not underestimate the power of counseling, support, and rehabilitation for these.
    
    The very few hardened criminals that seem to catch the eye of journalists and mass media, life-long incarceration but still with counseling, support, and rehabilitation seems the best option for ending the death-row cycle. After ten years, a review could be held--the offender would have to genuinely want parole, and his or her record would have to be spotless during that period of rehabilitation.
    
    The mass media could help our world by reporting more stories about what is right with the world instead of glorifying criminals by giving them so much attention. Of special concern is the violence portrayed in cartoons and action movies for children. When the programming is survival of the fittest without values, that's exactly how our children will behave.
    
    Personally, I would not want the job of a corrections officer. The best I can do is be loving and supportive of those who are part of my daily contact. The rest I place in the hands of God through prayer and affirmations.
    
    May the death penalty fade into the annals of time. ~~~

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Vortrek Grafixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Agreed Marie. Wouldst we could attain that ideal of fading out the death penalty. If it could be beyond reproach, then it might be justifiable for incorrigible violent criminals, but, as you say, the error margin is too high to respect as 'justiice'

       replyreport
    2. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Counseling, support and rehabilitation cost time and money which is unavailable. It is already too late for the victims. Would you want to pay for their counseling with your tax dollars? Look at how many are released and commit a new crime soon after

       replyreport
13. 86

    Kristen Howeposted 9 years ago

    Death penalty has always been a debate throughout the years. I know there's protesters about it. If the crime is severely heinous, they should be punished by the state law, whether it's injection, gas chamber, or electrocution. But no parole and life in prison is a great death penalty alternative, when they've spent eternity there.

    replyreport
14. 93

    IslandBitesposted 9 years ago

    I'm against it.
    
    By the way, there is no death penalty here in Puerto Rico. But it is possible in federal cases. Although in each of the federal cases eligible for death penalty, Puerto Rican jurors have rejected it.
    
    Puerto Rico has not executed anyone since 1927.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Ha! How about that? In some ways Puerto Rico is more civilized than Australia. We did away with the death penalty in the '50s.

       replyreport
    2. 79

       Karine Gordineerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Considering that Puerto Rico's homicide rate is well above the rest of the U.S.27 per 100k vs US of 4.7 murders per 100k people - that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. In the first 5 days of 2014 PR had 13 murders....so yeah....

       replyreport
    3. 68

       Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Australia has a much better record and Australia does not have the death penalty.

       replyreport
15. 84

    Chriswillman90posted 9 years ago

    I'm going to go in an entirely different direction and talk about suicide. People always say how suicide is the easy way out when everything becomes too hard to handle, and in a way, ending someone's life sounds like an easy escape.
    
    People who have murdered others and caused harm and distress should not be given the easy way out with a death sentence, but rather be forced to live the rest of their pathetic lives in jail to suffer everyday.
    
    I used to be for capital punishment, but I've realized that it doesn't do anything. They won't have to think about all of their crimes, they won't have to suffer, and they won't have to deal with any issues once they've been put to death. Like suicide it doesn't do them any good in the opposite direction.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       What makes you think that they would be suffering and thinking about what they did during their imprisonment? There is no guarantee of that. They could just as well be thinking of committing more crimes etc. That is just wishful thinking.

       replyreport
16. 67

    lawrence01posted 9 years ago

    This is one that causes me headaches! Why? Because I agree with Capital punishment in principle but in practice I think it's unworkable without serious unintended consequences.
    
    Firstly I don't think Capital punishment is a good deterrent!! If it was then the places that have capital punishment should have the lowest murder and violent crime rates....They don't!
    
    I do believe that the person who commits heinous crimes should pay for them, but can you ever be sure you've got the right one?
    
    Back in the 1970's in Britain the IRA were causing havoc with Bombs and the like. Then a Bomb went off in a pub in Guildford (London) with sixteen killed then the pressure came on from the government to punish the guilty. 
    The Police had an idea whom it was and went about proving their case. Four Irishmen were arrested tried and sent to prison for life. They appealed but the Police had confessions and concrete evidence so every time the case went to court it was thrown out.
    
    Things went so far as the Lord Chief Justice (the British equivalent of the head honcho of the US Supreme court) saying that if Britain had hanged them they would have hanged guilty men.
    
    Sixteen years later these men finally won their appeal and proved that not only did they not plant the Bombs but they were 200 miles away in the Middle of the Irish sea when it all took place. The Police team investigating had buckled to pressure from the government for a 'scalp' and framed the four!!
    
    Daniel Day Lewis made a movie of this trial called 'in the name of the Father'
    
    You can never be sure you've actually got the right person

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I remember the case. Good reference.

       replyreport
    2. 79

       Karine Gordineerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yes but in the 70's you didn't have DNA and I think with the advancement in science we can avoid making those types of errors.

       replyreport
    3. 67

       lawrence01posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Here in nz we have three cases at the moment all from the last ten years where DNA was used people convicted appeals lost and only when it went all the way to The final appeals.(after ten years in jail) found innocent

       replyreport
    4. 68

       Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       At least one case in Australia where forensics messed up bad but it worked out okay because the wrongly convicted was still alive.

       replyreport
17. 79

    Karine Gordineerposted 9 years ago

    I know the majority seems to be against capital punishment but I wonder how many of you have lost people to violence? Or had family members that were the victims of violent crimes or yourself been the victim of a violent crime? I personally haven't but I've had family members that have and even just what I read about. I feel so bad for the people that have lost people. The pain for them that is a life sentence. So the personal not only kills 1 person or 5 or whatever they kill whole families not to mention what it does to people not feeling safe to just be! I know it's unpopular to have this view but I believe in life their are consequences to our actions. It's been documented repeatedly that rehabilitation and therapy DO NOT WORK and most especially in the case of pedophiles many of whom kill their victims to evade being caught. What about the rights of the dead person? Death penalty cases are usually reserved for the most heinous of crimes and honestly I don't think they use it often enough. Just last night I watched about a case of a father who raped his daughter then strangled her and dumped her body supposedly so he could get the insurance money. I can't even wrap my brain around that kind of depravity. How do you rehabilitate that? The crime went unsolved for over 20 years and thanks to DNA and detectives who cared he was finally caught but even that POS didn't get the death penalty which boggles my mind. How much more depraved do you have to be than to rape your own daughter (supposedly to make it look like it was a stranger) and strangle her, drag her body along the ground face down, and dump her nude body where it could be found so he could collect the insurance he had on her. Then he went off and lived the rest of his life. Got married again, had a house, ran for office no less. This was in 1986 I think it was before they had DNA. Tell me he didn't deserve the death penalty and others like him? I agree we shouldn't use it lightly but repentance often comes after the fact. I think many of them are just sorry they got caught. They wouldn't have become repentant all on their own and stopped killing people. No they would have just kept on going which is why most of them get caught. There's too much risk that they will get out to kill and destroy people's lives again. I think sending them back to their Creator is the best thing we can do. And here's another interesting thing to chew on - there are still MORE VICTIMS THAN THERE ARE EXECUTIONS...something to think about.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       As you say we shouldn't take executing someone lightly. I personally think the Bali 9 deserve their fate but I could be wrong.

       replyreport
    2. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Very well said Karine, I agree completely.

       replyreport
    3. 79

       Karine Gordineerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I agree also Rod that we absolutely should not take it lightly. Even 1 innocent person who is executed is one too many which is why in my opinion unless it's a clear cut no doubt whatsoever that this person did it it shouldn't be used.

       replyreport
    4. 0

       PeterStipposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Of course there are more victims then execution!! Do you want more executions then victims!! then you would have liked living in Chile under Pinochet.
       My niece was raped and died afterwards, but to kill the killer instead is not a solution.

       replyreport
    5. 79

       Karine Gordineerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Obviously not Peter, you're oversimplifying my comment.So many against capital punishment forget the victim had a life & rights too & so does everyone else who remain at risk to be victims when our solutions are woefully inadequate & do n

       replyreport
    6. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Peter, to kill the killer most definitely keeps that person from ever killing anyone again, so it is a very logical and reasonable punishment. Society is responsible for keeping us safe. Executing a murderer solves that problem in each case.

       replyreport
    7. 0

       PeterStipposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yes Karine, I know I over simplified the matter but the last statement was a bit simple as well. Even if you execute all murderers there will be more victims then executions simply because some people murder more then one person. Simple math.

       replyreport
    8. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Peter, it's not a question of how many victims vs how many executions. It's simply a matter of society taking measures to punish those who break the law against murder. Your "math" is quite pointless.

       replyreport
    9. 79

       Karine Gordineerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Peter you're looking at what I've said from a simple perspective. The point is the impact that this very few minority have on the rest of society. The damage that they do is INCALCULABLE to both the immediate victim, their family as well as society.

       replyreport
    10. 0

        PeterStipposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Absolutely Karine but you can question if the death penalty changes this in a positive way.i don't think so. I think the death penalty is a reflection of a violent society. To look broader: violent movies, easy excess to weapons, media hype, etc.

        replyreport
    11. 79

        Karine Gordineerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        I agree to some extent Peter that we live in a violent society...certainly more violent than I would like it to be. Still when I look back over history by comparison I wonder if we haven't made improvements.

        replyreport
    12. 81

        frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Peter, society has always been violent, but we didn't hear as much about it before we had access to all the media outlets we have. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, you can't blame this on violent movies and TV shows.

        replyreport
    13. 0

        PeterStipposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Of course everybody is responsible for its own actions. But society as a whole forms you. Personally I think there is less violence then 100 years ago. There are also less countries with the death penalty then a 100 years ago.

        replyreport
    14. 81

        frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Where do you get that there is less violence than 100 years ago? Personally thinking so proves nothing. Sure, society helps form people, but again, everyone is responsible for their own actions. You are making excuses for violent criminals again.

        replyreport
    15. 0

        PeterStipposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_ … n#t-588704 is an interesting TED video where Steven Pinker explains the decline of violence over the ages and years.

        replyreport
    16. 84

        pstraubie48posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        I do feel bad for them and yes, have lost family and friends this way. However I KNOW I would feel ever worse if someone was executed by MISTAKE...you can't bring that person back to life when a mistake is bad nor can you give back 10, 20, 30 years

        replyreport
    17. 81

        frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        I am talking about cases where the murder is proven beyond a doubt. You would be against capital punishment even in cases where there is no chance of mistakenly executing the wrong person?

        replyreport
18. 60

    Mark Johannposted 9 years ago

    I simply disagree of the thought. Life imprisonment is worse than death. Suffering in this world is worse than resting to the next life.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       While there is life there is hope. If you are innocent there is a chance you will be set free. If guilty then there can be redemption. Consider the life and times of Robert Shroud.

       replyreport
    2. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Why should depraved murderers be offered "redemption" at all? What about the victims and their families? No one seems to take them into account.

       replyreport
    3. 68

       Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Serving a life sentence is no picnic. The families of the victims can be satisfied with that. Do they really need blood on their hands? Just make a life sentence that a life sentence.

       replyreport
    4. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Rod, a life sentence is a drain on public funds, why keep feeding them, giving the free healthcare, education opportunities and gyms? What makes you think that you have a right to say what the victims should be "satisfied" with? NZ is not the US.

       replyreport
    5. 68

       Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       No. NZ is not the USA nor is Australia. You lose a loved one and there is no satisfactory outcome. Killing the killer won't do it. The FBI in the USA has a program of studying caught killers they find useful in catching killers at large.

       replyreport
19. 81

    frantisek78posted 9 years ago

    Society has a right to decide it by its laws whether there should be capital punishment or not. As the criminal has broken a law against murder, which is almost universally frowned upon, society has the right to punish murder with capital punishment. Society has a duty to protect its members against murderers and other dangerous criminals. Sure, executing the murderer will not bring back his victim, but neither will life imprisonment. In fact, imprisonment is just a burden on the tax payer. It is a slap in the face of the families of the victims and of society as a whole to expect them to feed and house and provide health care for criminals through their taxes, when normal citizens are expected to work and provide all these things for themselves.
    
    Many people like to say that only God has the right to take a life. This is all well and good, but we live in the real world, where society needs to set and enforce laws and punish those who break them, especially against murderers, rapists, molesters etc.
    
    Sure, capital punishment will not prevent other people from committing murders in the future, but it will most definitely prevent the murderer who is executed from harming anyone else inside or outside the prison again. Let's not forget that the imprisoned violent criminal is still a threat to the corrections officers and other prisoners as well.

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Karine Gordineerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Great points!

       replyreport
20. 0

    PeterStipposted 9 years ago

    The death penalty has no place in a modern society. It does not resolve crime,
    Ask yourself, what if you injected someone or put someone on the electric chair who later on appeared to be innocent!!!! You can with no argument justify that.
    There may be people around who have done terrible things but the punishment should be imprisonment not death.
    
    America has the most prisoners per capita of the world (after a country called Seychelles - source wiki.) Ask yourself Why. Not because amaricans are more criminal than other nationalities, no, but because america has a sick justice system. To many prisons are private and big business.(read cheap slave labour.) - but this is a different subject.
    
    The final punishment or an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth treatment is a justice system from 2000 years ago and does not belong in a modern society. Although  it is said that the death of a killer releases the pain of the family of the killed one, I do not believe that fairy tale. The deed is done and only professional help for the next of kin will help, and sometimes to talk with the offender is part of the process.
    To me the death penalty is murder too.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I agree.

       replyreport
    2. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       If the death penalty were actually carried out on all those that have been sentenced to it there would be fewer people in prison. "Professional help" for the next of kin is a joke. Who are you to diminish the pain of the families with ur idealism???

       replyreport
    3. 0

       PeterStipposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Whats wrong with idealism? Better to be cynically...! No, the next of kin often do need some help, may it be from friends or Psycologists. (Of course you've got good ones and not such a good ones.). But this is a different thread in the conversation.

       replyreport
21. 97

    aesta1posted 9 years ago

    I don't think anyone can truly judge another. In this case, Karla showed she has changed . There is always forgiveness and, often, when given time, those who have been aggrieved can forgive the offender. However, some of these offenders cannot live normally in a society where their triggers will create more crimes. Some are sick, not their own fault maybe, as in the case of those whose childhood are really terrible and until they are well, they have to be kept away from others. Help must be given though while they are being held. Hearing about some of the prisons we have, I don't think these people have a chance at healing.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Even if the victim's family forgives a murderer, Society cannot afford to. There must be consequences for crime, otherwise laws are useless. Why should the State offer free "healing" for criminals when the rest of us can hardly afford healthcare???

       replyreport
22. 60

    TalkingBullposted 9 years ago

    Death is not a punishment in my opinion, nor is it a deterrent for further crime. 
    
    Someone spending their remaining days in a prison cell is far worse punishment in my opinion.
    
    I also feel that it is morally reprehensible for a state to condemn a citizen to death.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       It is morally reprehensible for the State NOT to condemn a murderer to death. The murderer killed another citizen, so the State and Society have a right to punish. Execution is a deterrent for the actual murderer being executed: no longer a threat.

       replyreport
    2. 60

       TalkingBullposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The murderer would likewise not be a threat if they remained imprisoned for life.  Capital Punishment is not a deterrent for further crime.  That's very clear throughout history.

       replyreport
    3. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Not true. The murderer is a threat to other prisoners and to prison guards while he is imprisoned. Capital Punishment may not stop all murders from happening, but it will definitely stop the executed murderer from ever murdering again, no?

       replyreport
    4. 60

       TalkingBullposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, of course that's true.  If your only desire is to prevent the murderer from killing again, killing him/her would certainly do it.  I am focusing on the word punishment more in this discussion and I do not agree that it is a punishment.

       replyreport
    5. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       How would execution not be a punishment? My life imprisonment you are punishing and Society and the victim's family by having them pay for the food, cell, clothing, and healthcare of the criminal. Many criminals feel better in prison than outside it.

       replyreport
    6. 60

       TalkingBullposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       It costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to house them for life.  That's to do with the appellate system and some other factors.  As to whether or not it's a punishment, it's an opinion I have.  Nothing more.

       replyreport
    7. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Life imprisonment also involves numerous appeals, so your argument doesn't hold up. What "other factors"? I seriously doubt execution is more expensive than life imprisonment.

       replyreport
    8. 60

       TalkingBullposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I have read several articles over the years on the subject and it turns out that it is more expensive due to the mandatory appeals associated with our capital punishment system.  It seems like it would cost more to keep them alive but that's true.

       replyreport
    9. 60

       TalkingBullposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Also, the cost of the trial when capital punishment is sought by the prosecution is much higher than when it isn't.  There are sites that track this sort of thing you can Google.  The character limit here is a hindrance to this conversation

       replyreport
23. 60

    Beryl Johnsonposted 9 years ago

    This is a very difficult question to answer. There have been instances where innocent people have been executed for a crime they did not commit. You can't give them their life back, and no amount of money or apologies will compensate the family adequately for the loss of their loved ones.
    
    On the other hand we have to find a way to punish those who commit these heinous violent crimes and it needs to act as a deterrent so that others will think hard before they commit such terrible acts.
    
    Life imprisonment is one method that will prevent someone from committing such acts again. But this has it's drawbacks. Prisoners are released early for good behaviour in prison, then re-offend once they are back in the outside world. So, should life imprisonment mean just that?
    
    If we assume that life imprisonment means the offender will never, ever be released, there are issues around that too. The taxpayer has to pay for their upkeep in prison. The prisoner gets free education, free food, free clothing (such as it is), watch state of the art TV's that the average man/woman can't even afford.
    
    Despite all the security checks, prisoner have access to drugs and weapons. They have cigarettes, they shout about their rights. What about the rights of their victims or the victims' families?
    
    I believe in capital punishment - but only if the accused is proven guilty without any doubt whatsoever. After all, as I have already pointed out, you can't bring someone back if they are wrongly convicted and executed.
    
    Like I said - it's a very difficult question to answer.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PeterStipposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I dont  think that life in prison is as luxurous as you think. Where did you get that idea? America has the most prisinors of the world. I do not think every prisoner gets such a luxurous life as you picture. That's practical Impossible.

       replyreport
    2. 81

       frantisek78posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Peter, whether prison is that luxurious or not is beside the point. The point is that taxpayers are paying the bill to keep them there, which is a total waste of money, and there is always the chance they will re-offend, inside or outside of prison.

       replyreport
    3. 0

       PeterStipposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Tax is not an argument. People have to pay there taxes. The money will be spent on roads,art,war,farming,prisons too. The good things and the bad things. If you don't want the tax spent on prisons, well then you've got to execute all prisoners.

       replyreport