Bitcoin Forum

https://i.imgur.com/WmcWkWh.jpg
People all over the world are taking other peoples lives so they should be punished and have to go through the trauma their victims did! Why do people think it's acceptable to murder someone? I only think the death penalty should be brought on the worst crimes such as murder.If a man has taken the life of another man then he deserves death.

I do not support the death penalty maybe it is  more effective to have a life in prison confinement.

You will put a water guns to anti terrorist forces?
The main font of deaths from State is Shooting, not Death Penalty.

extrajudicial killings

oppose except during times of war

I am against death penalty in most of cases, but we should have that possibility for worst crimes like terrorism or mass murders.

What problem does it solve? 

1. Money.

What is the cost of killing and the cost of detention for the State?

2. Death for Death.

The death penalty is a very complex issue. The death penalty is a violation to the 'right to life' stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN. But on the other hand, no individual should take others lives without punishment. The death penalty is a moral grey-zone, and there will always be people supporting it, as well as people opposing it.

This is very sensitive matter.
In the war many times you don't have choice but to kill enemy in order to protect your family, yourself, your country etc.
But, if no war, if some criminal kill somebody, or out of anger husband kill his wife, can normal, democratic society seek revenge, according to old testament rule: eye for eye?
I don't think so.
Human life, even life of criminal and killer, have some unique value and society should protect it, rehabilitate this person and help him/her.

I dont really support the death penalty but perhaps in exceptional circumstances it should be considered but even then its pretty much an easy way out for someone that could otherwise have a miserable life for whatever crime they committed.

I do support the capital punishment to secure the community form murders. Because if someone knows he will be killed if he murders an innocent people, he will fear the sentence that will happen to hem

I support the capital punishment. But I think that instead of death penalty we should use this kind of criminals for doing dangerous work.

Just for example, some amount of fuel left under the cover of 4th block at the Chernobyl NPP. Drones are incapable to deal with this issue due to unbelievable levels of radiation. Instead of performing the worthless executions, we can use sentenced criminals to remove it from there, and provide them with proper treatment afterwards. Of course, we can let them go in the case of survival.

Nobody should force prisoners to do such work, but this can be offered as an alternative for the death penalty.

The biggest problem with death penalty is that it's final.
You can't bring anyone back from the dead if you find out that someone is actually innocent.

I see people talkin about some terrorist`s, some war`s... I think governments wash your brains. They like us to feel like we still live in stone age and cause of that we are still animals, fighting each other and do other bad things to each other. Selfish people with selfish ambitions.

If you’re stupid enough to kill someone else. You deserve to die. No argument needed. If there is enough evidence that proves you are the murderer. You deserve a death penalty. People take things for granted now-a-days. Thinking they can get away with killing innocent people. The everyday families that have to suffer the loss of a loved one due to stupid people wiling to kill in order to prove a point to “the gang” or “the homies”. Well your stupid self deserves death. You get what you give. And if what you give is death. You shall receive.

Generally speaking I support capital punishment. In some cases death penalty is the most efficient and just way to protect the community from "tyranny of evil men".

What you say is all well in theory, but the greyer areas are the problem. People make snap decisions and sometimes make the wrong one, doesn't always mean they should be killed.

Even though I believe some horrific murderers/rapists should probably be put to death, I don't support the death penalty for a few reasons:

A. The justice system is not infallible. Mistakes can, and do happen. At least if someone is in prison you can release them. You can't bring a dead guy back to life.

B. It's obvious that introducing the death penalty doesn't change peoples likelihood of committing crimes. Just look at the murder rates of some of he southern American states that use the death penalty. People don't consider the punishment when they're not even contemplating getting caught.

C. I think it's morally wrong for one human to have society's permission to kill another. Can't justify this one really, I just feel it's detrimental for society to have a system such as this.

Do I think some people should be wiped off the face of the Earth? Yes.
Do I believe such a law could be fairly implemented and enforced? No.

Opposed.


Isn't the cost of keeping people in jail lower than killing them? There is always appeals in court and all that people can go through before execution. And the cost for it all is higher than just keeping them in jail. May be different in other countries. But need to make sure innocent people aren't executed. Though you can never be absolutely sure.

For the most part keeping them in jail is cheaper, plus many of the ones on death row are innocent. Killing of innocent people is murder.
You cant say that "oh. We killed 5 guilty but killed 10 innocent in the process. It's worth it" If one in hundred is innocent it's still too much.
When the innocent is in jail it's still a chance. If you kill him, it's too late and you are guilty of murder.

No. It's too expensive. Believe it or not, it's cheaper to give someone life in prison than the death penalty.

I oppose it because if there is .0001 percent chance that the man is innocent we should not take away his life and say oops we thought he killed them people. My bad.

Yes, I support or oppose...

 ;D

In the united States, this is something like the way it originally was, before the people became stupid enough to bow down to the attorneys and all the games they play.

Back then the death penalty was upheld, virtually by the whole country, but only when there was absolute proof.

If there was any doubt, the case was thrown out.

Nowadays, the attorneys and the justice system play such games that it is safer to plea bargain out, even if you are innocent.

Attorney Marc J. Victor explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGdOsioCzsA.

:)

For child rapist - dead penalty for sure.
I always have the idea of some kind "working camps" for small crimes. 1st theft - 1 month, 2nd - 3 month, 3rd - seems you are degradation mood so 3 years.

Crime is a natural byproduct of modern civilization, I don't think it would be wise to try and eliminate it completely using brute force.
Science/knowledge is unswayed by sentiment and its expansion cannot be stopped. Without crime, murder etc, the door leading to knowledge pertaining to those specific elements of society/infinity would be closed and that cannot happen. Once a particular door of knowledge is opened, it cannot ever closed.

I strongly support the death penalty for those who are found guilty by a very severe error. such as drug dealers and terrorists

An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and a life for a life is what I believe in, however, Judges and Juries get it wrong, so for that reason I am against the death penalty unless and until they can get it right. They can't give someone back their life, but they can release them and give them money to help make them whole again if they make a mistake.

The death penalty is not a complicated issue for one very simple reason. Can you be sure the person accused is really guilty? With a 100% certainty? The answer is no. Even DNA is wrong from time to time. You can never be totally sure.

But death penalty needs a 100% precision because they're is no going back.
So no, death penalty is a stupid barbaric act.

If we are purely discussing cost: In some countries prisoners work and thus makes profit. In that situation it is more profitable to keep them alive.

Totally support. Governments wouldn't need to spend money anymore on such people like murderers, terrorists, drug dealers, etc.

Totally support.
The death sentence does bring closure to victims' families.
You can have life sentences and the best of prisons, but sometimes prisoners do manage to escape.

indeed dead can not be revived.
whether the person has been convicted of killing may revive the person who had killed him? the answer is certainly not.
do not just think actors killer, but think also of victims of murder

How modern? Crime has existed for longer than laws. Agree with the rest though. People change and society changes. Many things considered crimes in the past are normal now. So we need to deal with it carefully.


Like we said before killing people is more expensive. If cost is all you care about you would be against the death penalty. Unless you don't care about killing some that may be innocent. In that case you can remove the chance to appeal and maybe then would become cheaper to kill people. But more innocents would die.

There are always some drawbacks. For example; if you have strict capital punishment for murder you also create a certain incentive for criminals to kill witnesses. I guess they´d be less interested in that if the punishment was imprisonment. It should not be difficult to imagine the many possible situations. Sometimes people are just unlucky and happen upon, stumble into things.

What you're talking about is revenge, not justice.
Justice is here to prevent crimes to be commited by applying the law. The goal is not to release the pain of victim's families. Otherwise let's apply Talyon law, a murderer gets killed, a thief gets his hand cut and so on...

How can it be more expensive? That's just one fucking shot. Sure there can be innocent people but first of all you need to understand that  statically 0.001% or so means absolutely nothing. You should also realize that life in prison could be much worse than death especially like in a Russian prison. Personally if I commit a high crime one day I'd rather wish to be sentenced to death than life in prison (this weight would be way-too heavy for me).

I agree with your opinion. your mind together with my thinking. with penalties like that it will not happen again murder or theft

yeah thats true, but then how many innocent are serving the death penalty, u cant get that without proper evidence..for mad dwags death penalty is the only solution.

Haven't you heard of compensation awarded?
The point of that is not preventing crimes getting committed.
Justice is with reference to the victimes and their families as well, not just to society.

I'm support the death penalty for the people who grabs the people life likes terorism. They must be executed death penalty for them because they have not humanity sides.

I definitely support the death penalty. But if a prosecutor misleads, or if the cops lie, or if there is knowingly false evidence presented, then the death penalty should be required with torture on those who caused an innocent person to be executed.

:)

Death Penalty for Child Molester and Rapist  and drug pushers. theres no place for them in the society but in hell   :'(

I support the death penalty, not just for murders, but also for other crimes such as high treason, rape and home invasion. Death penalty is the only reliable deterrent to prevent the crimes. Look at the countries where death penalty has been abolished quite recently (South Africa, El Salvador, Colombia, Cambodia.etc). In all these countries, the crime rate is going up.

Russian Federation has a moratorium on death penalty.
I oppose this form of "punishment" on principal. It's final, the risk of judicial murder is too high, and witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Life sentence without parole is a far better option. At least, there is a chance to partially rectify a judicial error.

Death penalty for government people, because they are not informing their citizens about the dangers of child molesting, raping, and pushing drugs.

Let the people be free. Inform them with strong warnings. Then let them be free. Then execute them when they harm someone... but never for doing an act that harms no one.

Government's acts of not using the death penalty where it is deserved, and sometimes using it where it is not deserved, is a crime that should be punished by death.

:)

No. There are way too many innocent people in jail. Even if one of them is put to death it's too much. I think more people should be blown away on the spot if they're caught red handed.

European Central Bank
Hi there! How your quantitative easing is going?  :)

Hey. This is my night off. Ask me again in the morning. Your cash will be safe until then unless I get a few more drinks down.

I dont think someone who committed violent crimes need to be executed . if an evil person commits crimes such as rape , murder etc.., they should be put in prison till the end of their life. because in my opinion death penalty is a salvation for such psychopats. they must be kept in a cell for years alone. maybe, they can be out of their mind and suffers more than death penalty.

i agree with you.i support death penalty.because here in the philippines many women where being rape and killed,some of them were children ages 3 to 9 years old.
some innocent children girls were being rape by thier own father.
i want those rapist to be in death penalty

if they are not guilty they will not exist in prison, man-made laws are not sure.
but the death penalty is very feasible for a person who violates certain rules

0.001%? It's much higher. Though it depends on the country. And how the justice system works there. But a recent study found that more than 4% of people sentenced to death in america were innocent: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent And more than 1 person in 3 was taken out of death row in the three decades they studied. Because there were doubts they got the right person. If you shoot them when they are first convicted it will be cheaper. They can't appeal and try to defend themselves anymore so it will be quick. But more innocents will die. And yes some prison systems are very bad. Some are used for slave labor. Or tortured. Murdered. Etc. I believe prisoners should be treated well. Sometimes people change.

The death penalty reduces world population. But to make it really effective, require the death penalty for everyone who causes an innocent person to be executed. And if some of these did it innocently, require the death penalty for their executioners, too, etc.

:)

No, mainly because our country has not had it in my lifetime and Prison seems like a greater torture method than death endless time to be locked up and be confined to a small area.
That said I do think I would support a prison fight club like in a few movies if convicts really want to risk it all in a weird way.

Prisons are a method for transferring wealth to the prison community supporters. How? Through taxing the free people to pay for prisoner support. Most of the tax money goes to those who run the prisons and supply inmate care products and services. The inmates receive little, and in a good prison, receive way more than they need for living.

Make punishments to match the crime. If there is murder done by the guilty, punish him with death. If there is foul play when convicting him so that an innocent person is convicted and executed, execute those who did the foul play... etcetera... until all the guilty are executed.

Why must the people who were harmed by the criminals support them in prison? Citizens were harmed by the criminals once. Now they have to pay to support them for life? Very unfair idea.

:)

I'm more of a redemptive law sort of person than a punishment one although I'm not against having prisoners do some hard labor to contribute to society from those closed walls in my opinion, I still don't see why governments don't try to make all prisons self sufficient in the first place free labour that has no opportunity to get out of the prison system with all the time in the world, now that is made for milking and to those with a chance of parole due to good behaviour and serving their time a skillset would be useful if they get reintegrated instead of bouncing back into jail.

Good old workyards where they need to knit clothing, breaking rocks under strict supervision to sell gravel, making farm feed to sustain themselves and sell to the locals, raising chickens etc their is a lot of productivity to be had from this labour than sitting them in a bloody cell 23 hours of the day and making them mooch off the taxpayers dime.

We complain because the public system drains our incomes and takes it from tax revenue. Some people argue for privitization of prison and it's a damn good investment with people taking that route for profit but I feel that if government put in some decent labour regulations countries could have a new market for cheap goods and not need to outsource this stuff, bim bam boom problem addressed self-sufficient prisons serve us all following the maxim you do the crime you pay the time.

(Heck with all the exported labour now a-days a convict trying to sell you car insurance working at a call center seems just as good as outsourcing it to India lol)
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/profiting-from-prison-labour/
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/aug/08/prisoners-call-centre-fired-staff

A business is bussing in inmates from an open prison 21 miles away and paying them only £3 a day to work in its call centre.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed that dozens of prisoners from Prescoed prison in Monmouthshire, south Wales, had done "work experience" for at least two months at a rate of 40p an hour in the private company's telephone sales division in Cardiff.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289

Profits are so good that now there is a new business: importing inmates with long sentences, meaning the worst criminals. When a federal judge ruled that overcrowding in Texas prisons was cruel and unusual punishment, the CCA signed contracts with sheriffs in poor counties to build and run new jails and share the profits. According to a December 1998 Atlantic Monthly magazine article, this program was backed by investors from Merrill-Lynch, Shearson-Lehman, American Express and Allstate, and the operation was scattered all over rural Texas. That state’s governor, Ann Richards, followed the example of Mario Cuomo in New York and built so many state prisons that the market became flooded, cutting into private prison profits.

After a law signed by Clinton in 1996 – ending court supervision and decisions – caused overcrowding and violent, unsafe conditions in federal prisons, private prison corporations in Texas began to contact other states whose prisons were overcrowded, offering “rent-a-cell” services in the CCA prisons located in small towns in Texas. The commission for a rent-a-cell salesman is $2.50 to $5.50 per day per bed. The county gets $1.50 for each prisoner.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/forced-prison-labour-carries-benefits-and-risks-expert-1.656049
Better to make em suffer doing labor he-he :)

Suppose some thieves come into your house to rob you. They don't know that you and your wife have guns and know how to use them. In the process of protecting your property, however, the thieves are not killed, but a couple of your kids are.

In punishing the thieves become murderers, can they ever work off the debt they owe you? Okay, let them work for a hundred years of hard labor supporting themselves and you until they make a dent in the debt. You'll never get your kids back, and if you are an honest and merciful person, you will not want these jokers paying off some debt to you forever.

The smart crooks get into government. And the things that they do there steal money form the people "legally" to support the prisons and make Gov people rich... or at least well to do.

The death penalty is simply a way of getting government crooks off your back at the same time that it keeps the more dimwitted crooks off your back at the same time that it brings about justice.

The fact that you may be merciful and not require the death penalty in your particular case is evidence that you have a wonderful soul. But for the peace of the nation, the government should not be like you. It should demand life for life, and even life for other criminal activities besides murder.

:)

Yeah! Life for life!

It doesn't matter the social context or the responsibilities behind the crime itself! It doesn't matter that year after year we see that people condemned to death are in fact not guilty, but it's too late cause they're fucking dead...

So let's kill those criminals! And if in the end they're innocent well that's just a mistake and it happens no?  ::)

Then why do the American states with the death penalty have higher murder rates?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/murderratesdpvsnodp.jpg

I'll tell you why I think it is. As I said earlier, murderers and rapists aren't planning on getting caught. If you're not planning to get caught, then what does it matter whether you get life in jail or death? This is especially true for murders that are not premeditated, crimes of passion for example. Another example would be drug dealing in countries which use the death penalty for it, like many countries in the Middle East and South East Asia. I think you'll find that places like Thailand/Indonesia/Afghanistan have pretty bad drug problems.

Also death penalty for home invasion is a stupid idea, what if someone gets drunk and accidentally walks into the wrong house. They would have a chance of being executed for a silly mistake, bit harsh no?

Plus you've got no evidence for causality in your point about countries that have abolished the death penalty - the crime rate could be going up for any reason whatsoever, eg. population change/economic change/immigration of different cultures/government policy/change in weather. The list is pretty much endless. Try harder.

I oppose, I think dealth is punishment

Yepp, and don´t forget that when there´s death penalty for murder then murderers have an added incentive to get rid of witnesses.

True, even if I'm not sure it changes a lot of thing cause lifetime prison is already a hard enough sentence to convince you doing so... Oh wait, no people for death penalty actually believe people will get afraid of death penalty while they're not afraid of lifetime jail  ::)

Those states had higher crime rates, even when the death penalty was applicable all over the United States. And that is the reason why they are still having the death penalty. It is mostly the all-white liberal states such as Vermont and New Hampshire which have abolished the death penalty. These states had lower crime rates even during the 19th century.

some crimes deserves death penalty.. a person who kills innocent women , childern etc. must be punished fairly so they must be executed not live longer ...

I definitly do not support the death penalty. No one should be allowed to take another human being life.
Instead of acting like a real penalty for a crime it ends up being a final release. I believe that he who commits a horrible crime should pay with his life but in the sense that his absolute control over his own life was taken from him, and not simply muder him.
A criminal should pay by suffering everyday for the bad deeds he commited instead of simply being put away.

I support the death penalty only in terrorism acts , which is also spiky matter
for example the last act by SA when they killed 47 people accusing them that they were terrorists while the only thing they did was demanding for their rights , they haven't shot a single bullet and they were accused to be terrorists

That would be one way to get rid of the American government.    :)

I also oppose death penalty. State should not act like a GOD. They have no right to take anyone's life instead they should focus on fulfilling their responsibility by giving clean governance.

You mention God. Yet it was God speaking through Noah, and recorded by Moses in Genesis 9:6, where he says:
Righteous execution of murderers is one of the reasons why we have government, so that hot headed revenge doesn't happen by people carrying out vengeance. If government doesn't do its job in this way, or if it does it dishonestly by convicting the innocent and letting the guilty go free, it has become a weakened or corrupt government.

:)

its quite ironic, its often the case that the ones who say that are the exact ones that want a more 'christian nation' or 'godly government' or something like that. basically they want more religious influence in the government at all levels.

that aside, im all for the death penalty. in the US at least, prisons are more often than not for - profit, and the execution of prisoners that are either too far out of touch with society for any possible hope of integration or those that have committed a crime beyond what should be considered punishable with mere jail time saves the state and taxpayers money. finances aside, its a fact that people who do not have a sliver of hope of remaining in normal society and never will exist; some are just too dangerous to exist, both for their own safety and the safety of those around them.

a country must have rules, and the rules for the run

Hah, but you said that the death penalty is a reliable deterrent for crimes. But then, according to your own logic, the murder rate should have dropped in the states that kept the death penalty (or increased in the states that abolished it), and it blatantly hasn't. You've basically just proven yourself wrong, turns out it's not such a reliable deterrent after all...  ;)

No way it's cheaper - it can't be.
One show on discovery said that it took something like 70$ to keep a person in prison per day.
Besides - if someone did something that horrible that the government consider that person should die, wouldn't a lifetime of deprivations of all joys we take for granted in life be a better punishment?

I'm so on the fence about this, but I have to say I'm against it.  Our state just recently nixed the death penalty and I'm totally OK with it.  I think our society is moving away from it, with the USA perhaps being the slowest.

Indeed, the possibility is there, but I strongly support the law if the criminals in accordance with what is in the doing, if he is killed then the punishment is death execution.

I agree with you (protokol). Someone dared to do should dare to risk that they will be receiving. As we see in countries that apply the death penalty, crime figures less than countries that do not want the executions.

I do, but it should be given to deep violation of laws. Because it really serves as a threat to criminals and as long the justice is capable enough to handle big time criminals.

Some who oppose would say "why kill people to show that killing people is bad" or " people change". Well i think that's why criminals are confident of what they do because they think they are forsaken by many.

In my own opinion only :)

DAMN...!!!
Mr. Sumanto the human cannibals from Indonesia
now eat the bodies of victims of the train wreck the way cooked

There is no evidence the death penalty is the best deterrent. Maybe life in jail works as well. And that is cheaper than killing the person. What works better as deterrent is the chance of being caught and punished. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/fact-check3a-does-the-death-penalty-deter3f/6116030 "His position is shared by the majority of criminologists in relation to homicide, according to a 2009 survey of members of the American Criminology Society, who were asked to limit their answers to their understanding of the empirical research and to exclude their personal opinions. That study found that over 88 per cent of the criminologists did not believe the death penalty deterred murderers."



Depending where you live probably is: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#2715e4857a0b28054a8517f0

i don't support the death penalty, it's better oblige the criminal to do forced works to help the community

It is not always practical to make the criminals work. The human rights organizations will create hue and cry, and they will reject the end products manufactured in prison factories. In countries such as Russia and Belarus this idea has been implemented. But don't expect Western nations such as the United States and Canada to follow suit.

Rubbish, prisoners in America often work making everything from munitions to number plates, thats widely documented.


As to the death penalty someone wiser than I once said:
No State should ever indulge itself in torture, slaughter or assault as a way of enforcing its laws. State sponsored violence is a justification for the society at large to resort to violence. It is simply not acceptable.

Aren't we trying to move past killing each other?

It depends on the cause of the judgment. It seems crazy to condemn someone to death (or keep on death row for years) without the basis of this well-founded conviction. Unfortunately history has shown us that 4.1% of those sentenced to death are innocent.

I am not very familiar with the situation in the United States. But the situation in the European Union is entirely different. The prisoners are entitled to luxuries such as XBOX consoles, saunas, and massage therapies. The prisons in Sweden and Norway are among the best. And they never ever ask the prisoners to do any sort of work.

http://www.businessinsider.in/Take-A-Tour-Of-Norways-Prison-Utopia-Where-Inmates-Have-Access-To-A-Recording-Studio/articleshow/44976697.cms

I certainly don't support the death penalty. No one deserves to die in the hands of others, everyone will eventually die and often we'll have to leave the rest for his/her judgement to happen when so ever he has to receive his/her true punishment.

indeed, everyone will eventually die. but imagine if your family was killed, are you willing to just mute the killer in jail? if I clearly do not

Honestly imo, life imprisonment is a lot worse than ending their life, death is a release!

Yes and no. I support the death penalty in theory, but I'm opposed to it in practice.
Let me elaborate: I believe that certain people are worthy of capital punishment (the death penalty) which in my opinion include murderers, terrorists, and child rapists.
However, based on the current court system we have adopted, it actually costs more to sentence someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life because when a person is sentenced to death, they are allowed appellate attorneys at the tax payers expense in order to give them the leeway to prove their innocence often through forensic evidence or DNA labs.
On top of that, capital punishment has not been proven to deter the crime rate of murder, terrorism, rape, or any other violent felony. If it were to actually reduce such violent crimes, I think it might be worth our tax money going to each death sentencing, but it doesn't.
Basically, I think it would more logical to either adopt another system to reduce government spending on capital punishment or do away with it altogether.
No wonder so many people are so split on this issue, right?

having a death penalty will affect the people who is planing to kill someone.
this law is a must specially to the place where killing is very common. but of course
having a fair justice system is a must because if not, this law will be abused by the
people with power.

that is why death penalty is necessary to punish such criminals

A 13-month-old girl was sexually assaulted by her father shortly before her sudden death in December 2012, a judge has ruled.


http://news.sky.com/story/1625559/toddler-abused-by-dad-before-sudden-death

Remember Kennedy v. Louisiana?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana

http://image.nola.com/home/nola-media/width620/img/crime_impact/photo/patrick-kennedy-mainjpg-ac32677a519d8adf.jpg

The savagery shown by the perpetrator (Patrick O. Kennedy) was outright shocking, and the jury had no option but to award him the death penalty. But then the human rights organizations made such a hue and cry, and finally his death sentence was overturn.


If anyone think that this monster deserved something other than death penalty, then he needs to consult a psychiatrist immediately.

I support death penalty for it helps prevent people from committing a crime, maybe minimize the number of crimes. I think people will rethink before committing a crime when they are reminded by the penalty. death penalty however should be impose only heinous crimes though.

cutting of fingers can be impose to crimes like stealing or graft and corruption. :) must be satisfying to see politicians without pointing fingers.

Psychiatrists generally don't believe in the death penalty.   :)

It should be remembered that death penalty is frequently used as a mode of punishment in two of the countries with the lowest crime rates (Japan and Singapore) in the world. On the other hand, the countries with the highest crime rates (South Africa, Honduras, Venezuela.etc) are the ones which had recently abolished the death penalty.

Death penalty must be imposed on all people who intentionally or negligently allow an innocent person to be executed. For people who do it intentionally, excruciating pain torture must be imposed before execution. If it is found that these people were innocent, then the people that cause them to be wrongfully executed must die.

However, if a convicted murderer is allowed to live, the people that allowed him to live must die. And the murderer must be put to death as well.

:)

i oppose death penalty just because of thinking death is a salvation of these evil people.. for me they have to suffer a pang of conscience till the end of their lifes.

i don't think they'd have conscience still. monsters who kills a child after raping don't have it anymore.

I would rather consider sending them to work without pay, maybe manually digging stone tunnels while feet are chained, locking them to a small box cell just enough to lay around.

Good idea. But let's not go too far or we'll be like them. Meet torture with torture, and death with death. Make the punishment fit the crime.

:)

That's rather extreme for sure. But I don't think he deserves death (from a justice point of view). He deserves lifetime jail (real one).

Why? Because if he's guilty he will live an horrible live (I don't even want to imagine what happens to pedophiles in prison) and pay every day for his crime. And if he's innocent he'll still be alive if his innocence is ever proved.

The fact is that a dead man or a man in jail for the rest of his life both causes no threat to society. One costs some money yeah, but that's not a huge amount at all.
And you can never be "perfectly sure" that somebody is innocent. Even DNA lies sometimes you know ;)

Let the punishment match the crime. Let there be as much pain as he dished out. Let there be enough horror as he caused, to be caused in him. Let there be death to match the death that he caused.

He stole the property of someone. Let him be deprived of his property to the same extent, or more to make up for inconvenience he caused.

Let a jury of common people decide the details.

:)

take charge, maybe that's the problem.
but if allowed to continue will not make the deterrent effect that will perform the same actions.
I think the money is not a problem to execute people like murderers and terrorists

You're confusing justice and revenge man. Not the same thing. Justice is here to be sure that one will not be a threat to the society after he was found responsible of a crime.

And you all forget ONE thing: on average, at least 5% of people sentenced to death in the USA are found totally innocent.
So you're going to torture and then kill someone, knowing on 100 people you torture and kill, 5 will be innocent?

That's why death penalty is barbaric. It's because from times to times, a random innocent citizen is killed. Just because he was at the wrong place at the wrong moment.

Justice is giving to one in like manner as he gave.

Mistaken justice in the U.S. is the reason why I suggest that if anyone intentionally causes an innocent person to die, he should be executed as well.

The barbaric part is what a guilty person does when murders someone. His execution is justice. What? Are you hoping they never find out how many people you have murdered?

:)

They will get credits for digging stone tunnels by the way, this isn't sort of a punishment but an opportunity for them to help their countrymen.  I'm sure that's not a torture and they do have the rights to kill themselves anyway, that freedom isn't taken away still.

Thanks for totally ignoring my main argument which is saying that 5% of people sentenced to death are proven innocent...

And your conception of justice is 2 millennials old. The talion law is a matter of barbaric countries you know?

You are most graciously welcome. And more so since I didn't know that I was doing that. And even more so since there is no indication that such was an argument or even a main one.



The structure and thinking of people has not changed since the Beginning, except that people are deteriorating a little faster than they were for the first 2,000 years of the existence of mankind. The fact that you desire ignorance rather than justice, and the fact that you desire imposing your ignorance others (if you can) rather than returning to a state of knowledge, shows how fast you - there must be many others like you - are devolving towards pure foolishness, and ultimately, pure stagnance.

The good point about you and people like you, you will soon be unable to affect anything, but will need to rely on the good graces of the thinking people who run the home you are in.

:)

I oppose,because its not normal anyway. Only God can referee :)

Well you quoted me saying so. So you just forgot what you read? And you're ignoring it again...


What the fuck man? For you we didn't change anything in our way of thinking in 2 000 years? Oo
And you're ok with torturing and killing 5% of innocent people in the middle of the guilty ones??

Hmm... I'm an engineer and I run the home in which I live thanks  :-\
I don't rely on anyone...

You are wrong about the violence inside the prisons. Some of the pedophiles are targeted for sure, but no one is going to do anything to this 300 pound monster. And prison rapes and all mostly targets the weakest, such as whites and those in their teens. On the other hand, in all probability this guy will be raping other prisoners if sent to the prison. 

Japan also has what? 99% conviction rate or something? Maybe not a good example with police torturing suspects and all. The system there doesn't work like it should. And in south africa hasn't the homicide rate been decreasing since they abolished the death penalty? Don't know about all crime but think that is the case for homicides. Honduras and venezuela didn't abolish the death penalty recently. And are very unstable countries. Death penalty is the least of their problems.

I don't see the death penalty as punishment. Taking away someone's freedom, that's punishment.
I know that in some prison it's not even punishment anymore, I wish for this to change as well.

Practically speaking, if someone murders, how can we ever be sure that he will not do it again? We can't even be sure that a non-murderer will not become a murderer.

Why make society pay to keep the murderer in prison through taxation? Get rid of him, and make society free from both, his murderous activity, and free from paying to support him.

:)

Yeah get rid of it. Doesn't matter that there is at least 5% chance that he's innocent. It's ok to kill few innocents if on a whole you kill guilty ones.

When we enact the required death penalty law for those who intentionally cause innocent people to be executed, the innocently executed rate will fall way down to near zero.

:)

Dude...
How should it make it smaller? Currently the 5% correspond to innocent people wrongly accused! Justice mistakes!
It always happens, it's part of the system. It's why most civilized countries stopped death penalty.

You have an idea to make justice so perfect it won't do any mistakes? Well great but please share it! Cause we don't!

Innocent death execution often comes about because law enforcement and attorneys withhold evidence or construe evidence in ways that mislead. And they know that they are doing this. So, if they are found to be doing this, and if someone is executed because of this, the perpetrators of an innocent execution should be executed as well.

Of what benefit will this be? It will cause law enforcement and attorneys to be fearful for their lives so that they stop doing this. The will present all the evidence factually. Factual evidence will keep innocent people from dying by execution.

Obviously there will be mistakes. But the mistakes will be a lot less with legal people being afraid of execution so that they will work hard at not making mistakes.

What is so hard to understand about this? You keep proving by what you say that either you are of low intelligence (nothing wrong with that), or that you are intent on mischief.

:)

What about medical malpractice or medical error even? Do you think the person who mistakenly took someone's life still deserves the death penalty? What about road traffic accidents? Does a policeman or a sooldier deserves the death penalty if he took a life?

This is a very complex question and I voted NO, because I think it is better to let a murderer to live in some cases than occasionally kill innocent people.

After proving the existence of God in 3 lines, now you proved that Justice can be easily made nearly perfect!

Go on man, why don't you try to run as a president? I mean it seems to you that you have the answers to questions that Humanity never managed to answer, so go on xD

OR MAYBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE maybe question yourself a bit. Just a bit. Just enough to understand that Justice is not mislead by "enforcement and attorneys withhold evidence or construe evidence in ways that mislead". And anyway how would you prove they're doing this on purpose? How can you know it's not just an accident? And how do you define "misleading"? Cause an attorney job is to use everything to help his client, so where is the limit between misleading and just doing its job?

Don't immediately turn off your mind because I mention "Bible," but the solution in the Old Testament was to have several cities that were designated for people to be sent to if they had committed accidental death of someone. They were not allowed to leave the city for an average of 25 years.

The cities were not prisons. They were entirely free within the city walls. But certainly the regular people within those cities were prepared to test out any newcomers to find out if those newcomers were really murderers, or if they were simply victims of circumstance.

:)

maybe the government should execute death in a brutal way so people will consider it punishment, right?
shooting them by a firing squad seem a bit a swift death. electrocution is easy so as the lethal injection.
 Hanging by the neck until they die isn't brutal, in fact one will even do it to themselves.

Maybe cutting limb by limb will do. or feed them by the hungry dogs as far as i know Chinese do this.

Great idea. You never cease to amaze me. Let's do this  ::)

And why in Earth would they stay in this city?

South Africa abolished the death penalty in 1993, when the apartheid government was replaced with ANC rule. Suddenly, the crime rate increased by manifolds (by 2,000% in 1993-1998 period). The crime rate peaked in 1999-2000. After that there was a small decline and now it has stabilized. But even now the rates are much higher than those in 1993.

when people fear of consequences, they think deeply before committing something wrong
So, yeah, I am with applying the death penalty

Execution if they left the city before the term set for them was over. Probably there were a few who went outside and were never executed alive. Probably there were some who remained in, and were found to be murderers later, and were executed.

:)

So... A wall around the city and guardians killing the ones who dare to escape...

Dude, doesn't it really sound like a hardcore prison to you? xD

No guards around the outside. Freedom and liberty within.

If someone left when he was not supposed to, he could do it. But if the "avenger of blood" found him outside, he was dead meat. And even if he returned to the city without being caught, if it was found out that he had left, execution.

It was a form of freedom for people who were guilty because of circumstances rather than murder. The thing that made something like this necessary was that it was definitely a killing, but it wasn't necessarily murder. It was a benefit of the doubt thing for the killer.

Over the period of time in the city, the people of the city would find out the truth. A person who is free but has killed accidentally, will wind up showing his innocence over time. A murder is likely to slip up and prove that he is a murder.

Something like this would be a good thing to have in America and any free country.

:)

For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it doesn’t reduce crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.

The worst thing about it. Errors:
The system can make tragic mistakes. As of now, 141 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. We’ll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty
Who gets it:
The death penalty magnifies social and economic inequalities. It isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender.

Victims:
Like no other punishment, it puts families of murder victims through a process which makes healing even harder. Even families who have supported it in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

It comes down to whether we should keep the death penalty for retribution or revenge.

but even though they know the consequence an urgency and force them to do these deeds

Isn't the death penalty a swift and easy punishment for such a person that actually did something so bad that they think such a person should get the capital punishment? It seems contradictory.

Well, a death penalty is an easy punishment but it should be used only on the most extreme criminals.
From history we see that people who deserved a death penalty for their crimes did not receive it and people who did not deserve it received it.
Extreme meaning crimes against humanity.

If a person is guilty of depriving another person of his life unjustly, he should receive the death penalty. Why? If you punish him with great pain, you become like him. If you allow him to live, there is no true justice, and there is no example. Also, he might do it again. If you imprison him, you have to pay for his upkeep.

In America, the whole prison thing is just another way that government people suck a good income for themselves, out of the taxes that the people pay.

:)

Exactly. Everyone will die after all, just kill the criminals. they will eventually die either in the hand of another criminal or the police.

You don't trust your own government but now you want to give them the right to kill people?

Funny how none of all of you death penalty supporter says that you agree to kill 5% of innocents.

So you're all ok with that? Doesn't matter?

I leave all matters to the government. because it applies the rules to be obeyed. Government that the right to provide what kind of punishment for the killers fit criteria

Yes but, do you really want to be doing this? Or haven't you found out yet...  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1104953.msg13670987#msg13670987.

:)

They shouldn't be killed because it would be too easy. They should live and suffer for the rest of their days - and repent. Not escape so easy.

if you as the victim's family, whether you are willing killer left alive. if I am obviously not, because the killer can not revive the dead