How do you feel about Capital Punishment (ie. the death penalty)!!

[Drihan]

I live in Norway, where the highest sentence is 20 years. Anything beyond 20 years in prison is usually for life due to the government will be unable to risk letting the person out in fear of him/her committing more crimes. Life imprisonment is used only in very specific and rare cases, but I wish we would adopt death sentence.

Norwegian prisons are like hotels. If you go to YouTube and search for Norwegian prisons, you can see that the inmates have TV, internet, kitchen, cafeterias, kiosks etc. in each prison complex. On Christmas eve they get a big buffet with lots of classical Norwegian Christmas food. All of these amenities and luxuries are payed by the tax payers, and it costs a LOT of money. Making stronger punishments for crimes and adopting the death penalty would reduce the money that goes to prisons and reduce crime as well.

I have no problem with the death penalty, but it should only be used in cases of people that gets life sentences with no chance of parole, of course with strong enough evidence towards the perpetrator and a psychological profile that shows the person will not benefit anyone. Mass murderers and such.

[Deleted]

very much against it! i do think prisons should be a bit tougher though, some prisoners live better than the poorer people of society.

[Zeuq]

Capital punishment isn't a matter of revenge, it's a matter of justice, it's about establishment of balance, or as close to it as can be done. To that end, justice means giving a punishment that is equitable to the crime by forfeiture of certain rights that society deems to be a reasonably fair trade. The logic for this is simple. If we punish less severely than the rights violated, we create an incentive for crime as the criminal will give up less than he has taken; no criminal should profit from his crimes. On the other hand, if we over punish, we create a debt on the side of society by unduly infringing the rights of individuals; an extreme example perhaps, but not unlike chopping the hand off of a thief. To this end, society will usually turn to imprisonment or fines (rights of freedom or property) as punishment for most crimes and they will be forfeited in larger amounts for more serious crimes. The issue arises when the right to life is violated. The thing is, the right to life is by far the most valuable of all rights because all other rights are meaningless. As such, it is impossible to forfeit an equitable amount of other rights as a just punishment for taking the life of another. Therefore, the only just punishment for taking another persons life is forfeiture of one's own life. Any society that truly counts justice as among its virtues must have capital punishment; however, that doesn't mean it is necessary, some societies may value compassion, rehabilitation, or various other virtues as more important and use those as reason not to implement it.

Regardless, using any form of justice, whether capital punishment, corporal punishment, life imprisonment, or whatever should never be a source of satisfaction for society. It's easy to see a heinous crime and want to see that person pay the price, but justice must remain a passionless process or we run the risk of defeating the very grounds of balance and equity upon which that virtue is based.

[Niku]

Capital punishment isn't a matter of revenge, it's a matter of justice, it's about establishment of balance, or as close to it as can be done. To that end, justice means giving a punishment that is equitable to the crime by forfeiture of certain rights that society deems to be a reasonably fair trade. The logic for this is simple. If we punish less severely than the rights violated, we create an incentive for crime as the criminal will give up less than he has taken; no criminal should profit from his crimes. On the other hand, if we over punish, we create a debt on the side of society by unduly infringing the rights of individuals; an extreme example perhaps, but not unlike chopping the hand off of a thief. To this end, society will usually turn to imprisonment or fines (rights of freedom or property) as punishment for most crimes and they will be forfeited in larger amounts for more serious crimes. The issue arises when the right to life is violated. The thing is, the right to life is by far the most valuable of all rights because all other rights are meaningless. As such, it is impossible to forfeit an equitable amount of other rights as a just punishment for taking the life of another. Therefore, the only just punishment for taking another persons life is forfeiture of one's own life. Any society that truly counts justice as among its virtues must have capital punishment; however, that doesn't mean it is necessary, some societies may value compassion, rehabilitation, or various other virtues as more important and use those as reason not to implement it.

Regardless, using any form of justice, whether capital punishment, corporal punishment, life imprisonment, or whatever should never be a source of satisfaction for society. It's easy to see a heinous crime and want to see that person pay the price, but justice must remain a passionless process or we run the risk of defeating the very grounds of balance and equity upon which that virtue is based.

Taking someone's life and hiding behind the name of Justice makes us no better then the criminals. You just create a vicious cycle.

[Deleted]

I'm not against it in principle, if you've killed many people and show no sign of being able to function in society without continuing to kill, your right to life must be put to question.

However, in practice many innocent people get executed. And for this reason alone I cannot support it.

[Roveredo]

Capital punishment isn't a matter of revenge, it's a matter of justice, it's about establishment of balance, or as close to it as can be done. To that end, justice means giving a punishment that is equitable to the crime by forfeiture of certain rights that society deems to be a reasonably fair trade. The logic for this is simple. If we punish less severely than the rights violated, we create an incentive for crime as the criminal will give up less than he has taken; no criminal should profit from his crimes. On the other hand, if we over punish, we create a debt on the side of society by unduly infringing the rights of individuals; an extreme example perhaps, but not unlike chopping the hand off of a thief. To this end, society will usually turn to imprisonment or fines (rights of freedom or property) as punishment for most crimes and they will be forfeited in larger amounts for more serious crimes. The issue arises when the right to life is violated. The thing is, the right to life is by far the most valuable of all rights because all other rights are meaningless. As such, it is impossible to forfeit an equitable amount of other rights as a just punishment for taking the life of another. Therefore, the only just punishment for taking another persons life is forfeiture of one's own life. Any society that truly counts justice as among its virtues must have capital punishment; however, that doesn't mean it is necessary, some societies may value compassion, rehabilitation, or various other virtues as more important and use those as reason not to implement it.

Regardless, using any form of justice, whether capital punishment, corporal punishment, life imprisonment, or whatever should never be a source of satisfaction for society. It's easy to see a heinous crime and want to see that person pay the price, but justice must remain a passionless process or we run the risk of defeating the very grounds of balance and equity upon which that virtue is based.

Define Justice.

[Deleted]

For it in theory, against it in practice

[Borzo]

Capital punishment isn't a matter of revenge, it's a matter of justice, it's about establishment of balance, or as close to it as can be done. To that end, justice means giving a punishment that is equitable to the crime by forfeiture of certain rights that society deems to be a reasonably fair trade. The logic for this is simple. If we punish less severely than the rights violated, we create an incentive for crime as the criminal will give up less than he has taken; no criminal should profit from his crimes. On the other hand, if we over punish, we create a debt on the side of society by unduly infringing the rights of individuals; an extreme example perhaps, but not unlike chopping the hand off of a thief. To this end, society will usually turn to imprisonment or fines (rights of freedom or property) as punishment for most crimes and they will be forfeited in larger amounts for more serious crimes. The issue arises when the right to life is violated. The thing is, the right to life is by far the most valuable of all rights because all other rights are meaningless. As such, it is impossible to forfeit an equitable amount of other rights as a just punishment for taking the life of another. Therefore, the only just punishment for taking another persons life is forfeiture of one's own life. Any society that truly counts justice as among its virtues must have capital punishment; however, that doesn't mean it is necessary, some societies may value compassion, rehabilitation, or various other virtues as more important and use those as reason not to implement it.

Regardless, using any form of justice, whether capital punishment, corporal punishment, life imprisonment, or whatever should never be a source of satisfaction for society. It's easy to see a heinous crime and want to see that person pay the price, but justice must remain a passionless process or we run the risk of defeating the very grounds of balance and equity upon which that virtue is based.

This may have made sense to some people 1000 years ago, but today it sounds like utter nonsense.

What is the purpose of "punishment"? Is it to protect society? Is it for revenge? If you say "justice", you'll need to define it.

You talk about having a "fair trade". Can you explain why this is important? What's the purpose of this "fair trade", eg "eye for an eye"? What purpose does it serve?

[Spectral]

Morally, I'm always against the death penalty. It's an ancient, barbaric practice, that's completely indefensible in the context of any reason-based morality system.

On the flip side, some individuals are so dangerous that allowing them to live endangers guards or requires cruel and inhumane treatment to avoid endangering these guards. For individuals that fit that criteria, I do favor euthanasia, but it's not about justice or punishment, it's simply about making sure that innocent people don't die.

[Simulacrum]

Opposing the death penalty on grounds like "thou shalt not kill" is just an appeal to the infantile notion of moral absolutes, which is an utterly horrifying position to advocate since taking the position of moral absolutism makes you impervious to any kind of arguments that could change your mind, which means it could be used to justify anything.

I am personally a big fan of the idea that the point of a justice system should be to do as much as is reasonable to rehabilitate offenders, not punish them (since that's largely ineffective, if not counter-productive - the death penalty is famously an ineffective deterrent). However, not everyone can be rehabilitated. Pragmatically, it does not make sense to build a huge building for them to live in, while spending tons of money on keeping them alive, drugged, kept from escaping, and so forth.

Of course, the downside to killing people is that, well, they're gone forever. Which can be a problem if you killed the wrong guy, or you later need information from the dead guy. Maybe the cost of keeping people who can't be rehabilitated alive on taxpayer money is worth it for those reasons alone.

But to say something like "we should never kill because killing is wrong and every human has the right to love and life is sacred and blahblah" is just pathetically childish and naive. This isn't a disney movie, this is the real world. Life often sucks, people die all the time, and some people the world would simply be a better place without for everyone else.

[Bakis]

It is wrong. I do think some people do deserve it but no legal system in the world is bulletproof. People get wrongfully convicted in every country but with capital punishment you can't go back.

There are only a handful of democracies and a ton of totalitarian regimes that enfore it.
I would be ashamed to live in such a country.


/Sweden

[Powerogue]

It'd be nice if we had a society where capital punishment or life in prison weren't necessary, they're both fairly awful.

both end up costing the country a lot, but I have no ideas to resolve that which wouldn't impede justice.

"lethal injection" being the execution of choice to me just seems horrible and more barbaric than a guillotine, but it could be my fear of needles making that method seem disproportionately evil.

I've been through several long arguments about capital punishment, good debates from both sides, but I have come to no conclusions that would remedy the problems brought up. For example: Death Row costs the government a ton of money, why do we not simply execute the criminals as soon as they're put on death row? Because some of them are innocent, and they need those years to be absolutely sure they have the right guy. While it would benefit our pockets, it would be terribly immoral.

[Borzo]

I'm okay with imprisoning people for life (if they are beyond rehabilitation). They should do some kinda work though, so that we don't have to foot the entire bill. I'd also be okay with offering them the opportunity to commit suicide if they so desire.

[smokii]

depending on the crime, mitigating circumstances surrounding it and the provision of irrefuteable proof, i'm in support of it tbh.

but i think tougher prisons would be a major first step as a deterrent - seriously, ps3's, xboxes, even duvets and pillows are a luxury and if you're doing the time, you shouldn't be given any luxuries whatsoever. the prison system needs to act as a major deterrent and i think re-introducing capital punishment now would be a knee jerk over-reaction to soft jails in an attempt to enforce stronger deterrents.

make prisons a real deterrent and you wouldn't need the death penalty, sleeping on a cold stone floor with no matress, pillow and only a rough itchy blanket to keep you warm, 2 meals a day of bread and water and 30 mins exercise time. more than that is not deserved.

however, i also think that the punishment should fit the crime, a prison like that for someone who has tax evaded isn't quite fitting - the worst of the worst prison conditions should be reserved for the violent and sexual criminals.

there's a lot to be said about the criminal justice system and i think things like the human rights laws interfere too much - if you seriously impede anothers human rights, yours should be stripped away and you should be forced to live in horrific conditions until the end of your sentence. softer crimes should see softer sentences and softer conditions, but then there is still issue with drug laws and addicts being treated as criminals instead of addicts, but thats something for another thread.

so in TL: DR format, i think the entire criminal justice system needs an overhaul for the new millenium.

[Deleted]

I think our most up to date understanding of human nature completely undermines any justification for capital punishment. Generally speaking, dealing with the symptoms of a problem while ignoring the causes, even though such causes can be understood, seems illogical to me. I think the death penalty is a lazy solution, a cop-out. I also strongly disagree that placing innate ultimate value on human life is childish or naive.

London UK

[jazen]

Death penalty doesnt work as a deterrent, so it doesnt work. Revenge is not a form of justice. That being said, if they can guarantee an innocent person is not wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, and can expedite the process, I am all for it. Murderers/rapists/child molesters do not deserve an extra breath-swift death.

[Deleted]

Completely against it. Killing criminals is not even a punishment because they'd be dead then, it's just revenge. But I would support forced labor as a punishment for serious crimes so they could work off their upkeep. Besides, there is always a chance that the person being executed is innocent. Every year there are tens if not more people who have been in prison for years who are being freed because they were convicted based on a lie or prejudice or biased jury.

Another idea would be using them for science. I don't mean medication testing or something as horrible but for example send them to Mars or mine asteroids or some such. IF they survive, they'd be pardoned. At least it wouldn't be a pointless killing then and would benefit mankind.

[eriseis]

I just find it interesting when states such as Texas are so anti-abortion but so pro-death penalty.

[caninepawprints]

I'm against it because it costs more than housing the inmate for the duration of his life. Also, they don't have doctors on staff to administer the lethal injections. Due to lack of knowledge in the party administering the lethal injection, the prisoner may be given the wrong dose of the first injection (which puts them to sleep). This means they're awake when their body shuts down. If you think about that happening to you, it's a very scary thought to realize you're awake and you can't breathe or move anymore. Example

[Bakis]

I just find it interesting when states such as Texas are so anti-abortion but so pro-death penalty.

Comes down to the bible and nothing else.
Eye for an eye. Whatever argument they think they can read for pro-life stance I got no clue about.

Wonder what happened to turn the other cheek