The nature of the death penalty.

I have a school assignment the requires the dialogue of my friends as source material. Please respond to this question with some arguable point or thought. I'm interested to learn about what you all have to say. Please keep the discussion clean and absent the trolls.

Is society's obligation to simply remove a criminal from society, to actually punish the criminal for crime, to "correct" the behavior of the criminal, or a combination of all three? Considering this, then what is the nature of the death penalty in America today?

Death Penalty is a necessity for those who don't value life. Of course, the courts would have to really prove without a doubt that the person being sentenced on the Death Penalty is in fact the person(s) who comited the crime and have absolutely no remorse. The remorse can be tested and viewed just in case the defended says so that he has that remorse but realistically does not. As Magneto and Wesker once put it, "This world is over populated and needs cleansing".  What better cleansing than getting rid of the people who don't value life?

That last statement is a bit of circular reasoning isn't it? What better way of cleansing than getting rid of the people who don't value life? That method, in itself, shows a lack for the value of life. Consider this article by Michael Daly

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/25/i-committed-murder.html

Is it really as black and white as you say? Or should we consider the deeper implications?

Call me crazy but teaching people that killing is wrong by killing them just seems a little retarded.

That last statement is a bit of circular reasoning isn't it? What better way of cleansing than getting rid of the people who don't value life? That method, in itself, shows a lack for the value of life. Consider this article by Michael Daly

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/25/i-committed-murder.html

Is it really as black and white as you say? Or should we consider the deeper implications?

Call me crazy but teaching people that killing is wrong by killing them just seems a little retarded.

To me, "to "correct" the behavior of the criminal" is a combination of all three, unless I failed to realize what you meant by "correct" and then of course there are limits to how hard, as in how much, effort, time, money, resources you spend on an individual trying to correct them, and what they can offer once you do, and that weighed up against who can offer more for less in a broader sense, without being too callous or forgetting basic human rights, whilst also being aware of the circumstance of the crime that makes a criminal a criminal and to what effect if any discretion be applied to said criminal because of those circumstance. Then consider practice vs theory as what we know and can determine (like chance of rehabilitation) with the promise that with time, we can hopefully know more and be better equipped to look for better alternatives versus practical application today bearing in mind everything else. 

I believe it would be a combination of all 3. Obviously the criminal has to be taken away from society so they do not harm anyone else. In my opinion though, if you are going to try and rehabilitate criminals (or correct them) you need to show them that what they did was wrong, i.e. punish them. Although, I think the death penalty is going to far. I have never believed that execution is the way to go about things.

@MagneticTempest said:

So the remaining question as this gets deeper is which part of society out weighs the other? The serial killing murderers (they are the ONLY people that gets the death penalty) or the innocent hard working and socially productive people?

That's what I meant by making it "black and white". If I remember correctly the quote you made, Spock was talking about personal sacrifice not casting judgement based on that principle. The thing is, the people you specify are not the only ones who are sentenced. Whenever a human element is involved the possibility of human error will always exist. In a recent case, that many of you may have heard about, Troy Davis was put to death in GA as a cop killer. He fought the sentence for years and maintained his innocence up till the day he died. During his trials there were many instances of reasonable doubt related to his guilt. The state of Georgia was determined to put this man to death. Now, I'm not saying that I do or do not believe he was guilty, my point is this: what if he wasn't?

@MagneticTempest said:

It cost the nation or any other country more money to take care of these guys for life. The money that they are using to clothes these people, feed them, shower them etc. is more costly than simply getting rid of them. And most of that cost could be used to feed your own family or to give out as charity for the truly needing.

Contrary to popular belief it does not cost more. In some cases it can cost less. In a capital punishment case you have to remember the due process involved in carrying out the sentence. In many cases, and I encourage you to look this up, the cost of a single death penalty case can be millions more than a non death penalty case. I'm not saying this website is perfectly accurate but it helps to give a rough idea and you can find these same numbers elsewhere;

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

well, this is always a fascniating issue to discuss

I honestly think that the death penalty is neccessary when used as a way of removing a dangeous individual from the populace

but it's also in contradiction of my belief that two wrongs don't make a right

I don't believe in an eye for an eye, or for the punishment having to suit the crime but I do think we need the death penalty

there are just some people too dangerous, too skewed from the conventions of society, too evil, too tainted to live

....but making that judgement call on who is too evil, who has strayed too far from the norm, all that is where the sticky situation becomes a pickle....

I suppose, I believe we need the threat of capital punishment to keep people in line... but it's not necessarily working so that sort of shoots that argment out of the water

because for the 99.9% of the time that no one is being executed, that's all capital punishment is supposed to be, right? A deterrent more than an actual punishment?

perhaps that's the main functionality of the death penalty: the fear it instills in people to keep them from committing the most heinous of acts

The money required for the a death of a person on death row is 2$ million whereas the price for containing a person for life is $250,000-$500,000 I believe. They'll personally save money if they don't sentence a person to death. There's also the chance the person could be innocent and they just couldn't find the evidence for it so that would be quite unfortunate if that person was executed. I personally think the death penalty

@n3v3rless

It's not so much as society as opposed to the legal system we have. If we truly had a say, a majority of citizens in the U.S would protest ardently for the abolishment of the death penalty. The government would save money in liaison to also containing a dangerous criminal in check within jail. They can't punish the criminal for the crime if they're sentenced to death with no way out. It's quite contradicting. If the full punishment was a death penalty for EVERY single crime anyone does which includes stealing a candy bar from seven eleven, then it would almost guarantee a lesser rate of crimes but then comes the morality contained by this law such as almost inhumane and such. People would start protesting against this law due to the nature and severity of it. Also you can't correct what you've just killed. I personally agree that the death penalty should only be in conjuction for the mentally ill and sociopaths but that's what I think, my nature prefers no death penalty but it's almost not possible. I've seen a movie where an insane man that's both a sociopath and a rapist drive and pick up random girls and leading them to think he's a good samaritan but in actuality, he kept redisent about who he was until it was too late for the victim. He would drive them off to god knows where and start to rape them and then, kill them in the end no matter how much they've begged. Including a pregnant woman in the beginning of the movie. Jail doesn't stop this guy because he's a sociopath. He possesses no fear of punishment and the only reasonable explanation to stop him is the death penalty. The pregnant woman's boyfriend whom's a detective of the police, hunted him down to teach him a lesson but not kill him was making his life a living hell. He beated him to a pulp, cut the tendons on his legs, you name it. It didn't stop him nor scared him. He kept at it and soon, he killed his sister and his superior. This movie's called "I saw the Devil." It's an Asian film with subtitles. It can be found on netflix.

Saying that implies that the person being put to death isn't really being punished for their crimes, they're simply being killed so that someone somewhere else MIGHT think twice.

Is it right to give the government the power to kill our fellow citizens because IT thinks they need to be made example of?

The majority of murders tend to be crimes of passion, premeditated murder is rare.

Rapists, Paedophiles and Child Killers should be executed with a knife, so as to save tax-payer money.  

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Rapists, Paedophiles and Child Killers should be executed with a knife, so as to save tax-payer money.

Note: the knife should not be cleaned or swapped until it's virtually impossible to use again.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Rapists, Paedophiles and Child Killers should be executed with a knife, so as to save tax-payer money.

Note: the knife should not be cleaned or swapped until it's virtually impossible to use again.

It's not about life or death or justice, it's about money and power. 

@n3v3rless said:

Saying that implies that the person being put to death isn't really being punished for their crimes, they're simply being killed so that someone somewhere else MIGHT think twice.

Is it right to give the government the power to kill our fellow citizens because IT thinks they need to be made example of?

The majority of murders tend to be crimes of passion, premeditated murder is rare.

I'm aware of the first sentence. That's using the act of fear which is smart but also not morally right. However using the death of a person for this purpose simply isn't right. Might as well elevate the death penalty to kill anyone that commits any crime, misdemeanors and felonies.

No it isn't right.

The death penalty can range from treason, espionage, willingness to crash a train, perjury, hijacking a plane, sex crimes, rape, murder during the act of terrorism, and drug trafficking.

@MagneticTempest: Perhaps I should have said murders. Also, I didn't say anything about the law, your the one that said "they don't value life so kill them". Capital punishment is taking the easy why out. Something like a scarlet letter would work much better in my opinion. Don't kill them, make them live with the consequences of their actions.

I'm a little divided on the death penalty. But the notion of killing people to tell people that killing is wrong, like TheJeffHimself said, seems a bit... retarded. Too be completely honest, I don't believe just killing the criminal solves anything. I find it weird when a person seeks revenge by wanting them to be killed by the State. I was watching one of these GOP Debates and Ricky Perry was asked if he has struggled with the idea that one or more of the 234 inmates Texas has executed may have been innocent, the crowd started cheering away as soon it was mentioned that his state has executed 234 people so far in the year. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this? I simply don't understand how you can possibly cheer for the death of 234 people, including some that may have been innocent. It's disgusting. The same thing goes for torture, when was Osama Bin Laden was killed that's all people could talk about the next day. My History teacher and an assistant in that class were saying how Bin Laden should've been tortured and I vaguely remember something about feeding him to sharks... Why torture him? What's the point? It solves absolutely nothing. Again... Just disgusting.

Personally, i'm against it, as "Thejeffhimself" above me said, teaching people that killing is wrong  by killing them is quite hypocritical, i cannot think of a single instance on how the death penalty will help or reform criminals, crime still goes on in both states with and without the death penalty, i was actually just talking about this in my philosophy class, When committing a crime, the criminal doesn't think "oh i might get the death penalty for this" before committing murder or rape, they are in the moment, the consequences don't matter to them, so saying it "reduces crime" is false, the second reason why i think people support the death penalty is because they say "It's what the criminal deserves, it's justice" how so? as Gandhi said, "an eye or an eye leaves the whole world blind" how is killing someone gaining justice at all? will it bring back the people they killed? will it truly balance the scales? will it make the family and friends of the victim feel any better; some say "yes it would" but how so? their loved one is still dead, they still have to live with that, how is knowing another person died going to really fill that hole?  
 
The main reason i feel the death penalty is wrong is mostly because, we are all human, some may have different moral values than others, but that doesn't make one more or less important than someone else, No human has the right to take another's life, no one's life is more important than another's

Confinement, punishment, and rehabilitation are but three parts of the reasoning behind sentencing offenders. The fourth being deterrence of future offenders.

The Death penalty accomplishes only one of these, Confinement as for the other three:

• Punishment implies an experience, death is not an experience. It is a state of being.
• You can't rehabilitate a dead man obviously.
• Duke and Vermont University have both study deterrence and recidivism rates in relation to death penalty and found that capital punishment does not effect either.

i feel like if we were to kill off some criminals maybe we could make an example i mean DO YOU WANT THESE PEOPLE ON THE STREETS?

@shadowknight666: Of course we don't want potential murderers "On the streets", but simply killing off some criminals like it's nothing to make an example is just dumb. People need to NOT murder or rape etc. others because of understanding the unethical reasons behind it, not because they fear punishment. Fear tactics don't really solve the problem at all.

@Dakotax6: i have to disagree if i was to commit a bad crime and i knew that the last guy was horrifically killed i would totally not want to continue i mean what kind of sick bastard would commit KNOWING they will die i mean seriously?

@shadowknight666: I don't think you understood what I said. What is better, not killing a person because you know it is truly wrong and immoral OR not killing someone because you fear punishment from the government? Again, fear tactics don't solve the problem. Using fear to get people to not murder or commit any other crime doesn't work, the potential is still there. Like I said, people need to understand the unethical reasons behind murdering or raping someone and if they do so it will lead them to the conclusion to why doing it would be wrong. You're essentially hypothetically saying you wouldn't commit a crime just because you fear punishment.

@Dakotax6: alright i'll bite let's say we could convince someone not to commit murder rape etc. how could this be accomplished? I mean do we have to tell another human being that " putting that knife inside John is not nice"?

@shadowknight666 said:

@Dakotax6: alright i'll bite let's say we could convince someone not to commit murder rape etc. how could this be accomplished? I mean do we have to tell another human being that " putting that knife inside John is not nice"?

There isn't one thing that is going to keep everybody from "Putting that knife inside of John.." lol. It's different for everybody. Some people do refrain from crime for fear of punishment, but this is a very small percentage and there is a problem with this logic because if the fear is removed, people will simply go ape$h!t. Like @Dakotax6: mentions, people have to understand the ethics and reality behind such actions as murder and rape. Once you get it you really don't need someone to tell you what and what not to do (be it the government, religion, or peer pressure).

I don't know. 
Ask Nancy Grace.

@DoomDoomDoom: alright i see that still though i don't understand what you can do to stop the 1% that is so ape$#!t they will regardless of them knowing it's wrong ( i.e jeffrey dahmer ) AND they will be punished ( i.e can't think of a example lol)

@tron_bonne said:

I don't know. Ask Nancy Grace.

I grimaced at the thought.

@shadowknight666: They have a trial and get locked up for life. Everything happens like it would normally just the judge cannot sentence people to death, or there is no mandatory death sentence for certain crimes(I'm not sure if there are).

@tron_bonne said:

I don't know. Ask Nancy Grace.

we ALL know her answer..... i think?

@DoomDoomDoom: well if i was offered to be alone in a dark cell cramped with no one to talk to for the rest of my life or die i will choose die

@shadowknight666: Me too, solitary confinement for the average person is the superior punishment.

Can we come to a compromise and make prisons as uncomfortable and hellish as possible? Besides child molesters of course, I have no words for those creatures.

@tron_bonne said:

I don't know. Ask Nancy Grace.

I grimaced at the thought.

@tron_bonne said:

I don't know. Ask Nancy Grace.

we ALL know her answer..... i think?

@tron_bonne: EYAH! Oh, it's only Nancy Grace.

@Iron_Turtle: Only if by hellish you mean less like jail and more like a combination of school and motivational speeches. They are people just like you and me, only most of them have made a mistake somewhere down the line.

If not Nancy; Ask John Walsh. 
 

@Iron_Turtle: I push a pen at the moment. I agree with you though some people are beyond reaching but I just don't think it is constitutional to put them down like dogs.

Hey everybody, thanks for the discussion. This forum helped a lot and I received an A for the assignment. I appreciate all your help. :-D

Everyone saying the death penalty is a good way to "remove" someone who doesn't value life from society must not know about solitary confinement in prisons. Stick them in a tiny cell, feed them bread and water, no contact with the outside world or other prisoners. That does the same thing.

The death penalty makes us all murderers. I do not agree with it at all.

Everyone saying the death penalty is a good way to "remove" someone who doesn't value life from society must not know about solitary confinement in prisons. Stick them in a tiny cell, feed them bread and water, no contact with the outside world or other prisoners. That does the same thing.

The death penalty makes us all murderers. I do not agree with it at all.

The Death Penalty is a logical and natural way of eliminating threats, in a wolf pack if a pack member becomes a threat to the group he is either kicked out of the pack or he is killed without any protest because wolves have more common sense than humans. I already know a bunch of people are going to come at me with emotional or moral crap but I must warn you that will not change my point of view because IMO emotionalism has no place in legal matters

The Death Penalty is a logical and natural way of eliminating threats, in a wolf pack if a pack member becomes a threat to the group he is either kicked out of the pack or he is killed without any protest because wolves have more common sense than humans. I already know a bunch of people are going to come at me with emotional or moral crap but I must warn you that will not change my point of view because IMO emotionalism has no place in legal matters

my check at work would have been $2000 but since we take care of killers, my pay check is $600

@Ego: honestly the death penalty is less crewel than locking them in a box for the rest of their lives, if I had a choice between death and life in prison I'd choose death in a heart beat

@Ego: honestly the death penalty is less crewel than locking them in a box for the rest of their lives, if I had a choice between death and life in prison I'd choose death in a heart beat

@Ego said:

my check at work would have been $2000 but since we take care of killers, my pay check is $600

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.TpYZqLK3OmY

@Ego: Some people will never be content, it's like with kids people without kids are constantly harping on you about disciplining your kids but every thing you do to discipline them is treated like abuse even when its a simple as saying no to them