Death penalty vs. Life Imprisonment

A

Apossum

Guest
yeah, how original, I know :)


Just wondering what people think, given the cold, hard facts, which do you think is more humane. Assume the person being tried has committed a pre-meditated murder and are 100% guilty. It wasn't accidental or anything-- they're a murderer, plain and simple.

Also consider the facts--

--Jail is a hell hole. For every guy who gets "reformed," there are 100 who want to kick his ass and rape him.

--death is instant and honestly, we don't know if it's truly a "punishment." It's simply kicking someone off this plane of existence. Maybe they go somewhere better, maybe they don't. Maybe they get to see a cool, scrolling, stat list of all the things they accomplished during life (i.e. Picked Your Nose-- 439843, Had Sex- 0 etc. ) But I digress.


I'm in a contemporary morals and ethics class right now discussing this...my paper said that life imprisonment is a better punishment for a murderer because it's more torturous and that life imprisonment is more immoral than the death penalty.
 
I personally don't look at it from which option is more humane. I look at it to which is less burdensome to society as a whole. Since we all have to pay to feed, shelter and guard inmates, for a capital crime, the death penalty just makes more sense.
 
If it was really black and white, I'd say death penalty. But the sad truth is that many people are in jail and on death row unfairly so a life sentence at least gives them a chance for appeal or new evidence to come up.
 
Im a fan of death penalty if there is no reason of doubt about the person. I mean mounds of evidence to support it and NONE of it is from witnesses.

Life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty as well. They spend over a decade in jail sending out one appeal after another and all that lawyer time costs us $.

If we could streamline the death penalty it might be more effective, but that will never happen because of the morality of it all. I say just get rid of it and it will help expidite the normal prison procedures and less burden on prison facilities.
 
Life. For two reasons:

1)Who are we to kill them? They may be sick and we shouldn't pass judgement-The Catholic in me

2)Life in jail is long and hard, they are continually punished and can be studied, freed if wrongly convicted, and raped and beaten if they hurt kids!-The Dad in me
 
well we really dont know what the person goes through with lethal injection, plus there have been mistakes administrating it in the past and it has taken hours to have people die

i dont really like execution or life in jail, each has their own negatives and few positives. Though if you want someone to suffer life in jail outweighs execution.
 
It'd be cheaper to kill he mentally handicapped at birth too, less burdensome on society and all that, but you don't see folks lining up for that. Life and death can't be boiled down to a spreadsheet, if it costs us more, then it costs us more such is the burden of a modern society (with the highest per capita jail populations in the western world).

Personally I don't see where the state has the right to murder it's citizens, eight amendment and all.

Then there's this case in Georgia where the seven of the nine witnesses of a shooting have recanted their testimony, casting doubt on the guys guilt but it took a last minute stay of execution the other day to force anyone to even look at the case again.
 
[quote name='THE DARK KNIGHT']Life. For two reasons:

1)Who are we to kill them? They may be sick and we shouldn't pass judgement-The Catholic in me

[/QUOTE]


hehe, I understand the religious angle...I feel that if our legal system was 100% secure, we would have every right to execute someone (with just cause), but right now it's questionable since innocent people do slip by.
 
Bring on the death penalty!!! You should get one appeal and that's it. Plus the punishment should fit the crime...with nasty grisly toture devices such as the rack and thumbscrews!

J/K about the toture part but honestly it is pretty expensive to lock someone away, our tax dollars going to waste.
 
I'm curious, has anyone looked into the John Couey / Jesica Lunsford case?

I don't much about it; would like to hear some thoughts.
 
i support capital punishment in some extreme cases, but i think generally speaking the death penatly is being used more than it should.

really, the prison system needs to be reformed about as bad as our public schools do, nevermind mind lifers and death row inmates.
 
the death penalty is barbaric for such a "civilized" society such as ours. The only point of the death penalty is for retribution and even then that doesn't make things right in the end. Life in prison is much more feasible sentence for the most extreme cases.


Though, if the death penalty was set up in a way where the process was much more speedier, it would be more effective as a deterant. The problem with that is the fact that more innocent people would be executed.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

there is a huge number of people that have been exonerated years and years after being on death row. Through DNA evidence and things of that nature. Making the Death penalty more "instant" like i stated above would leave these innocent people to death, which is an abomination of our justice system.

Therefore, i think based on today's justice system and how it operates, Life in prison is the best option even for extreme cases.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Life and death can't be boiled down to a spreadsheet, if it costs us more, then it costs us more such is the burden of a modern society (with the highest per capita jail populations in the western world).

Personally I don't see where the state has the right to murder it's citizens, eight amendment and all.

[/QUOTE]

The founding fathers clearly believed in capital punishment, after all, hangings were quite common and the death penalty was not considered a cruel and unusual punishment by any means. And you can't deny that life imprisionment is simply flushing money down the toilet; you could you the money to help with the health care system for example. Am I valuing the life of a murderer less than that of you or me or any other law-abiding citizen? Absolutely and I won't apologize for that.
 
The death penalty is unjustifiable. It is completely barbaric and there is no reason for our civilized society to use it. Reasons:

1. Once carried out, it is irreversible. Considering that over 100 people have been released from death row in the last 30 years or so, this is kinda a big deal.

2. It clearly doesn't work as a deterrent. The has a higher murder rate that the northeast, for example, but the south has way more executions.

3. Life in prison accomplishes the same goal of removing an individual from society while still leaving the possibility of new evidence to be brought to life if the individual is actually innocent.

4. The idea that the state should have the power to kill its citizens is ludicrous and tyrannical.
 
If someone committed a really terrible crime and it was 100% certain with physical evidence then maybe the death penalty would be ok. But since that happens pretty much never, then the death penalty shouldn't be used.

Putting an innocent person in jail is bad, but killing an innocent person is far worse.

The number of cases overturned by DNA evidence should convince anybody that the death penalty is a bad idea, no matter how long it takes before the person is actually killed.
 
remember it is actually more expensive for death penalty than life sentence due to all the court appeal.
 
[quote name='62t']remember it is actually more expensive for death penalty than life sentence due to all the court appeal.[/QUOTE]


indeed, and since the death penalty process can take up to 15-20 years to happen it costs up the ass.
 
[quote name='Cheese']It'd be cheaper to kill he mentally handicapped at birth too, less burdensome on society and all that, but you don't see folks lining up for that. Life and death can't be boiled down to a spreadsheet, if it costs us more, then it costs us more such is the burden of a modern society (with the highest per capita jail populations in the western world).

Personally I don't see where the state has the right to murder it's citizens, eight amendment and all.

Then there's this case in Georgia where the seven of the nine witnesses of a shooting have recanted their testimony, casting doubt on the guys guilt but it took a last minute stay of execution the other day to force anyone to even look at the case again.[/quote]

So, basically you're comparing someone being born mentally handicapped to someone who is a convicted murderer....hmm...ok. No question our system is flawed, but forfeiture of life is the ultimate price any human could pay. Think about it... even if you suffer some in prison, you still get to live another day. You still get to feel enjoyment. You still can read, write to your family, watch tv, etc. The person who you killed doesn't get that. Neither does their family. Even if their is no hell for murderers and rapists to go to, I still say death is more than deserving for most of them. Yes, occasionally you will kill an innocent man. That is tragic on many levels, but that is why we have the long and drawn out appeals process. Sometimes that still doesn't work at 100% efficiancy, but it is the best we have at the moment. As technology improves so will the system's ability to prosecute and convict the right person.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601799.html

Troy Davis' case is interesting, mostly as a result of his treatment. I'm fascinated by death row cases, where inmates get a "column a/column b" approach, serving decades before execution. Yet, when the execution date gets closer, suddenly the states have little time for new information. Yes, yes, limited appeals and all that. That's fine. New evidence, though? When a citizen (sorry, they're still citizens) has their life on the line, and us (via the government) controlling their livelihood, we can not afford to execute innocent people.

[quote name='level1online']I'm curious, has anyone looked into the John Couey / Jesica Lunsford case?

I don't much about it; would like to hear some thoughts.[/QUOTE]

media outrage brings it to your attention. Sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of all other offender types. Now, of course, general recidivism is very high, so I'm not saying it's a great score (it's like championing your golf score at +19 after 18 holes when everyone else is +45).
 
http://corrections.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/36F7C969-3842-4EF3-9C22-973D10EEFB02/7177/recidivism00.pdf

I don't have access to the data yet (not that I'd be able to share the *data*), but here's one of KY's most recent recid reports. See tables 7 and 16, I think, for recidivism rates by type of criminal (of course, not everyone fits neatly into one category, but it's ranked on "worst charged offense" - yes, still a loaded idea).

http://corrections.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/36F7C969-3842-4EF3-9C22-973D10EEFB02/7177/recidivism00.pdf
 
[quote name='62t']remember it is actually more expensive for death penalty than life sentence due to all the court appeal.[/QUOTE]

Well then speed up the process. I mean, where is it written in stone that you have to hang out on death row for 15-20 years? If a guy is found guilty of a crime that warrants the death sentence, and he's given no chance of parole, carry out the sentence the next day.
 
[quote name='evanft']The death penalty is unjustifiable. It is completely barbaric and there is no reason for our civilized society to use it. Reasons:

1. Once carried out, it is irreversible. Considering that over 100 people have been released from death row in the last 30 years or so, this is kinda a big deal.

2. It clearly doesn't work as a deterrent. The has a higher murder rate that the northeast, for example, but the south has way more executions.

3. Life in prison accomplishes the same goal of removing an individual from society while still leaving the possibility of new evidence to be brought to life if the individual is actually innocent.

4. The idea that the state should have the power to kill its citizens is ludicrous and tyrannical.[/QUOTE]



I understand your points but taking prison conditions into account, don't you find life imprisonment to be barbaric as well? The difference-- the state kills the guy with its own hand or the prisoner gets slowly institutionalized, is deprived of the freedoms they once knew and will never know them again, and has to deal with other prisoners-- leading to a great deal of mental and physical danger, but with a glint of hope for people who are truly innocent. I imagine dying of old age as the "lucky" way out, though that also means living out your years in fear of getting raped, shanked, or something else.

just saying-- if I were sentenced to life in prison and I knew I would have to be there the whole time, I'd kill myself somehow.


I think we should make every effort to patch up our system (ha! I can't even type that with a straight face...the thing needs a complete overhaul) and clean up our prisons in order to better justify the death penalty (not as a deterrent, as a punishment.) As much as possible should be done to ensure that innocents don't get it, but no bureaucratic process is perfect.

Maybe I'm not as sensitive to the gift of life, and way skeptical about whether life in prison can be called living, but I see the death penalty and life in prison as two sides of the same coin, with the latter being a form of prolonged torture and the former being cruel, quick, and dramatic.
 
[quote name='Apossum']*long post*[/QUOTE]

Actually, I pretty much agree with what you said. Life in prison is, on some level, is barbaric. Given this, we are left with 2 options; execute prisoners or rehabilitate them to the point of being able to reintegrate to society. Clearly, the former is out of the question, but the later is a very attractive option. If we could develop a way to completely rehabilitate most violent criminals (killers, rapists, etc., those who would be candidates for the death penalty under typical laws), after, say, only 20 years in prison (some countries actually do put a maximum limit on prison sentences. Norway, for example, is somewhere around 21 years), I'd be all for it. I believe it would lead to a much richer and more egalitarian society.

However, this option is, at least at present time, not very realistic. There are obviously a large number of people who simply cannot be "fixed" with today's technology and methods, and then there's also the fact that allowing murderers and rapists to reintegrate into society after prison terms much shorter than what we are currently used to is a political non-starter.

So we're really left with only one realistic option for ensuring the most dangerous of criminals are unable to commit crimes again; life in prison.
 
1. I do not believe that anyone or any organization has the right to take away life from a person. Therefore, I don't believe we should have the death penalty.

Then we go on to these as a less philosophical and more practical viewpoint. However, even if these issues were solved, due to 1. above I wouldn't support the death penalty.

2. Innocent people have been put to death and innocent people are on death row right now. If we execute these people, there is no chance of putting wrongs right.

3. As mentioned above, it costs more for the court proceedings and other related things necessary to put someone to death compared to keeping them in prison for life.

4. It gives mass murderers and the like an easy way out. They should be made to work hard to make what restitution possible to the family/families of their victims.

5. The death penalty has no deterrent effect (this has been plainly shown in studies).

6. Unequal application of the death penalty is disturbing. Someone could be executed where I live (Virginia, the state that executes the second-most people of any state (Texas executes the most) for something that might land them in jail for 15 years across the river in the District or Maryland.
 
let them live, they suffer more
kill them and they suffer no longer

but then again if you kill them the family will be upset
let them live and the family will be anticipating hearing from them

its tough to answer indeed...it could be death which is more "humane" since you aren't letting this murderer live (and think about other killings he could commit) or let them live and allow them to continue having trials after trials...until of course they are found guitly, then i dont know.
 
I must say that it is worse to stick someone in a cell for an entire lifetime. Not only do I got to pay for him to just sit there for the next 4o years but prison does things to you. Crazy things that con only be seen on the nastiest of sites at the latest of nights by straight men who are curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top