Ernya.com

Imprisoning people costs a lot of taxpayer money. If they would be spending their life in jail, I think it is necessary to execute them. If it is positive that they will never be released, then they are just uselessly draining money. They will always be a threat to society and they will never make anything useful of their lives.

I find it essentially useless for any reason other than to free up space. It costs money, too, so the whole "spending money on them" thing doesn't persuade me. Neither does the idea of using it as a deterrent, as I've yet to see how it's been particularly effective--especially more so than various forms of rehabilitation and scientific study. I certainly don't believe in the whole "punishment" idea that some people have where "if you take a life, you deserve to have yours taken." So we're left with the simple fact that, if these people would not otherwise be allowed to be of use to society (which they could if they were being studied/rehabilitated if not for their own benefit, then for the benefit of future cases so that we may better learn how to deal with them), and would likely be more of a threat than a help, then there is no real reason to keep them around.

The spending money argument doesn't really work well with me since it could easily be applied to the elderly and disabled and so on and look how we reacted to those kind of policies by Hitler (even though it made perfect sense).

Though the feeling of closure by those who survived I guess are a reason to do so.

I'm half and half on the issue though.

The irony of the argument "But life in prison costs a lot, killing them is cheaper" is that putting a person on Death Row costs even more than a life sentence, even if it is more brief than a life sentence. This is because of both how these people are imprisoned, and the judicial processes required to keep the people on death row and actually execute them. If the death penalty was removed and the maximum penalty was put to life in prison without parole, it would save taxpayers millions of dollars per year. So that argument is pretty much null and void.

The idea of taking their life as a response to them taking the lives of others is obviously and inherently misguided and downright stupid. For one, they will DIE IN PRISON EITHER WAY. Sometimes I think people forget that. That we think killing them after a 10-15 year stay in prison is more of a punishment than making them stay there 40, 50, 60, even 70 years is kind of funny to me, because if they are supposed to realize what they have done wrong and adequately "suffer" for it through imprisonment and a loss of all personal freedoms, the longer stay until death seems the obvious answer to me. Maybe I'm just crazy.

There is the issue that some people put on death row have been found innocent after the implementation of DNA evidence. Also, many people on death row have IQs much lower than average, and quite a few of them were teens or young adults when they were put in prison. To me that speaks of a major ethical issue in and of itself. Are these people, with their age and their mental faculties, actually capable of understanding their sentence and what they were even charged for? Shouldn't we wonder a bit about the demographics of the overall population of Death Row as compared with the population (and crimes committed) of maximum security inmates serving life-without-parole sentences?

Depending on how good your lawyer is, you may get a death sentence or a life sentence for the committing the same crime (IE, you kill someone, lawyer manages to convince the jury that it is second degree murder and not first degree murder, your sentence goes from death to life). This is just disgustingly discriminatory and such inequality can NEVER be condoned in a court of justice.

To me, the issue of the death penalty is an obvious one. If these people are going to die in prison either way, it will cost more to put them on death row, there are some clearly evident issues with how the court decides life vs death, and there are people on death row who have been found innocent, then there should be no grave a penalty used that is so absurdly flawed. The death penalty should be removed from all states.

Broseiden wrote:However, what if they're causing problems in prison? I know this sounds like a silly argument, but it'd be bad for the other inmates to keep a dangerous person in the same cell as them.
I'm not defending "an eye for an eye," because it's illogical, but if that's the way for people to cope, then that's what society is willing to do to end a few peoples' suffering. Not to mention the sick amount of pleasure and satisfaction people get from knowing another person has just been killed for having committed a major crime.
It's basically the return of the gladiators, only a swifter death with less people actually involved.

Causing problems = solitary confinement. They have programs to prevent trouble inmates from continuing to cause unrest, and most either learn better the first or second time, or are placed in SC permanently and therefore no longer pose an issue.

Eh, I don't really care for the irony that we kill people who kill people but I do find it rather fair in all honesty. Plus it saves tax payers money. :/

Tosinn wrote:Eh, I don't really care for the irony that we kill people who kill people but I do find it rather fair in all honesty. Plus it saves tax payers money. :/

'Cept it doesn't, at all.

To those who think some crimes are worthy of killing people...In this I think Americans have a terribly warped and disturbing sense of justice. We are murdering people, in cold blood, and it's been premeditated for years and years before it happens. The government is COMMITTING THE EXACT SAME CRIME THESE PEOPLE COMMITTED TO GET PUT ON DEATH ROW IN THE FIRST PLACE. So it's okay so long as the government is doing it? So long as we're fairly sure the person did horrible things, even if we've killed innocent people and let the real criminals go free for decades?

Are there crimes terrible enough to warrant the death penalty? Maybe. But here's the real kicker...Perpetrators of mass genocide in places such as Africa are not only allowed free reign to do whatever they want to millions of innocent citizens, but if anyone does manage to stop them, you know what their punishment is? HOUSE. ARREST. Often maintained by the UN themselves. So apparently killing one person is enough to get you murdered by the government, but if you kill millions it's just fine, we can't even be bothered to mention it on the news. So long as it's other people being killed we don't mind at all. :D

I see the death penalty as nothing but the machinations of a vigilante culture that has a sick fascination with bloody "justice" that is rarely that.

i don't really give two shits about paying for them being in there. i don't care if it costs money and it's cheaper just to kill them. the idea of such, it would be easier to kill off half of the human race instead of fixing certain aspects up.
it's inhumane no matter what excuse you give me.
it won't make you feel any better if they're dead, that's not closure, it doesn't help you move past a murder.

Jester wrote:Imprisoning people costs a lot of taxpayer money. If they would be spending their life in jail, I think it is necessary to execute them. If it is positive that they will never be released, then they are just uselessly draining money. They will always be a threat to society and they will never make anything useful of their lives.

Look up costs. It's been proven that it costs the same to keep someone in prison for life as it is to kill them. The doctor that's in there with them gets paid like 100k for that shit. This makes your point moot.

For me, I think the death penalty is just flat out wrong. For various reasons:
1) You're killing someone because they killed someone. How does that make the executioner or government any better than the criminal?
2) You're playing god, and I don't feel that's right (only applicable if you're spiritual)
3) Because wrongly accused people have been put to death. Yes, it's a semi rare occurrence, but putting 1 innocent man to death for a crime he didn't commit is 1 too many. Take the case of the guy who got put to death because the DNA evidence they had was screwed up. Because the man donated bone marrow, which transfers the donors DNA in to the donee...and the donee was the man who committed the crime. The innocent man had 2 children and a wife. He was put to death because he donated bone marrow.

The death penalty isn't a crime deterrent, it costs just as much as to keep someone alive in prison. I see it as being pointless and inhumane. Unless you're from texas where it's practically the state's sport.