should the death penalty be brought back?

Nuttzz

yeah, very funny victor, perhaps when your fiancee has been raped and your brother is interfered with by some sick old man, you might have a different prospective on things. Personally i feel the 7 year sentence the bastard got for raping my fiancee was a joke, and unfortunately my brothers abuser wont see justice, except for some dark lane justice. Perhaps the victims of serious crimes should decide on the sentence of the criminals

arcadegame2004

death penalty is a good deterrant.

The high murder rate in the US would seem to disprove that theory.

A crackdown on gun-ownership is the best thing that can be done from the point of view of preventing murder.

Those calling for a return to the death-penalty exhibit a certain fatalism by saying stuff like:

Originally posted by Deadduck
also, society will never improve to the point where rape and other such crimes will stop, so don't hold your breath on that one

, which seems to me to amount to an oversimplification in terms of approaching what to do about the problem of murder and violence in our society. Granted, punishment will have to be part of the solution. The people do indeed require and rightly demand protection from these thugs. But prevention, as they say, is better than cure. The countries with the highest murder-rates are also those with the most liberal gun-ownership regimes. Finland is a rare example of this within the EU.

Irish criminals can just go to Finland or the US, walk into a gunshop and buy guns, and then fly back to Ireland to use them. We need to harmonise EU laws and reach an agreement with the US to help curtail this. An EU-wide ban on all guns except for hunting is essential in this context.

Also, something must be done about alcohol abuse. I probably won't be popular with some people for saying this, but we all know that a massive proportion of the violence in our society revolves around alcohol. A ban would probably be impractical, but perhaps limits on alcohol-intake should be introduced? In addition, the fact that so many drugs are illegal, (even ones thought less harmful than tobacco, such as cannabis) provides a huge impetus for violence due to the massive profits to be made by crimelords for supplying what cannot be obtained legally. I am obviously not calling for all illegal drugs to be legalised, but some of the soft-ones perhaps should be. Research is needed into this of course to determine the scope of such relaxation of the rules.

Originally Posted by whosurpaddy
oh and whats the problem with chemically castrating the rapists?

The problem is that the impetus for sexual desire lies in the brain, believe it or not. Chemical or even actual castration still would not guarantee safety for potential rape-victims. The problem with physical castration is that it would be an outrageous injustice if the castrated man convicted of rape later turned out to be innocent. His chance of having children would have been destroyed, and he would have been put through an ordeal even worse that being imprisoned. I am against these "irreversible" punishments. I also find the fact that some proponents of the death-penalty on this forum are seeming almost to be putting a price on life e.g. costs this much to imprison them alive, as rather disturbing.

The high murder rate in the US would seem to disprove that theory.

A crackdown on gun-ownership is the best thing that can be done from the point of view of preventing murder.

What are all these references to the States abt? We're talking about Ireland, which has an entirely different culture, and and entirely different experience in regards to violent crimes.

A reduction of gun ownership would reduce some crimes in Ireland however, the majority of weapons used in crimes in Ireland are bought under the counter or brought over from the UK.

Irish criminals can just go to Finland or the US, walk into a gunshop and buy guns, and then fly back to Ireland to use them. We need to harmonise EU laws and reach an agreement with the US to help curtail this. An EU-wide ban on all guns except for hunting is essential in this context.

Huh? You sure abt this? I'm fairly sure that unauthorised weapons are still siezed by customs, and getting authorisation for most weapons are hard enough to get. Hell, I had to consider paying for a permit when i wanted to bring a sword back from Germany.

arcadegame2004

There is obviously a link between liberal gun-ownership laws and crime, especially murder. In South Africa, such laws have resulted in a nightmarish situation of a murder being committed every 10 seconds. I did not make reference to Germany btw.

The situation is about to get worse to an insane degree with President Bush refusing to agree to an extension of the US ban on assault weapons e,g, machine-guns, flamethrowers, bazookas ( :eek: ). This ban was introduced in 1993 and is due to expire this year. If any proof is needed of the lack of intelligence in that presidency that this would seem to fit the bill for that. Insane it is.

In the same way as we closed a loophole in our laws with respect to people using Ireland as back-door to Europe, we also need to prevent Finland and the US, among other parts of the world, being used by criminals as a backdoor to Ireland.

The death-penalty is monstrous and a throwback to Europe's warlike past and must never be returned. I wouldn't be as opposed to it if we could be 100% CERTAIN of the guilt of the convicted person. But obtaining that degree of certainty is often extremely difficult.

ionapaul

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Granted, punishment will have to be part of the solution. The people do indeed require and rightly demand protection from these thugs. But prevention, as they say, is better than cure.

The problem is that the impetus for sexual desire lies in the brain, believe it or not. Chemical or even actual castration still would not guarantee safety for potential rape-victims. The problem with physical castration is that it would be an outrageous injustice if the castrated man convicted of rape later turned out to be innocent.

Some people do not agree with punishment - rehabilitation is their be-all and end-all. Not anyone here, but some people can excuse anything away on upbringing and environment. I think rehabilitation is generally a waste of time with repeat offenders of violent crimes. Not someone who has once beaten someone up in a brawl, or even someone who has been convicted once of rape. But when the one-off crime becomes just the beginning of their life of crime, then rehabilitation becomes more and more difficult I think and we need to start accepting the idea of permanently protecting the innocent of society (be that via imprisionment until you die or death penalty). Plus I honestly believe some people are utter past the point of rehabilitation. Do you think Saddam could ever become a normal, fully functioning and productive member of society?
If you were fairly certain (impossible to be 100% of course) that a serial rapist would re-offend, what should be done about them?
Would anyone who currently disagrees with the death penalty feel different if it could be 100% guaranteed (again impossible) that the convicted committed the crime? Or is the death penalty wrong no matter what, and Hitler and Stalin should only have been jailed if tried by the world community.

*edit - just saw arcade answered one of my questions in his last reply, as I was writing it!

Flukey

It is impossible to get that level of assurance. There are probably a lot of people that received the death penalty, that were innocent, but are still believed to be guilty to this day. If you think murder is wrong you cannot support the death penalty. You cannot have it both ways. As I said earlier, if you truly support it, you would never use it.

Ph3n0m

First of all I voted Yes for the return of the Death Penalty, which I shall explain throughout this post.


We have to look at our current set of laws plus our law systems archaic (sp?)views.

Why do we not have tougher laws for more serious crimes, why does life not mean life imprisionment anymore, why are poorer citizens given harsher sentences then the rich or elite classes (Club Anabelles anyone? - there wouldnt be such a furore if the lads were from Clondalkin or any area of Dublin classed as low-income)

The problem with our society is we honestly dont give a **** anymore, we dont want to get involved anymore, its case of "its not my problem, so why should I help"

While that does not directly go towards answering the main question, it does go to answering the mentality of today's "modern" Irish citizen - all guff and no gusto.

First it was - "lets ban caning or similiar punishments in school" - well I will tell you I was in a primary school in the 80's and a teacher had a cane, I broke the rules once, and by god I didnt break them again - 3 of the best on the right hand, and I thought long and hard before doing anything again.

Was I beaten or abused in school, was I beaten or abused at home, hell no - I was disciplined in each place by a person in authority who ruled with an iron fist, something that is sadly lacking in this country

Now if someone breaks the rules, we want to understand them, we want to give them hugs and kisses and buscuits and tea - blow that - you break the rules, you should be punished and the punishment must fit the crime.

With that said, I for one am sick of the bleating sheep who call themselves liberals calling for the death penalty to be abolished. The fact is the death penatly prevents murderers/etc from re-offending again and can in some cases serve as a warning to others.

The problem is most people think the right to life is a gift, sorry but in my mind its a privilage, and when you give that privilige up by cutting short the life of another, then you must give what you have taken.

Gandi said an eye for an eye will leave a society blond or words to that effect, but that was his philophisy not mine - it doesnt apply to our modern day world - his words were for another place and in another time.

The other thing that bothers me is that people call for the death penalty for cop-killers/etc - WHY? They are paid for their duty to the badge and to the protection of citizens like you and me? WHy should a killer of a child literally get away with murder, when the killer of a person who swears his life to the protection of others get harsher treatment.

In the end it is not a case of whether the death penalty should be brought back, it is a case of when will the government actually realise that joe public want jail sentences to mean something in this country? Are we that afriad to be a tad un-PC that we dont want to offend absoluetely no-one?

Rich, poor, in the eyes of the law they should all be branded with the same iron - all should be equal. But like in Animal Farm, some are more equal then others

Zombrex

Ph3n0m wrote:

With that said, I for one am sick of the bleating sheep who call themselves liberals calling for the death penalty to be abolished. The fact is the death penatly prevents murderers/etc from re-offending again and can in some cases serve as a warning to others.

Er ... why don't you just call for a "life is life" sentence ... what purpose does killing the person serve? It has been shown in the states that the death penalty is not a deterent, in fact I would imagine if a murder is on the run they are more likely to violently resist arrest if they think they will be executed.

Flukey

So you are another one of these people who think murder is OK Ph3n0m? Did you scream for the judges and executioners of innocent people who were murdered, to be sentenced to the death penalty, or at least have some punishment? I doubt it, although that would be consistenet with your views. It is true that offenders who receive the death penalty won't offend again. So why not go the full way and solve the crime problem altogether and give the death penalty for any crime? So if you ever drop a piece of litter or park your car on a double yellow line or don't pay your bus fare we can ensure you will never do it again.

At least the rest of us are consistent, not wanting it both ways. We think murder is wrong. You think it is wrong only sometimes. There are much wider issues than the crime the person "allegedly" committed. Of course they should be punished but the death penalty presents plenty of problems, like the ones we have outlined. Bringing it back in can never be completely justified for these reasons. Anyway, as I keep saying, if you do truly support the death penalty you will never use it, so I suppose we can take comfort in that.

BuffyBot

also, society will never improve to the point where rape and other such crimes will stop, so don't hold your breath on that one

Well, having the death penalty as a deterrent is no good then, is it?

AngelofFire

i think some people are getting pissed off with the way serious criminals are being treated in this country.

Perhaps,but look at america some lower class coloured person in texas got 12 years for stealing a bar of chocolate just because it was his second offence,had he of been white and middle class he probably would of gotten off lighter.

Prison and death sentences are ineffective as detterrents,the only serve to punish criminals. Is america devoid of crime?

If we want to PREVENT crime, it would be better to tackle it roots through improving local planning and social facilities thus eliminating the factors that lead to crime.

well I will tell you I was in a primary school in the 80's and a teacher had a cane, I broke the rules once, and by god I didnt break them again - 3 of the best on the right hand, and I thought long and hard before doing anything again.

If 10 years down the road, hypothetically speaking the cane was brought back in, and i had a son or daughter who was beaten by a teacher.I would beat that teacher senseless regardless of whether he was legally entitled to beat my child or not.

what good does allowing children to be beaten by people in schools and educational institutions do? nothing. It was one of the factors that led to abuse of human rights in convents, Industrial schools etc.

Flukey

The thing to do is to stop the crime before it starts, by dealing with the causes of it, as Angel said.

Flukey

Early intervention is the only solution. If you want to solve crime you have to tackle the causes not the perpatrators. Punish the perpatrators of course, but doing that in itself won't solve the crime problems. You have to deal with the problems that cause people to turn to crime in the first place and in so doing reduce the amount of those resorting to crime. Stopping them getting into crime in the first place is a far better solution and a cheaper one in the long run. It costs something crazy to deal with these criminals when they get locked up. Spend the money early and you'll reduce those and other long term costs, so it is not money wasted as some people like to believe. One of the reasons there are people re-offending is that when they get released they go back to the same communities that they come from and find the same circumstances there that led them to crime. If while they were in prison, their whole area had radical positive changes, it would be a much better place to return to, reducing their risk of re-offending and reducing the chances of people there entering crime.

So to reduce crime and save a lot of money in the long run major expenditure needs to be put into communities where large amounts of criminals come from. Properly spent it will do far more to tackle crime than locking people up will.

AngelofFire

I totally agree with flukey

PBC_1966

From a moral standpoint, I fully support the death penalty. There are some crimes that are so heinous that the perpetrator really does not deserve to go on living. I would not say that every single person convicted of murder should be executed, for there are murders where cirucmstances might call for some leniency. But I don't think that would apply were the death penalty to be reintroduced in Ireland or the U.K. Only the "worst of the worst" end up on death row in America these days, and I'm certain that that would also be the case in this part of the world.

The argument put forward that executing a murderer is itself murder doesn't wash. The difference is that the murderer deliberately took the life of an innocent person. An execution is the killing of a guilty person who has already taken an innocent life. I've avoided the legal vs. illegal aspect, as there are many things which are legal but morally wrong, and many other actions which are illegal but could in no way be considered immoral.

Besides, if we take the anti-eye-for-an-eye argument to the ultimate, how would you punish somebody who had held somebody captive against his will? Would you argue that it's wrong to imprison him to show that imprisoning somebody is wrong?

I believe that the presence of the death penalty is a deterrent to some people, although certainly not all. An American judge once argued that deterrent effect wasn't much of an argument anyway: He stated that if the death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent, then all we've done is execute a bunch of murderers, but if it does deter and we don't have it, then indirectly it could cost the life of an innocent person. As he said, not a hard decision. And the death penalty most definitely deters the murderer from ever murdering again, does it not? Considering that way that some murderers get out of jail and then kill again very shortly after, this is another indirect way in which an innocent life is lost because the liberals decided that a guilty life should not be taken.

Even if capital punishment were not a deterrent at all, a lot of people still feel that execution is a suitable punishment for particularly vile crimes.

As for the method, mentioned up near the top of this thread, it's true that in the electric chair the current is left running for some time. It's also true that in some cases several jolts are applied to finish off the condemned man. But if the electrodes are connected and power applied properly, he is unconscious during most of that time. There have been arguments over just how long it takes to lose consciousness. Some say it's almost instantaneous, others have suggested it might be several seconds.

While we might not go out of our way to make it as long and as painful as possible -- as was common in medieval times -- I don't think most people are particularly bothered if pain lasts for a few seconds. It's nothing to what the murder victim went through in most cases.

The possibility of executing an innocent man is the only credible argument against the death penalty in my opinion, and the only one which deserves looking into in depth. Judging by the way our judicial systems have be going in recent years, this might be an area for concern. Are they up to the task these days in anything but the most obvious of cases? I really don't know.

emaherx

No matter what way you look at it.

Killing people is morrally wrong.
making it leagal wont make it OK.

Executing criminals just becase it will make the country financily better off is defintly immorral. (why dont we kill off all the people claiming social welfare, Sure their not murderers but it would save the country millions)

monument

Society killing someone in response to the person killing another sends out the clear message that it is ok to kill when you, or a group of people, feel it is ok.

Society killing someone in response to the person killing another sends out the clear message that it is ok to kill when you, or a group of people, feel it is ok.

Only if its a vigilante killing. execution as a result of an impartial court finding the target guilty. What you describe is outside the law.

No matter what way you look at it
Killing people is morrally wrong.
making it leagal wont make it OK

No. You can't see it as being acceptable. I, on the otherhand, view it as being perfectly acceptable to remove elements of society that are a danger to society. I.e. repeat murderers. The removal of a person who kills 7 people due to his flakey mind, should be executed if found guilty within a court of law. Or are you going to tell me its acceptable that this person would be allowed to walk after 10 years, and kill again?

sliabh

Deleted User wrote:

No. You can't see it as being acceptable. I, on the otherhand, view it as being perfectly acceptable to remove elements of society that are a danger to society. I.e. repeat murderers. The removal of a person who kills 7 people due to his flakey mind, should be executed if found guilty within a court of law. Or are you going to tell me its acceptable that this person would be allowed to walk after 10 years, and kill again?

So how many murders must they commit? You mention 7. What if it is 6, or 5 or 3? How about 3 kids? Then let's say it's two murders and an attempted murder. Do you execute for that as well? What if it was a rape with two murders. Better make 3 aggrevated rapes a death sentance as well (when there is loads of media outrage of course).

The question you have to ask then is where do you draw the line. Or do you go back to the 17th century and hang pickpockets?

In my view it's better to not have the death penalty at all.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Only if its a vigilante killing. execution as a result of an impartial court finding the target guilty. What you describe is outside the law.

The death penalty is "outside the law" ... moving it inside the law doesn't suddenly make it moral. I believe that no one, not a judge, and "impartial" jurry (what ever that is), a polition, a priest, no one has the moral attority to order the cold blooded execution of another person.

Deleted User wrote:

No. You can't see it as being acceptable. I, on the otherhand, view it as being perfectly acceptable to remove elements of society that are a danger to society. I.e. repeat murderers.

The removal of disagreeable elements of society is the purpose of jail. The death penalty has no purpose that cannot be dealt with imprisionment. It is an outlet for revenge nothing more.

Lemming

PBC_1966 wrote:

From a moral standpoint, I fully support the death penalty. There are some crimes that are so heinous that the perpetrator really does not deserve to go on living. I would not say that every single person convicted of murder should be executed, for there are murders where cirucmstances might call for some leniency. But I don't think that would apply were the death penalty to be reintroduced in Ireland or the U.K. Only the "worst of the worst" end up on death row in America these days, and I'm certain that that would also be the case in this part of the world.

<snip>

Even if capital punishment were not a deterrent at all, a lot of people still feel that execution is a suitable punishment for particularly vile crimes.

So, tell me ....

What's a "vile crime"? Appealing to the mob mentality is hardly civic virtue is it? I've done it myself. Read about some little sh*t who stole some pensioner's cookie jar or some such and muttered words to the effect that the thief should be "strung up".

Using a reflex emotional reaction to determine if someone should be killed or not is not a sane way of thinking. And I'm sure there are plenty of "heat of passion" murderers who would think the above applies to them too.

So where do you draw the line? Who defines what is a capital offence and what isn't? Who guaruantees that someone is 100% guilty? And you have to give them their appeal, etc etc, which means that capital offense convictions would actually cost the state MORE money - if you want to get into the business of attaching a price-tag to a life.

sliabh

The Death Penalty as a deterrant doesn't work. Studies show that most criminals don't consider the potential penalties of their crimes at the time when committing them. Probably because they feel they won't get caught anyway.
This is especially true in this country where most murders are "hot blooded".

And when you have a criminal that knows they have crossed the threshold and they will get death if/when they are caught, then there is no further sanction you have on them. Their behaviour from there out is going to be pretty nasty.

Choosing or limiting which crimes to apply the death penalty to makes it arbitrary and essentially a political sentance. "The public were outraged at this crime, so kill the criminal". A murderer's PR agent may become as important than their lawyer then.

ionapaul

Ph3n0m wrote:

Gandi said an eye for an eye will leave a society blond or words to that effect, but that was his philophisy not mine - it doesnt apply to our modern day world - his words were for another place and in another time.

This 'Gandi' must live in D4 and see a lot of cat fights with eyes being scratched out - what with the amazing amount of blond girls there. If only I had secured an exclusive right to import blond hair dye a few years ago, I'd be the richest man in Ireland...

I don't equate state-sanctioned execution with murder. To me it is closer to self-defence for the entire society - if I found a murderer or child rapist in my home late at night I would certainly do my best to protect myself and my family, and would feel no qualms about killing that person to do so. Legally, if someone enters your property and threatens/attacks you and does not flee, if you kill them while defending you and yours a court is unlikely to find you guilty of a crime. And rightfully so - even the most liberal of people can see that if someone enters your home and threatens you and your family, it must be morally acceptable to do what you have to to protect yourself. And if the state does not properly protect its citizens when society is attacked by criminals (or terrorists), that is unacceptable.

As I have written earlier, I don't believe that the death penalty is much of a deterrant, but can be a fitting punishment in extreme cases. I think certain criminals who repeatedly commit henious crimes have relinguished their right to life and protection by the general society and should be put to death in a painless fashion. But only repeat offenders of violent crime.

I also agree with early intervention and more resources being used to reduce the social/environmental causes of crime. This will obviously benefit everyone in the long run. Again, unfortunately although this hopefully will reduce crime, there will always be murderers, evil bastards, and rapists - and should be dealt with appropriately to punish them and protect the rest of us.

whosurpaddy

Flukey wrote:

It is impossible to get that level of assurance. There are probably a lot of people that received the death penalty, that were innocent, but are still believed to be guilty to this day. If you think murder is wrong you cannot support the death penalty. You cannot have it both ways. As I said earlier, if you truly support it, you would never use it.

this arguement just doesnt hold water Flukey. what about anyone who has killed while in the army? by your rationale they are obviously murderers and should be tried as such. armed police in the states who kill someone who is about to kill them while in the line of duty? murderers?

btw phenom, great post (the long one on page 4) totally agreed with it.

ionapaul wrote:

Legally, if someone enters your property and threatens/attacks you and does not flee, if you kill them while defending you and yours a court is unlikely to find you guilty of a crime.

not if your name is tony martin.

ionapaul

whosurpaddy wrote:

not if your name is tony martin.

He was done for shooting the fellow in the back as the burgler ran away from his house. It is different if the person is in your house and puts up a fight and doesn't leave.
Actually the REAL reason Tony Martin was done is because he didn't show much remorse - another easily-abused part of our legal system - if you pretend to show remorse, you get a reduced sentence! You could argue that the fact that Tony Martin refused to 'play the game' and stood by what he did was his downfall in court.

People claim that the public/society cannot decide what crimes are worthy of the death penalty because it would be arbitrary - but society has already laid down completely arbitrary laws that we all live by. Smoking a cigar is legal in your own home, while smoking a joint is not. Rapists are punished more harshly than bicycle theifs. And so on. I think if the death penalty was understood to only apply in extreme cases, it can be seen as a moral action. Everyone's morals are subjective in any case!

sliabh

ionapaul wrote:

People claim that the public/society cannot decide what crimes are worthy of the death penalty because it would be arbitrary - but society has already laid down completely arbitrary laws that we all live by. Smoking a cigar is legal in your own home, while smoking a joint is not.

Not quite true. They are different actions. Wheras use of the death penalty is usually arbitrary. Sometimes the court chooses the apply it for a crime and in others it does not (for the same crime). The decision would be made by the judge in this country. Or you can can see in the US it's the prosecutor that calls for it and they are more likely to do so in high profile cases.

deadduck

i woul just like to add that Tony Martin chap should of been given a medal. Fair play to him for standing up to the dirt. Pair of scum that tried to rob him. And then the other guy tried to do him for loss of earnings!

Flukey

Lock them up and throw away the key, but don't lower yourself to their level. I still see none of our pro-death penalty people saying what should happen to the judge, jury and executioner of a totally innocent individual? All of you have these little inconsistencies in your argument. The death-penalty is abused even in the land of the free, America. There is a disproportionate amount of young black males found guilty of and sentenced to death for murder, many of whom are innocent. George W. Bush and his brother Jeb have had the highest levels of execution in their states as governors.

Lots of people have been framed across the world. There are a lot of errors made in legal cases and information being witheld in order to secure a conviction. As soon as someone is charged, there is always a feeling that they are guilty, when nothing has been proved and there is a sense of anger when the person is acquitted. Some will always believe they are guilty, by virtue of the fact they were charged. After major cases there is always a greater pressure on the law enforcers to get someone for the crime which often leads to hasty arrests on suspect evidence. The Birmingham 6 being a classic example. Had they been executioned, as many people wanted at the time, people might still believe to this day that they were guilty beyond doubt. Their campaign and the search for evidence and re-analysing of their trial would never have happened.

None of us who are against the death penalty are saying the individual should not be punished and punished severely, but the death penalty is not the appropriate punishment and has far too many flaws to be used and nothing can ever change that.

sliabh

Flukey wrote:

None of us who are against the death penalty are saying the individual should not be punished and punished severely, but the death penalty is not the appropriate punishment and has far too many flaws to be used and nothing can ever change that.

And if you have any doubts in the matter ask the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four. At one of their trials the judge said wished he was able to pass the death penalty.

sliabh

sliabh wrote:

So how many murders must they commit? You mention 7. What if it is 6, or 5 or 3? How about 3 kids? Then let's say it's two murders and an attempted murder. Do you execute for that as well? What if it was a rape with two murders. Better make 3 aggrevated rapes a death sentance as well (when there is loads of media outrage of course).

Yes I mentioned 7. Which in my eyes falls in line with serial killers and such. Those people should be wiped off the face of the planet since they're so messed up.

6,5, or 3? Well, yes I do think it should be applied.
3 kids? Definetly.
2 Murders and an attempted? Definetly.
Rape and two murders? Definetly. If the accused is convicted of killing two people then yes. Rape, I don't see as a capital offense and shouldn't have the death sentence, but in this case I think the person should receive the death sentence for those two murders.

The question you have to ask then is where do you draw the line. Or do you go back to the 17th century and hang pickpockets?

Of course its concerned with where you draw the line. But we're in the 21st century not the 17th. And murder deserves a punishment in line with the act. Or are you willing to allow murder to go by unchallenged?

In my view it's better to not have the death penalty at all.

Whereas I think it should be an option in all cases where a person is convicted for murder. The Judge would continue to sentence the guilty party, whether thats life imprisonment or the death penalty.

Wicknight wrote:

The death penalty is "outside the law" ... moving it inside the law doesn't suddenly make it moral. I believe that no one, not a judge, and "impartial" jurry (what ever that is), a polition, a priest, no one has the moral attority to order the cold blooded execution of another person.

The death penalty is currently outside the law. Its not always going to be.

Whats all this about moral authority? The convicted person, committed a crime, suitable to the punishment of the death penalty. They chose to commit an act that deserves the highest form of punishment. They chose to take another persons life.

You see, from reading this thread, the people who seem to have the most problems with the death penalty, seem to have more problems with trusting the judicial system. You lack any trust in the courts. Rather than denying the death penalty as an option of punishment, don't you think you should be calling for change of the current legal system?

You see. I trust the justice system. Sure it has its bugs, and errors. It happens. But I believe that truth will win out, and if the person is innocent, then it will be proved as being so. If I was charged? I'd hope I could prove my innocence. If I failed, I'd fight to prove my innocence after the court. Sure I would. But that doesn't change my belief that the justice system works the majority of the time, prison time doesn't work as a form of punishment, and that the death penalty should be available for courts to use against repeatable & extreme cases.

Wicknight wrote:

The removal of disagreeable elements of society is the purpose of jail. The death penalty has no purpose that cannot be dealt with imprisionment. It is an outlet for revenge nothing more.

Fair enough. But the prisons don't hold convicted crinimals. They're released after a fraction of their sentence being served. I'd prefer to see the death sentence being an option to serve against those that repeatedly kill, or those that commit an act so disturbing to mankind (Bundy, Hitler, etc)

As for an outlet for revenge, sure it is. All form of punishment is. But punishment still needs to be performed.