Should the death penalty ever be used?

I don't care what a person did, even if I want them personally dead, NOBODY has the right to take ANYBODY'S life.

 

Killing a human being is wrong. Capital punishment is no deterant the case above proves this. When a person commits such a terrible crime its because there is something wrong,they are insane,SICK,mentally ill,to kill such a person is simply revenge.
Killers,insane or otherwise, should be locked away humanely as possible,to protect the public until we can find a better solution-and put a hell of a lot more effort into prevention!

 

We could send all those convicted of a capital crime to England barring them from reentry to the U.S.
Capital punishment does prevent them from becoming repeat offenders. If the punishment is known in advance, then you could say the person committing a crime punishable by death is simply committing suicide. Capital crime is something akin to war and people are frequently killed in wars.

 

Yours is not so much a reasoned argument of any ethical worth but a reflection of your careless attitude toward Justice and the value of human life;likening Murder to suicide. Nor is Capital crime in anyway akin to killing in war where there may be ones fellow citizens to protect or other worthy cause to fight for.

Also we have a Welfare State in the UK-for more than a half century-we're proud of it but we are in no way a totalitarian state!

 

So I take it you would be willing to accept violent offenders and provide them the humane care you feel they are entitled to?

 

that's irrelevant; fact is no human has the right to take the life of another.

 

Sometimes circumstances outside of war dictate the taking of a life. From where does this 'fact' arrive? Rights apply to the law abiding, and laws we create can reduce or even eliminate the rights of those who break the laws, including the right to life.

 

Yes, Individual,and as far as I know we do accept violent offenders and provide them with humane care-what do you suggest?
Also, though I accept the reality of war and the necessity to take life in those circumstances, I am opposed to the Death penaltie for any offence. No one has the 'Right'to take Human Life unless his/her own is actually threatend by another or it is to protect the loss of life of others.

 

I think it depends on whether or not one believes in revenge towards murderers. Personally, I see imprisonment as a way to relocate those who are or could be harmful to society. Justice isn't about extracting revenge. It's about keeping the peace. That's why I think prisons should be of higher quality. All prisoners should be allowed a decent place to live. The way prisons are now is disgusting. Prisoners should be treated as people, not animals, otherwise I don't really see much difference between the criminal and the enforcers.

Also, the justice system isn't perfect. What if we end up killing someone who is actually innocent which is exactly what still happens?

 

Hi def zeppelin, Nice to hear a voice of reason & humanity ! In the US as well as the UK I'd like to see a lot more effort put into finding the reasons crimes are commited and the prevention of them,in the States an obvious example would be Gun Control but I wonder how many pro-execution supporters would favour that?

Only when you have done EVERYTHING you can to prevent the commision of offences and have exhausted any possibility of rehabilitation can Capital Punishment be a moral option.

 

What I was suggesting is making those who commit crimes punishable by death available to be given care outside of the U.S. by any other country who is willing to accept responsibility for them.

The cost of incarceration should be borne by those who are incarcerated. Many years ago someone was jailed for a crime committed against me, a theft, and jailed in a small town. His wife came and asked me to drop the charges and she would return the items he had stole, which I agreed to, and we then went to the jail and I dropped the charges but the sheriff told her she would have to pay room and board for the days he was jailed before he could be released, which angered her, but in my opinion was fair.

Actually, in war it is often more beneficial not to kill, but only injure severely, which places a greater burden on the enemy in having to care for their injured who are made an ongoing burden in addition to their battle.

Great care should be taken to assure the certainty of guilt before anyone is penalized by death, but there are instances where I feel it is appropriate. Punishment, if it does not fit the crime, can make crime profitable if the punishment becomes acceptable for the rewards of the crime. And in some cases even the death penalty may not be enough of a deterrent.

When someone takes the life of another forcefully, they have committed a crime against an individual which cannot be repaid as a debt could, as the debt is owed the individual whose life was ended and not to society.

 

That would result in a very tightly controlled society, with very little freedom. Consider the fact that crimes are committed in prisons where people are watched much more closely than in society at large.

 

I just think its absurd that murder is illegal, except its okay to murder if it's the law and government doing it. Why are we giving the government the right to kill us?

 

Once a politician has won an election they are in control of defining the rights they possess until the next election. As long as we accept Federal government to be the sovereign most entity, above that of the State governments, local governments, and the individual people, it determines and defines the rights not only of those it governs, but the rights it possesses and is free to exercise.

Top down government puts the greatest power in the hands of a few, who we assume to be more capable of making good decisions than those they impose them on, and less harmful when they make bad decisions as the consequences are thought to be shared more equally. Of course I'm not claiming that to be a fact, but many seem to accept it, at least the latter part.

 

Hi Individual, Incarserating a felon outside their own Country is unworkable if only from a human rights point of view,then theres the increased cost to the felons State and the issue that the 'Home State' negates responsibility for its own wrong-doers! Its a cop out.
Soldiers have to aim to kill. Severely wound an enemy & they may get the chance to do worse to you.
Oweing a debt of life to a person one has murdered is too hypothetical a position to argue with-it could just as easily said that the felon does not. I couldnt see that getting far in law. Maybe when we get the power to give life we'l have the right to take it. Untill then our responsibility is to do all in our power to prevent crime and to ensure the felon fully addresses their offence as part of their program of rehabilitation (I can see you looking at the cieling Individual) which has to be a feature of every post conviction.
We,via the State, have a duty to press the offender to fully take responsibility for their actions, as a matter of routine practice and in doing so seek what reparation can be made by the felon.
On the issue of lessening crime via strenious Gun control,yes Im afraid it is State interference because whether legally or ilegally held guns in a civilian environment are,bluntly,inappropriate. They get into the hands of untrained people,the Mentally ill,KIds, folk who have trouble with anger, Drug users-why do you think Military Bases don't open their armories,unsupervised,to the general public? But you allow a whole arsenal onto your streets.
Your Second Amendment was issued at a time of great turbulance over 2 hundred years ago in a society entirely different from the one you have now & with few of the above issues to threaten it. The tragedies that you have suffered flashes all too frequently around the world and we foreigners share in your grief ,yet you value your 'Right to Bear Arms' despite having the most sophisticated police force,FBI,National Guard ect to protect your Citizens, in the world.

 

Then I would allow the States to assume full responsibility in deciding how and what punishment to apply relative to the crime committed.

Not if the wounds incapacitate them from inflicting further harm. But we're talking crime, not war.

I could never find adequate reasoning to totally eliminate the death penalty, and I would expect great caution to be taken in its application, based upon the circumstances.

The unprovoked taking the life of someone is a debt which cannot be repaid, unless we reach a point of being able to 'give life' as you put it.

This has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, and only with criminal actions and resulting punishment. which should be relevant according to the crime committed.

Law enforcement is incapable of protecting everyone and not always successful in pursuing and bringing to justice those who commit criminal acts.

As individuals we U.S. citizens have given up our individual right to impose the death penalty on another individual or individuals, giving our governments that right instead, which some States have set aside while others have not. Smart criminals would become aware of which States impose and which do not impose the death penalty, in deciding where to commit their crimes.

 

Hi Individual , I respect your position on the Death penalty & accept that this has to be a matter for ones conscience . I suggest that my points concerning the availablity of lethal weapons in your civilian communitities and the sad consequences to date is in large part due to the existence of The 2nd Amendment as an active Right. Gun crime & related tragedies have occured in the UK too,it would be on a much bigger scale,I believe,were we to have a 2nd Amendment.
As you say ,Law enforcement agencies cannot be certain of protecting everyone at all times nor in bringing all felons to justice. However ,they are the professionals trained and equiped to deal with situations that civilians are not. Taking the law into ones own hands is not,or should not, be seen as a reasonable first course of action in a civilised society-though it may have been resonable to do so over 200 years ago as was Bear Baiting and public executions!
The real issues you & I are skirting around is that you,like I, feel disempowered, disenfranchised and that our firmly held beliefs and values are ignored by our respective Governments/State Apparatus. Democracy seems to have failed us,worse yet it panders to a lot of interest groups & their 'needs' while neglecting our own. Am I right ?
Your solution ,doubtless you'l correct me if I'm wrong Ive no wish to misrepresent you,is to role back to some more wholesome era when common decency prevailed. In order to achieve that ,however, you need to refute Democracy with its many failings and bide your time as the State flounders . Then , holding onto earlier values/needs (eg, gun ownership & an unyielding justice system) a society governed at a very local level and independent of outside influence, can be biult. Is that Constitutional Republicalism ?

 

While I await your reply Individual, there is the matter that we may be going 'Off Topic',to resolve. My understanding is that we have reached a position of 'agreeing to differ' on the issue of Capital Punishment ,or at least for my part I have. I'm unsure of the 'drill' around asking for a new thread (where I assume we could discuss Constitutional Republicanism) having only Guest status. Can you help on this one,as a Senior Member please ?

 

Definitely.

It serves as a deterrent, places a "no tolerance" emphasis with regards to the crime committed, and is a suitable punishment for the most heinous of crimes.

 

who gives you the authority to decide the ultimate destiny of another human being? who gives you the right to take a life?