Introversion

i was actually refering to the US's love of spending other countrys money. Like for example coming to some country and spending £4 million of the tax payers money for a pointless visit.

The Brits invited him; they are the ones who chose to spend that obscene amount to protect Bush, God forbid anything unfortunate happen to him. . .

Quote: from Trust on 11:31 am on Nov. 21, 2003[br]

Quote: from Stewsburntmonkey on 1:06 am on Nov. 21, 2003[br]From both an economic and social point of view the death penalty makes no sense.  It costs more to execute a person than keep them in jail for the rest of their life, and the moral ground of an eye for an eye is rather shaky to say the least.  Also even the chance of killing innocents should be enough to sway most people.  :)

In what way is tieing a rope around someone's neck and dangling them off a bridge expensive?

because for the very simple reason, my dear boy, that such method is a) no longer used and b) will no longer be used because it is considered an 'inhumane' treatment of killing somebody. either way it's still a crock of bull to think that the death penalty solves anything, other than the thirst for blood.

acutaly, britian still carries the death penelatie legaly, for high treason, but nowadays the perp will be given the chance to go into exile. but if you do get some looney that wants to be hung for relegious beliefs perhaps, then he can be.

Well no method of execution is that expensive, but the legal process you must go through just to make somewhat certain (though that does not always work) that you got the right guy is a massively expensive endevor.  :)

(Edited by Stewsburntmonkey at 1:30 pm on Nov. 21, 2003)

Well, in my opinion, some people deserve the death penalty.

However, I believe that killing people is wrong, no matter what the circumstance.

Incarceration for a lifetime is also pretty expensive.  Guard payroll, food, heating, electricity, clothes, etc.

This is always a sticky issue as there are so many things to consider. The people I live with and I discuss/shout loudly at each other over views from this, religion, et all.

My personal opinion is that each case should be taken individually and only when there is no shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty should it even be considered. A recent study, I cannot remember where I read it, in the USA showed that there were people on Death Row who shouldn't even be in jail, that the evidence was purely circumsantial and there was still question. Now most of those people where black, now who says racism is dead in the good old states?

I personally believe that the Death penalty should only be used in the case of say a psychotic mass murderer, or someone who murdered his wife and kids. As for other reasons to kill them....well I don't know. I don't agree with death....but if someone killed all my loved ones? Well no matter what the court would say I'd make sure that person paid........

to many innocents could be killed , i say no to DP

Quote: from Rkiver on 4:17 pm on Nov. 21, 2003[br]My personal opinion is that each case should be taken individually and only when there is no shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty should it even be considered. A recent study, I cannot remember where I read it, in the USA showed that there were people on Death Row who shouldn't even be in jail, that the evidence was purely circumsantial and there was still question. Now most of those people where black, now who says racism is dead in the good old states?

Quite possibly 'Stupid White Men', which also includes the story of Kerry Sanders, a paranoid schizophrenic whose only crime was sharing the same surname as a fugtive (Robert Sanders), and no one made any effort whatsoever to prove his innocence.

I don't like this idea that killing is always wrong, as in some cases, I can see it as being justified.

I am not really in favour of the death penalty, unless it is something used only in incredibly rare circumstances.

For example, if someone killed your entire family, would you still feel, "No, they should live."?

Personally at least, I would want them killed, I'd do it myself if I had to, but hopefully it would never come to that.

How many of us can proffess <sp?> to being totally innocent? I certainly can't.

1) imprisoned for life is even more inhumane than death penallty - of any type, since that is simply a VERY VERY slow death in which the convict gets MUCH more suffering.
2) death penatly should be used only on crazed psycopathic murderers,only if some reasons dictate no alternative.

Quote: from Flamekebab on 12:34 pm on Nov. 21, 2003[br]I don't like this idea that killing is always wrong, as in some cases, I can see it as being justified.

My thought is if it is planned, it is wrong... such as self-defense, one doesn't plan to in in danger enough to need to kill the opposer.

Quote: from scutum on 12:28 pm on Nov. 21, 2003[br]acutaly, britian still carries the death penelatie legaly, for high treason

Actually, although many people believe this, it's not true. Treason was still a capital offence in Britain up until the early 1990's, when it was removed (I believe to comply with EU regulations)

Quote: from Rkiver on 4:17 pm on Nov. 21, 2003[br]


I personally believe that the Death penalty should only be used in the case of say a psychotic mass murderer, or someone who murdered his wife and kids. As for other reasons to kill them....well I don't know. I don't agree with death....but if someone killed all my loved ones? Well no matter what the court would say I'd make sure that person paid........

The 'killing my family' arguement is without doubt the most emotive of them all.  Speaking as someone with children I can categorically state that if anyone were to harm them I would hunt them down with all my resolve.  However this is why we have a state and a judiciary because my viewpoint would be entirely subjective at this point.  I would expect the state to intervene to bring the people to justice (provided they found them first!)  Of course if I were to meet out rough justice on someone could I be sure it was the right person?  If I killed an innocent person then the state would pass judgement on me for murder however mitigating the circumstances.  The difficulty with the death penalty is who tries the state when it fvcks up?

As for the mental health arguement, this is also rather iffy, if you are genuinely psychotic can it be argued that there is definitive premeditation with comprehension of consequences?  I fear that as our understanding of mental illness is far from complete it would be morally catastrophic to assert that psychosis is fit for the ultimate punishment.

The Gandhi quote: 'Eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind' is especially aposite.

In my view the death penalty comes from a religious supposition that there is something after all this lot.  As I don't believe there is I don't see that anyone should have the right to end somebody's time prematurely whatever the circumstances.  OK the 'if it's me or you' chesnut is fine but that doesn't make it morally correct, just slightly easier to reconcile your conscience.

In terms of incarceration, there is no question that a psychotic murderer is a danger to society and must therefore be removed for everyone's protection including their own, but prison must be used properly for education and providing as much service back to society as possible.  Remove non-violent criminals and sentences can be enforced for the violent ones.

I don't suppose it comes as any surprise t to ppl that I am vehemently opposed to the DP.  I feel this is a good debate and I'm pleased that so many well constructed arguements have been put forward regardless of whether I agree with them.

Gives you renewed faith in the fora again.

Actually, the death penalty is not an option if the accused does not understand why he is being executed. I'm somewhat conflicted. My religious views tell me that killing is wrong for any reason, even retribution. However, I don't understand what can be done to someone who has committed such a crime. Obviously many will wish death upon that person. On the other hand, that won't undo the crime. Two wrongs don't make a right, right?
Now, a cold, hard, cost-benefit analysis:
It costs approximately $30,000 per year to maintain quality of life for an inmate. Multiply this by the hundreds of thousands of murderers.  Multiply this by the 20-30 year life expectancy of an inmate. How much could an execution cost in comparison?