capital punishment... (1 Viewer)

[ari89]

I've always thought that I would rather die than live my life in prison with no hope of getting out. Plus the fact that innocent people who have been convicted and have later been found not guilty can be let back out.

The system would have to be fixed though, as many people go into jail and come out worse than when they went in.

Why can't innocent people who have been convicted but later found not guilty be let back out? I think it's more of the case that someone who has been convicted and sentenced to death then finally executed can't regain their freedom if later found innocent.

 

[ari89]

I guess Singapore has a mechanism against innocent people being falesly executed.

[FONT=&quot]

if an innocent person is convicted and executed in consequence of such false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described.

[/FONT]

Punishment for murder.
302. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death.

 

[spiny norman]

It would be a relief; like emancipation, catharsis, redemption to be executed.

Death stings plenty where I live.

 

[Fish Sauce]

Why can't innocent people who have been convicted but later found not guilty be let back out? I think it's more of the case that someone who has been convicted and sentenced to death then finally executed can't regain their freedom if later found innocent.

??

That's what I said. Or at least that's what I tried to

 

[Drunkass86]

The correct definition of a gaol is that it is a rehabilitation institute. Prisoners are 'rehabilitated' i.e. are made to see the wrongs of their ways.

I always got taught that you need to acknowledge that something is wrong about what you did for you to have ANY chance of being successfully rehabilitated.

This means that if you have murdered or raped someone, if you can see the error of your ways, then gaol is the best place for you.

If you are one sick person who sees nothing wrong about murder or rape, I would be putting my own hand up to execute those sort of people. The reasoning behind this is simple: if you see nothing wrong with what you are doing, why change? If released, these prisoners would almost certainly re-offend, perhaps with greater sadism as they get the same feelings again.

I don't agree with the message portrayed by some people that if you execute prisoners, you are as bad as them. I feel that you would be doing society a great service by weeding out dangerous criminals.

Executions must be performed quickly and to cause as little...disturbance...to the prisoner as possible. I see people who are on death row as prisoners and not people, as ordinary human beings have the capacity to think rationally and most importantly, love. Murderers and rapists lose their humanity, or rather refuse it when they have no remorse for their actions.

All convictions must be extremely clear cut, with every avenue of possible exoneration i.e DNA and other forensic evidence being exhausted.

 

[Snaykew]

ok if you didnt get what i was saying. When he was Governor of Texas, George W. Bush had more prisoners executed than were executed in any other American state.

A governor can only commute sentences, he cannot sentence people to death as a judge and jury himself.

Also, note to those who think life imprisonment is more expensive than gaol, think again. You need not look past the United States for evidence of the expense the death penalty goes. For example, in New York the death penalty was reinstated in 1995 and it has cost an average of 23 million USD per person sentenced to death with no executions in the near future. And here we have people whining about 45,000 AUSD per year. Hmph.

Also, the deterrent effect is NOT there. In the United States, murder rates are HIGHER in states with the death penalty and much lower in states without the death penalty.

THEN you have the fact that innocent lives can be executed. Why? Because the justice system is not fallible. There was a guy who spent 17 years or so in gaol but on the work of journalism students, they turned up evidence that he was innocent. You know why he was innocent? Because there was no witness who saw him commit the crime, the police had pressured witnesses to say they did. Which leads to discrimination when the death penalty is being sought. Black people in the USA are I think it was 4 times more likely to be sentenced to death. Murder against a white person is more likely to result in a death sentence than murder against a non-white person.

How can you say justice is being served by the death penalty? It's ridiculous.

 

[Tulipa]

You make some excellent arguments, but I ask you, would you rather be falsely convicted of a crime and live the rest of your life in a cell only a few metres square, surround by convicted rapist, murders etc, with the constant threat of other inmates. Or would you rather be put out of your misery?

With that argument in mind, I completely support life in prison.

More suffering.

 

[Snaykew]

With that argument in mind, I completely support life in prison.

More suffering.

Too true.

 

[lizkean]

Everyone deserves a chance for a second go. Having to serve time is a much harder punishment then death, death can be the easy way out because you dont have to live with what youve done and all the people you have hurt. And i believe no matter what has happened, a life should not be taken.

 

[pen-el-ope]

Everyone deserves a chance for a second go. Having to serve time is a much harder punishment then death, death can be the easy way out because you dont have to live with what youve done and all the people you have hurt. And i believe no matter what has happened, a life should not be taken.

Absoulutely agree, except perhaps a second go doesnt mean life in prisonment to maximise suffering.....perhaps rehabilitation......mental health treatment???
No human being has the right to take anothers life. Thats why its against the law and as a society we deam it appropriate to punish those who do.

How is the act of legally injecting someone with a thethal injection not murder, other than the fact it isnt against the law?

 

[Iron]

How is the act of legally injecting someone with a thethal injection not murder, other than the fact it isnt against the law?

Because they themselves have likely murdered - maliciously, intentionally killed another. The role of the state is to maintain a peaceful domestic setting; the cost is some of our freedoms, such as the freedom to kill unilateraly.
Not only is the death penalty a hefty deterent, it neutralizes the initial murder.
No matter how rehabilitated, the murderer is never likely to be reaccepted by society, but rather continue to be a burden.

Honestly, we take life too seriously.

 

[loquasagacious]

And from an economic perspective:

We assume that we want to minimise murder to a theoretical zero. To do this we must adjust the supply-demand of murder, we do this by raising the supply cost beyond the demand cost. eg by making it a less favourable cost-benefit analysis. For example person X would be $ happy if person Y was dead, however if the cost to person X was $$ then they wouldn't murder.

Obviously the greatest cost hich can be imposed is execution therefore it represents the ultimate deterrent. Of course it gets more complex by perfectly price discriminating you can deter a broad spectrum of murders by imposing a broad spectrum of punishments eg punishment at the discretion of the courts. and given that not all murders are convicted the expected cost is a function of the cost and the probability. So you can raise the expected cost by raising the probability of a conviction.

And finally there is the other aspect that is the cost to society of imprisonment versus execution for instance it costs in the order of $500K pa to imprison Martin Bryant however would cost a fraction of that to execute him and it would be a one-off.

 

[Snaykew]

The death penalty in western society doesn't work as a deterrent. Taking the US as an example, non-death penalty states experience lower murder rates than states that use the death penalty. Also the transition from the non-death penalty period to the legalisation of the death penalty period has not seen a drastic change in murder rates in the US. So the deterrent argument is incorrect, as it obviously doesn't. If you wanted to argue that point more and use statistics, it could be said that the death penalty encourages murder. But that's just silly. People who tend to commit crime don't think of the consequences as its an emotionally charged action. I believe most murder victims know their murderer personally (but don't quote me on that xD).

As for costs, we don't have a system in place so I'll use the USA as an example again. Since 1995, it has cost 23 million US dollars per death sentence in New York alone with no executions in the near future. Hardly a fraction of 500,000.

Economically, it's cheaper to put murderers to sentences of life without parole.

• The average cost of keeping someone in prison is around $150 per day; the yearly cost is around $60,000. (p.34)

- http://www.spinneypress.com.au/142_book_desc.html

Sorry, couldn't get a better source. I know that's average and doesn't take into account the actual cost to imprison murderers specifically, but its good enough.

 

[_dhj_]

Because they themselves have likely murdered - maliciously, intentionally killed another. The role of the state is to maintain a peaceful domestic setting; the cost is some of our freedoms, such as the freedom to kill unilateraly.
Not only is the death penalty a hefty deterent, it neutralizes the initial murder.
No matter how rehabilitated, the murderer is never likely to be reaccepted by society, but rather continue to be a burden.

Honestly, we take life too seriously.

The main problem with the death penalty though is that a life sentence seems to achieve all the goals that the death penalty does (perhaps except for retribution - which I think is an externality of criminal justice rather than an aim). A life sentence is cheaper for the state, provides a moral safeguard (in case the person is found to be innocent some time down the track). It is also a more predictable deterrent - a vicious killer surely wouldn't value life highly, whereas lifetime incarceration is more definate and fairly severe for all. I don't have ideological problems with the death penalty - but I think in practice it's not the best way to deal with society's problems.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

The death penalty in western society doesn't work as a deterrent.

Is that even the point? I think it is more about punishment than anything... and even that is being messed up with this painless injection bullshit.

I don't think it's possible to significantly influence the number of murders no matter what penalty is introduced.....
People just don't go around killing people for no reason. They only do it if it benefits them and a harsher penalty doesn't somehow magically remove that benefit. If you don't get caught it isn't going to matter at all and depending on the person they might even prefer a painless death over life in prison.

If you want a real deterrent make it so people don't benefit from murdering other people. If you're not going to benefit from killing someone you aren't going to do it.

 

[banco55]

The death penalty in western society doesn't work as a deterrent. Taking the US as an example, non-death penalty states experience lower murder rates than states that use the death penalty. Also the transition from the non-death penalty period to the legalisation of the death penalty period has not seen a drastic change in murder rates in the US. So the deterrent argument is incorrect, as it obviously doesn't. If you wanted to argue that point more and use statistics, it could be said that the death penalty encourages murder. But that's just silly. People who tend to commit crime don't think of the consequences as its an emotionally charged action. I believe most murder victims know their murderer personally (but don't quote me on that xD).

As for costs, we don't have a system in place so I'll use the USA as an example again. Since 1995, it has cost 23 million US dollars per death sentence in New York alone with no executions in the near future. Hardly a fraction of 500,000.

Economically, it's cheaper to put murderers to sentences of life without parole.

• The average cost of keeping someone in prison is around $150 per day; the yearly cost is around $60,000. (p.34)

- http://www.spinneypress.com.au/142_book_desc.html

Sorry, couldn't get a better source. I know that's average and doesn't take into account the actual cost to imprison murderers specifically, but its good enough.

I'd be intersted to see the cost of executions in singapore and japan plus a breakdown of the US costs. You'd have to have a trial in any case, then say they were kept in prison for 6 months while their appeal was denied and a month later they are executed. I really don't see how that could be more expensive then keeping them in prison for 20 years.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Yeah but dude that brings into the whole understanding of what any form of Prison time or method of response to crime is for?

Is it for punishment or rehabilitation?

According to every statistic I have ever seen rehabilitation doesn't work. I think it is great in theory but in reality the majority of criminals are just going to re-offend anyway.

Prison time should be about punishment. I think despite the fact that it probably won't work for the safety of society some attempt at rehabilitation should be made for people who are going to be released but for those who are in for life it should be only about punishment.

 

[Snaykew]

I was just replying to the guy above me who said the death penalty was a deterrent, which its not.

 

[ccc123]

No.

*Firstly, it's basically legalised murder, and the repercussions for sentencing someone to death by mistake are devastating.

*Secondly, I consider a life in prison a more approprate and harsher punishement for criminals anyway.