MagiStream

kittykatkit35770895 wrote:If you were a mother or a father, and someone cold blooded and heartless brutally and violently murdered your child who was innocent, smart, and perfect,would you want that killer to live?

That's one thing I hate about these debates, whether they're in law making circles or in forums like this one: just what is it that makes a crime more horrific if it involves a child? Tragic, yes...but the loss of a life is a loss of a life and THAT is what should be focused on when dealing justice. It shouldn't matter how many supposed years the person had left or whether he or she had a family. Prostitutes deserve as much justice as a child. My boy deserved better than he got, even though he lived.

The point being: you can't really measure the penalty in terms of the damage done. It should be cold, logical, and flat --- the penalty society deems for the breakage of a law given out and done so in a swift and efficient manner.

As a family member who was forced to participate in such hearings, I can tell you that the death penalty should be reserved for only when the courts are absolutely certain, overwhelmed by the body of physical and forensic evidence, that the person they have before them committed the crime and knew what he or she was doing. I see no reason beyond revenge (and that is no reason to take a life, I think it makes us little better than the criminal) for the death penalty to be issued unless those criteria can be met without question.

I've read about and seen enough cases where they had the wrong person on death row (and it's enough of a problem that Texas actually has a judicial task force dedicated to reviewing these cases and making the decision whether or not the sentence should be revoked) that I don't like to see it overused. Issuing the death sentence in order to appease the family is senseless to me...and I'm one of those family members.

Someone attempted to murder my beloved. Nothing you can do to that man will ever erase the tragedy of what happened. I'd have been satisfied seeing the perpetrator serve time but that wasn't to be.

I'd rather see them reinstitute hard labor and chain gangs. Make them work for their meals and the roof over their heads.

Well, it depends. I really think the best "fair" judgement is to have what you did to someone else, done to you. So if you stole £100,000 from someone, you could give it back and pay £100,000 to helpful causes, schools etc. But with death, imagine. Someone's life is ruined; it caused them to kill. They should have a psychologist; they should find out the reason for the killing - not just punish the person. What if a gang threatened them: what would you say if someone very scary-looking walked up to you and said:
"Kill David or I'll kill you," and held up a gun and fired it into the distance as proof? But I never think we should revert to death... even in the most ... what's the word? Violent? Situations.

Well I personally don't favor the death penatly. I think the person should have to rot away in a cell and feel guilty about what they've done for the rest of their lives. But i can see the point as to why you would want the death penalty. I mean if someone murdered my mother yah i'd want them to die the exact same way they killed her. And also if they are in a cell then thhey have still have a chance of getting their freedom. So, I suppose I'm half and half. But i do think that if someone beats someone to death with a spoon, then they should get beaten to death with a spoon. However, if they shot someone and the person died right away, then an injection seems pretty fair.

Yah, but I don't think you want to ruin someone's life by locking them away in a cell - they might as well stay in jail for the rest of their life. Being in jail breaks you, you come out a broken person with no self-worth and hating themself and that would probably lead to more killings and also drugs and alcohol. Also; how do you bash someone to death with a spoon? O.O

A Life for a Life. There, that settles it lol but in my opion it depends the act of the crime. Like if the person had some mental problems {not trying to accuse here}, then thats a different story. But, otherwise it isnt fair that person died and you don't if you meant to kill them.

WolfLoverLuv wrote:A Life for a Life. There, that settles it lol but in my opion it depends the act of the crime. Like if the person had some mental problems {not trying to accuse here}, then thats a different story. But, otherwise it isnt fair that person died and you don't if you meant to kill them.

That's why there are degrees of penalty within the law. The assignment of the death penalty often involves what the law terms "specialized circumstances". That means that the crime was so horrific, the degree of violence so far beyond what was needed to commit the crime, that consideration of underlying circumstances would be a travesty of justice. That is why the death penalty is not handed out too often nor is it carried out swiftly; it's very difficult legally to meet specialized circumstances.

Also, having mental problems is NOT an excuse for killing or seriously injuring someone. The law defines insanity differently than the medical profession. In order to meet an insanity plea, the defendant's lawyer has to demonstrate clearly 1) that the person in question is so seriously impaired that he or she cannot tell the difference between right and wrong and 2) that this condition has been in existence throughout the arc of violence and 3) that treatment of said debilitating condition would not cure or control it.

Very, very few criminals actually meet the legal definition of insanity, although it's a common defense.

The reason for this is simple: at the root of violent criminal acts, especially regarding those which merit the death penalty, lies some form of sexual deviance. This has been established through multiple studies conducted by the FBI and other agencies utilizing profiling skills and interviews with convicted serial killers and serial rapists who are currently incarcerated. The questions were formulated in such a way as to not incite a pitying or bragging attitude in those interviewed.

If you're at all interested in the complexities which lead to someone committing crimes which put them on death row, the following works are helpful:

Mind Hunter by John Douglas
Journey into Darkness by John Douglas
Signature Killers by Robert Keppel

All of them detail the information given and cite the studies I mentioned in their bibliographies.

How many are in jail only to be fond innocent later? How many have been executed because everyone knew "They done it, alright!" except, they didn't? There is no compensation that can make up for taking an innocent life, even if it is taken by state-sanctioned murder.

If someone can't live within the rules of society then they should be removed from society and all its niceties, given enough to live on for the rest of their lives without the freedom and nice food and open spaces and nature and pleasentries we enjoy. They can live in small cells, and concrete yards, and constant supervision instead.

You have to ask yourself: Do you want justice or do you want revenge?

I see the death penalty as revenge; an eye for an eye. There is no justice in it.

That is actually a point you can research, I recommend you do so rather than making blanket statements. I would recommend starting with Texas's Judiciary site. They should have a record of the on going death row review.

~Wolfeyedangel

I believe in the death penalty only for murder. If you take someone's life, your life ought to be taken as well.