YOUR thoughts on the death penalty.

[ozzy72]

I think you guys might want to try reading Albert Pierrepoints autobiography, and that is all I'm saying

[Saitek]

Two wrongs never make a right, so killing someone for murder is just a waste of time. And Saitek, as a christian shouldn't you be preaching "turn the other cheek" instead of the jewish "eye for an eye"?

I beg your pardon Woody?! I can't say I like your attitude much.

I'm not the slightest bit advocating the eye for eye precept.
We all agree on punishing criminals don't we? It is the form that is in discusscion here.  I'm not going into religious stuff - it is't allowed and it isn't wanted - but you are completely misquoting that out of context to something wildy extreme. But I'll quit there.

I haven't time to answer the rest about it being a deterrant - but I was told by some American friends it was the reason that death penalty hasn't been abolished in the rest of the states, particularly one likes texas. It just couldn't be done for the crime factor.

Now please keep my thread nice - or it'll end up getting locked and Pete will frown at me. Keep cool!

Ben

[Hagar]

We all agree on punishing criminals don't we?

Some would say that punishment doesn't come into it. I don't mean me but people in charge of making these decisions. It seems to me that the whole area of law enforcement is confused these days. The victim is often the one to suffer twice while the offender gets off scot-free. Again, I could quote examples but I prefer not to.

For the worst crimes including some cases of murder I think life should mean exactly that. As for the death row idea I think that's cruelty in the extreme. If you want the death penalty let the judge & jury be the executioners as Woody says. Tie them to a post & shoot them at dawn the following day, like they used to do in the military in WWI.

[Saitek]

Yes,I think death row is awful, especially when they say it is today then it gets postponed and then again. I have to say that is almost amountable to torture.

As you say if they judges/jury had to execute them - then perhaps it would go along way as to who got handed such terrible sentences.

[Hagar]

I can remember listening on the radio while convicted murderers like Ruth Ellis were being hanged. It was a sobering enough experience without actually being there. I've read that if her case were to be tried today she would have been found innocent. I think if the death penalty were to be reintroduced tomorrow this might have the reverse effect. At least some jury members would be reluctant to find the defendant guilty if they knew he/she could be executed as a result. I couldn't guarantee not to be influenced in this way myself if I was on the jury. It's a big responsibility to take someone's life & I'm not sure I could handle it.

[Craig.]

The biggest problem with trying to compair th WW1 firing squad to a modern day execution is simple. Military/civilian. A soldier was trained to do those things, they were following orders and didnt have a choice or would end up in the same position as the guy he's shooting. And lets face it, in WW1 people were being executed for poor reasons. However that being said i also accept the point your making Doug, and instead of saying they should do it themselves, i would say send the Judge and Jury to the execution so they have to at least look the person in the eye before they die.

[Hagar]

Sorry Craig. The point I was making was, if you're going to do it - get it over & done with.

[Saitek]

Certainly food for thought.
It makes me tremble though to think officers went behind the lines to shoot those soldiers that deserted/refused/hid about going over the top. Faced guns behind and in front. No wonder so little survived. Far better to die by the enemy a hero than in disgrace by your officer. I'm not sure about the second world war, but I'm sure it went on then too. It's appaling the way we treated soldiers then. I remember watching a program once with shell-shocked soldiers of the first world war on. It said they were shot as cowards for being scared (mental illness was unknown) and had images of some of the men. For some reason I found that harder to swallow than the hollocaust in some respects and that was the British.

Oh well - I wouldn't want to send someone to death and I couldn't do it either, but I still hold to my opinion of the principle.

[Craig.]

Sorry Craig. The point I was making was, if you're going to do it - get it over & done with.

Sorry Doug i was mixing two of your comments together, my bad lol. My comments still stand though. If your going to order someone be put to death, you should have to face upto it. No matter what they have done, a person is being killed.
As for those being shot for running away. Its sad, these generals who ordered this rule had no idea the hell that these guys put up with. And to then tell them to run across a muddy, body filled field to be shot for sport. Its no wonder many went crazy or ran away. I consider anyone who went over there a hero, if they tried to run away from the order to go over the top, it takes nothing away from the fact they voulenteered to go in the first place. However that is a completely differant topic.

[beefhole]

Well, from previous experience on threads such as this one, I'll be brief  ::)

I'm a revenge type person-don't tell me hitting the other kid won't make me feel better, because it will.  I'm for the death penalty in HUMANE FORMS.  None of that gas chamber or electric chair ****.  Lethal injection is really the only method I find humane.  Why gas or electricute someone if you can put them to sleep?

[TacitBlue]

Ive never been able to make up my mind on this one. on one hand life in prison would be appropriate, because that is horrible, worse than death in my opinion. On the other hand, it costs money to keep those people in prison. Also, theres the satisfaction in knowing that the person who murdered a freind or loved one of yours is dead. Of course, if I wanted someone dead for killing someone else, I would only find it satisfying if I got to pull the trigger.

Note: I have no desire to kill anyone, just saying...

[commoner]

Woody ..I must say you were a bit harsh with Saitek, seeing as it was ME who mentioned eye for an eye and even then didn't actually say I advocated it, just brought it into the discussion!  If you took care to read the posts you would see that Saitek was commenting on MY post and actually said he didn't really like the idea!
 If you want to make that same point to me about this you should make sure of my religious beliefs first  ;)

You also say that "two wrongs never make a right, so killing someone for murder is just a waste of time"....well MAYBE you are right... but remember too that many released killers reoffend, so ask the loved ones of the second and even third and fourth victims if hanging for the first offence would have been a waste of time....commoner :-/

[Papa9571]

Most murders kill again when released from prison. And under current US laws if they are given life then they have the possibility of parole. As far as death row goes there is one excellent reason that inmates are on death row so long.

When the death penalty is pronounced, at least in the state of Ohio, the legal system enacts several automatic appeals. This is part of the law and attempts to protect the rights of the accused. If the trial or evidence is in any way flawed then the courts have the options of a new trial or are allowed to commute the sentace to life without parole. Without these safeguards I would have a problem with the death penalty.

I know there are innocent people in prison for crimes they have not comitted. With DNA testing now routinely available, that fact had been proven time and time again.  But with the safeguards built in to the law here our inmates do spend a long time on death row, in some cases over 10 years.

Death row is no different than the regular cell blocks or the general prison population with the exception all the prisoners have been sentanced to death. They eat the same food and have the same priveleges as the general prison population and they know that through the appeal process it will take many years before the sentance is carried out. I doubt they suffer like everybody thinks they do.

Times have changed and are no longer like those depicted in the movie "The Green Mile" and for that I am grateful.

You also have to remember that when you sit on a jury you hear only the testimony that is allowed by the judge and you must make your decisions based on that evidence alone. You can not take into account anything that was not presented in that courtroom. It is one of the hardest decisions you will ever have to make. I know because I had to. It wasnt until the trial was over, and we found the defendant not guilty, that we were told he had indeed committed the crime he was accused of and that evidence that would have led us to that decision had been barred because the police did not gather it properly. Thats as far as I will go with that thought.

Sorry to be so long winded.

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]Woody ..I must say you were a bit harsh with Saitek, seeing as it was ME who mentioned eye for an eye and even then didn't actually say I advocated it, just brought it into the discussion!

[z1010]

Difficult topic. Just my thoughts:

killing people is wrong, always. People may not kill, governments may not kill, soldiers may not kill.

Sametime I think euthanasia and abortion must be allowed.

I know that doesn't sound very consequent (I'm only human) but I think there are a lot of differences.

Countries with a deadpenalty a not safer than countries without a deadpenalty, so you can't say it helps.

As I said, just my thoughts.