Well, sometimes governments have better things to do than just slake the bloodlust of the people.

The death penalty isn't murder, though. In fact, murdering a murderer could, theorhetically, get someone the death sentence.

Except when the state does it.

That was sickening. The punishment, whatever it is, better be fricken' worse than harsh.

And yet we have people in prison for life because of marijuana.

I hope somebody just gets up and pumps a bullet right into her skull. That would be quick and easy. The sooner she gets to hell, the better.:mad:

I think the new punishment should have the person hung out with their arms erect pointing horizontal, by ropes. Then tickled to death with feathers.

a good capital punishment would be to dip the the worst of the worst criminals into molten steel and have them burn away inch by inch.

people like that deserve no better.

Mercy is what sets us apart from monsters like this......oh don't get me wrong I still kinda support killing off the most serious offenders where proof is lightyears beyond reasonable doubt. Just not a cruel method of execution.

Fingers... Cut of the fingers, *then* let them rot in jail.

crazy lady.

what makes this weird is that a friend of mine came round the flat after spending all night at hospital where his friend had tried to kill himself by drinking about 2 litres of bleach.

that was about 3 or 4 days ago.... weird.

That's true in some cultures however that is not applicable in the US. The death sentence is recommended by a jury of one's peers, not the state. In fact, judges occasionally do not follow through on that sentence and the condemned is also privy to a lengthy appeals process.

The state still carries out the execution.

And there is a frequent problem of juries not being informed of the option of life without parole.

But anyway, it doesn't really change anything. If a jury are presented with a particularly violent murder, they are going to want blood, they will want revenge. The death penalty doesn't provide justice, it provides revenge. It satisfies bloodlust.
And all the prejudices of the jury are most prominent here. Someone charged with the murder of a white victim is much more likely to recieve the death penalty than someone charged with the murder of a non-white victim. Unfortunately, the race issue is very much at the centre of capital punishment in the US.
As well as that, there is the poverty issue. Someone that can't afford a lawyer will be appointed one, and those lawyers are awful. Most of them will not have done a capital case before, and they are quite likely to miss important details that might prove their defendent's innocence.
Put simply, the American legal system simply isn't good enough to warrant capital punishment.

And there's still the question of whether it actually works - whether it actually deters criminals. It certainly seems that it doesn't, and seems to have the opposite effect. It devalues human life.
If a society values human life so much that it considers that it can never be taken, then it would make sense that the crime rate is lower. The death penalty proposes the idea that "if you do something very bad, you should die", and individuals may very well take that on board when they consider others to have done something they consider 'very bad' worthy of death.

I would basically have to disagree with just about everything in that last post of yours. I'll just leave it at that!

Wookie, the jury deciding on the death penalty is a very recent change isn't it? Or is it a state-controlled thing? Because at least in my state, judges were the only ones who could prescribe the death sentence until a few weeks ago.

It could vary from state to state. However, I believe that the jury usually is able to exclude the death penalty when they convict by either convicting a lessor charge or whatever. Still depends on the state I guess.

who the **** names these people.. "Archie" and "Cotton"

..yeah...

I think that life in prison is better for people who aren’t crazy homicidal maniacs because it forces them the stay in a cell for the rest of their life feeling guilty about what they did and watch their life dwindle away without knowing the outside world again. In this case, death penalty is the easy way out.

And I have never believed in the whole "eye for an eye" thing.

You know, Mort-Hog's points are REALLY making sense to me. The first time I've ever seen sence in a non-death opinion.

I believe in karma, though. I trully believe that if someone takes the life of someone else, that something horrible will happen to that person, be it the legal system doing it, or just naturally. Either way, they get theirs. I just think, if the death penalty IS a reality, it should be the same death that they inflicted on their victim. This woman should have to drink a cap of detergant then die under a ratio of her own weight to her daughters. That would be justice, not revenge, in my opinion.

JediKirby

I concur, but that costs too much of taxpayer's money.

Those two paragraphs don't really have very much in common.

Should you rape a rapist? Surely the guy that raped the rapist is a rapist. So he must be raped. And then that guy is a rapist. And he must be raped. It just goes round in an endless loop.

The only purpose this "eye for an eye" philosophy serves is to satisfy bloodlust.

I think that life in solitary confinement is much more severe then death. Thats what the harshest sentence should be..

Also, I hate the justice system, especially in Canada...You have people getting sentenced to 20 years in jail and end up getting out in 5..

Also its disgusting that some people get 20 years for drug dealing and some one else can get 10 for raping and killing someone.

One more thing, STUPIDEST THING EVER...Airport worker stole a jersey from a Canadian junior hockey players bag and got charged with theft over $5000??? How is a ****in hockey jersey over $5000?? Just because it's from a (semi) famous guy? Thats crap. He should be charged with theft under 500.

Death is her only salvation.