Should murderers be put to death by law?

[MenInG]

Jo Cox is one victim but millions are robbed of their lives whilst the perps are put in jails to live their lives on tax-payers money.

Is that fair, should a person who is of no use to society be kept alive and then allowed back (parole)?

Simple question.

 

[Indiafan]

We don't know he will be no use to society. There are many examples of reformed hard core criminals who did good deeds later. Would you also use the no use to society argument for handicapped people, mentally challenged people, mad people?

If we compare the cost of life imprisonment with death sentences in first world countries, death sentences cost more because of the various appeals as well as the added security given to them

And finally any justice system should be based on reform and keeping society safe, not revenge.

 

[Hitman]

I'm not in favor of death penalty.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Even if 1 innocent person gets executed in 100 years thats still worth not having capital punishment IMO.

 

[Syed1]

Why should a person who committed the most heinous crime be allowed to live the rest of his life with a roof over his head, 2-3 meals a day and a place to shower.

Either lock them up in a rat filled dungeon or send them on an express ticket to hell.

 

[Moiza]

If the murderer is proven guilty without even a shred of doubt then he should be put to death whether he has killed a single person or hundreds of people.

 

[Markhor]

No.

Firstly, the assumption that the death penalty is less costly to taxpayers is not backed up by evidence. According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council, defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In Kansas, housing prisoners on death row costs more than twice as much per year compared to those housed in general population. Some prisoners spend years on death row, going through appeal after appeal, making the system inefficient.

Secondly, the possibility of putting an innocent life is too great a risk. This often disproportionately affects the poorest who cannot afford access to quality legal representation making them more likely to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Finally, there's no convincing evidence capital punishment is a deterrent. Compare the murder rates in Hong Kong, where capital punishment was abolished in 1993, and Singapore where a death sentence is mandatory for murder and you see little difference. The best deterrent for any criminal is to address socio-economic factors such as reducing rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, urban decay, investment in education and preventing breakdown in families.

 

[KingKhanWC]

No.

Firstly, the assumption that the death penalty is less costly to taxpayers is not backed up by evidence. According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council, defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In Kansas, housing prisoners on death row costs more than twice as much per year compared to those housed in general population. Some prisoners spend years on death row, going through appeal after appeal, making the system inefficient.

Secondly, the possibility of putting an innocent life is too great a risk. This often disproportionately affects the poorest who cannot afford access to quality legal representation making them more likely to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Finally, there's no convincing evidence capital punishment is a deterrent. Compare the murder rates in Hong Kong, where capital punishment was abolished in 1993, and Singapore where a death sentence is mandatory for murder and you see little difference. The best deterrent for any criminal is to address socio-economic factors such as reducing rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, urban decay, investment in education and preventing breakdown in families.

1. Using American justice system isn't a very good idea. Prisoners are held on death row sometimes for over a decade.

2. The Death Penalty doesn't have to be the punishment in every case. It could for extreme cases where the proof is concrete.

3. Maybe different methods can be more of deterrent. Public executions would have a different effect imo.

 

[MenInG]

1. Using American justice system isn't a very good idea. Prisoners are held on death row sometimes for over a decade.

2. The Death Penalty doesn't have to be the punishment in every case. It could for extreme cases where the proof is concrete.

3. Maybe different methods can be more of deterrent. Public executions would have a different effect imo.

Convicted murderers could be used for cancer research?

The only way they can payback society for taking away someone's son/daughter/mother/father/friend etc

 

[KingKhanWC]

Convicted murderers could be used for cancer research?

The only way they can payback society for taking away someone's son/daughter/mother/father/friend etc

In theory they could be used for a wide range of research or experiments which could help the human race but there are some who have murdered people in the most horrific of ways they shouldn't no longer be a burden on society and be given the death penalty.

Life behind bars without parole is a form of mental torture imo.

Those who serve 15,20 - 25 years and are released will always remain a threat to society. Murderers after release have murdered again which means society was let down.

 

[kingusama92]

No.

The chances of putting an innocent man/woman to death is a real concern even with modern methods of accumulating evidence.

A life sentence without parole is enough for heinous criminals.

 

[aloo paratha]

2 wrongs don't make a right, we are not the ones who should be ending peoples lives.

 

[Robert]

Jo Cox is one victim but millions are robbed of their lives whilst the perps are put in jails to live their lives on tax-payers money.

Is that fair, should a person who is of no use to society be kept alive and then allowed back (parole)?

Simple question.

British justice upholds the ideal that the individual always has value, but that destructive behaviour must be challenged.

It is quite possible that a murderer can serve twenty years, then be rehabilitated to become a useful member of society. Yet said person will always remain on license, and will return to jail for any future crime no matter how minor.

In the case of the murderer you allude to, he has shown no remorse and many aggravating factors mean that he will probably die in jail. But we (the state) don't kill, because that would make us just as bad as him.

 

[Robert]

3. Maybe different methods can be more of deterrent. Public executions would have a different effect imo.

Deterrence does not work as most offenders have limited forward planning skills and do not think there will be consequences to their behaviour. They are not inherently bad in most cases, just bad planners.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

Well it depends....I am pretty ok with hanging / killing terrorists who belong to sects like TTP / ISIS / BLA / KKK but if let's say somebody commits murder out of revenge and has no connections to the said groups then life sentence should be the way to go !!

Although for Terrorist I am not even in favor of trials......If you belong to this group there should be shoot to kill APV on that individual; I don't care if you're a fighter / supporter / media relations person for the latter. There should be no place for people like these on this planet - period.

 

[MenInG]

We have a tie in the poll!

 

[shaz619]

Being behind bars permanently can be more of a severe punishment then the death penalty

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Even if 1 innocent person gets executed in 100 years thats still worth not having capital punishment IMO.

Is it ok if that innocent man rots in jail till he dies?

I totally get you and I used to have the same view but when you decide to start questioning everything, things become interesting.

Isn't it better if 20 innocent men die a quick death than have a lifetime of misery........and in return we get rid of dangerous murderers and psychopaths who get convicted?

There is no right or wrong answer.

Something to think about.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Also it doesn't matter if death penalty is a deterrent or not.

Just getting rid of the **** of the earth is a good enough reason.

Just presenting a different view cos I dunno how I feel about this.

 

[Zak_Fan]

Is it ok if that innocent man rots in jail till he dies?

I totally get you and I used to have the same view but when you decide to start questioning everything, things become interesting.

Isn't it better if 20 innocent men die a quick death than have a lifetime of misery........and in return we get rid of dangerous murderers and psychopaths who get convicted?

There is no right or wrong answer.

Something to think about.

Absolutely not. There have been numerous cases where innocent found justice years after they were convicted of murder. Why take that opportunity away from them? Besides, survival instinct imo is strong enough to ensure that most people prefer that misery over quick death.

 

[Syed1]

This innocents thing is being blown out of proportion, majority of cases the murderer is caught red handed or confesses to his/her crimes. Only a tiny percent of murder cases are contentious.

With more advances in criminal investigation methods (DNAs etc) and overwhelming increase in CCTV cameras it is really hard to commit a murder and get away with it, or not commit a murder and be convicted of it. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty, if there is reasonable doubt to convict you of murder it is more likely that you did that crime than not.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think the death penalty is the only way that the murderer doesn't become a burden for the rest of society as keeping him or her in jail is going to end up costing a lot of money. That said, of course the evidence has to be beyond any doubt as you do not want to risk even the tiniest chance of convicting an innocent person.

 

[Markhor]

This innocents thing is being blown out of proportion, majority of cases the murderer is caught red handed or confesses to his/her crimes. Only a tiny percent of murder cases are contentious.

The fact its a minority shouldn't matter - the taking of ONE innocent life puts the justice system on no higher a moral footing than the murderer. In the US since 1973, 138 death-row prisoners have been released because they were innocent. That's 138 families who would've been robbed of their loved ones had those executions took place.

And that figure of 138 would be much higher had those individuals wrongfully executed actually had their names officially cleared, but of course we'll never know as a wrongful execution is an irrevocable mistake. So why should society have any faith in the justice system if its also guilty of injustice ?

With more advances in criminal investigation methods (DNAs etc) and overwhelming increase in CCTV cameras it is really hard to commit a murder and get away with it, or not commit a murder and be convicted of it. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty, if there is reasonable doubt to convict you of murder it is more likely that you did that crime than not.

In the US last year, wrongful convictions reached a record high. You get many cases of false witness testimony, police and prosecution misconduct and fabrication of evidence.

The death penalty is also not applied fairly. If you are a black or Hispanic in the US and of lower socio-economic status, you are more likely to receive poorer legal representation and will receive the death penalty at disproportionate rates.

 

[anakin]

To almost all posters in this thread, especially to the supporters of death penalty:

What is the purpose of law?

a) to provide justice .. or

b) to satisfy the need for vengeance

Most of the arguments in the posts do not imply any difference between justice and vengeance.

I oppose death penalty, not because there is a decent possibility of an innocent might get executed, but because I believe retribution cannot and should not be equated to righteous justice.

Justice for the murder victim and their families is hard to define, let alone provide but death sentence for the murderer is just an act to satiate the desire for vengeance.

 

[Saeed]

Death penalty needs to be abolished, especially in countries that have weak justice system. Unfortunately it's the other way around. Countries with strong Justice system have abolished death penalty while other states get away with murdering innocent people. UN needs to pass a law against it.