I'm just curious what everyone's thoughts are - should one get killed if he is a killer? If he kills two people..etc? Or should they have to live with guilt in a prison for life? I thought about this when I read the question about killing "the fanatics" and realized I don't have a great opinion on the subject. What are your thoughts?

 

The death penalty isn't used enough these days to be an effective deterrent to crime. It takes around 15yrs and tons of money to put someone on trial, keep them healthy in prison for 15yrs+, and then appeals, and then finally the huge cost of killing one of these pieces of debris.

I wouldn't want to copy China on much, but they do have a real death penalty there. After a trial for a few days and a verdict, you are taken out and shot and your family is sent the bill for the cost of the bullet. This practice has not stopped all crime in China, but it is used often enough so that someone has to think before they commit a serious crime. Would it make American criminals think? I really don't know.

 

im in texas nuff said. but really. i have mixed feelings about this. yes i believe killes should be put to death but do we have the right to kill them?

 

Eye for an Eye... Someone steal from you, you should get ALL their stuff. Someone murders one of your family, you should get to blast they ***, right back!

3-strikes if useless, too, BTW.

 

like the poster said above, its not used enough to be effective. if you want something to be afffective be like the taliban or like he said china.

and then there is the problem that not everyone who is on death row is actually guilty.

 

I think prison is a bad alternative since you basically concentrate a large number of criminals into one area. The only contact they have is with other criminals. Talk about bad influences. Then there is a whole institutionalize (sp?) issue where they are unable to cope with the real world upon exit.

When you spend 5-10 years with people who are similar to you in though and action then thrown into a law abiding world you will be out of your safety blanket and the fact that you committed a crime if the first place shows poor decision skills they will commit a crime for the soul purpose of being back with their lifestyle.

Not all are like this. Some truly see their sentance as punishment and work very hard to avoid it.

If there mentality allows them to justify murduring someone and they feel no guilt then they will see there sentance to prison as a wrongful decision against them by society.

To fix the burdon of prison on the worlds bank account I think they should force them to do some kind of productive work. 10 years spend doing something is helpful to both society and themselves compared to 10 years of doing nothing. Base some of their sentance on how well they do their "job" pay them some(not much, and again based on performance) so they can do things like order pizza, watch a movie etc. I don't know costs and such for keeping a person in prison but it should not make prison labor a profitable act(that would be BAD) only one to ease costs.

Prison should not be a place where society just dumps criminals but instead a place where we put a concentrated effort into making them a better person.

The biggest problem is that criminals "think" differently than others. In a similar fation as children, teenager, adults all think differently. The only solution is to change how they think. I feel 25 years sitting in prison does not solve this. The best time to change how someone thinks is in the early development stage of the brain, i.e. childhood. We as a society should work hard to prevent criminal thoughts from developing in its youth. Too bad everybody is afraid of the "bad" part of town and just close their eyes too it. I think adoption should be a serious consideration, in part, when planning a family, after all its good enough to get a puppy from the pound but what about a child?

As far as the death penalty is concerned I am in favor of it. When someone decides to shoot somebody they should not be deciding weather or not they should kill that person, but if that persons life is worth the loss of their own. If they don't understand the concequences of their actions then they won't understand the punishment.

*sorry if this got a little off of your question.

 

This may be true but is it 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 10? If its the latter then there is a serious problem in our courts system. Even 1 wrongfully accused is too many but is keeping them alive for 40 years worth keeping 9999 real murdures alive for 40 years?

 

eye for an eye

 

Eye for an eye.
You kill someone in cold blood you revoke your right to live

 

executioners choice of vocation, if voted to take the life of a killer I would do it ( hell someone has to do it ) cheaper to destroy than keep in expesive jails ( I question your thoughts on the murder of innocent people ).