MY MESSAGE FOR PEOPLE AGAINST IN DEATH PENALTY:

in reality, people are not rational all the time. we should accept our limitation. be considerate as long as we can but if someone killed, ate, and raped our loved ones. i dont think we can be rational. you can say that is ok the killer stay in the prison while he is alive. if that happened to other people and not in your loved ones. logically, we can be rational to the situation if we are not involved but if we are. i doubt it, if you can be rational. if you can. you are too rational and logical person all the time. in reality, there is no person that fully logical that's why i agree in death penalty. im thinking the people who cant sleep and live normal because someone killed, ate, and raped their loved ones. i know killing a criminal cannnot make their loved ones alive but even you admit it or not. a victim's family get feel better a bit after the person died that's why i realized let the heinous criminals work in prison but killed them when they are already old and weak for the family that they hurt.

Views: 612

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Our legal system is much too biased to be dispensing death. The difference between an attorney who has been retained and a 'public pretender' who has been 'assigned' is exactly what you'd expect -- you get what you pay for. Public defenders often work hand-in-glove with district attorneys, and district attorneys are often more concerned with their conviction records than justice (though this is not always the case).

When the wrong person is executed simply because "someone" has to pay, or a witness thinks all (fill in the blank) ________ people look alike and they identify the wrong person, there are no do-overs. The person is dead.  I'm not saying it's any less cruel to incarcerate someone (guilty or innocent) for life, but at least they can go through the appeals process if they're innocent. And the "saving money" argument doesn't work. We've been executing innocent people for years and I haven't seen any positive reports about "all the money we're saving."

And let's face it, after people motivated to work for The Innocence Project, it's people who have been wrongly accused and/or incarcerated, or those who lost an innocent loved one to a botched investigation who are doing most of the work in the field of wrongful convictions because most people really don't care about such things until it happens to them, or to someone they love. This is evidenced by a system in which men and women who are finally exonerated find that they have yet another legal battle to try to have their felonies expunged (one would think this would be a given), or to get decent financial compensation for all they've lost. 

Many people would rather die than spend the rest of their lives locked up -- particularly if they're guilty. In such cases, death is no "punishment." But when it is "we," the "justice system" who murder someone (an innocent someone), this goes beyond heinous. And it's conceivable that this happens more than we know.

The death penalty costs MORE than life without parole.  Not less!  That's because of all the court costs associated with the death penalty.  It's also more expensive to keep prisoners on death row than in maximum security prisons where life without parole prisoners are kept.  In California, death row costs $90,000 per year per prisoner MORE than maximum security prison!

My answer to this question is simply, if a convict wants to die, then kill them.  This would not involve a lot of court costs.  There would be a waiting period and they would only get to make this choice twice a year (say). 

If they don't want to die, give them life without parole. 

When I hear of some of the horrible things some people do to others, I have an emotional response that would like to see horrible things done to them. However, when I think reasonably about it, I wouldn’t want to torture anyone, so I don’t want the state to do it either.

I don't want to "punish" heinous criminals, or "make them pay for their crimes".  I just want to see them put where they can't hurt innocent people again.  Death would guarantee that.

I do think we need a better system to dramatically reduce the number of innocent people incarcerated or killed, but I don’t know what it would be.

I would be OK with life in prison if there was no chance of parole until it could be proven they were reformed.  However, at this time we don't know enough about the mind to be able to say whether someone is reformed or not.

I also think we should not release any criminal until they worked enough to pay back all the costs of their trial, their appeals, and incarceration, as well as repaying their victims for mental anguish.  

A murderer can't possibly pay for that, so I think they should be made to work for the rest of their lives.  Refusing to work would result in no food.  That sounds cruel, but so far, I’ve not thought of a better way of forcing them to work.

Also, if they want to starve themselves to death, or be provided with other means of killing themselves, it seems to me that should be their choice.

I’m not “dead-set” on any of these opinions. Just my thoughts on the subject at this time.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service