Capital Punishment .. for or against ? Why?

Show all answers

Post your answer

Brite Tiger	Capital punishment is a barbarous survival from a less enlightened and refined age; it is incongruous and incompatible with our present standard of civilization and humanity. It has been abolished by many states and countries, and we must look forward to the day when the other governments will follow suit. The arguments against capital punishment are many and cogent, but the pleas advanced in its favor are few and specious. Punishment is supposed to be for the protection of society, and for the reformation of the wrongdoer. It purports to protect society by preventing the same criminals from repeating their crimes, and by acting as a deterrent to other prospective criminals. Capital punishment is a notorious failure in these respects. It does indeed remove the particular culprit from the possibility of repeating his crime; but this is of very small account in view of the fact that murder is seldom a career of repeated acts, but consists of single acts perpetrated by different individuals. The man whom we remove from the scene, therefore, is not the man who, if suffered to live, would have been likely to endanger our safety. As a deterrent to other murderers, likewise, the death penalty has proved a signal failure, as may be seen by comparing the criminal statistics of those countries where the punishment is in force with those of countries where it has been abolished. Nor is the reason of this failure far to seek. Murders are nearly always committed in sudden fits of passion or temporary insanity, when no consideration of reason or self-interest can appeal to the doer. Further, such uncertainty attends the consummation of the death sentence -- due to the natural hesitation and inclination to mercy of judge and jury, to the chances of reprieve and commutation -- that this penalty is far less deterrent than are those penalties which, though less severe, are also more certain. Finally, we have not answered the question whether there are not other and more effective deterrents; and, there are such deterrents, in comparison with which capital punishment is seen to be clumsy and ineffectual in the extreme. As to the reformative character of punishment, it is scarcely necessary to point out that capital punishment effectually removes all possibility of this by cutting short the life of the wrongdoer and thus taking away both his chance of reform and our opportunity of discharging the duty of reforming him. Capital punishment is irrevocable, and the errors of justice cannot be rectified. All possibility of reconsideration is taken away. Innocent persons have been hanged, and judge, jury, and the whole legal machinery involved have thereby been made privy to the very crime they sought to punish. In view of the very uncertain and unequal character of our merely human endeavors to mete out justice, no proceedings of ours should be of this irrevocable character. So complex and uncertain is the process of sifting whereby finally a few individuals are sorted out from the mass and consigned to punishment, that the selection seems largely arbitrary, and we find that the actual convicts are no worse, and some perhaps even better, than many whom the hand of the law never reaches. What principle of equity or reason can justify us in singling out for our harshest treatment, by so haphazard a method, a few individuals who for the most part manifest no particular reasons why they, and they alone, should be so treated? Capital punishment sins most by depriving the culprit of his chances of reformation. As a weaker brother, who has fallen through causes that are inherent in our social structure, and for which we are all more or less responsible, he should claim our care and protection. Our duty to society is fulfilled by isolating the dangerous man for so long as he may continue to be dangerous. As for deterrent action, this should be compassed, not by fear, but by reformative and protective measures in our social policy. The only way to destroy a criminal is by reforming the man who is a criminal. To destroy his bodily life is nothing but a stupid blunder. When the physical life of a criminal is cut short by this summary and unnatural means, we do not bring to an end thereby the evil passions which prompted the crime. They are not slain; they continue to exist. And, having no longer a bodily tenement, they must wander abroad to prey upon the community and inspire fresh deeds of horror in weak and unbalanced natures whom they obsess. Thus are accounted for those mysterious outbursts of crime which are distinguished by the frequent confession, "I do not know why I did it, but something came over me." In view of this fact, the folly of capital punishment is more glaring than ever. Capital punishment is tantamount to a repudiation of the divine nature of man. On what principles of religion or philosophy can we justify the policy of depriving a human being like ourselves of all possibility of reform? If we profess to revere a God of mercy and justice, and if we ourselves supplicate and rely on that divine mercy and justice, how can we reconcile it with our duty, as men created in the divine image, to dismiss thus roughly a fellow human being from our midst and send him into the presence of the Deity whom we have outraged? Surely it is our duty and our privilege to be the agents of divine justice and mercy, and to exert to the utmost our god-given powers in the endeavor to assist our fallen brother to his feet. It is well within the power of existing governments to provide means whereby murderers, as well as other criminals, can be isolated in institutions where they can be humanely treated as patients or people of unsound mind. And this must be made part of a general campaign of educative and remedial treatment of crime outside prison walls. Otherwise prisons will be -- what they too often are -- places for disposing of the materials which we manufacture outside. This process of first carefully manufacturing criminals and then killing them is an insult to our intelligence and culture. We must stop making them; and, if made, we must reform them. Members of the Universal Brotherhood and Theosophical Society have had large experience in prison work, and this experience has shown them that the most apparently hopeless cases will respond to the right treatment. The only reason why such cases have not responded before is that they have never met with the right treatment. All too frequently their self-respect, already so diminished, has been altogether taken away by the reiterated assurance that they are wicked and hopeless. Sinfulness has been preached to them, and thus prison has become a place for the destruction of character. Theosophy begins by insisting upon the fact that all men are divine, and that no case is hopeless. The culprit is told that he possesses within himself a divine power of self-reform, and is shown how to invoke it. His lost self-respect is restored, and from that time on he is encouraged to pull himself together and overcome his weaknesses. Many are the tales which Katherine Tingley, and those who have worked with her in the prisons, can tell of reconstituted characters which, from being the worst of the worst, have become sources of wonder to their keepers, and powers of help to their fellow prisoners. It is the earnest desire of these prison workers to demonstrate to as many people as possible the efficacy of this way of handling prisoners, so that there may no longer be any excuse for resorting to barbarous punishments, and so that civilization at large may have a criminal policy worthy of the present status of culture. The world is passing through a crucial stage and the newborn spirit of a kindly intelligence is struggling for manifestation. A new law of human life has been impressed upon us and is superseding the old ideas that served us provisionally in the past. The essence of this law is mercy, brotherhood. But humanity needs help and light in its endeavors to readjust its practices to its new and broader principles, its finer feelings. This help theosophy can give. By abolishing capital punishment in those places where it still prevails, society at large can register in telling form its protest against all that is unbrotherly, craven in spirit, ruthless, unintelligent. The new law which we all recognize allows no scope for punishment at all -- except in the reformative sense. Anger and fear are passions, and retribution may be left to the eternal justice. Why then should we continue to justify by legal sanction a procedure which, if committed privately, would be murder pure and simple? Why should the State, which represents the people, continue to do in cold calculation deeds which the mere criminal only perpetrates in the heat of passion and madness? In truth no reason can be urged in justification except such reasons as rest on a repudiation of our divinity and our responsibility as divine beings to our fellowman. Theosophists therefore appeal to humanity to lay aside its fears, its prejudices, and its anger, and to replace them by a large-hearted intelligence; and to gain new confidence in the irresistible power of a strong and pure motive. Instead of resorting to clumsy and inefficacious methods of obviating the evils which we permit to grow, let us grapple with the whole question patiently and manfully, assisting our fallen brother in every way instead of heaping fresh woes and disabilities upon him. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Evan B	Against but not maniacally against. I think the more humanely we treat criminals the more it will benefit society. Vengeance is a legitimate human desire from an individual point of view, but I think it's ultimately damaging to society so we shouldn't endorse it. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Cardinal Fang	11 reasons why I'm totally against the death penalty 1. Permitting premeditated murder is totally unacceptable, even if done by the state. Capital punishment lowers the value of human life as seen by the general population and brutalizes society. It reinforces the idea that killing someone is an acceptable way of solving problems. 2. It is based on a need for revenge not justice. Retribution and revenge have no place in the modern justice system. 3. Lack of Deterrence: The death penalty has not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the homicide rate. There are some indications that executions actually increase the murder rate. (sources 1 - 6) 4. Cost: The cost of all the appeals by a convicted murder, plus all the costs associated with an execution more that cover the cost of locking that person up for the rest of their life 5. Human life has intrinsic value, even if a person has murdered another individual. If you kill someone, you've taken away something sacred. That is never right, even if its done by the state. 6. The death penalty is unfair The mentally ill, poor, males, and ethnic minorities are over-represented among those executed. One pilot study of over 2 dozen convicted criminals on death row found that all had been so seriously abused during childhood that they probably all suffered from brain damage. Women convicted of murder are almost never executed; that is a penalty that is almost entirely reserved for men. A 1986 study in Georgia showed that persons who killed "whites were four times more likely to be sentenced to death than convicted killers of non-whites." (sources 7-9) 7. Chance of Error: Many convicted murderers are later found innocent, and have been pardoned. It is impossible to pardon a corpse. In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review. They found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900 and 1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed." In the UK, groups such as the Guildford 4 were released after 16 years for crimes they were tortured into confessing to. In Illinois, a class of journalism students (not law students - JOURNALISM students) found that 13 out of 25 men on death row were factually innocent of the crimes for which they'd been sentenced - that's half! (source 10). 8. Capital punishment is cruel. If it is considered torture to hang someone by their arms so they suffer pain, what is it if you hang them by the neck to kill them? If it's torture to apply an electrical current to a person to make them confess to something, what is it if you apply a greater current in order to kill them? 9. The family of the prisoner is also punished by having their loved one killed by the state. Yet the family is usually innocent of any crime. 10. The existence of the death penalty means that some jury members are reluctant to convict in murder trials because of the possibility of executing an innocent person. Thus, many killers go free and are never punished. 11. The death penalty is useless: Killing a murderer does not bring his victim back to life. It achieves nothing but the death of still another person. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Brundige	If killing is ever wrong, it's always wrong. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

smedrik	Against, it is not the position of ones peers to decide when and how they should die. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Susan S	Against. It is not an effective way to prevent or reduce crime. Here are answers to some questions that are often asked about the system. All of them are sourced, below. Isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison? The death penalty costs much more than life in prison. Much of the extra costs is due to the complicated nature of both the pre trial investigation and of the trials (involving 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime. What about the risk of executing innocent people? Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence, many having already served over 2 decades on death row. Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening? DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people. Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder? No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. Homicide rates are higher in states that have it than in states that do not. Most killers don't think about the consequences anyway. They do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.) So, what are the alternatives? Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. Supermax prisons are terrible places to spend the rest of your life. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty. What about the very worst crimes? The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed?? Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims? Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative. So, why don't we speed up the process? Many of the 123 innocent people released from death row had already been there for over 2 decades. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person. But don’t Americans prefer the death penalty as the most serious punishment? Not any more. People are rethinking their views, given the facts and the records on innocent people sentenced to death. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning the facts and making up their minds using common sense, not eye for an eye sound bites. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

ccgriffin1972	I agree with them I think it's good to have. But there needs to be a line to decide between Ted Bundy and Al Bundy Texas has an expresslane now on death row. Michigan has no death sentance Not sure about other states. But yea Charlie Manson should be ripped in 1/2 Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Rebel	For. As far as I'm concerned, if you murder another human being, you're no longer worthy to be considered human. Some people say the death penalty is primitive. So? Sometimes things that are primitive and instinctual are the best things for us. In caveman society, if one person killed another, surely the killer would be killed. It's human nature to take revenge on those who have wronged. Why should we go against every instinct and our very nature within us just because we're trying to convince ourselves that we live in some "advanced, intellectual, civilized society". Bullshit. It doesn't matter how much more technology we create nor how many more things we as a society learn, WE (the members of that society) are just as primitive and animalistic as always. It's silly to deny it. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

reformprisonnow	For only if proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. also think Pedifiles need put to death. it is proven they cant be rehabiltitated. it isnt an eye for an eye if you have a rampet animal it is destroyed, why to prevent injury? people are supposed to be smarter then animals so why is it when people go rampet and the chance for pain and death is increased would we want to keep them alive? Once you have lost respect for life thats it why should your own life be different? Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

josh03	Speaking as a law abideing citizen, I have, as others hade thought of revenge on someone else but unlike some, never had ideas of just randomly picking out someone to "just kill". Even in the event where a few savages started a fist fight at my sons funeral, the idea of the death penalty was the ONLY thing that prevented their death. Now for a normal person to behave in such a manner as I did, those that can kill for greed, power, position, or just the trill to kill, do not have a place in the same society that we normal people excist. To kill in defense is another whole different matter, but to kill someone for your own personal gain, such as drug involvement and a testimony in court against you may cause you to loose custody of your child because your discision of being with a drug dealer for the money. Now the drug dealers killed my son so as not to get caught and his wife so as not to get caught, those individuals should be killed without mercy. You could be next on their list. Once a human beong begans to murder without thought and in a way that most murders occur, they are pretty much unable to be rehabilitated back into society. If any of you want to feel the psycho tulip garden idea for these savages, it's fine by me. But people that can committ rape and murder against others, especially children, then be cried over by some psycho, maybe the psycho needs to be put somewhere to so to protect us logical people from them to. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

wayne g	If a pervert kidnaps, rapes and murders another person and there is no question as to his guilt, don't wait 20 years. After that much waiting time, he's ready. I say don't wait. Drag them out screaming, kicking and begging for there life and kill them the same way they killed there victim. This old bull "don't hurt them" dose not deter anyone. Well I gave you the why first. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Jbuns	I am for it in circumstances of murder, pedophilia and rape. I think your rights as a citizen should end when you infringe upon or deny the rights (such as the right to live) of others. The money that is being spent trying to rehabilitate pedophiles should be invested into caring for their poor little victims whose innocence has been stolen forever. Prevent these beasts from getting to the children, don't try to "help" the offenders once they have already inflicted their damage. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

jessedakota	for in crimes that fit the death penalty(serial killers-child molesters/killers-rapists/killers,etc) but i am against the time it takes to put them to death -have a court system that will hear an appeal -and then if still guilty let's get on with the procedure instead of housing them in tax runprisons for 10 or 20 years- Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Jordan	I dunno... I think it should be used in certain cases. I agree that if everyone in the prison system was killed right now, the world would be safer, but it wouldn't mean it's morally right... I think that rape, being a pedophile, things such as that do deserve capital punishment. But what if you were forced to murder someone? What if someone had held a gun to your head, and told you to shoot someone else? Or rape someone? I mean, how would you like to be killed for that? And I'm sure that the family of that person would be upset. My cousin's are in jail right now for either murdering, or helping with the murder of two teenagers. I knew them both very well, they were great people. But they fell into the wrong crowd, and became drug dealers, one night, a drug deal went wrong and two people got killed. No one knows who did it, but I know them, and I know that they would not deserve the death penalty. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Rick S	If we took EVERY person in jail in the United States out and killed them today, we would have a safer country. We are not going to do it, but it would make things better. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Spotter 888	Certain crimes need harsher punishment, repeat offenders cannot be rehabilitated. Life sentences only use up government resources for feeding the scums. It can be done IF there is political will. ** Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

slingsandarrows	For it..absolutely...why rehab the scum? Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

karenhar	If we had more capital punishment in the U.S., there would be a lot less crime. Look at the countries where the people band together and dish out punishment fitting the crime. We could learn from that. And I get tired of hearing about how they keep murderers in prison only so long and let them out so that they can kill more innocents. They keep using tax payer dollars to build more, when a simple solution would be to execute the ones on death row instead of keeping them there forever, and paying more attention to the victim's rights instead of the criminal's. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

kbama	Mystery: an eye for an eye - For - some crimes are simply so heinous that only the death penalty will do. -k- Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Ryan's mom	I am for the death penalty, but there needs to be overwhelming evidence that they actually committed the crime. People that are mostly against the death penalty have not known someone that has been murdered. A friend of my parents had a daughter that was stabbed 32 times by someone that had been stalking her. He only got 25 years in prison. Do you think that is fair when she had a 3 year-old and an 18 month old that had to grow up without their mom? Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Genderbiased	Capital Punishment is more productive in certain circumstances, specifically with sex offenders. It has been proven repeatedly that sex offenders ie. rapists, pedophile, serial killers cannot be reformed. All others, including V.A. guy can be. If there is any chance of reforming people it must be done. I'm not going to clairfy that but I will clarify why non-reformables should be killed. It costs an avg. of $44 000 a year to keep a person i prison. If he never gets out it's a lot of money wasted over the span of his life. Likely though, he'll get out. If he does he will commit another crime. That crime could have been avoided and the victim may then also be prompted to lash out. now you're paying out $88 000 a year, and so on. Ok, I'll clarify rehab. There is a prison in Canada called Warkworth. This prison forces it's inmates to graduate highschool and gives them the option for a degree. They have 2 bed shared "apartments" where they get groceries and must learn to cook for themselves. When let out they are helped finding an apt and a job. Sounds rediculous? The recidivism rate (rate at which prisoners return to prison after release) in Warkworth is 2%. In Sing Sing (maybe spelled wrong) where you are provided with a toilet and a large cell mate for lonely nights the rate is 98%. It is more expensive to keep people in warkworth but they won't commit crime again so it will cost less over the spam of thier lives, and they won't cost society but rather contribute to the economy. Unless of course they are sex offenders as mentioned. This combined with the death penalty is the most effective form of corrections. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Clair	I'm in favor of it because some people are complete evil scum who can never ever be rehabilitated (as if they deserved it), and this is backed up by criminologists and psychologists, so they need to be wiped off the face of the earth as soon as possible. ie; Ted Bundy, escaped from jail twice and went on more murderous rampages, NO ONE protested his demise, that's for sure. Though that peice of sht really fought for his life making our justice system a kangaroo court for over a decade and had to be dragged to his death kicking and screaming, ironically enough. Child killers, serial killers, particularly horrific crimes which is known beyond a doubt the one accused did it deserves death and that person knows what they deserve and what they did to deserve it, it's only a shame they can't die like their victims did, That would be true justice. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No