For people that have attempted murder, or have been punished by a life sentence in jail, before they are granted parol they have to undergo a series of psychosis and psychological tests to see if they are a danger to society. It's not just as simple as, "oh you've done your service, you can go now".[quote="Rogue216"Yeah I get what your saying, jail may change a person, and there are cases like that. A hockey player who was arrested for attempted murder ended saving his teamate's life after getting out of prison. But we don't have that guarantee right now, hopefully we can later. But what are we supposed to do until then?I like were your going with this, and I must say - I kind of agree.I honestly support death penalties, however under very cetain circumstances:
-the murderer must be 100% guilty- unquestionable evidence (cameras), etc
-the murderer must have killed more than one human (it shows he has the potential to kill more humans, while killing one human would make a moral human restless and consumed with guilt)
Lets have an example, Rob, a generally content person finds his daughter dead. The murderer( we'll call him Charles Manson) is then taken into custody. It is found that Charles also killed Sharon Tate and he has a huge plan that would have killed 1,000 more, had he not been arrested. Should he live? Remember, this very instance you are sharing the country and the earth with brutal killers. I think death is also more humane in a way (ik you wanna argue, maybe humane isnt the right word- nothing that will come out of this discussion will lead to something more humane, unless we never have crime again), since giving them a sentence in prison, they are with people who could possibly be more insane or intimidating than themselves. Being sent to prison is pretty much a death sentence since their lives areretty much ruined after that. Their criminal record will stop them from having an average job or function like normal human beings, or having a life of their own. No torture, only death. Death should be the worst punishment we offer, who are we to say, "you deserve worse than death" ?
idk, it's a big dilemma, i dont wanna bring religion, but there has been a few mentions so i should just say that if you believe in heaven and hell, dont you think god will correctly correspond the murderer to heaven or hell, depending on where he/she should go?
However, I personally think that if someone has committed a crime, murder, theft etc. They should have that time in jail to think about what they have done, but in some cases I don't feel that jail does that because for the guys with life imprisonment, jail is better than what they have left at home. I think jail should be a suffice enough punishment if it was harsh, and actually made the criminals look back in their life with regret, but wouldn't that make the jailers and everyone who condone's this action susceptible to human rights violations. I think the death penalty is not necessary to all, but I think it should be necessary to those who are completely lost to themselves and their actions, and know that they aren't going to look back with regret to what they have done.
Also, for the people saying the death penalty is the economic easy way out:
First off there are for-profit prisons( which is a whole new debate -.-)
Secondly, picture this:
For every extra tax dollar spent on prisons, it could have gone to people who are starving and actually deserve the funding. So crime punishes them just like not having the death penalty punishes them as well. I'm not saying get rid of prisons for thay special reason, I'm just saying that arguement isn't valid.
@arjunlite hey arj!
I do agree, that tax dollars spent on prisons where the money could go off to starving children in other countries. But then, isn't it invalid to say that society wouldn't be disrupted by crime, if there were budget cuts etc to prisons? Also if the tax dollars weren't spent on prisoners for adequate living (and I'm talking bare minimum, 4x4 metre living space with 3 meals a day) it would be a direct violation of the Human Rights Act. And that violation would disrupt government even more so than it would socially for those experiencing the negligence. The government is fault of human rights act, would be questioned by the UN and the issue would have to be fixed, otherwise it may cause war and more tax dollars spent.
No way is the death penalty the economic easy way out, it's a terrible punishment. Believe it or not, prisoners do experience some form of faith whilst in jail and do fear that there actions could take them to a terrible place after death and would see the death penalty as the ultimate punishment. I think spending money on prisoners is futile after all behind their sexual prevalencies, murderess actions and other acts against law they are still human and capable of empathy and feeling, unless deemed otherwise, and money should be spent on these guys so they can get a second chance in life, after they right their wrongs and openly admit they are wrong! (And of course are deemed a non-threat to society by behavioural analysis and psychologists)[/quote]
sorry I mean the people who say that the death penalty is the coward's path with only economic interests are wrong
