Is death penalty the best solution?


For those who commit the most unforgivable crimes, isn't a life sentence of intense manual labor surrounded by a geographically isolated place a better deterrent than the death penalty? Crime rate isn't really relevant to states with and short the death penalty. I think have to swing a hammer or hoe the rest of your life while knowing one day you're going to die inwardly those walls would deter people more than an easy way out. Personally I'd to some extent people suffer as long as the victims and their families, what say you?
Best Answer:
For what it's worth...I USED to believe in the death cost, for criminals that committed heinous crimes. However, when there is even the smallest chance that someone has be sentenced to death, for a crime they did NOT commit, {and it's happened dozens and dozens of times}, the death cost just does not seem worth it to me. If it can be proven scientifically, and without ANY doubt that a personality has committed a crime that qualifies for the death cost, they should be sentenced to the worst possible prison and hardship for the rest of their natural lives, so that they can think more or less what they did every single day, and realize that they are never going to have a better life than what they enjoy right then! If an innocent person happens to receive the release penalty, but, the execution is never really carried out, then there would be the possibility that SOME afternoon, their innocence may be proven and they will be set free. Put another way...I would rather know that a guilty person is spending the rest of their time in prison, than to know that I may have sentenced a truly innocent person to release, they are executed, then, it comes out months or years later that they were innocent. So, I do AGREE beside you, for your reasons, AND mine.
If they are a unremitting threat ie harming,raping,killing other inmates then yes slaughter them if not then use them for labor for the rest of their lives.
i say you're right :: along next to intense labor and psychological testing there should also be daily reminders of why they are in that :: they are no good dead and there's always something that requests to be done
I hear that people who own been executed have a 0% recidivism rate.
Truth be told, I don't have a sneaking suspicion that either is a deterrent. People who commit crimes either believe they won't be caught, or they don't care if they are caught. They any believe they can outrun the police or hide their identity, or perhaps make the crime look close to an accident or something like that; or it's a crime of passion and they don't believe about the consequences at all. Someone who robs a bank, or murders somebody, or doesn`t matter what else...he plans ahead to try and get away from the law. He may or may not be successful at it, and in the hypothetical you are asking more or less we are assuming he is caught; but he doesn't BELIEVE he'll be caught and so does not fear consequences. He doesn't believe he'll ever be made to face them if no one in fact finds out who did the crime. On the other hand, I give an example of a man who comes home to find his wife cheating on him. In anger, he kills any the other man or his wife, or both. He never gave a thought to consequences. The consequences would probably be enough to deter him if he had thought in the order of them; but he didn't think about it at all, and so those consequences be not a deterrent. This does not mean we let criminals go. But if the opinion is to prevent someone from doing a crime, it is not the punishment that stops them. I don't believe that either punishment will prevent the crime; because the criminal either doesn't believe he'll have to facade it, or doesn't care if he does. I'm personally against the death cost because of how permanent it is, and how flawed our system is. To date, over 700 convictions have now be overturned because of DNA evidence that was not presented in court at the time. 150 of those have be cases that ended with a death cost conviction. Some of those overturned sentences occurred AFTER the execution was carried out. And really, what good is a clear signature to a dead man? I would prefer the life sentence if only to gross sure we don't kill an innocent man. Our system is too flawed to take that chance. Serving years at tricky labor may still be wrong, but we can correct that to some extent. We can let him go, help him achieve back on his feet. If we kill him, and subsequently find out he was innocent after all, it's too late to do anything afterwards.
The problem with your theory is that most crimes are not committed with much forethought. They are committing the crime precisely because they did not devise about the consequences. You can hang them upside down with fish hooks and cover them within leeches until they die and they will still commit the crime because they are not thinking. The problem with the death penalty or any severe crime is that the criminal largely does not think before he acts.
Yes. People enunciate that killing the person who committed the crime won't make it right. But it would trade name me feel better. If someone harmed anyone in my family, I wouldn't dawdle to have them put under the guillotine rather than own someone cook food for them in prison forever and them have a place to sleep every night, making friends (good or bad), playing sports and seeing the street light of day. To me, they knew what was right and wrong and conditional insanity will never convince me. If people want to tell me it's God's choice on who deserves what, then God can intermediary me but free will allows me to judge those who harm others. I will have no problem explaining my arrangements that kept the ones I care about safe. ( I want a cookie )
Never, because one persno dying would do harm to the environment.
No. It is an loose act of revenge. It makes the prosecutor feel righteous and the convicted be dead. Nothing is solved. Nobody is Saved. Only a Death happens.
normally i would say death cost is the best solution because if you kill someone you should not be allowed to live. However, rich people can hire lawyers to liberate them while the poor people are the ones who actually end up on release row. That isnt fair because nobody should be able to buy themselves out of trouble. Also putting people within prison for many years is very expensive for taxpayers and prisoners end up adjust to prison life which isnt so bad after all. I dont estimate they suffer in prison the way many deem. I dont think we should torture people anyway. No matter what I dont construe the fear of punishment is going to stop murder anyway, I think its a sad reality of life.
Yes, then everyone will live contained by threat of the death penalty.
The problem with the death cost is that it takes too long (12-20 years). So, I go for life incarceration at VERY hard labor. The French had an interesting idea surrounded by connection with their Devil's Island. There the plan was to work the prisoners to release, but then that wouldn't be very politically correct today.