IMO if they are convicted for murder charges and the penalty is death then yes they should, murder is murder and unless you have been given the right to kill as in a police officer whch is a last resort anyway then you should face the consequences like everyone else who commits the crime. Now in Jamaica that might be a different case but if they killed then they should face the cosequences.

Quoting Jm-airbus320 (Thread starter): Is The Death Penalty Unfair For Murderers?

Unfair is absolutely not the right word.

Quoting Jm-airbus320 (Thread starter): Would they be killed in your country?

No, that's a principle. Justice is not revenge.

Quoting Jm-airbus320 (Thread starter): Is The Death Penalty Unfair For Murderers?

It is unfair to any human being. I'm a radical as far as the death penalty is concerned, I will not support it under any circumstances I can imagine.

Quoting Jm-airbus320 (Thread starter): Would they be killed in your country?

No - thank goodness, my country does not have this barbaric punishment.

Instead they would be likely to be sentenced to life in jail with subsequent custody - a life sentence usually means the offenders can be released after 15 years, "subsequent custody" means they won't be released to freedom but to another form of prison (?) because they're considered too dangerous to ever be free again.

If a person is grave enough to commit a crime such as murder and take someone's life, they also take that person's families lives away too..

My own prsonal experience on this, My uncle was stabbed by 2 muggers at a local supermarket here in 1996, they presumed he had a bag of cash when he was walked back from the petrol court to the main building late at night. They stabbed him repeatedly 22 times for a bag of till receipts..

I heared something on the radio the following morning and decided to take a walk down there to have a nosey, as its only 3 blocks down from my old place.. uplon arriving i saw his car on the back of a police lorry, I immidiatly burst into tears as i knew the injured person was dead, not knowing it was John, my uncle.. I had to be moved by the police from the middle of the road as i just oculdnt do anything, and since that day going to the supermarket just even to buy a lottery ticket.. hurts me so much..

They never caught the bastards who stabbed him, but they did find the knife at the bottom of a local pond.. rest assure that the police did their best, to some degree in finding them and did arrest a number of people at the time, but they were all released without charge.. If i ever get my hands on them, i would kill them personally for screwing up my life.. I used to be a organist at the local church for weddings and such and i was with John the previous day at the church, he was listening to some music with me.. When he died ive not stepped near the organ since.. i just can't so it.. some people think im being rather stupid for that but thats just the way i delt with it at the time.

Do murderers actually think before they commit the crime that not only do they take one life but they also take the rest of the family too? My life changed so much after John died.. and ive never been the same since, and to be honest, looking at a photo of him now on the notice board above my monitor, i dont think it ever well.

Sorry for the rant, but i just feel really subjective towards issue's such as this where i have my own personal experience.

Lew

Someone that violates every single freedom and right of another person, including life, should not enjoy the same rights himself.

It is injustice to the victim and the victims family to not punish the killer fully, and in this case there can only be one punishment, the death penalty.

I will always vote for the death penalty in murder cases...if that isn't possible then life without parole. But a killer regaining all his freedoms in 15 years? Hell no, the victim would be rolling in their grave...

Read this thread . . . .
1000th Execution In The USA To Be Carried Out Tommorrow (by Jetjack74 Dec 1 2005 in Non Aviation)

My positions on the death penalty are therein.

Quoting Joness0154 (Reply 6): Someone that violates every single freedom and right of another person, including life, should not enjoy the same rights himself.

I couldnt agree more. If you take someone elses life, you forfeit your own.

In my country it is not permitted, but I think it should be brought back. Infact a quick painless death is too good for them. Torture them for the rest of their life, so they can feel the pain the relatives of the murdered victim are going through.

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 8): Torture them for the rest of their life, so they can feel the pain the relatives of the murdered victim are going through.

You are sick. You really are.

Quoting Jm-airbus320 (Thread starter): Are these killers worthy to be spared of such a crime? Would they be killed in your country?

NO, they are NOT "worthy" of NOT being killed several times in a medieval way. But such medieval revenge killings are no longer the way to go. The point is that your country should be worthy of a decent "handling" even of the most detestable individuals. Your question, more or less, was asked to German Federal Chancellor Helmut Schmidt during the terror problems with the "RedArmyFaction". He replied that "the Law-State is indivisible" which means that you canNOT have a revenge-justice for detestable folks on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and a "normal" law-justice on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
-
In most of Western Europe, and many countries of Eastern Europe, the death penalty is now completely abolished. That abolishment did neither DEcrease nor INcrease the crime rate, which indicates that the death-penalty as deterrant is nonsense, and was/is simply revenge justice. The main point in regard to crime is that the criminals are CAUGHT and their guilt PROVEN .

Quoting TFSPhoto (Reply 5): Sorry for the rant

absolutely no reason to be sorry. This in fact is just what I mentioned. The main point would have been that the culprits would have been caught and have been brought to justice. The extent of the sentence is not as important as to catch and bring such folks to justice.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 10): In most of Western Europe, and many countries of Eastern Europe, the death penalty is now completely abolished.

In all of western Europe and in most countries of eastern Europe. The only exception is Belorussia - the last remaining dictatorship in Europe.

Putting my own beliefs aside here, the death penalty is legal in a large number of US states. The following five cases help define US death penalty law:

Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976)
Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. 153 (1976)
Roberts v. Louisiana 428 U.S. 325 (1976)
Proffitt v. Florida 428 U.S. 242 (1976)
Woodson v. North Carolina 428 U.S. 280 (1976)

A brief summary of all of them combined: guided discretion in the use of the death penalty is not by nature unconstitutional; however requiring a mandatory death penalty for the commission of certain crimes is unconstitutional. From 1967-1976 there was a moratorium on the death penalty in the US. From 1967-1972, it was just an unofficial moratorium. In 1972, Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 153 (1972) " struck down federal and state capital punishment laws permitting wide discretion in the application of the death penalty (url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=238]link[/url]."

The decision did not, however, ban all use of the death penalty, merely the laws permitting wide discretion of the death penalty. The five cases from 1976 above redefined the discretion. So, in many individual states and likely at the federal level, if convicted the defendant would face the possibility of being sentenced to death.

Personal belief, I think it is strange the government says, "To show you that murder is bad, we will murder you." I am against murder, be it by individuals or state sponsored. Plus, I would rather have someone in jail having to live with the evil they have committed and put them to work (I have no problem with putting criminals to work on projects under supervision in order to repay their debt to society). That and the application of the death penalty costs much more, an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment, in the state of Tennessee. Plus the appeals process eats up more of the state's funds. In addition, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed 29 percent of capital cases on direct appeal (Tennessee state comptroller's report on the death penalty).

In specific numerical terms, Kansas provides a great example of the cost differential between death penalty cases and non-death penalty cases. Trial costs for non-death penalty violent crime trials run an average of $32,000; the average cost for a death penalty trial is $508,000 (source: Summary of Kansas legislature approved audit).

In Texas, the cost of a death penalty trial is as much as imprisoning a criminal for 40 years (source: Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).

There are the quantitative reasons I am against the death penalty. The moral reasons are not easy to define and can be argued back and forth, and far be it from me to try to force my morality on someone else. That's about all I have to say right now

Texan

[Edited 2005-12-03 03:08:23]

Probably the only different punishment would be to make those murderers suffer while being executed.Make their pain last.
regds
MEL

Quoting Jm-airbus320 (Thread starter): Is The Death Penalty Unfair For Murderers?

No. They Deserve It

Some would consider it to be an eye for an eye.

The death penalty is useless.

It costs more money to execute than it does to imprison someone for their natural life, and the death penalty doesn't stop people from comitting crimes.

Yes, I've lost someone I know to murder. It doesn't matter a damn to me that the demented freak did it is rotting in prison rather than being assigned an execution date.

It's highly unlikely, but I would love to see the United States free of the death penalty.

Just my loose change...

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 9): You are sick. You really are.

So it is so sick if we torture them, but it isn't sick what they do to the people they murder?

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 16): Some would consider it to be an eye for an eye.

Exatly.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 10): which indicates that the death-penalty as deterrant is nonsense

Whats the point of having it if its just a detterant? Killing people for the sole sake of bringing the crime rate down is just stupid. THAT is not fair, if we are killing people to bring justice to their victim(s) name, bring justice to the families of thier victims then it is fair.

People deserve to die depending on what and why the did it. I just asked my mum this question and she said that if for instance someone was to rape me or my brother. She WOULD kill that person and be willing to be arrested and charged. I do not believe that deserves the death penalty. If someone breaks into your house for what ever reason and you hit them over the head with a baseball bat and fill them. You do not deserve to die.

The sick minded people that kill people just for the sake of killing them deserve to die. I don't really care about taxpayers money (although I know amny would), I'd rather see a criminal get the punsihment they deserve and use money on that, than see someone be allowed many more luxuries of life (these being free top grade health care, cable tv for free, ok meals) after they have stolen someone elses.

I would like it if Australia had a referendum as to whether the deathe penalty should be reinstated. It would bring some interesting results. If the vote came out in favour of not reinstating then fine by me. Thats what Australians want.

People should not be given lethal injections, unless it is done without the use of Sodium Thiopental, to give the murder more chance to feel the pain.

Quote: The execution of a victim in most states involves three separate injections: 1. Sodium thiopental: to induce a state of unconsciousness intended to last while the other two injections take effect. 2. Pancuronium/Tubocurarine: to stop all muscle movement except the heart. This causes involuntary muscle paralysis, collapse of the diaphragm, and eventually death by asphyxiation. 3. Potassium chloride: to stop the heart from beating, and thus the victim's death: see cardiac arrest.

I think it should just be done by Electric Chair or Firing squad.

QFA380

Personally, I am against the death penalty. I have a question for my friends in the USA. When and why was the death penalty abolished in your country and why was it reintroduced?

Technically it was never abolished in the United States. In 1972 the Supreme Court heard the case Furman V. Georgia and held that certain capital punishment statutes could be held to be unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This effectively placed a de facto moritorium on capital punishment while the individual states reviewed and in some cases, rewrote the statutes to conform with the court's ruling. Most if not all prisoners on death rows at the time of the Furman decision had their sentences commuted to life in prison. The first inmate to be executed post-Furman was Gary Gilmore in Utah. Originally sentenced to death and later commuted to life in prison, he demanded that the state execute him when it resumed use of capital punishment in 1977. He was executed that year by a firing squad if I remember correctly.

Quoting Himmat01 (Reply 19): I have a question for my friends in the USA. When and why was the death penalty abolished in your country and why was it reintroduced?

Quoting Texan (Reply 13): From 1967-1976 there was a moratorium on the death penalty in the US. From 1967-1972, it was just an unofficial moratorium. In 1972, Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 153 (1972) " struck down federal and state capital punishment laws permitting wide discretion in the application of the death penalty (url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=238]link[/url]." The decision did not, however, ban all use of the death penalty, merely the laws permitting wide discretion of the death penalty. The five cases from 1976 above redefined the discretion. So, in many individual states and likely at the federal level, if convicted the defendant would face the possibility of being sentenced to death.

Recently, however, the Supreme Court decided not to allow juveniles to be executed if tried for Federal crimes.

Texan

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 18): So it is so sick if we torture them, but it isn't sick what they do to the people they murder?

The sickness of a murder's mind is no apologize for your sick graving for torture.

First of all, I support the existence of the death penalty in the USA/USA states for terror, mass, Multiple murder acts and murder of police officers.
Can it be 'unfair'? Yes, as one must question the mental/psychological status of one whom would commit an act of 1st Degree (preempted) murder. Also note that with many thousands of '1st Degree' murders every year only a tiny few ever get the death penalty sentence.
I read an news article yesterday (MSNBC.com), which shows the in the last 2-3 years a significant decline in the numbers of people sentenced to and actually getting the death penalty. Virginia, one of the leaders in using the death penalty since 1977, will not (if I recall the article correctly) execute one person this year. Other states have also seen sharp declines in juries willing to apply the death penalty. Many are aware of and fearful of prosecutorial and police errors, prejudice, the quality of legal defense, the costs and hassles of appeals if the death penalty is applied. Also, growing numbers, including true Christians, do have deep issues with the use of the death penalty when they have to make that decision. All states also allow the jury to choose life without any parole in the alternative and many feel a lot more comfortable with it. We also saw the Death Row of the state of Illinois cleared out by communitations to life sentances or in some cases, pardons by the then departing Gov. Ryan due to the issues of wrongful convictions and personal questions as to the use of the death penalty.
Some states with the death penalty on the books like NY State, have had court decisions disputing their death penalty rules so it cannot be asked for. You also have some prosecutors in NYC whom have publicly stated they will not ever ask for the application of the death penalty for personal and political reasons. Some prosecutors believe when one asks for the death penalty they are 'overcharging' the criminal and a jury may 'nullify' or fail to convict because of the fear of a death penalty. This is especially when it comes to when the accused is a young black male.

Quoting Jm-airbus320 (Thread starter): Are these killers worthy to be spared of such a crime?

No, because if you kill the murderer, you're just sinking to his level of brutality. And in the end, that isn't really punishment, as the murderer doesn't suffer. Life imprisonment sounds much better.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 18): Whats the point of having it if its just a detterant? Killing people for the sole sake of bringing the crime rate down is just stupid. THAT is not fair, if we are killing people to bring justice to their victim(s) name,

I agree that there is NO point of having .... etc ...., BUT this argument is used by defenders of the death penalty

Quoting Jm-airbus320 (Thread starter): Is The Death Penalty Unfair For Murderers?

Yes. Thats the entire point.

What about crimes of self defense? War crimes? What about drink driving deaths? What about corporate manslaughter? Deaths in combat? How many people died because of the arguably flawed DC-10 design? Were McDD directors ever executed?

Talking about the death pentalty is never as simple as some on here would like to think it is. Tobacco company directors kill millions, yet aren't executed. Someone who smuggles heroin through Singapore to pay off his brother's rehab debts, is. Until society removes the incredibly hypocrisy it shows with murder, then the death penalty will never be fair.

Is that not a good enough reason? Well how about this one: undoubtebly innocent people have been executed in all countries that use the death penalty. The amazing thing is, those that support the death penalty are usually on the right. They fear large government, yet when the state kills an innocent citizen, they shrug it off with an 'oh well'.

Still not a good enough reason? Consider that the US - who proudly executed its 1000 person since the death penalty was reintroduced - has a higher murder rate and gun crime rate than European countries that don't have the death penalty.

I haven't even mentioned the moral aspects to it...

as they say an eye for an eye

if they admit to it kill em
if there is a huge amount of evidence (excluding alabys ) kill em

my views entirely

Quoting Jamesbuk (Reply 28): if they admit to it kill em if there is a huge amount of evidence (excluding alabys ) kill em

So you'd use the same burden of proof that convicted the Birmingham Six, Guilford Four, Bridgwater Four, M25 Three, Derek Bentley, Judith Ward and Hussein Mattan?

After you learn how to speel, look up at least the Derek Bentley case, and find out what Sir William Blackstone's most famous quote was.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 27): What about crimes of self defense? War crimes? What about drink driving deaths? What about corporate manslaughter? Deaths in combat? How many people died because of the arguably flawed DC-10 design? Were McDD directors ever executed?

Which is why there isnt 'Murder' and 'Innocent' - there are also 'Voluntary Manslaughter', 'Involuntary Manslaughter' and 'Lawful Manslaughter'. All are different to Murder.

Did the McDD directors ever intend to kill someone?

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 30): Did the McDD directors ever intend to kill someone?

That's not the point, families of drunk drive victims want them executed, why not impose the same punishment in Corporate Manslaughter case?

"It is I who have faced them last, young lads and girls, working men and grandmothers.

I have been amazed to see the courage with which they walk into the unknown.

It did not deter them then and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder."

Albert Pierrepoint, Britain's Chief Executioner 1934 - 1954 who became an abolitionist later in life. Even he, who sent hunderds of people into eternity (including the Belsen butchers), became convinced that the death penalty was wrong. It has NO deterrent effect so it can only ever be a revenge killing, and killing for revenge is wrong.

Quoting Jm-airbus320 (Thread starter): Is The Death Penalty Unfair For Murderers?

there are those who will say its unfair and they also say that "people who kill people are people too". Enough said about that. But you spoke about how it directly affected your personal life. Your uncle was killed and so were you, phychologicly. As time goes by your pain will lessen but the thought/memory of what happened will never go away. I ask everyone here is that fair ? We aren't talking about a car accident where someone has died.

Quoting TFSPhoto (Reply 5): They never caught the bastards who stabbed him

From my past experiences believe me even if its 20 years later they will eventually get caught. I think being stabbed that many times suggests he knew who his killer(s) were.

Quoting TFSPhoto (Reply 5): Do murderers actually think before they commit the crime

Well your uncle was stabbed 22 times. If you stab someone just once, depending where of course, there is a good chance of causing death. It more than likely the killer or killers were going to kill him from the very beginning.

What kind of punishment does someone get in the U.K. for murdering someone during a robbery ?

**personal thought**
When a person kills, he/she has served notice on society. And that type of person is not welcome, at all, in my world.

I come from one of those "death penalty" states. Despite this, our state courts have found reasons to block every execution for the last 30 + years.

One egregious case that comes to mind is that of a "barbarian" with a LONG prison record who killed his girlfriend's 2 children by driving ten penny spikes into their heads with a hammer - because they annoyed him.

The Chief Justice pondered the case and set aside the execution "because no evidence had been adduced to prove intent to murder".

(Interestingly, that Chief Justice was a son of the prosecutor in the Lindbergh kidnapping trial: a prosecutor who argued successfully for the electrocution of Bruno Hauptman, the convicted kidnapper.)

Our Chief Justice's request for a stay of execution in his OWN case was overruled, when a "Higher Court" sentenced him to die of cancer.

Quoting RAMPRAT980 (Reply 33): What kind of punishment does someone get in the U.K. for murdering someone during a robbery ?

Slap on the wrist and dont do it again treatment.. What we talking, 25 years our after 15 for good behaviour? Bullshit they couldnt behave when they murdered the person in question..

Lew

Its sad it really is when someone intentionally kills someone knowing they will do 15 years. Here in the states, depending on the state, murder gets a mandatory 25 years to life while other states get you a mandatory life and only a few(sadly) have a death penalty.

Quoting TFSPhoto (Reply 35): Slap on the wrist and dont do it again treatment.. What we talking, 25 years our after 15 for good behaviour? Bullshit they couldnt behave when they murdered the person in question..

At least 15 years in prison is a slap on the wrist?

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 16): Some would consider it to be an eye for an eye.

There's only one problem with quoting the bible to justify state sponsored murder. You can always find a quote to contradict it. I'm not religious in the slightest, but I believe the bible also says "Turn the other cheek."   

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 29): So you'd use the same burden of proof that convicted the Birmingham Six, Guilford Four, Bridgwater Four, M25 Three, Derek Bentley, Judith Ward and Hussein Mattan?

Exactly.   

How many innocent people would have been murdered if we'd still had the death penalty here in the UK? This is my main reason in being totally opposed to the death penalty. The risk of murdering an innocent person is simply too great.

In case some of you are too lazy to research the "Blackstone" quote mentioned in reply #29 it was - "It is better than 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is punished."

Quoting RAMPRAT980 (Reply 33): When a person kills, he/she has served notice on society. And that type of person is not welcome, at all, in my world.

How about the case of a ritually abused wife and mother who, after suffering for years at the hands of a sadistic brute, finally snaps (probably during her period) and kills him? Murder isn't all black and white. The vast majority of murders are not pre-meditated.

Quoting Jumpseatflyer (Reply 17): It costs more money to execute than it does to imprison someone for their natural life, and the death penalty doesn't stop people from committing crimes.

Does that include all the money wasted on endless appeals and requests for expanded cable TV, fitness facilities, special personal care products, etc?

Yes, I am a liberal, but I support the death penalty. Look at it this way: If someone has no conscience and just takes a life, they are not worth throwing thousands of dollars a year at. Sure, give them appeals, because there are times when the accused is innocent, but why should my tax dollars support and give a comfy life to a person that has no value for someone else's life? Do you honestly think they sit in their cell day after day crying their eyes out because they took someone's life? Because someone's pride and joy is gone from this Earth for no good reason?

Explain something else to me:

Why do conservatives (the so-called "Culture of Life") oppose abortion but support the death penalty? They are both taking life, according to their credo, right?

GO CANUCKS!!

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 37): At least 15 years in prison is a slap on the wrist?

For purposely killing an innocent person?

Yes.




-NWA742