I remember reading a fiction story about a man making a bet with this other man about being confined for almost all his life. it resulted in the confined man, escaping and leaving a note stating how being confined that long was even worse then death.

So that made me think, which one do you believe is a much harsher sentence, life sentence without possibility of parole, or the death penalty?

Also, do you think we have the right to condemn a person to death or take their life and in a way play the role of "god"?

Life sentence without a chance of paroll.

The death sentence, to me, is the easy way out. Make them suffer like their victims

1 of 8 people given the death penalty are innocent. That's not rare. 138 people have been taken off of death row since 1973 due to proof of innocence. How is that for harsh?

A life sentence is better because if a person is innocent, they can be taken off. Surely, they did serve undeserved time, but at least they're alive.

Originally Posted by Double S

A life sentence is better because if a person is innocent, they can be taken off. Surely, they did serve undeserved time, but at least they're alive.

I agree.

But what about if they're guilty?

For me, the death penalty is a less harsher sentence then life sentence without possibility of parole. I mean think of it, it must be torture to be forced to be confined, with no interaction with the outside, for all your life. At least the death penalty gives you a release from all that. It saves you from having to sit with your conscience all your life, and be tortured by inner demons. That's why the life sentence seems harsher to me.

Originally Posted by Double S

1 of 8 people given the death penalty are innocent. That's not rare. 138 people have been taken off of death row since 1973 due to proof of innocence. How is that for harsh?

A life sentence is better because if a person is innocent, they can be taken off. Surely, they did serve undeserved time, but at least they're alive.

There are 3,297 people on death row (as of January 1, 2009).

1 in 8 people being innocent would suggest that about 412 people on death row are innocent, and yet you cite only 138 people have been taken off of death row since 1973. That's 274 people who are unaccounted for by that math, assuming that all of those people have been on death row since 1973 (I am skeptical that this is the case).

1,099 people have been executed since 1976. 4,958 since 1930. (both statistics from here). So if you take 1/8 of those actually executed, you get 137 and 619.

I'm assuming you get the 1 in 8 from how many inmates are "found innocent" versus how many have been executed (my 137 number). So, your statement holds no ground because you are essentially comparing apples and oranges.

Find (and CITE!) some data that shows how many people were found innocent after execution (since 1976 or 1930) and compare that to the two figures above. That would be a valid comparison. Or, find out how many people were found innocent while still on death row and compare that to the near 3,300 waiting right now. That would be a valid comparison. But, to throw out numbers and fractions and not back them up with data or methods is meaningless. The only way I could get comparable data (assuming that your original statement was even correct) was to compare statistics that aren't necessarily related (people who presumably go free compared to people who are executed).

I'm not arguing one side or the other right now, I'm just trying to get all of the facts out into the open before this blows up into an emotional firefight. I want there to be a clear definition of where the proportions and numbers come from.

Edit: Argh, I'm having trouble wording this the way I want to. I'm going to try again.

Does "1 in 8 people given the death penalty" mean "1 in 8 people executed" (1099 since 1976) or "1 in 8 people placed on death row" (roughly 1100+3300 = 4400 since 1976 -or- 5000+3300 = 8300 since 1930)? I think the meanings are fundamentally different when making comparisons.

However, when you look at it either way, the figures don't hold water.

If it means "1 in 8 people executed," you will get 137 people (definitely reasonably close to your figure, 138). However, then the second part of your statement (they are released from death row) becomes invalid. You can't be released from death row if you're dead.

If it means "1 in 8 people placed on death row," you get 550 or 1037, which isn't anywhere near 138. So, if you assume that the 138 figure was instead correct, you get 1 in 32 (about 3%) or 1 in 63 (about 1.5%). 1 in 8 is 12.5%, so that figure would also be incorrect.

From a completely statistical standpoint, a margin of error of 3% or 1.5% is perfectly acceptable, as the level of significance (the alpha value) for most statistics is 95% (or 5% error). Since 3% and 1.5% are below 5%, it is statistically acceptable.

Let me be clear that I am not arguing that this is how I feel about this topic. Statistics alone cannot address this issue; I am just responding to the data you provided.

I'm not for either of them but keep in mind how much it costs to keep a person on Death Row till they die of natural causes. It is expensive and yes the drugs they use to execute people via lethal injection aren't cheap it is easier for those that deserve to die for their crimes to be taken care of that way.

well, i'm a pro-capital punishment person. that's my view, but i respect the view of people who think that's too harsh a punishment. personally, i'm not sure which is more harsh. i don't think of it that way. i think of it as, which is more just. i realize a lot of people would disapprove of my view, but that's how i feel.

From a personal standpoint, I say death penalty. This is if the person is guilty without a doubt which is always hard to prove. Think about if someone killed a member of your family. Your mom, your CHILD, your husband and it was pre-meditated on top of that. Yes, I believe most folks would change their opinions on the death penalty.

As far as playing "God" goes, I'm not a God believer so this argument changes my opinion none whatsoever. Do I believe we have the right to take a human life because that human took another one? No, actually I don't. But do I believe it's in the best interest of everyone else? Yes, indeedy. I think sometimes by doing the wrong thing, you're doing what's right. Does that make sense?

Not to mention, I don't believe that someone who intentionally kills someone else should be sitting in prison with three hots and cot while we all pay for him to be there. Absolutely not. You're gonna kill my family and then I'm going to pay for you to be fed and sleep? Doubtful.

Even criminals have rights. Is it ethical to take away a person's most basic rights, even if they did something bad?

I don't think so. We should have more respect for people in general, and to say you are okay with taking away their livelihood does not denote any sort of respect. Should we respect a criminal? Perhaps not their moral code, their character, but we should certainly respect their personhood.

I believe in a Life Sentence because I think they should have to try and make up for whatever they did. Death just leaves the rest of the country to deal with whatever problems he/she created. I think that people who receive a Life sentence should just have to work to try and add something to the country.

However, I do agree that prisoners should be treated with respect and I think maybe there should be better ways to maybe let people out early even from a life sentence for good behavior. One bad decision when a person is in their 20s should not still affect them in their 60s or 70s (if prisoners live that long). They probably won't do it again at that age and they really aren't that much of a threat then anyway.

I believe in life sentences because I don't think you have the right to take away a person's basic human rights ever, no matter what they did. Criminals are still PEOPLE, are they not?

And it's been proven that it's actually more expensive to execute a criminal than it is to keep them in prison for life, probably because we keep them in prison for thirty damn years before finally offing them anyway. D: May as well have just given them a life sentence.

Originally Posted by Tsukipon

Life sentence withour a change of paroll.

The death sentence, to me, is the easy way out. Make them suffer like their victims

Originally Posted by Double S

1 of 8 people given the death penalty are innocent. That's not rare. 138 people have been taken off of death row since 1973 due to proof of innocence. How is that for harsh?

A life sentence is better because if a person is innocent, they can be taken off. Surely, they did serve undeserved time, but at least they're alive.

I'm amused by how the first two posts contradict, yet the first concedes to agree with the second statement.

Inevitably you're saying that it's better to let someone innocent suffer in prison even though it'd be easier on them if they died.

To be honest, I'm not sure I'd prefer to be killed for a crime I didn't do or suffer in prison for the rest of my life, but consider this:

Which would you prefer to be? A prisoner or a slave?

A prisoner's rights are more or less stripped from them, they are confined to schedules and rules against their will and made to suffer among a criminal hierarchy and possibly subject to the worst humiliations, pain and standard of life that country is able to degrade to.

Slavery removes similar rights except that you aren't completely secluded from society nor exposed to criminal degenerates capable of murder.

So which is worse?

Whilst I am personally somewhat neutral on this subject, I wish to bring into question what moral standard there is for prison over slavery. Assuming here that prisoners were to be enslaved instead of confined.

Originally Posted by Kris

Even criminals have rights. Is it ethical to take away a person's most basic rights, even if they did something bad?

I don't think so. We should have more respect for people in general, and to say you are okay with taking away their livelihood does not denote any sort of respect. Should we respect a criminal? Perhaps not their moral code, their character, but we should certainly respect their personhood.

Other than to live (often involuntarily), what rights does a convicted criminal actually have?

Originally Posted by Inertia

I'm amused by how the first two posts contradict, yet the first concedes to agree with the second statement.

Inevitably you're saying that it's better to let someone innocent suffer in prison even though it'd be easier on them if they died.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you are tying my post together with Double S. Please don't do so. My post is very simple-two lines. I don't really care about someone being innocent or whatnot and bla bla bla and I do support the death penalty in some cases. But in general, I think a life sentence is better without the chance of paroll. They should suffer.

I suppose it gives them time to prove innocence but people of death row have that right to, through appeals. I don't think that innocent person in jail would mind suffering a few years behind bars and becoming free, rather than dying without time to prove innocence. Most people prefer life which is why some endure torture or abuse. They have hope. The hope that they will soon be free of that struggle.

@Keyori (only because your post is too long for me to want to quote xD)

I am just stating what I found on deathpenaltyinfo.org
Just because one of eight are innocent, doesn't mean that everyone may be taken off of death row. There are people who have been found innocent after being executed.

Well you said "taken off of death row" so that's why I asked for clarification.

In my opinion the death sentence should be given to rapist, murders, pedophiles, and human traffickers. People who willingly take advantage of someone not as 'strong' as they are. I find it a waste of the tax payers money, thats right.. your money, to cater to these people in the prison system.

I don't agree with the choice of the death penalty even for those mentioned above. Who are we as society to decide to take someone's life away???!!!
The sniper from DC shooting was executed on Tuesday. This man looks evil and scares the living daylights out of me when I look at his picture.

Don't you think the worse punishment is to live the rest of your life knowing you'll be hold up in a prison cell? I think a life sentence is a worse punishment than death. At least in death, you don't feel anything anymore, you don't suffer anymore.

It just gets me really upset that we can decide to take someone's life away. I know he did some awful ... and now that I'm thinking about it... I'm putting myself in the situation...

Would I feel the same way if one of the victims was my mom? Damn, I don't even want to think about it, but to be honest I don't know if my opinion would be the same thing. My mom and my family are the most important and sacred people I have in my life.

This is really complex... I would just like to believe that I still wouldn't want him dead...better he suffer in jail for the rest of his life. I just feel strongly about the fact that you and I are no one to say you deserve not to live anymore. This reminds me of this thread I read the other day "Do two wrongs make a right?" Society and our parents have taught us that no, two wrongs DON'T make a right... but when you hear about things like this wtf are you supposed to think then? An eye for an eye? or in this case a life for a life?

It just makes me so upset and angry and upset to my stomach. No one is god or an omniscient being to decide these kinds of things, I know many here don't believe in god, that we're all humans and that's all there is to it, but people act like it to have the power to decide if someone gets to breathe tomorrow or not.

Originally Posted by Double S

1 of 8 people given the death penalty are innocent.

If there was proof that they where innocent, they wouldn't be on death row.

---

Me, personally believe in the death penalty. Although certain cases I would rather the person suffer through life in jail. Like Manson, they should of just gave him the death penalty. Why? Because he gathers thousands of 'fans' YES FANS a year. He will never get out of jail, but just this publicity is horrendous.
Cases where parents kill their children on purpose..they should have to live their lives out facing what they have done. Even animals don't kill their own young.

Originally Posted by Bartuc

In my opinion the death sentence should be given to rapist, murders, pedophiles, and human traffickers. People who willingly take advantage of someone not as 'strong' as they are. I find it a waste of the tax payers money, thats right.. your money, to cater to these people in the prison system.

So by that logic should politicians be given the death penalty? Haha! I joke, I joke...

On to serious business:

I think the entire justice system is completely screwed up. I agree that we should respect another's 'humanity,' but that doesn't mean we have to spend a lot of money on them. Most prisons are large buildings or compounds that use a LOT of electricity, water, and fuel to keep in operation. In my state they even get CABLE in prison...0.o?

I think we should follow the example of one sheriff (I don't remember where, but I saw it on the news) who pitched a few hundred tents in the desert, encircled it with barbed wire and towers, and had the inmates do hard-physical labor all day. This usually consisted of moving rocks, digging holes, and then filling the holes and moving the rocks back again. Pointless labor, but it's hard to find enjoyable. No cable, not much wasted electricity, hard to escape from, and there was little manpower used to run the facility.

As for which is worse, life in prison or death. Probably death. I can think of worse things than death, but being alive with cable, hot showers, and two full meals a day isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by Shtona

I think we should follow the example of one sheriff (I don't remember where, but I saw it on the news) who pitched a few hundred tents in the desert, encircled it with barbed wire and towers, and had the inmates do hard-physical labor all day. This usually consisted of moving rocks, digging holes, and then filling the holes and moving the rocks back again. Pointless labor, but it's hard to find enjoyable. No cable, not much wasted electricity, hard to escape from, and there was little manpower used to run the facility.

I think you're confusing "news" with the movie Holes, based on a novel by the same name, which was a work of fiction.

I'm probaly a little bit of a sadist...if they tortured their victims, let the bastards suffer

Originally Posted by Keyori

I think you're confusing "news" with the movie Holes, based on a novel by the same name, which was a work of fiction.

Seen the movie, read the book, it consisted of only holes, as the title suggests, not moving rocks. I can try to find a source, but it was years ago when it cropped up in the news...

If I can't though, I still see that as the ideal way to treat inmates...

If someone has done something evil enough to land them a lifetime sentence, i dont feel their lives are worth the tax dollars used to house/clothe/feed/entertain them. Depending on the conviction i would pull the trigger myself, and sleep like a baby. Its not me trying to play god or seek a vendetta, some people..just dont deserve to live. But thats my personal opinion, so ehh :P

Dealth Penalty for child abusers and murderers. They'll be in prison for at least 15 years anyway.

If someone is clinic proven to never be able to be rehabilitated, what's the point in keeping them alive?

I know it seems barbaric, but if someone is truly "evil", what is the point in keeping them breathing?