Should the Death Penalty be Implemented World-Wide?
A question was asked today on musing and the more I thought about the more I decided to make my answer into a post and see what others think.
(Original question: https://musing.io/q/deigoam/p3mf45u75)
Musing is a great place to post answers to questions but it really doesn't generate much back and forth or commenting.
So please feel free to read the original question and answers posted in the link above. I've copied my response below for ease. Please comment as well on your thoughts. This is an interesting topic of discussion, not only as to what you think, but why. I'm sure many people will take the time to post studies and facts on both sides which is a good thing as well.
Please keep all conversation civil. This is meant to hear differing opinions on a hot button topic, not to start a riot,
======
There are already overcrowding populations in prisons, why continue to increase that. Why continue to use scarce and valuable resources for those who show no consideration for their fellow man. Reduce the world population, help stem over population and protect society from those who have no regard for it, the repeat violent offenders who show no remorse.
Again, while studies show that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent to COMMITING a crime, mathematics shows that is DOES stop REPEAT criminals.
I've always had a joke I say when asked about the death penalty and if it will reduce crime rates.
It will definitely stop repeat offenders.
There are plenty of studies that show that the death penalty will not act as a deterrent to criminal activity. If someone is going to commit a crime they are generally not thinking about getting caught so nothing really acts a deterrent, jail or otherwise.
Now as for reducing crime rates. I don't see how it cannot. The studies show that it is not a deterrent, but that is not the same as not reducing the crime rates.
If there are 100 people, and 15 of them commit crimes, you have a 15% rate of criminal activity. If 3 of them are put to death, the rate of future crimes drops to just above 12% (3 out of 97). That's a reduction. It's not like upon the death of a criminal another ordinary citizen immediately is transformed into a criminal now is it?
The main factor against death penalty is usually either cruelty or innocence.
It's cruel to execute another human being. Nope sorry I don't agree. If someone has gone and killed dozens of others out of malice or cruelty themselves I say give them a taste of their own medicine. Locking them up, giving them 3 squares a day, television, free education? Not exactly a punishment. They are treated better than homeless people.
Now the innocence side of the coin is a concern. We are not yet at a stage where we can be 100% certain of someones guilt despite how much evidence there is. People lie, DNA tests are still not infallible and prone to human error, etc. Unless the person confesses 5 or 6 times in front of a judge testifying they are not under duress, it can get a little iffy.
Locking people up has never proved beneficial in a long term sense. In some cases yes, people are scared straight and once released never commit another crime. These are usually the lower level infractions however. Studies have also shown that a lot of people put in prison actually come out worse than when they went in. After all if you spend your days and nights around truly evil people then some of it will rub off on you, even just as a survival mechanism.
Now the truly evil ones, the ones that most people would agree are truly irredeemable, the repeat offenders of serious crimes, why on earth should we waste resources, time and money, people, etc on them? They were given their chance, their second and third chances, and have failed each time. They have proven themselves incapable or unwilling to follow the law society has laid down before them.
There are always people citing how the death penalty doesn't punish them enough, how they got off too easy and all that. I say I don't care about the criminal, I am thinking instead of the people who might be saved pain and horror and lives by removing the monster from our midst.
Do the victims or their families get peace? That's up to them to say. I believe in most cases the knowledge that what was done to them will never be done to anyone else does provide a small measure of peace. As to their situation, flip it around. Does keeping the monster alive allow them peace? Attending hearing after hearing, to try to keep him in prison, being forced to relive the event over and over again. Knowing there is always a chance that the person might escape or be let go for "good behaviour". Sure sounds like we are punishing the victims to me and NOT the criminal who again has gotten 3 squares a day, free TV, free education, free internet, free housing, etc.
Now here's where my vindictiveness shows. I'm also not concerned with the criminals feelings or last moments. If the lethal injection causes them pain, I'm fine with it. Let them feel a little of what they inflicted upon others. Need a second zap of the electrical chair? Send me the bill, I'll pay the electrical cost. The world is becoming too touchy-feely and the criminals, the ones who simply don't care, know this and are no longer afraid of what might happen to them because they know there are 20 support groups out there who will fight to keep them alive despite what horrific acts they have done. THAT is the reason crime rates are rising, there is no real punishment. First you have to get caught, then tried, be convicted, sit on death row, while other people fight for you, last minute appeals, and possible pardons because someone in the government wants to appear lenient and get re-elected. Not really a deterrent at all to the true criminals.
There are already overcrowding populations in prisons, why continue to increase that. Why continue to use scarce and valuable resources for those who show no consideration for their fellow man. Reduce the world population, help stem over population and protect society from those who have no regard for it, the repeat violent offenders who show no remorse.
Again, while studies show that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent to COMMITTING a crime, mathematics shows that is DOES stop REPEAT criminals.
Hey, @ancientknowled3.
I guess I can't really quibble with what you've said here about the death penalty. I'd have to look at what's causing overcrowding and whether the death penalty would really have much effect on that, given that the death penalty is generally used in the case of murders/really violent crimes, but I do understand the repeat offenders part and agree, that in most cases, once you've committed a crime of that nature, it's easier to do it again.
I would say that if the crime committed reaches any reasonable standard for punishment by the death penalty, then yes, it should be available.
The question in the title asks if the death penalty should be implemented worldwide.
I'm not sure if that's a question any one of us can properly answer. I'd say it's up to each individual jurisdiction to determine what they're doing to with their really violent criminals. At the same time, if they decide against capital punishment, those effected by it have the right to hold that jurisdiction accountable for allowing someone go who is still a danger to society.
In the case of lifelong sentences, in my mind, the jurisdiction should find other means than tax dollars to house these people, unless a majority of the residents of that jurisdiction are in agreement with a prison sentence that could amount to a lifetime.
I'm not sure that one size fits all works in all cases, thus my answer. However, I believe there are times where the death penalty is the proper penalty, and I'd rather see justice carried out within a more reasonable length of time and not dragged out by procedural maneuvering, stays of execution, or endless, unwarranted petitioning.
I believe it's necessary to implement the death penalty especially to those who commit heinous crimes like murder, rape, etc.
Agreed
If they are confess, are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt (we are after all only human, not divine) and have committed a serious enough crime (taking of a life or lives, multiple serial offences such as rape, etc) I say do the world a favour and free up space. Hopefully the next person to take up that space in the world is a better person.
Totally agree and I commented earlier that a 3 year old girl was shot in a hijacking last week.For me that is to good a punishment to sit in jail. I wish I had enough money to reopen some of the notorious Siberian camps and export all the buggers into one place and work them to death.
Even going back to biblical terms you can find the phrase "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" etc in many versions of the testaments including Exodus 21:24
These phrases are perhaps the first accounts of Lex Talionis, the law of like for like.
Or perhaps the basic do unto others as you would have them do unto you as distilled from Jesus' words in Sermon on the Mount.
The Golden Rule as found in many religions or texts.
In the Qur'an states: And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution.
There definitely does seem to be precedent and even commands that transcend the laws of men (for those who are believers in that regard).
And we consider ourselves enlightened to allow these monsters to continue to exist in our world?
Where is Kryptonian technology like the Phantom Zone when you need it? Even that would probably be considered cruel and unusual punishment in today's society.
Nope better to let them roam free and slap them on the wrists each time they take a life or ruin a life. Because we can't be mean to anybody now can we? After all we might offend them or hurt their feelings.
Maybe I'll sometime write a post on this because there are no easy answers. But...
Really? I truly have the opposite impression; we are in fact becoming more and more individualized. We learn every day that it's me against the rest of the world and I have to take care of my own, take care of "number one", so to speak. I sense none of what you say, and it also shows in your post here, you even admit to being "vindictive".
I'm not going to speak out for or against the death penalty per se. What I am saying is that the criminal justice system and the prison industry of the U.S. make that the last country on earth to go for advice on this matter. Your prison population has quadrupled since 1980, I personally know of at least 3 or 4 persons who have been put to death while being completely innocent, the U.S is one of approximately 30 countries in the world where the death penalty is still actively applied and is flanked by such heros of human rights like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Vietnam and Libya, with whom they share the top-10. I could go on forever with faults in that system.
The question here is: who do you trust with the ultimate decision? I don't know, but certainly not the American justice system. Get that sorted out first, then we'll talk about expanding on the ultimate punishment.
I do find it interesting that your first thought, incorrectly mind you, is that I am American.
When I speak of touchy-feely I am talking about all of the initiatives currently going to appease or protect one segment, regardless of the impact to other segments. Such as what is occurring in the UK right now at one their universities (my post from yesterday on it: https://steemit.com/blog/@ancientknowled3/are-we-going-to-far)
And I agree with your statements about the US prison system (other than it being mine). The current prison system is not working. It is overpopulated, turns out more repeat offenders than re-habilitated and is nothing more than a profit system for the corporations owning and running these facilities.
haha dude, this is hilarious. Thank you. awesome post.