Which is worse, the death penalty or life without parole?

I know some of you agree with the death penalty for the most heinous crimes. Many would agree with that.

I don't really get into those arguments but I find it morally wrong.

Anyway I was directed to this through a twitter feed and found it an interesting and heartwrenching read.

http://www.theotherdeathpenalty.org/foundingdocument.htm

that is an amazing article

I don't find it heart wrenching, I find his punishment deserving.

Had the death at his hands been premeditated then death penalty.

You would never get this much in Finland. There are differences in kills, say murder and manslaughter. It sounds terrible to say that one kill is worse than another but it is. I don't think one night of drunken mayhem should lead to life sentence. If nothing else, one can ponder this from an economical side. It takes a lot of money to keep him there doing nothing.

Which is why I advocate the death penalty, why should we pay to house and feed someone who intentionally kills? There is enough people in this world as it is with no checks on breeding unless you live in China! It's not a moral issue, we have the means of life and death at our disposal and given free reign to use both...responsibly.

As for this bloke, he's alive to philosophize his misery behind bars but the person he killed does not have that luxary. Would have to know more facts around his case to know whether a life sentence was appropriate but he still elicits no sympathy from me.

I am always on the fence on this issue. On the one hand, I think an eye for an eye. you killed someone, you should receive the death penalty. But, on the other hand, occasionally the system fucks up and puts an innocent man behind bars for a murder he didnt commit. How many times have we heard stories of men who are executed ad then later it is discovered that they were actually innocent of the crime? That is what troubles me about the death penalty, those cases. At least with a life sentence, if you are later found to be innocent, you can be sent free. Yes many of your years of life were stolen from you, but that is better than having to die for something you didnt do

I just read the article. Damn, at 19 he kills someone in a drunken fight and has to spend the rest of his life behind bars? I agree that is ridiculous. It was manslaughter, it wasnt remediated. I think this guy should at least have a chance for parole.

I dont get it, manslaughter cases dont usually get life sentences anyway. Why did this guy?

precisely, need more facts for his case in particular

Might be a three-striker? Did he have any prior convictions?

I'm against the death penalty. Not for an emotive reason, though.For example, If some serial killer would go after my loved-ones, i would have no problem with it at all.
Which is why legislation needs to be based on reason rather than emotion. I'm glad I don't make the rules. I do sympathize and understand people who say they are in favour.
However,I'm with Michele.There is no way i would be in favour of the death penalty knowing that the chance of sending an innocent person to their death is very real. Cold cases get reopend all the time.And people are being pulled from death-row because they turn out to be innocent. an eye for an eye leaves only blind people.

Oh its quite simple, death penalty not on circumstantial evidence but on cold hard DNA got that shit on video proof. Our forensic sciences are much too advanced and good to convict an innocent person to the death penalty. So really, there is no reason other than emotive ones to resist the death penalty.

I think alot of people would change thier mind about death penalty if someone they loved was slaughtered. Especially child killers and serial killers. Kill them mo fo's!

Quote :

Oh its quite simple, death penalty not on circumstantial evidence but on cold hard DNA got that shit on video proof. Our forensic sciences are much too advanced and good to convict an innocent person to the death penalty. So really, there is no reason other than emotive ones to resist the death penalty

or dead bodies in thier basement or buried in the yard. DEATH TO THEM!

But it is not. Because people are lazy and most can't afford a lawyer that would have their backs.

Which is why under my rule there is no death penalty without incontroversial proof, and when the proof is incontroverial then kiss your sorry arse goodbye on the spot...Public Executions!

yeah I get it....for some reason; I still have issues with it. I'm glad I don't have to decide on these issues.

And NO public executions in Rodney-land! i will not have my people crowd around an execution like it's entertainment! I shall hold a referendum amongst my people and let them decide on if rodney-land should have the deathpenalty or, not. :)

When I watch public executions on the Tudors it's just revolting. We are better than this!!

If someone I knew was killed by someone I'd want the person properly punished. Not killed. Killing them doesn't get my loved one back. Feeling good because someone elses family suffered a loss ain't how I roll. As the guy in the article says killing is more humane than this long lingering death he is living every day. There are sick and old people in prisons who are physically not capable of reoffending, even if they were their circumstances have changed so much they are highly unlikely to reoffend.

Also a high proportion of people in British prisons have mental health issues. I once watched a documentary about this guy on death row in America who clearly had mental health issues and they still refused his appeal and killed him. Who looks out for his parents and family?

Also DNA and scientific evidence can also be wrong.

Evidence of my last claim

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/genewatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=57&archive=yes


Solicitors that I used to work with went on a course about this. There was an example of someone being placed at a burglary scene through a fingerprint on a door, the actual print was lifted from several layers below the paint as it had been repainted, prooving yes he had been there but several years earlier. Many would have been convicted on that evidence.

Death!

I bet if it was your own child killed, people wouldnt be so lenient.

My point exactly: should the deathpenalty-law be imposed on the basis of: "what if it was your child?" The answer would be simple: Kill 'em. But for me; that is an emotive reason. And I don't believe laws should be based on emotion.

My death penalty stance isn't emotive, its logical and philosophical...kill them who kill with intent! Thus decreed The Darck Lord!

Denovissimus wrote:

Oh its quite simple, death penalty not on circumstantial evidence but on cold hard DNA got that shit on video proof. Our forensic sciences are much too advanced and good to convict an innocent person to the death penalty. So really, there is no reason other than emotive ones to resist the death penalty.

you would think so but there isnt always DNA evidence to go by so it still happens sometimes

sassycatj wrote:

I bet if it was your own child killed, people wouldnt be so lenient.

I would be fine with life in prision without parole if it was pre meditated murder. If it was manslaughter or an accident, then no even if my child was the one who died as a result, I still dont think that person deserves to spend their life behind bars