Team: Revolution Uprising
Letís face facts: There are some actions someone can do that is absolutely
, without doubt or question to the contrary, unforgivable
. Torture, Rape, mass murder, Genocide, you get the idea; there are crimes that make the committers look like scumbags and the filth on a 3-toed hobo's foot.
Letís say a man kidnaps, rapes and kills 9, well, 9-year old kids before getting caught by the police, and had to be forcibly dragged off. In the courtroom, this man is blatantly guilty, and acts like he's god almighty, basically insulting the entirety of the world over with his actions and not even caring about his innocence. Ultimately, this guy is a Psycho, and has to be removed from society-permanently, and the jury rules thus.
There are two options for this man: A life sentence, which would mean a horrendously long and crappy life in a Jail Cell that costs money to support and ultimately have him die in jail anyway, which, even for this guy, is absolutely inhumane, or just kill him, nice and cleanly, with a lethal injection and end this whack-jobís life for good?
D**mit, you end his life for good, that's what you do!
First off, even for criminals that should
be horrendously tortured for their crimes, sending them off to the jail cells is still wrong. It's a degraded, humiliating form of life-and even if, somehow, the hypothetical psycho turns humane and truly remorseful for the crimes stated above, there is no way in hell that he could get out of it, and if he doesn't, he can do worse. I admit-having the guy repent ultimately is a reason why people do dislike the death sentence, but honestly, having him realize he's being tortured and having few-if any-ways to truly forgive himself, is just kind of sad. Especially when there was the alternative of killing him early on and not having him live through that. It's not like we torture them in there, but usually jail is a torture in and of itself, one we must make uncomfortable.
It's also NOT like we give the death sentence to everyone that enters the court-as always, it is an impartial jury that decides the case in it's entirety. It is a group of people, sane and level headed, coming from different backgrounds and having different mindsets but ultimately impartial, that will ultimately determine whether or not the person on-trial for the death sentence is...Well, someone that needs to die. We do not kill everyone willy-nilly left-and-right. The US has, in 2011, killed 43 people by execution. That's it. Really, we do not exercise this right as much as other countries. Moreover, only two countries in 2011 had issued and carried out over 100 executions-Iran and China being the two. Everyone else had under 100. Seriously. We reserve this punishment for the REAL scumbags.
'Scumbags,' in this case, is defined by someone who really just does not care for ANYONE other than himself and/or is just a madman that just likes doing crime and being punished. These people ruin lives, running about stealing, torturing, killing, raping, kidnapping, and doing all other sorts of horrendous things that would justify authority immediately putting a bullet in his head on-sight. These are the cases where the criminal has done so much, death should be a candidate for the criminal's fate based upon the very foundation of the filth of his works. There are also people that many already agree need MORE than death to ever say it's justice: Adolf Hitler, in example. Should he have been brought into court and been tried by the law, a man who allowed 10,000,000 people (approximately) to die, a massive fraction thereof being the Jewish people he so tortured at the Holocaust (not to mention the survivors, that were still utterly tortured), it would seem utterly absurd that he did not get the death sentence.
As another note: Many, many, many people fear death. There is a good reason why Humanity strives for Immortality: We are naturally afraid of dying. Would major criminals really crop up should criminals fear death? Physical harm is naturally unwanted and the threat thereof can prevent many a bad scenario. What of the ultimate physical harm, the end of life, death itself? Surely, however unlikely it is to be used, that will remove some crimes from the equation altogether? If it does (and it does, indeed, do this), then it would be a great justification: Crime, ultimately, is such that if an action would make more of it, however little, that is a reason to not
Finally, I must point out the facts and fallacies of those posting before me-but of course.
Originally Posted by LS the Door Mat
Let me lay a scenario down for you(completely fictional one)
A man is caught after killing 9 people, injuring many others and laying chaos everywhere. This man, should just be sentanced to death instead of making him pay for what he has done? I think death is too simple of a solution, because let's think. What happens after you die? Nothing, or we don't know.
Why let him take the easy way out and just kill him when you can have him suffer and pay for the lives he has affected in a jail cell somewhere?
Because suffering isn't the first option. Torture, in any case scenario, is an action that should not be forgiven, no matter who does it. It may not intend to be torture, but it tortures the mind mentally. That asides, who says it's the easy way out for them to be in a jail cell? Like you said, it's either nothing or something we do not know about-that is not to say that, in theory, the place where the man would go to would be a place where he is tortured for his crimes. Would this not be a worse place than any human contraption? Also, would nonexistence, not being at all, be a worse punishment than any human contraption? There really is no answer to that question. If theology exists, most of them would say that crimes of such a nature would make the doer go through a punishment of some
Originally Posted by LS the Door Mat
You do know that they have to stay in prison for life where they have no freedom or control of there lives...
First and foremost, we do not stick prisoners in jails and prisons to TORTURE them, we do so to rehabilitate them. Those stuck in life sentence are there for almost no reason whatsoever-even if they do rehabilitate, they will not be able to demonstrate this. It's really just a shame. The alternative-death-could be considered preferable. We also comfort people as they are dying: We sterilize the wounds, ease up the criminal about to be killed, and ultimately inject them, in the case of fatal injection, for instance.
Originally Posted by LS the Door Mat
and there's many organizations that are helping homeless people and those in need so dont worry about that.
It's not always a homeless person doing the crimes, people of middle or upper class standing could be doing the murders as much as the poor man does: Murders are done over grudges, over petty arguments, over other crimes they may have done...Really. We do everything in our power to prevent crimes while still being a humane society, but ultimately we cannot stop every crime. Some do deserve the punishment of execution. Murder isn't the only crime that can be punishable by death, too.
In conclusion...Really. Being sentenced for life in prison is rarely the answer. Sometimes, just executing the criminal at hand is a better option, provided the reasoning behind the execution is just and fair. There is nothing cruel and unusual about it-life ends eventually. It is wrong to, without reasoning behind it, end life early, but that is what we have a system of law for. Men that end life earlier than it should, in turn, should have their own life ended earlier than it should. Some criminals deserve to die, simply.
This confirms the noted statistic that only Iran and China have killed more than 100 people in 2011.
This was continuously used througout this post.