Death penalty
History of death penalty
The death penalty has been used by nearly all
societies. In the past punishments were based on common law and culture rules.
In the case of homicide or murder the punishment was meted out by the family of
the victim.
For the first time the death penalty was legally
abolished in Tuscany in 1786. In 1977, Amnesty International started a campaign
against such practices. However, until the end of the twentieth century, the
death penalty was used in some democratic countries.
Currently, the death penalty is mainly used by
undemocratic regimes and also by the US, Japan, China, South Korea, Singapore,
Taiwan, Malaysia and India.
source: http://www.uio.no/english/about/collaboration/universities-against-death-penalty/deathpenalty-justert.jpg
In
civilized societies the death penalty is incompatible with human rights. The
most important human right is the right to life. No one should be killed by
another human being. That is the law.
But
should that law apply to everyone equally? If a murderer doesn’t respect the
rights of others, should we respect his rights?
Religion
The Catholic Church in past centuries wasn't opposed to the death penalty. Even from the Middle Ages they recommended this form of punishment in the cases of heresy, the use of witchcraft and homosexuality. Over time, the teaching of the church on this issue has changed. Currently, this penalty is treated as a unique, possible to be used only as a last resort.
The Catholic Church in past centuries wasn't opposed to the death penalty. Even from the Middle Ages they recommended this form of punishment in the cases of heresy, the use of witchcraft and homosexuality. Over time, the teaching of the church on this issue has changed. Currently, this penalty is treated as a unique, possible to be used only as a last resort.
Also
Muslims in the past used the death penalty for crimes and heresy. As before, according to the majority of Koranic
schools the death penalty is justified in the case of apostasy of faith and
murder.
Buddhism
and Hinduism generally prohibit the killing. However,
that prohibition so far hasn't been particularly respected.
Some
interesting facts (Source: http://www.factslides.com/s-Death-Penalty)
1)
At least 1 in 25 people sentenced to death in the US
is innocent.
2)
Drug possession and trafficking are punished
in Singapore with the death penalty.
3)
Crucifixion is still an official form of death
penalty in Sudan.
4)
China executes the death penalty more
than 4 times as the rest of the world combined.
5)
The state of Washington may still execute prisoners by
hanging.
6)
Nike's slogan "Just do it" was inspired by
the last words of a man about to be executed.
7)
Atheism is punished with the death
penalty in 13 countries.
8)
In 1863, Venezuela became the first modern
country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes.
The topic is serious, but I encourage you to watch a
funny program - "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" about the death
penalty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kye2oX-b39E .
Questions:
1)
What is your generally opinion on the use of the death
penalty in some cases?
2)
Should murderers
have the right to life?
3)
Do you think that the limitation of liberty is a sufficient
punishment for an intentional murder? Maybe you have an idea for other forms of
punishment?
In "Game of Thrones" is someone accused other person, he had to kill that person (no executioner). That's an interesting idea.
ReplyDeleteIf we want death penalty, then we have to remember that someone have to kill the murderer. And that's make him a killer too (we make him a killer).
Generally I think that everyone has right to live. But they shouldn't sit their whole lives in jail, keeping up with our taxes. They should work for the society! That's my opinion. Nowadays prisoners have too much free time. Remember stories from PPB?
Thanks for comment! I totally agree with you.
Delete"They should work for the society!" - I also think so, that prisoners should somehow work for a living. In that case I see only a problem with prisoners who are dangerous for society.
Unfortunately, I don't know which story from PPB you have in mind.
Murderers can clean up the forests and cities. We can also build a special factory with free labor.
DeleteStory from PPB:
Prisoners have too much free time. They, sometimes know more about the law than a lawyer.
For example: there is a law that regulates the intensity of light in the room. People who work in offices, often have worse lights than a prisoner. This is because the prisoners know their rights and complain everything (to the court).
They are bored and very intelligent.
That's why, we're living in the sick country.
Prisoners sometimes have better living conditions than us. It has to be punishment! Not the opposite.
Do you agree with my opinion?
I've heard other stories on PPB but I don't remember now. Maybe you do? Or someone else?
Yes, I agree completely. It is a sad truth that prisoners have better living conditions than some people in our society. In other countries it is even more interesting, a good example would be Anders Breivik in Norway -http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/mass-murderer-anders-behring-breivik-to-sue-norway-over-jail-conditions/news-story/21cc1d1056689cab0b65f6cba8156b70
DeleteDeath penalty works if the guy is actually afraid of being killed. People sentenced to death are usually people who are not afraid of death, as they could've been killed during their illegal actions, so it doesn't really change anything for them.
ReplyDeleteThe question is if NOT doing so will lead to anything good. If prisoner learns anything, works for his living, and understands his mistake, then yes, definitely we should not kill him. But there are many cases when such person doesn't care at all, is responsible for deaths of dozen of people, and states clearly that he won't stop.
Imagine Stalin or Hitler in a prison. Would it be a good punishment for killing millions of people?
For people like Hitler or Stalin I don't have any idea for a good punishment.
DeleteI think that part of potential murderers would be afraid of the death penalty (obviously not such people as terrorists).
I'am not so sure there is a proper ways so answer all there question in the end of the article. Also there is no right way of killing other ppl - no matter what they have done. On the other side all the prisoners are living on ours costs which is very annoying for society. Thats the reason i like the south america prisons. They are all like ghetto. Closed. with no health and food care. if you want to survive you need to buy food from money that the family will gave you. You have to have enough money to stay there and survive. Goverment help is just minimal for such places. But isnt that humiliating?
ReplyDeleteI've also heard about the difficult conditions in prisons in South America. But I didn't know that prisoners don't have health care or food. Thanks for the informations! You ask whether it is humiliating? Probably yes. That is why this topic is so debatable, because it is difficult to determine what exactly to do with the prisoners.
DeleteThere are a lot of better ways of punishment then death penalty. It is just too easy for the criminal. For example when someone kills 20 people, then they kill him and everyone is happy. Instead he should be put in a mine to crush some stones. Of course it applies only for the biggest crimes.
ReplyDeleteOk so for the first question - it's hard to answer because of not really specified question ;) like 'some cases' is so wide and confusing, it might lead to some misunderstanding. Anyway, maybe in some cases of rotten-minded killer I would say it's better for society to get rid of him, but generally speaking it's killing after all, ending someone's life. I have goosebumps when I think about it.
ReplyDeleteFor the second question I think everyone has a right to live, but again killer/murderer means a lot - it's a very wide word. So the answer is yes, but in some cases justice should be served.
For the third question I like what Tomasz said, there are prisons without health care or food, you have to survive on your own, isn't it humiliating ? :) You did something bad - you should be punished for it, action and reaction. In some countries prisons are like hotels, so it even encourages people to do bad things (sick!)
When writing about some cases I had in mind multiple murderers whose guilt is proven, for example Anders Breivik.
DeleteAs you said in some countries prisons are like hotels and this is very strange and illogical.
This is sad, but i fully support death penalty. It is not because i am bad person or i do not appreciate life, it is because i see that today system not going in right way. We spend more money on prisons than on charity companies for children. There are peoples that dont deserve to live. Thats all. Death penalty is one of they to remember that law and rules are for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI see you have a very precise opinion on this subject. In general, I agree with you. Maintaining a prisons is very expensive, on the other hand, lack the funds to many other important issues such as public health.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I believe that death penalty in certain cases is justified. People who have no chance to be a better persons schould be killed. But only as a last resort!
ReplyDelete2. We have many types of murderers. There are people who kill in self-defence or made this in negative emotions. Each case should be analyzed by psychologist.
3. I think it's a great punishment. Besides limitation of liberty should have some work. Hard work helps in resocialization.
Do you have any idea what prisoners should do as part of resocialization? What we should do in case of particularly dangerous prisoners?
Delete1.Hard to say. I think certainly for murder with extreme cruelty, If you have not seen the convicted remorse for what he did should be the death penalty. But on the other hand, what gives us the right to take a life?
ReplyDelete2. For sure, if the crime was committed in passion when the killer has not been able to make a sober decision. Everyone has the right to life but not everyone should have the right to freedom.
3. The penalty for intentional murder certainly should be deprivation of liberty. Additionally convicted should always work hard to be able to live and have food and all he need to survive.
Till today I was for the death penalty, but after watching John Oliver, where he pointed out that cost of sentencing to the death penalty is higher than putting someone to prison for the rest of his life I started to doubt. Still there are too many people in prisons, and if we take a look at Trynkiewicz case, man raped and murdered 4 children, admitted it and was sentenced for the lifetime prison. Later by the amnesia, punishment was changed to 25 years, which ended last year. On the last day of being imprisoned guards found some child pornography in his cell. Another trial started, and he has been sentenced for 5,5 years, but yet he is not in prison, because verdict is not legally valid. Right now he is in special center where day of living cost 1300zł per day (because he is first such person). Is it proper, that such man, sociopath, recidivist still lives, and we taxpayers have to pay for his stay in that center? In such cases I’m positive about death penalty in 100%.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interesting information about the case of Trynkiewicz. 1300 zł per day? For me it's an incredible waste of public money.
Delete1.It depends on for what somebody is convicted , if someone intentionally kills someone and it is certain then in my opinion he deserve to death penalty.
ReplyDelete2. Like i said , i think yes
1) It's hard to say. Everybody here have good arguments for and against death penalty. I have nothing to add.
ReplyDelete2) No one should decide who has the right to life and who has not.
3.) Generally, I think that penalties for some crimes should be much higher(rape,murder), and for some crimes penalties should be much lower(possesion of drugs).
The thing is, death penalty is pretty hard to roll back if there's been a mistake. And even if we're 100% sure about it, that's still a waste. Think about all the researchers that needs live samples, about all the chemicals that need to be tested, about all the experimental drugs that need to be... well, experimented with.
ReplyDelete1. I think that the death penalty is some cases is justified for example for people like serial killers. If they decide to kill so many people, often in a drastic way, they should die in a similar way.
ReplyDelete2. I think that murderers have right to life only if we know that there is a chance of rehabilitation of them and they can change, but if it’s premeditated murder and it brings them pleasure, I think there is no right to life for such monsters.
3. It’s hard to say for me, but I think that limitation of liberty is ok in some cases. Of course it depends on many circumstances.
Death penalty is a hard topic... I know that it's agains my faith but in some cases I would support this kind of punishment. I don't know how to judge which cases would be ok for death or which not. Fortunately it's not my job to do that. The main thing should be that we have to be sure of the fault of convicted. If we are not death penalty shouldn't be used. Annuity instead.
ReplyDeleteAnswering the question: Should murderers have the right to life? hmm like I said I'm not a judge so I don't have to judge people and I'm happy about that. I think better penalty would be annual force labor for that kind of people. Of course under observation and control. I think it would be much more useful for society to use that "free" workforce.
1. In my opinion, the death penalty should exist and should be done but only in very serious crimes , such as murder many people. It is generally difficult topic, but it seems to me that the penalties should be much more stringent, since then more should decrease the number of crimes.
ReplyDelete2. "An eye for an eye" as the Code of Hammurabi . But someone could kill someone by accident , for example: you were driving a car and somebody jumped out of you in front of a mask, in such cases should be the possibility of rehabilitation.
3.For intentional homicide as most, but not always possible to clearly determine whether it was intentional murder or not. But what I'd like to have changed is that the prisoners have to work ( picking up garbage, etc.) in order to get food.
In my opinion the capital punishment in some cases is proper. Murderers don't have the right to live. Of course if the murderer killed consciously. The restriction of liberty behind the culpable homicide isn't a penalty being enough. A capital punishment is a soundness of the penalty.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that death penalty is a good idea. Because we are never 100% sure tat someone is guilty. In my opinion prisoners should work instead of doing nothing. It twould heal the economy because prisons are very expensive. We pay about 3000 zł for a single prisoner. Murderers should not be punished with life sentence but they should earn money for they livelihood.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the death penalty is in no way a reasonable solution. The biggest argument against this penalty is the fact that the convicted person may be innocent after years. What then? Besides, I am afraid that such punishment does not bring any benefits for victims or their families. I understand that if a very dangerous, serial, psychopathic killer is sentenced to death, this society is calm about their lives, because is eliminated the possibility that this man ever escapes. But if today we are not able to watch even the most dangerous criminals? Are today's technologies are not able to provide us security? Killing is never moral, but if a decision is made on the death penalty, would not it be better to use organs to save other lives? Besides, I must admit that I am very glad I do not live in one of these 13 countries where killed by impiety, because I'd probably already dead.
ReplyDelete1. Generally, I'm against death penalty, simply because of the possibility of convicted's innocence. I think, the punishments must be more severe, that's all it takes. Murder? 30 years of prison. Rape or pedophilia? A lifetime in prison. And when I say prison, I mean being locked up on harsh conditions and spent on hard labor for society.
ReplyDelete2. Like every human, though we might not like it.
3. Like I said in my first question reply. Long, rough conditioned labor.
The death penalty wouldn't be that bad if there didn't exist so many cases of sentencing someone who has been innocent (especially in Poland I wouldn't introduce it as the rate of wrong sentences is really high!). Yes, murderes have right to live, but they should work for theirselves, just like other convicts. I don't think that paying for the livelihood of such characters from our taxes is a good idea, it's just simply not fair. I could imagine many adequate (cruel) punishments but still, as I've said in the first sentence, I wouldn't use it as we can't be sure if someone is really guilty, and of course, the greatest power would be overused by authorities.
ReplyDelete1. What is your generally opinion on the use of the death penalty in some cases?
ReplyDeleteSome rare cases? Maybe, but not with the current law in our contry. Sorry but we have to many false sentences, people are accused and sentenced and many years after we find out that they are unguilty.
2. Should murderers have the right to life?
Definitely the right and the must to work.
3. Do you think that the limitation of liberty is a sufficient punishment for an intentional murder? Maybe you have an idea for other forms of punishment?
Sending to a uranium mine :D