Executions - Right or wrong? - [Closes 19/02/08]

[---MAD---]

Do you think executions are right or wrong? Is it right to be able to take someone's life?

James Callahan raped and killed a girl years ago. On January the 31st he is set to be executed.

What are your thoughts about this? Do you think the justice department has a right to take his life or not? What do you think about the way executions are handled? The most popular is lethal injections but there are others such as electrocution, hanging, stoning and shooting the heart from a distance. Each one has its problems as they do not always go to plan..

Let the debating begin!

[VPSwow]

Depends if its solid proof. If they say ooh his fingerprints were on the body and he gets arrested and convicted then no he should serve a sentence incase they found out it was wrong. However if their was CCTV footage or some solid proof that means it was definatly him then i think they should.

[CJ-real]

IF theres enough evidence then definitely. All this crap about a painless execution is stupid.

Think of the pain the person went through that died being hit over the head with a hammes and stabbed in the chest 10 times.

So why does the killer sit there feeling nothing?

[-:Undertaker:-]

If DNA evidence is undisputable then it should mean death for any rapist or murderer. If not then it should mean LIFE as in till they die. Sadly the UK's crap justice system let's these people go free after 2 years.

[Agesilaus]

Depends if its solid proof. If they say ooh his fingerprints were on the body and he gets arrested and convicted then no he should serve a sentence incase they found out it was wrong. However if their was CCTV footage or some solid proof that means it was definatly him then i think they should.
I agree, the crime was severe and he should deserve a severe punishment. But it depends on how bad the guy carried out the rape and murderous activities. If it was super really explicit and was just outright cold and evil. Yeah go ahead, get rid of him. But if it's not as severely carried out than he should deserve a very long sentense (preferably life), anyone who kills someone else should deserve a long punishment. I know a lot of murderers convicted are taken too soft. They need to throw them in jail for longer or if they are a serial killer who has killed lots of people then I think they deserve to be executed.

It is up to the amount of evidence they can gather to prove they are guilty of such a crime and to determin how badly he carried it out.


If DNA evidence is undisputable then it should mean death for any rapist or murderer. If not then it should mean LIFE as in till they die. Sadly the UK's crap justice system let's these people go free after 2 years.
Good point. It's the same here in Australia, no one gets life and if someone murders when it's done on purpose, they only get like 2 or 3 years. If they murdered heartlessly and ruthlessly, then yeah get rid of them.


Think of the pain the person went through that died being hit over the head with a hammes and stabbed in the chest 10 times.

So why does the killer sit there feeling nothing?

I also agree with this. The family and friends who lost that person can not get them back again if they were killed and that really needs to be taken into consideration as well in court mattters.

[Moh]

If it wasn't linked to mental health then I think its fine. Take a life, give a life.

[jesus]

right for murder/paedophiles/rape etc i'd say. prison is worse in cases where 'small' crimes have been committed cuz they have to live with it then.

[Agesilaus]

right for murder/paedophiles/rape etc i'd say. prison is worse in cases where 'small' crimes have been committed cuz they have to live with it then.

Yes, but that is debatable, because they are still living their lives. The people who are related to the person who was killed think that they should suffer death as well. Which is a point CJ-Real came up with. The people who are related suffer emotionally.

[jesus]

Yes, but that is debatable, because they are still living their lives. The people who are related to the person who was killed think that they should suffer death as well. Which is a point CJ-Real came up with. The people who are related suffer emotionally.im not quite sure what you mean about that last bit, but if i found out one of my relatives was a murderer then i don't think i'd care what happens to them - murder is like the worst thing someone can do really.

[Cixso]

Na don't kill anybody ever, no matter what they do.

But do make there life living hell. Life sentence is a start, no TV, no socializing, Just 1 cell, 2 meals a day (obviously) and say an hour outside for a week. No gym, No games, no friends, no visitors, no outings, just 1 cell for all his life.

Then the guy will go nuts, and try to commit suicide, but that's his problem. He can't live with the shame... aww too bad.

But to take another's life, we may as well punish our selves then. No matter what this person has done, we are just as bad by killing them.

[Agesilaus]

im not quite sure what you mean about that last bit, but if i found out one of my relatives was a murderer then i don't think i'd care what happens to them - murder is like the worst thing someone can do really.


What I mean is the people who are related to the person who got killed (the victim) have to suffer emotionally. So in a lot of cases the relatives and friends think that the murderer who killed that person should suffer death as well.

[---MAD---]

What I mean is the people who are related to the person who got killed (the victim) have to suffer emotionally. So in a lot of cases the relatives and friends think that the murderer who killed that person should suffer death as well.
Not always the case. There was a case where the family of the victom all asked the judge not to sentence the murder for execution and they won that case.

Also, having someone put in jail for life costs the government money, a lot of money. Probably money you gave (from tax etc).

[Mr.OSH]

Personally I don't think we should execute people for more two reasons really:

1) If you've got the wrong person and realise in the future when you have more evidence then it means that you'll have taken an innocent persons life for nothing.

2) Two wrongs don't really make a right so we shouldn't punish people by killing them. People who do commit disgusting crimes probably deserve to suffer in prison so they realise the error of their ways than to just be instantly killed.

[Paulio]

You should only be able to execute someone like a year after they have been trialed so that there is time to figure out if you have it wrong.

[Agesilaus]

Not always the case. There was a case where the family of the victom all asked the judge not to sentence the murder for execution and they won that case.

Precisely why I said in a lot of cases not in every case. But you're right nevertheless. It depends on the situation, I just find it more common that they want the other person executed, but we don't execute people, the main is jail and generally for a long time. It really does depend on the situation since you can't generalise it to that extent.



1) If you've got the wrong person and realise in the future when you have more evidence then it means that you'll have taken an innocent persons life for nothing.

A very true point. I think it should only be done if they are more than certain they committed that crime. It is a decision that needs to be looked at with extreme caution.



2) Two wrongs don't really make a right so we shouldn't punish people by killing them. People who do commit disgusting crimes probably deserve to suffer in prison so they realise the error of their ways than to just be instantly killed.

A point MAD brought up here. To summarise it - they are a financial issue, which I do agree with.

[Cixso]

You should only be able to execute someone like a year after they have been trialed so that there is time to figure out if you have it wrong.

Disagree.

What are we doing to the person who killed somebody else?

Remind me why they where punished?

Oh yeah...

It's like your sister hitting you, and when you hit back your just as bad when you go to tell your mother.

[Mr.OSH]

You should only be able to execute someone like a year after they have been trialed so that there is time to figure out if you have it wrong.

Saying that in some cases new evidence proving people are innocent is found 10 - 20 years after the event when new technology develops, a year by no means is long enough to completely be assured a certain person committed an offence and in many cases you can never be completely sure, you can only go on the evidence you have. Therefore if you were to avoid executing people it is always possible to a certain extent to reverse the punishment or more so than if the person is dead.

[---MAD---]

You should only be able to execute someone like a year after they have been trialed so that there is time to figure out if you have it wrong.
Many executions take years before they are put into place. Some take 10-20 years some even longer.

[Virgin Mary]

No, they should be put to use. Used to test drugs/medicines on instead of animals, used as community workers etc. etc.

[Cixso]

No, they should be put to use. Used to test drugs/medicines on instead of animals, used as community workers etc. etc.

Could help cure cancer.

[Alkaz]

I think it should be life for life, but only i the evidence actually 100% says you killed soemone on purpose, if someone knocks someone down be accident as they ran in the road and they died then thats different but acutally shooting someone or stabbign them etc then imo life for life.

But for example in the case of derek bently over 50 years ago the evidence isnt always taken in to consideration and people could be wrongly hung so in that sence no.

[Favourtism]

No, they should be put to use. Used to test drugs/medicines on instead of animals, used as community workers etc. etc.
That thought made me laugh. It would never happen but it's a fantastic idea on my opinion :P

Make a prison with a factory. Have the inmates work rather than sit in their cells. I know some ''big'' and famous prisons allow their prisioners tohave massive parties and play on playstations etc. Thats no life for killers. It's like the issues with the yobs stabbing people: Theres no real punishment. They can get away with it easy.

[le harry]

i'm against capital punishment. i think life imprisonment is fine - however the laws placed throughout the thailand/indonesian countries which say that drug trafficking is a top offence really boggles my mind..

[Agesilaus]

however the laws placed throughout the thailand/indonesian countries which say that drug trafficking is a top offence really boggles my mind..

The law can be very horrible thing. In my opinion, executing people for drug offences, unless outrageously carried out, is something I don't agree with either. But different countries have different laws and different beliefs, I guess.

[Frodo13.]

Personally, I dont think two wrongs make a right.

I think these people should be made to serve life in prison (and by life I mean until the day they die), no luxeries, only a bed, a toilet and 3 basic meals a day. They should be made to stop in the same small cell 24/7 aswell.

[Ramones]

Personally, I dont think two wrongs make a right.

I think these people should be made to serve life in prison (and by life I mean until the day they die), no luxeries, only a bed, a toilet and 3 basic meals a day. They should be made to stop in the same small cell 24/7 aswell.

i agree to an extent. For alot of people prison is an easy way out, an easy life that'd be better than being free, they're guarenteed warmth, meals and alot of them have friends inside. I don't think execution should be allowed but a sort of worse form of prison, solitary confinement? if that still exists. Oh and making life sentences actually life rather than 25 years or whatever it is nowadays.

[Agesilaus]

Oh and making life sentences actually life rather than 25 years or whatever it is nowadays.

Now that there is something I agree with. A lot of courts can't define 'Life' properly when sentencing. It sounds a little imperceptive, but if they're going to put someone away for life, than they should put them away for life. However, on a more conversable point, they say '25 years' because that would be like much of the good life gone. Let's say if you went to say when you were 18 or 20. Spending 25 years is a huge chunk out of the good life. But you make a good point.

[bo$$]

Wrong completely.
What do they accomplish from killing someone?
They are just killing someone to show that killing someone is wrong..

I'm sure someone would rather die then spend a lifetime in prison.

[Neversoft]

If there is enough proof and the person deserves to be executed, then yes.

I'm all for executions.


Wrong completely.
What do they accomplish from killing someone?
They are just killing someone to show that killing someone is wrong..

I'm sure someone would rather die then spend a lifetime in prison.

If someone would rather die than spend a lifetime in prison then whats the problem?
Prisons are getting filled up and people need to be executed instead of getting life sentences to make room!

[Teyauna.]

I'm on both sides. I think yes, because if someone killed someone and you were 100% sure that they did it and had enough evidence and proof to prove they did, then sure. But then, sometimes people are wrongly convicted and executed for a crime they didn't commit. That's where I would say no.

[Agesilaus]

Wrong completely.
What do they accomplish from killing someone?
They are just killing someone to show that killing someone is wrong..

I'm sure someone would rather die then spend a lifetime in prison.



If someone would rather die than spend a lifetime in prison then whats the problem?
Prisons are getting filled up and people need to be executed instead of getting life sentences to make room!


I agree with Neversoft's reply to your post.

A point made earlier on in the thread is that keeping prisoners is a financial aspect to consider as well.



I'm on both sides. I think yes, because if someone killed someone and you were 100% sure that they did it and had enough evidence and proof to prove they did, then sure. But then, sometimes people are wrongly convicted and executed for a crime they didn't commit. That's where I would say no

Fair point.

[Gnome]

Yeah, I think if you take a someones life from them, You deserver to have your's taken aswell.

[poll]

peadophiles etc. should have there hands amputated so they can never touch another girl again and yes if they take someone life then they should have theres taken its the right of justic for the family to live in peace knowing the person has suffered

[Agesilaus]

peadophiles etc. should have there hands amputated so they can never touch another girl again

I agree to a certain extent, but it sounds like something they would do back in the really olden days. :P If you're going to do that in today's society, you might as well either stick them in jail for a long time or execute them, depending on how bad that particular offense is carried out.

[Neversoft]

peadophiles etc. should have there hands amputated so they can never touch another girl again and yes if they take someone life then they should have theres taken its the right of justic for the family to live in peace knowing the person has suffered


I agree to a certain extent, but it sounds like something they would do back in the really olden days. :P If you're going to do that in today's society, you might as well either stick them in jail for a long time or execute them, depending on how bad that particular offense is carried out.

Yeah. Might aswell get the old racks and stocks out again. Start burning witches and stuff. :P

[poll]

Yeah. Might aswell get the old racks and stocks out again. Start burning witches and stuff. :P

sounds good id be straight down my old school burining the old witches nd harry potter would be next!

[Agesilaus]

Yeah. Might aswell get the old racks and stocks out again. Start burning witches and stuff. :P

I'd be very much inclined (I'm a witch!)



sounds good id be straight down my old school burining the old witches nd harry potter would be next!

Best place to find them!

But yeah, that really is something you'd do in the olden days, and today, we have other ways of punishing for law breaking.

[ToxicPaddy]

There should never be a death penalty. Ever. I know what they done was bad, but it should be a jail sentence. No one has the right to take somebody elses life. 2 wrongs dont make a right.

I do think people who do stuff like murder, perverts etc should be branded with one of those metal things in the shape of an X on their forehead.

[Jordy]

Na don't kill anybody ever, no matter what they do.

But do make there life living hell. Life sentence is a start, no TV, no socializing, Just 1 cell, 2 meals a day (obviously) and say an hour outside for a week. No gym, No games, no friends, no visitors, no outings, just 1 cell for all his life.

Then the guy will go nuts, and try to commit suicide, but that's his problem. He can't live with the shame... aww too bad.

But to take another's life, we may as well punish our selves then. No matter what this person has done, we are just as bad by killing them.That's called Solitary Confinement and will drive the person mad like you said, and eventually they'll find them self in a 'Dream' world it's thought.

[Frodo13.]

I personally think that corporal punishment should be brought back. Most parents put their kid on the 'naughty step' now. Back when it was perfectly OK to give your kid a slap, crime wasn't as neally as bad as it is today.

[Virgin Mary]

peadophiles etc. should have there hands amputated so they can never touch another girl again and yes if they take someone life then they should have theres taken its the right of justic for the family to live in peace knowing the person has suffered
People were saying the same thing about homosexuals not that long ago.

[Catzsy]

I feel this is a very difficult question to answer much I am reviled by some acts that human beings inflict upon each other I just do have the stomach for execution. I am strictly much against capital punishment although I do have sympathies with families deprived of their loved ones through murder.

Apart from the fact that the person convicted could be innocent they could also be suffering severe mental conditions and not be really in charge of their of their senses or actions.


Personally I would favour chemical castration for sexual crimes. I would also favour in the cases where the people could not live with their crimes - regulated self-euthanasia. If anybody saw that show on TV the other night they would see how extremely brutal all forms of execution can be and the only painless one seemed to be hypoxia caused by severe altitude sickness where it just seemed to make you drunk.

I know the bible says 'an eye for an eye' but I think in this day and age its not really justified. Incarsaration for life should be life though for anything other than unpremeditated murders with compulsory work til pension age.

Posts merged by REDNECK (forum moderator) due to lag causing a double-post :)

[zeJosh]

Now, I've read the thread, and seen all this, an eye for an eye stuff.
But, we do have to take into the consideration, the concept, of you
becoming worse than the person convicted.

But, you can also take into account, the pain and suffering this particuluar
person has caused, the distress, and devastation that could've happened.
The British Governmental Justice System, is flawed in many ways, yes.

Execution is something that is very similar to acting as God.
Spare a life, Take a life.

If evidence is irresputabely definite, then the person shall be convicted,
but you also must take into the case of what the person done, how he done it, and put your self in the convicts shoes.


Why Did He/She Do It?
Does He/She have a medical record, for mental insubordnation?
Does the convict, have a anger problem, or some form of psychiatric disease.My point stands to a final point at this, if one person is killed, in a "unpainful" manner. Then 30 years in prison, is a reasonable grant.
But, if this person has raped, and murdered people painfully, then yes,
an execution is a liable grant for such a heidious act. But, I dislike how that
when we think of execution, we think of how the movies, and such terrible ideas of how, and what will happen. Will it be entertaining?

The execution if one is declared, should be something very simple, but not in a manner of a grotesque death.

[-Xiangu-]

i think depending on how bad the crime commited is then they should be tortured and not killed. put them through as much suffering as possible. they shouldn't have murdered in the first place

[zeJosh]

off topic:

That green thing James, which you have in dp & sig,
the video on youtube is from my school xD

Edited by Agesilaus (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not post off topic.

[Hitman]

Well it's right if the person has done wrong and there's sufficent proof, which a lot of the time there isn't.

But I don't think they should be executed, two reaons. If the person is innocent he/she loses his/her life... which is a heafty price to pay for something you didn't do. If the person did do the crime, then it'd have to be really bad to be executed in the first place... so why give them an easy way out for commiting a terrible crime? Death is an exit.

So they should be locked away but not be treated as if they're in a hotel.

Please note these are my views, so don't start moaning at me. ;)

[Warezkid2]

Meh, i dont think anyone should be killed, if so, the whole army should be ;/.


meh, for one reason only and this reason, is, say you was forced to kill someone, but the law looks at it in a different way, for ect, you had to defend your wife, i sure you guys would, but the only way was killing them, and yes, i know you be saying, yeh but blah blah, but it not always like they, they make mistakes, and blame it on him fully ;/

[jesus]

Meh, i dont think anyone should be killed, if so, the whole army should be ;/.


meh, for one reason only and this reason, is, say you was forced to kill someone, but the law looks at it in a different way, for ect, you had to defend your wife, i sure you guys would, but the only way was killing them, and yes, i know you be saying, yeh but blah blah, but it not always like they, they make mistakes, and blame it on him fully ;/why should the army be killed? :S

sorry i didnt understand any of that post

[Warezkid2]

why should the army be killed? :S

sorry i didnt understand any of that post




i not even gonna say anything about that lool.

Edited by REDNECK (forum moderator): Please do NOT continue to make pointless posts.

[Agesilaus]

Meh, i dont think anyone should be killed, if so, the whole army should be ;/.

I don't think so, the army is there to defend the country, it's a totally different world than a murderer murdering innocent people, armies go to war, etc, so it's not the same. But I do see what you mean, because they do kill people.


meh, for one reason only and this reason, is, say you was forced to kill someone, but the law looks at it in a different way, for ect, you had to defend your wife, i sure you guys would, but the only way was killing them, and yes, i know you be saying, yeh but blah blah, but it not always like they, they make mistakes, and blame it on him fully ;/

Considerating the circumstances of 'I was in fear of my life' situations, the person who killed someone in that situation shouldn't die anyway, and in a lot of cases in court, if proven this to be the case of self defense, they don't normally execute them. I don't think it would be a good idea to execute them for that anyway.

[PaulMacC]

Wrong, I really dont feel that a human life should be sacraficed in order to make up for previous mistakes, if they've killed in the double figures then sure they are murderers but that would make us just like them if we killed them, personally I think they should be locked up for life. Taking another life just makes it worse though the time they go through in prision could be worse than getting killed, personally I think they should have a decision wether or not to get execution though I do hear there is another method called 'air starvation' coming in which basically you put the person on a plane with a low oxygen supply and starve their brain of oxygen, they go tipsy and stuff and eventually pass out and die without even knowing.

Thats just my view though :D

[Nain]

Its wrong, Fair enough, they take someones life, just throw them in prison! i mean if you take their life thats wrong aswell.

[tdi]

I belive it's a good idea, in some cases. People that, for example, kill millions of people (such as the people who planned 9/11) deserve to die.

Arguably, that can be the "quick and easy" way out, resulting in no suffering. Perhaps stick people in a toiletless, bedless room feeding them on the cheapest thing possible.

Also, when executing people, there's no such thing as a "mistake." - if they sentence the wrong person they can't just let them out of prison, as they're dead.

[-:Undertaker:-]

People say if you kill the murderers then your just as bad as them. Well how is that? They take someones life KNOWING they could lose their life clearly shows they don't care. There is also a difference between chopping someone up with a axe and killing them by lethal injection.

If it was your family you'd be saying different.

[RedStratocas]

i say no for a few reasons. one, there was a study done that found that 1/3rd of all people sentenced to death in the united states were found unjustly accused or even innocent after their execution. so my fear is how many innocent people die in executions. the innocent far outweigh the guilty. second is because in more cases than not, it costs more money to keep them alive for 70 years than to go through the execution process.

[Dan2nd]

The last man hung in the UK was found innocent....

[lew!]

If they have proof and it wasnt an accident, yes.
If they dont have any proof - they could be innocent.

[RedStratocas]

If they have proof and it wasnt an accident, yes.
If they dont have any proof - they could be innocent.

congrats, thats the basis for every fair trial ever conducted. but the problem is proof can mislead you. they wouldnt execute someone with no proof.

[Dan2nd]

congrats, thats the basis for every fair trial ever conducted. but the problem is proof can mislead you. they wouldnt execute someone with no proof.

I agree with the italic look at the McCann's theres been so much evidence against them the police were certain they kidnapped their daughter when all of a sudden something new comes along and the investigation is back to square one

[Acinuoulation]

YES! If they murder someone and its been proven they should get the punishment of losing there own life.

[KnuxIBF]

Wrong:

a) If they murder, and we kill them, we're nothing better than they are.
b) Verdicts can be wrong, so if we kill them and find them innocent, we're in a bit of trouble. The Government will then be sued millions of pounds for the trouble, and taxes will rise.

[CrazyColaist]

isnt there 2 types of exucition anyway?


its right
if a person kills loads of other people with solid proof there for i would kill them myself=]

[StripedTiger]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

[Throne Sofa]

Completely wrong. Executing someone is simply wrong, what are they going to acheive out of it? Is it justice to execute someone who has killed others? What will they acheive by Executing someone? I don't know.
Despite all the wrong, they should be at allowed at least the most basic human rights. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[vito201-:D]

Wrong.

Just for the fact that it is possible to make human error and kill an innocent person.

If you actually look at the American death-sentences that have been changed while they were on death row or even when it's too late because new evidence is bought forward...

...it does happen not too often but just enough to make it not worth it imo.

[<3]

Wrong. Murder is seen as the most horrific crime these days... and by executing somebody, you become a murderer also.

That's my view anyway.

[SugarBabyRach]

It depends on all the circumstances we have to consider. If a man had killed another human or had ruined someones life by sexualy assaulting them I would guess they kinda deserved it, but if the law kills a man for killing another man, doesnt that make the law just as bad as they were?