This is your first post! I thought we'd start with a topic you probably have an opinion about: the death penalty!
The Supreme Court recently heard a case that asked them to consider whether or not lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment and violates the 8th Amendment. The Court was not debating the issue of whether the state should be able to kill someone, but instead what methods of killing should be constitutional.
Read one of the articles from the links below and answer the following questions in your post:
LA TIMES
NPR
1. Do you think the death penalty is cruel and unusual? Do you think that the use of lethal injection is cruel and unusual?
2. How do you think the Supreme Court should rule and why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
71 comments:
I don't think lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. There is no pain involved, during or after the injection, which means it's not cruel. I don't believe we should kill people as a punishment except under extreme conditions though. The Supreme Court should rule that it is illegal unless given with an extremely good reason, otherwise we should just lock them up which i believe is a much worse punishment then death. Living in a cell till the day you die, never leaving the prison or seeing your family would put them through more pain then death.
I dont think the lethal injection is an cruel punishment because if it doesnt hurt you or kill you its not that bad, if they just inject you with something to make you fall asleep its not that bad. The death penalty is kind of cruel depending on the situation but if there is good reasoning for it then they might deserve it, if they dont like it they shouldnt have done what ever they did.
1. Do you think the death penalty is cruel and unusual? Do you think that the use of lethal injection is cruel and unusual?
2. How do you think the Supreme Court should rule and why?
I don't think that the death penalty is cruel or unusual. If it's done painlessly and dignified I don't think it's any more cruel than spending the rest of your life in prison. It's not an unusual punishment, it has been done for years. If someone does something horrible it's not unusual for the government to kill them instead of funding their life in prison for many years. Criminals know what they're doing and know the consequences of their actions. As long as lethal injection is the safest most dignified way of killing someone that we know of it isn't cruel. If you can prove that an alternative is safer then going with the less safe treatment would be cruel.
It seems like their need to be more tests done with the one drug method of killing someone before the court should rule in its favor. The lethal injection protocol is pretty safe and they run the risk of the new method being less safe if they change methods preemptively.
I think that the death penalty is good. An eye for an eye right? The only thing is if you put someone on death row i want them to be one hundred percent sure that that person committed that crime that he/she is being accused of. As for the lethal injection, its the best way of taking care of someone as of now. If the chemicals and the doses are right then the prisoner shouldn't feel a thing. But, if the prisoner tortured many people and killed and did the most awful stuff to other people, Then i think that person should be tortured to know what the victims went through. Overall i think that the death penalty is good. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the time.
I believe that the supreme court should rule in favor of the death penalty. Lethal injections are the most humane way of putting someone down. When there is another way of disposing of someone then we should use that way but until then the lethal injection way is the best way. So the supreme court should rule in the death penalty's favor.
I think the death penalty is only necessary when the accused has killed 2 people or more, or when the crime committed is horrendous. Jail time serves well for many felonies and can be extended as long as you live. I think the death penalty should still be used when it's needed-the felon still needs to be punished. The use of lethal injection is simple, painless, clean, and it still gets the job done. It's a very good way to kill the people that need to stop living.
The Supreme Court should rule that the death penalty should be used in cases where multiple lives were taken. The accused took other's lives, and s/he shouldn't be able to live either. They would be a threat to society, because they might do it again. There should be requirements before it is done, such as an honest confession from the convicted to prove it was them who committed the crime. Other requirements should be set as well, so there is no judgement on whether someone should die or not.
The death penalty is not cruel or unusual under most circumstances. If the person has taken multiple lives, he deserves to be killed as well. However, if the person is killed by the death penalty and everyone finds out that he is wrongly accused, this would be a huge mistake that might change all of our beliefs on the death penalty.
Lethal injection is also not cruel or unusual. If you believe in the death penalty, you should also agree in lethal injection. Lethal injection is just another way to kill a person under the death penalty. If the criminal has killed multiple people and doesn't get executed, they are getting what they want. Criminals know that they are risking being executed when they are committing the crime. They are aware that they might be killed in any possible way.
I feel that the act of lethal injection should not be considered cruel and unusual punishment. If the doctors inject the proper way the convicts should not feel the drugs. I think that the execution of people is not a horrible thing. If you think about it, the people that are being executed have killed someone and have harmed the community in a very negative way.
I think that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment because taking another life will not bring back the victim. Who are we to decide who can and can't live? Its holding a double standard to condemn a person for deciding to take somebody else's life then turn around and commit a "legal" murder a punishment for that crime. The use of lethal injection does not have to be cruel if done properly and if witnesses are uncomfortable with seeing the inmate twitch or convulse, they shouldn't watch; if you support the death of the inmate, you should have to see the consequences of that decision no matter how gruesome or disturbing. However, if a painless method is found, that method should be used in place of lethal injection, even if the death penalty is still cruel and unusual. The Supreme Court should rule to find a new method of execution if it is proven that the current method can cause painful death.
I feel that the act of lethal injection should not be considered cruel and unusual punishment. If the doctors inject the proper way the convicts should not feel the drugs. I think that the execution of people is not a horrible thing. If you think about it, the people that are being executed have killed someone and have harmed the community in a very negative way.
I agree with Krystina because they do deserve the punishment and they should'nt have done the crime so now they have to pay the time.
1. I think that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual, but I think it shouldn't be used extremely often. I don't think lethal injection is cruel or unusual either. The prisoners who commit serious enough crimes, deserve any pain that may come along with the lethal injection. However, if we have experienced anesthesiologists, then we won't have to worry about any pain, and therefore there will be no argument as to whether or not it's "cruel and unusual".
2. I think the Supreme Court should rule to continue to allow lethal injection as a means to execute prisoners on death row.
I believe this because the people who are on death row have in most cases killed multiple people, and therefore do not deserve the life they have been given. They should have considered the consequences prior to killing an innocent person.
I support the death penalty under extreme circumstances. Its a punishment that fits the crime. I do not believe that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. The mixture of chemicals is made to try to make the prisoners feel no pain. An experienced anesthesiologist knows how to mix the drugs properly, which would avoid most errors. The prisoners up for execution have committed horrible crimes against other people, and thus should accept the punishment given to them.
I think that the death penalty and lethal injection isn't cruel and unusual punishment. I think that if somebody chose to take the life of another person they shouldn't be able to have theirs. I don't think that our tax dollars should go towards keeping more room in prison for people that killed somebody. They're going to be in there for life anyways, thinking about what they've done. It seems like it would be better to get it over with and put them out of their misery. Its not like lethal injection is a slow, painful death. There are two drugs used to make sure that the criminal doesn't feel anything. The first one puts them into a deep sleep and the second one is a paralytic which prevents them from twitching, convulsing, or having any sort of discomfort. Lethal injection is much better than drowning, burning, or lynching. It is a quick, painless death that somebody who killed another or something that bad deserves. I think that the Supreme Court should rule that lethal injection is not cruel and unusual punishment.
I think that the death penalty is necessary if the crime that the person commits is bad enough. I do not think it is cruel and unusual punishment because usually when people get sentenced to the death penalty they have done something cruel to another person or thing. I believe that how they kill the person doesn't matter because either way they are going to end up dead. I believe that the supreme court should rule that lethal injection is not cruel and unusual punishment because no matter how you kill the person they are going to end up dead. If i were sentenced to the death penalty I would almost rather get injected than anything else because it wouldn't be as expected as getting shot for example. In an article by the National Public Radio they stated that some of the lethal injections are painful for the people getting injected, but the people sentenced to the death penalty most likely caused pain and discomfort for other people.
The death penalty I think in some instances is okay. It would all have to depend on what the person did. I think if they got caught killing someone or torturing someone that they should have their lives taking too. So I think if the crime fits then the death penalty would not be cruel and unusual. The way they do the death sentence such as lethal injection I also believe is is not cruel or unusual. In the article by NPR they state that there are three different drugs used to do this. They also say that some of these drugs might cause pain and discomfort. I think that if they have committed a crime that they are sentenced to the death penalty that maybe if a little pain or discomfort occurs they had it coming to them and shouldn't have done what they did in the first place. And when it comes down to it death is not going to be peaceful anyway you look at it. I think that the Supreme Court should rule for the killing of people by lethal injection, because I think that it would be a lot less painful then the past things they have used to kill people such as hanging people or the electric chair.
I think that the death penalty is necessary if the crime that the person commits is bad enough. I do not think it is cruel and unusual punishment because usually when people get sentenced to the death penalty they have done something cruel to another person or thing. I believe that how they kill the person doesn't matter because either way they are going to end up dead. I believe that the supreme court should rule that lethal injection is not cruel and unusual punishment because no matter how you kill the person they are going to end up dead. If i were sentenced to the death penalty I would almost rather get injected than anything else because it wouldn't be as expected as getting shot for example. In an article by the National Public Radio they stated that some of the lethal injections are painful for the people getting injected, but the people sentenced to the death penalty most likely caused pain and discomfort for other people.
I feel that the act of lethal injection should not be considered cruel and unusual punishment. If the doctors inject the proper way the convicts should not feel the drugs. I think that the execution of people is not a horrible thing. If you think about it, the people that are being executed have killed someone and have harmed the community in a very negative way. They are being held responsible for the crime that they committed. I'm sure when they killed their victim it was a lot more gruesome then lethal injection.
Hiya!!! Whatz up peeps??? Now to get serious...
I do not believe that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. The people that are on death row have usually done something absolutely horrible and probably deserve to be put to death. I do not think that people should just die of old age in the prison because that would not, in my opinion, be fair to the family of the victim. I also believe that the firing squad is probably the most cruel of the death penalties that I have ever heard.
The lethal injection is not cruel and unusual in my opinion. It is better than the firing squad and being in the electric chair. I think that if the medical official gives the right amount and is present in the room then it is probably be the most humane way to kill someone on death row. The Supreme Court should rule for the lethal injection because it is not a cruel way to kill someone. Unless they want to torture people they should be all for it.
i agree with everyone else when they say that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual
lethal injection in my opinion might be cruel but does it really matter? These are criminals we are talking about not just some people off the street. These people have committed the worst crimes known to man, we do not owe them anything especially a great death. I am not for the death penalty in any sense of the term but I am even less for being compassionate towards criminals. So if we do have the death penalty does it really matter how these people are dealt with? people are so against lethal injection so whats the alternative? Shooting them in the head? I think how we are going about it is fine and as soon as they come up with a new way to handle the death penalty people are going to complain about that too.
1. Do you think the death penalty is cruel and unusual? Do you think that the use of lethal injection is cruel and unusual?
I think that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment unless they were wrongly accused, but i'm almost positive the courts fully review the evidence before giving them the death penalty. i dont think that lethal injection is wrong either. its like would you rather die and not really know what going on or get shot in the face and see it coming? if they killed someone on purpose i dont think it really matters why or how they die themselves.
2. How do you think the Supreme Court should rule and why?
i think they should continue using the death penalty because jails would too full and we need to keep the population down somehow there would be more crazy people running around etc. just i think its positive for the country and keeping the peace. it may seem wrong but thats the consequences for their acts.
I don't think that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment but also I don't think that they should do it because when a prisoner takes other peoples lives and then they are founded guilty they should have to live with the mistake they did for the rest of their lives. Living in a small cell for the rest of your life is a lot worse than being killed right away and not able to live with the consequences.
I think that the death penalty is cruel and unusual. I think in any case it is immoral to sentence a human being to death. I cant see any benefits because it costs more to sentence a man to death than it does to put him jail for life. Also, even though its very rare, there is a chance that we find out the person sentenced to death was innocent. Personally I wouldn't be willing to take that risk. I think that if we are going to continue to have the death penalty then lethal injection is not cruel and unusual if you consider the other ways of putting people to death.
Canetha Simpson said...
I dont think they should take away the death penalty. It sounds like they feel like they feel sorry for them . The reason they are put in jail is to suffer. They might be in jail for taking someone else life, dont you think they ought to have a cruel punishment? what they did was cruel.
Posted by Canetha Simpson at 1/28/2008 09:51:00 AM
Sam Jones said...
I don't think that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual form of punishment. Lethal injection is not cruel because the victim does not feel the pain when they are dying. They have drugs to help prevent that. The other methods they have use din the past you could feel the pain. I think the supreme court should not rule against lethal injection
Posted by Sam Jones at 1/28/2008 09:55:00 AM
Blogger Wiseman said...
I personally don't think that the death penalty should be deemed cruel and unusual punishment. I also don''t think the lethal injection process should also be deemed cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court should rule this as it is now, which is that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. Where in lies the cruelty of such an act? There has been no proof of cruel and unusual punishment, all accusations are just speculations and even if the convicted killer did perhaps endure pain or suffering, where in lies the injustice? Our number one priority shouldn't be on how to comfort or make less of an inconvenience to the killer, but to make justice, so if the killer is proven guilty he should undergo all means as necessary of being put to death as he/she did to their victim. Another thing, it's not unconstitutional because after all there's no spot written in the constitution where the death penalty has to be "painless" as quoted in the article. There's another argument that just proves how ridiculous it is to rid the death penalty from the United
States, in fact, I really believe this whole discussion on such an issue should come to such common sense, where the argument against it shouldn't even be brought up in class.
I agree partially with Brooke1025. I think that an eye for an eye is a good punishment, but I don't think that if you tortured someone you should have to be tortured too. I agree with anna vogelsberg too except with having them to kill 2 people or more before they think the law should go into effect. I think that if they killed someone that should be enough because either way they took a life. I do agree with the requirements thing. I don't like the fact that if they do say that a person is guilty of the crime and then later they find that that person was innocent, we can't bring that person back from the dead. If we were not to have the death penalty and they found evidence providing that the person wasn't guilty then that person would be able to be let out of prison and be able to start their lives over. So I think have strict requirements would be very important.
Personally, I believe the death pebality is cruel and unusual. I do not believe there is any constitutional way to subject one to death. It is immoral, and impractical. The amount of time for one to pursue the legal process of putting one to death, along with the costs, are too expensive.
If there was no choice, and we HAD to have the death penalty, I do believe that lethal injection is the most realistic, and humane way to end one's life. Methods used in the past such as the electric chair, hangings, and others are too extreme.
However, in regards to lethal injection there are concerns that some myself, and others have. As started in the article "Supreme Court Takes Up Lethal Injection", by Nina Totenberg, "The key is whether or not the ost is administered properly." If a state has the courage to administer a drug with the intent of death, he or she, should be there to watch, and make sure the procedure is okay NEXT to them. In the article Semel states "Once the IV lines are inserted, the technicians administer the drugs from another room with a glass window. No medically-trained personnel are in the death chamber to check on lines and monitor the prisoner; only the warden is in the room." This does not seem right. The warden is not capable of assessing anesthetic depth.
I believe the supreme court should declare lethal injection illegal, along with abolishing the death penality. I believe that those who are subject to the death penality, they will learn more living in prison for the rest of their life. It does not seem logical, to cut this person from life, and all them to not have to face the pain of the people they hurt for the rest of their life.
Most of the people that end up in maximum-security prisons, have killed many other people, and are still a threat to other people. Obviously they aren't a threat to anyone beyond the bars, but they are a threat to the security guards and other inmates. And I agree with Emily on her point that they are also wasting federal tax dollars, they are not "giving back" to the community in any way, and therefore, our money is being completely wasted.
If the death penalty must be followed through with, lethal injection is probably the least cruel and unusual way to kill a person, for it is painless. However, I do not support the death penalty. I personally do not believe there is a one-hundred percent humane way to take a person's life. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to life. Even if it is a murderer being put to death, he or she still has their right to life. Article thirty states that no one may take it upon themself to destroy any of the rights. In my opinion, no matter how humane, the death penalty is contradicting Article 3 and 30.
I think the court will rule for the death penalty because we have been doing it in this country for many years and they wouldn't just stop it now. They'd just find a way that they think is more humane than lethal injection.
I think that the courts should rule against using the three drug lethal injection and switch to using the one drug injection. The article made it seem like it is very easy to make a mistake thus causing pain to the victim. Since there is a single drug option that isn’t as prone to accidents, why not use it? I believe that it’s against the constitution to have the victim feel large amounts of pain as was described in the article. I believe that goes against cruel and unusual punishment. If they decide to stay with the drug we are using because it hasn’t been tested on humans, then I think that they should monitor is more carefully to make sure the drug is put together perfectly.
I believe that the death penalty is necessary in certain circumstances. The government is able to threaten taking an individual's life- which deters individuals from carrying out heinous crimes. Without this threat the worst punishment the government could inflict on a criminal would be life in prison-( where the criminal is provided with shelter, food, and other necessities) . In response to the lethal injection process, I believe that this is NOT a form of cruel and unusual punishment. As stated in an article by NPR, the lethal injection process contains both sodium thiopental and pancuronium which both sedates the criminal and stops convulsions. This anesthetic process should rule out any temporary pain the individual feels. There are much crueler ways an individual could be killed including hangings, firing squads, drownings, and burnings. An injection into the forearm seems much more humane than these possible ways of death. However, if the lethal injection formula may cause pain and discomfort (NPR) the technological advances we have made could be used to find a formula that is more peaceful. The strides made in the medical field could be easily used to make a formula that allowed a more comfortable death.
In the upcoming Supreme Court decision the court should rule for lethal injection. As written in early precedents, "...the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death." ( Pro..) The government has ruled that extreme crimes call for extreme punishment. I agree with this ruling and believe that the victims of the crimes ( those raped, murdered, and killed ) should be justified.
www.npr.org
www. prodeathpenalty.com
I don't think the death penalty is cruel and unusual. I do think that the way they do lethal injection could be very painful. I think they should try to do whatever they can in their power to make it as painless as possible. If that means changing the concoction of drugs, then they should study it and come up with a solution quickly.
I think that the Supreme Court will and should rule that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. And also find that lethal injection is a valid form of execution. It has been in existence for a while and has been accepted by a fair amount of states that only minor changes will be made eventually, such as the case of the drugs used in lethal injection. I also think that the fact that it has been more than a century since this issue has been brought to the Supreme Court shows that although it has always been a hot issue, there is not much of a hurry by any court to change things.
1. I do not think the death penalty is cruel and unusual in some situations. As punishment, I think it is inappropriate. We've established many prisons for that purpose. But in regards to safety of the community, it can be and should be used. If a person commits a crime severe enough that they are believed to pose a threat to the safety of people around them it makes sense. From the articles I've read, I think lethal injection is cruel and unusual. Doctors say the person will experience a sensation so excruciating that it compares to drowning or strangulation. I personally don't think this is ethical. However, if the injection were altered so that no such pain was involved, I would have no opposition.
2. I think the court should rule in favor of using lethal injection but researching and creating a more humane chemical, seeing as the three-drug cocktail was not deemed humane even to be used on animals.
I feel that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual. If a person takes another persons life why should they have the right to live. An eye for an eye. If lethal injection is cruel and unusual then how should we go about executing criminals? Should we go back to hangings or the firing squad? After all the firing squad should be deamed cruel and unusual, it's almost an instant death, and there would be no worry about injecting drugs wrong so they die very painfully. On top of this i dont care if lethal injetion is extremely painful, it's a cruel and unusual punisment for a cruel and unusual crime. If we dont kill these criminals they will only sit in prison for the rest of their lives, living well off of tax payers money. I dont care how the supreme court rules as long as the death penalty stays in one form or another.
1. Do you think the death penalty is cruel and unusual? Do you think that the use of lethal injection is cruel and unusual?
2. How do you think the Supreme Court should rule and why?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. That's what Gandhi said. The death penalty is cruel and unusual. There is no worse possible final punishment than death. Other cruel and unusual punishments may inflict extreme and excruciating pain but at least leave you alive, while the death penalty doesn't. With legal injection, particularly in terms of ways to administer the death penalty, I think the idea is moving towards trying to be not cruel, but with all of the secrecy surrounding the use of lethal injection and the stories about incompetent administrators, and faulty doses, I definitely think this has the potential to be cruel. But we are still discussing methods to kill people, to end peoples lives, this is the ultimate crime that can be committed against a single human being. In France during the French Revolution, leaders of the government used the guillotine because they thought it was the most humane method, they thought getting your head sliced off was the most humane way to be executed! In the article they are talking about veterinarians saying the dosages were not correct even to put down animals, when we are comparing methods being used on humans to those being used to kill animals is the point at which things get cruel and unusual. The death penalty for murder is not justice, it is vengeance, these are different things, justice does not mean an eye for an eye. Justice means equality before the law. If a person kills another person, they shouldn't get off easy, they should have to serve their due. Justice for the holocaust does not mean turning around and exterminating all surviving Germans. From a purely utilitarian standpoint the death penalty is the best option in this debate, but in reality we are forced to consider ethics and morals. From the viewpoint that taking someone's life under any circumstances is the largest crime you can commit against a single person, no one deserves this. Also, the death penalty leaves no room for error, think about a situation where your mom, or brother or other immediate family member, was tried for murder and convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. Wouldn't you rather have them in jail, alive, so you would still be able to see them for the rest of your life? Now imagine the same situation, and your family member did not commit the crime, but is convicted anyways, are you still in favor of the death penalty? Things take a different meaning when they are personal like this.
Going along with my personal views, I think the court should outlaw the death penalty all together, but under this specific case, based on precedent that has already been set in the country I think that the court should require that faculty whom administers the lethal injection to take some sort of course in doing so, and before they administer an injection the substance must be approved to be of the right make up.
Peace and Love
~Jacob
jmel588@aol.com
I do not find the death penalty cruel or unusual punishment. I
especially don't think the legal injection is either. I believe this is the best way when dealing with the death penalty. Other ways used for the death penalty, such as gas rooms and hanging would be much more painful. However, I do believe that those preforming the lethal
injection need to be trained and experienced. I would suggest this
would be better inforced in the future sense many have complains and reports on this. I think the Supreme Court should continue having lethal injection used when coming to the death penalty.
I agree with Grace, and many other people, that the solution of chemicals in the lethal injection needs to be modified. If there is a one-drug injection that will still kill the prisoner, then why not use it. It's not only going to be less of a hassle to monitor and make sure it's working right, but it would also be cheaper for the government. They wouldn't have to provide all 3 drugs, and different IV's for all of them. It would most likely be less painful as well. If they're already sentenced to die, then why make them suffer seconds before hand. Although on the other hand, it's not like they're going to remember the pain either.
Ok first I would like to say Niles made a really great point. I couldn't have said it better myself. Everyone had great answers and really great points from both perspectives. But you have to relize they are criminals and if a prisoner escaped from prison they will kill or comit hanus crimes again and if you put them in prison for life there is still that chance that the prisoner can and will, if given the oppertunity, escape.
I agree with Brooke1025 about fearing repeat offenders. But I would go even deeper, I feel that the death penalty should be used more frequently and on criminals such as child molesters and sexual offenders. I dont think that we should go kill them right off the bat after their first offense. I feel that if someone has committed haneous sexual offences multiple times, molested multiple children, or something along those lines they should definently not be allowed back in public and at that point I would say there is no chance of rehabilitation. Now i would wait until they committed this type of crime a few times if they get out of jail, that way you know the person cant be rehabilitated.
I agree with Emily and Meghan. I don't believe our money should be used to keep someone who has committed such a horrible crime alive in prison. They consciously made the decision to commit the crime and should be punished for it. The death penalty is no more cruel than what they did to the people they hurt. Why should we give them sympathy for what they did? Yes, life in prison is a punishment in itself, but why should they get to continue to live their life. Why are we concerned about the criminal and not the victims family? They chose to take a life, but we can't take theirs to protect people? Their choice was not moral to begin with. Their punishment reflects that.
Okay, about what Jackie agreed with Grace and Emily about, I disagree. From a purely utilitarian standpoint I think that you are right, and that it is a waste of money to keep someone alive in jail. But in reality we need to consider more than just what is best in a utilitarian society. What if your dad, or your sister was convicted of murder and sentenced to the death penalty? Are you still for it in this situation? What if especially they were innocent but got wrongfully convicted, all other types of punishment allow room for error that people in law know can happen! Wouldn't you rather have your dad around the rest of his life so you could go and visit him? Also, you say they chose to take a life but we can't take theirs to protect people, if you put someone in jail or give them the death penalty, either way your protecting the general public. If they took a life, and that is not moral. Then if we take a life, IT IS NOT MORAL! The law is not above morality! We can't convict someone of doing something wrong, and do that wrong onto them, if this is theoretically true, then whoever hands out the sentence should be given the death penalty, namely the U.S. government, and everyone from the U.S. government should be killed, and then everyone who sentences them to death should be killed, and so on. I disagree with everyone who thinks the lethal injection should be changed, the lethal injection should be outlawed along with all other types of the death penalty, nothing is more cruel than killing someone!
I do agree that there are some extreme cases where the people are a huge threat to society and can't be allowed back to the public, especially if he or she is a repeat offender.I was under the impression that it costed more money to kill them than jail for life.
I agree with what Meghan said earlier. Not only do I believe that we shouldn’t be paying for people to stay alive in prison when they have committed such a horrible crime but they are a threat to other people in the community too. They obviously can’t get out of jail so they aren’t a threat to the public but to people in the prison. For instance the other inmates and the security guards. Lethal injection is probably a lot better then what they did to their victim anyways. There are three different types of medicine just to make sure that they don’t feel any pain during this process of lethal injection too. It is a quick, painless death that they pretty much chose for themselves. They committed the crime and so they’re going to pay for that.
I agree with Josh H. I don't think it really matters how the surpreme court rules as long as they keep the death penalty, as long as they agree on that issue I think it should be up to the states to find what they find is a viable way to go about executing criminals.
I think that for some cases like murder or any others that cause more than 3 life terms call for the death penalty. If a inmate is never going to leave prison no matter what, what prevents him from commiting more crime? The answer is nothin, i think that the death penalty is suitable for extreme cases, as long as its done in a humane way.
In response to Josh H's wall post, do you believe that it would be more painful to sit in a jail cell the rest of your life, or be sentenced to death and have it be done and over with?
I understand your term "eye for an eye", but don't you think it'd hurt the convict more if his or her life was dreaded. In this case, they could sit and think about what they did with their consequences. In response to Josh H's wall post, do you believe that it would be more painful to sit in a jail cell the rest of your life, or be sentenced to death and have it be done and over with?
I understand your term "eye for an eye", but don't you think it'd hurt the convict more if his or her life was dreaded. In this case, they could sit and think about what they did with their consequences.
Connor Cline said...
In response to Jenny’s comment I would agree with her. It is very true that there is no pain involved before, during, or after for these people. I also agree with her when she says that we shouldn’t kill these people unless under extreme circumstances. She makes a very good point when she says that living in a small cell is a much worse punishment. Overall I agree with what Jenny has to say.
I don't agree with Grace Janssen because it doesn't cost more to have people put to death on the death penalty. It's one less person to feed and to put clothes on. The people put on trial for the death penalty usually are guilty, the trials are much more intense just so there won't be a mistake. Plus in my opinion it is a much better way to die, then to have to sit in a jail for the rest of my life. I'd rather die then be put in solitary confinement, which is most likely the punishment besides death. Most prisoners put in solitary confinement do go crazy, which can't be better then dying.
This is Haley! In response to Grace's post, I have a completely different view. If someone killed your child or someone in your family wouldn't you want justice. Or what about the terrorists and people who are captured in war, do you not want them killed instead of keeping them in jail for life? Yes, we may be saving money, but then the criminals would be just saying that no matter what happens the punishment is not that bad. In my opinion the death penalty is a way to take care of some sort of crime rates.
I disagree with Rizzle 1687, who is for the death penalty. Even if the person did something horrible, it doesn't mean they deserve to die. We all have the right to live, convict or not. Two wrongs don't make a right. However, I do agree with you that firing squad and electric chair is cruel and unusual. I also agree that death by lethal injection is not cruel and unusual. It is the most possible humane way.
I disagree with Craig. Justice is not about bringing the victim back. You need to punish the accused person and if they have done horrible things then they don't deserve the taxpayer money that would keep them alive in jail for potentially 40-50 years. It's more convenient to everybody and it will bring some comfort to the family of the vicim if this man is killed, and he has no rights. He gave up his rights when he chose to do a heinous crime.
I agree and disagree with Grace. It does cost more to kill someone using the death penalty, instead of keeping them in jail for a lifetime. But i do believe that the death penalty is needed. A convict who has killed one or many does not deserve to live. I feel like jail is not a big enough punishment for someone who has taken a life on purpose.
If people are going to bring the issue of costs into the arguement, I would much rather give up a few tax dollars to keep somebody alive than to give up a little less tax dollars for the execution of somebody. If you are more willing to pay for the legal murder of somebody, their blood is on your hands and you have become no less guilty of murder than the person being executed. What about the families of the person being executed? Why should they also have to suffer the loss of a loved one? Two wrongs do not make a right. It also is not like everybody being sentenced to death is the devil. Stanley Williams, a prisoner who was eventually executed, was nominated for the nobel peace prize for his work to stop kids from joining gangs.
In response to SMUNDSTOCK:
I agree with Smundstock that the most humane way ( currently) to take another's life is lethal injection. Because today's technology has advanced no further than this, lethal injection must be used as our most humane way to end a criminal's life. However, I disagree with Smundstock when it comes to the death penalty. Smundstock claims that, “ even if they are a murderer, he or she still has the right to life.”
What then Smudstock, do you think would be an adequate punishment for an individual who kills another? If one were to kill your mother or father would the correct punishment be life in prison? Many prisoners are actually subject to worse treatment on the streets than those spent behind bars. In prison they are provided, food, shelter, and heat.
“To habitual criminals, prisons are resorts with televisions, weight-training facilities and libraries that some colleges would envy," said State Senator Gerald A. Cardinale of New Jersey. (NY Times)
Your proposal that the death penalty is unjust then resorts to life long prison sentences complete with television and 3 meals a day( courtesy of the taxpayer).I do not feel that this “punishment” would justify the killing of your mother or father in any way. The death penalty is necessary to keep society in check and show criminals that we will not put up with their heinous crimes.
Cutting Down on Amenities To Achieve No-Frills Jail
By IVER PETERSON ( www.nytimes.com)
I agree with Brooke when she said that I was right in my first post =) but on another note I dont think people escaping would be that big of an issue it has never been and probably wont be.
i think that the death penalty is necessary in some cases especially when it comes to murder.If someone is going to recieve the death penalty then i think that lethal injection would be the best way because of the lack of pain the person being injected would feel.I dont think that the death penalty should be used unless the person is undoubtedly guilty and has comitted a crime that deserves a punishment that harsh.
also i think that the supreme court should only rule that someone should recieve the death penalty if they are guilty of multiple murders or have a previous record of violent crimes.
in respnse to taylor:
i agree that if there is a chance that the person accused of the crime is innocent then the death penalty should not be used in case new evidence is later presented after the person has been executed that may have proved them innocent.
I also agree that the death penalty should be most commonly used when the person is on trial for multiple murders as opposed to other crimes.
I think that the death penalty is cruel and unusual. That aside, I stand by the death penalty. I is rediculous to think that people would suffer more in a prison than dead. If someone lacks the humanity to value human life, then their own life isn't valuable. If someone takes a life, they deserve to have their own removed from them. The Supreme Court should uphold the death penalty and speed along convictions for death row inmates. One of the reasons that it costs so much to kill people is their long stay in prison-which is expensive!
to Brooke
I agree with your view and opinions about the death penalty. I also think it doesn’t matter if they feel it or not- because what they did was worse. Yet if they didn’t do it, that for surly is cruel and unusual punishment, but that is why courts review cases over and over and can take years to decide the punishment. Overall, it’s a way to keep the psycho people out of jail to protect the less harmful people and better yet off of our streets.
Lethal injection is not cruel and unusual. Compared to the old death penalties its probably the best. But, the death penalty should be used in cases with extreme conditions, otherwise life sentencing with no parole would be best. But lethal injection is ok and not cruel under the rights conditions.
Jenny33 is right. Dying in a cell slowly without being able to be free or see your family friends ect is much more cruel than an small injection that puts you to sleep and kills you. The injection is not cruel and unusual and is a smart choice.
I disagree with Cort in saying that the death penalty is equal or better than a sentence to life in prison. Yes, it is costly to keep them alive in prison, but how can you put a price on someone's life? There are many in prison who are enlightened and change their lives during their time. Prison is not a death sentence. You are still alive and it can change people. The death sentence should be rarely used since it is a harsh punishment that is not reversible.
I agree with Ms. Aby. The death penalty can be humane as long as a expert is controlling the injection. The death penalty should be used for some criminals, who have many life sentences and when there is no other punishment. What's difference between 3 life sentences and 5?
I agree with Ms. Aby. The death penalty can be humane as long as a expert is controlling the injection. The death penalty should be used for some criminals, who have many life sentences and when there is no other punishment. What's difference between 3 life sentences and 5?
I agree with Brooke, because an eye for an eye is a valid punishment. If you think that the death penalty has gone to far, then examine legal cases that deal with large corporations- Suing McDonalds for millions of dollars for coffee that was too hot is absolutly rediculous. That is way over the top. If you think that the death penalty is rediculous, then examine othere legal cases like this one.
I agree with Krystyna that lethal injection is not a cruel and unusual punishment. They do not feel pain, so how could it be cruel and unusual.
I dont believe the death penalty is unusual and cruel. The death penalty is only imposed on those who are well aware of the consequences of their actions and therefore they should be issued the death penalty when fit. I do not know if lethal injection can be counted as cruel and unusual. Not enough proof to say that it causes pain during the process has been provided and due to this I believe that lethal injection is still valid. I I were on the supreme court i would propose the idea of choice. a convict would have the ability to choose his method of punishment. This would enable a convict to endure a punishment which he finds acceptable and thus less forced pain.
What is more cruel? Living in jail without parole under limited circumstances with nothing but eternal darkness overshadowing someone, or being put to death quickly so one doesn't have to endure such hardships? It would be most logical to put the person to death instantly. People who argue with the cruel and unusual claim are very contradictory because they're worried about pain during someone's death process other than their pain and suffering while rotting in a jail cell where more harm could be inflicted upon them. It has been studied by the Stanford Law Review that more inmates are killed in jail than any other death toll in any area across the United States. The Justice system is accountable for the most deaths than any other system or place rather, in the whole country and it is mainly in part by the inmates killing each other. Not to mention, a lot of rapes and other treacherous activities take place while in jail than any where else, so is that as fair as a slight possibility of "painful" execution? The answer is no! Another study by the Stanford Law Review indicates that in 1976, the crime rates and murder rates were as high as they ever were and when the death penalty was reinstated in '77, the crime/murder rates decreased by 3,500, a roughly 250 percent differential. I'd rather have a policy that rid the nation of guilty criminals than one that grants these scumbags the gift of life. I'll leave everyone with one last point: In 1996, Daryl Holton shot and killed his three kids brutally in the garage, three innocent, precious kids! Can you honestly say a person like that deserves to live, nobody in the right mind could!
Post a Comment