Young Writers Society

Should we use capital punishment in the United States and why?


-- I will answer it later.... am thinking of how to put my opinion--

No. I know I'm from Britain, but...

We don't have it here. It's hypocrisy. The law states "do not kill" (in different words, clearly), yet if someone does, they can be killed for it. That's like for example, me saying don't swear on this forum, and then swearing at someone for doing it.

That's my opinion anyway. Although the whole law system is screwed up.

better if we just lock all the really nasty criminals in a big windowless room with guns. that way, they kill each other.

the death penalty is reserved for cerial killers, and those who commit haneous premeditated murders of numerous persons, which is similar to cerial killing, but they have a reason.

we dont just kill everyone who kills someone.
texas has statutes that forgo the appeals process if you commit multiple haneous murders with more than 3 credible eyewitnesses... an express line so to speak.

Firestarter wrote:No. I know I'm from Britain, but...

We don't have it here. It's hypocrisy. The law states "do not kill" (in different words, clearly), yet if someone does, they can be killed for it. That's like for example, me saying don't swear on this forum, and then swearing at someone for doing it.

That's my opinion anyway. Although the whole law system is screwed up.

I fully agree. It's operating on the "eye for an eye" system, which I really don't think is right. The government is lowering itself to the murderer's level by killing that person. I say let 'em rot in jail with their misery for the rest of their life..

That's why I cringe everytime I hear about the Scott Peterson trial. He was sentenced to death, which I didn't think was fair. Yes, it LOOKED like he killed Laci, but there was no SOLID PROOF. I don't think he enjoyed life during the trial, and I'm sure he wouldn't enjoy life stuck in a prison cell for 23 hours everyday.

Giving criminals the death penalty is a device used in foresight. While opponents of it may claim that we kill the wrong person, looking back at who we've convicted, there have been only 2 people (here in Texas) who were falsely accused. This out of thousands of other men and women, such as Andrea Yates. Personally, I support it, because it has deterred crime in recent years and continues to do so today. While just locking them up for the rest of their life may give them a chance to be found not guilty, it also gives left-wing organizations time to find ways to put criminals on parole and try to "help" the inmates. My opinion.

those two people still did NOT deserve to die. and through the system, to completely innocent people have been murdered.


scott peterson doesnt deserve the death penalty, and knowing california he probably wont die because of it. he still has appeals process to go through, and california is notorious for not killing the people it says it will.
the jury didnt sentance him to death because he looked like he did it, they sentanced him because he didn't show any remorse during the trial, which is a load of BS if you ask me, because being accused of killing your wife, being thrown in prison for the duration of the trial, living in that cell for 23 hours a day, unable to sleep, you'd be pretty devoid of emotion yourself.
im not sure if he made bail or not, but i still do not think his lack of emotion during the trial was enough to kill him. killing scott peterson, or just throwing him in jail for the entire remainder of his life would have the same effect. however, his crime was, since there actually IS solid proof he did it, premeditated. premeditated murder is murder 1, and is grounds for the death penalty. oh well.

Well, you can see how closely I followed the trial..

But I completely agree with your point about his lack of emotion. It must've been hell seeing it all unfold and realizing his fate. I'm sure he pretty much lost hope.

Perhaps, but you forget that in a murder trial all evidence is circumstancial. An eye witness is circumstancial, even. The fact was, he didn't have any emotion about it, no matter that he was up 23 hours, which is an entirely fictitional amount. He slept around 5 to 6 hours everynight. About what I sleep, and I seem to do just fine :grins maniacally:. Anyhow, I'm glad it got over with. For God's sake, it went on forever, and these things happen all the time. It's not like it was some big, rare event. All that happened was some reporter got paid to politicize the event and they took the bait.

The death penalty should not be removed from society because it will and has deterred the crime rate in Texas and other states. New York abolished the death penalty and their crime rate is at an all-time high. The fact of the matter is, the death penalty is used in foresight, whereas probation and life sentences are used in hindsight. While life sentences may offer the chance for someone to be proven innocent (the rate of which is only 2.2%), by using the death penalty, we stop a future crime and possibly multiple crimes. You can argue that the 2.2% is worth the life sentence, but in a state like New York, where after the abolishment of the death penalty caused an insurgence of crime (a whopping 7% leap), I think I'll stick with 2 innocent guys dead every 3 years. Besides, it's not like it's a very efficient process anyway.

They eighty-sixed capital punishment in South Africa, and since then the country's been over-ruled with crime. You can't even walk to school for fear of being attacked.

No clue.

Studies results can be interpretated in so many different ways. You've got people saying that crimes rates go down in States where death penalty has been instated. Then you've got other people saying that in States where capital punishment has been banned, crimes rates are lower.

Contradictions, contradictions.... And then you go searching online, and some arguments make just so much sense while you're reading them, and then when you go over them in your head later, they are complete BS.

I guess the point of this long as- er- rant is to say that it really depends on circumstances.

Some countries don't need capital punishment- whether it is because it's against their religions, or against their beliefs, or whatever. But some countries believe it does lower crime rates, and yeah, if it works for them, then good.

All I'm saying is that if Incandescence's numbers are correct, and that there are very few mistakes and such, then capital punishment is fine in the States. It's up to the Minister's discretion. After all, murderers are well aware that capital punishments exists. They were warned; it's not as if their death sentence are sprung on them at the last moment. So why all the fuss? They know so it's their own fault for still committing a murder.

Excuse me for sounding harsh, but that's my logic.

However, if you ask me whether I would want capital punishment to be re-instated in Canada, well, I'd have to say no. Crime rates are low, no need for further dissuasion, thankyouverymuch.