The usual rules
Here is another of my renowned intellectual discussion threads. Has always, any opinion is fair game has long has you support it with arguments. Normal forum rules also apply. This means stay respectful of others people/ideas and don't use abusive language.
====
Here is the question
Each country in the world has some legal system to protect the sociaty and its members. The specific laws vary from place to place, but essentially the intent is always the protection of a state of rights where people can live their daily life in a secure and safe environment.
It is also true that each sociaty has always had some highly violent and disturbing people who were a threat to others. Some countries decided that these individuals are too dangerous too be released back into society and are using the death sentence to make sure these people are no longer a risk. The death senstence is usally reserved for violent crimes like murder. The question is wether it is a good idea to use such a sentence.
For reference:
Some USA states use the death sentence.
Canada still has it in it's laws when someone kills a policeman on duty but it has not been used for over 50 years.
Portugal does not use death sentence.
Australia no longer has it (since 1985)
France no longer has it (since 1981).
Chine, Singapour and Viêt-Nam all curently use the death sentence.
Althought it is sometimes true that some people cannot be changed there is one big flaw with the death sentence. This flaw is actually the same as the advantage the death sentence has. It is permanent.
The advantage with such a permanent solution is that the "problem" is definatly resolved, it does not cost money to maintain (like keeping someone in prison for life) and there is no chance of excape where the person could kill again.
The big problem with being permanent is : what if you make a mistake? The justice system is not perfect. Some people are wrongfully accused and condemned and a few years later are found not guilty. We can try to minimize these kind of events, but it is impossible to have a perfect sytem where no mistake are made ever.
For this last reasons, I would say the deat sentence is, at first look, an intersting solution to extremem cases, but the dangers of killing the wrong person makes the solution ethically wrong. For this reason, I do not think such a sentence should be used.
Here is another of my renowned intellectual discussion threads. Has always, any opinion is fair game has long has you support it with arguments. Normal forum rules also apply. This means stay respectful of others people/ideas and don't use abusive language.
====
Here is the question
Each country in the world has some legal system to protect the sociaty and its members. The specific laws vary from place to place, but essentially the intent is always the protection of a state of rights where people can live their daily life in a secure and safe environment.
It is also true that each sociaty has always had some highly violent and disturbing people who were a threat to others. Some countries decided that these individuals are too dangerous too be released back into society and are using the death sentence to make sure these people are no longer a risk. The death senstence is usally reserved for violent crimes like murder. The question is wether it is a good idea to use such a sentence.
For reference:
Some USA states use the death sentence.
Canada still has it in it's laws when someone kills a policeman on duty but it has not been used for over 50 years.
Portugal does not use death sentence.
Australia no longer has it (since 1985)
France no longer has it (since 1981).
Chine, Singapour and Viêt-Nam all curently use the death sentence.
Althought it is sometimes true that some people cannot be changed there is one big flaw with the death sentence. This flaw is actually the same as the advantage the death sentence has. It is permanent.
The advantage with such a permanent solution is that the "problem" is definatly resolved, it does not cost money to maintain (like keeping someone in prison for life) and there is no chance of excape where the person could kill again.
The big problem with being permanent is : what if you make a mistake? The justice system is not perfect. Some people are wrongfully accused and condemned and a few years later are found not guilty. We can try to minimize these kind of events, but it is impossible to have a perfect sytem where no mistake are made ever.
For this last reasons, I would say the deat sentence is, at first look, an intersting solution to extremem cases, but the dangers of killing the wrong person makes the solution ethically wrong. For this reason, I do not think such a sentence should be used.