Welcome to Gaia! ::

You're stance on the death penalty is obviously heavily influenced by your interpretation of cruel and unusual punishment....

For the longest time I would have agreed with you. And eye for an eye dang'it! A life for a life!

But the brutal truth is that the United States incarcerates the largest percentage of their citizens of any other country. Reasoning behind that aside, as a nation we cannot afford the "harsher punishments" (Keeping any person in prison costs close to $18,400 per yer per person. This also includes those awaiting the death penalty, because they have so many appeals which takes so many years...). Harsher punishments = more people in prison, when the prisons are already over flowing with incarcerated criminals.

The system we have, of plea bargaining, allows prosecutors and judges to use discretion when trying and sentencing a criminal. Would this person do better placed, say, in a rehabilitation facility (which with methadone clinics costs about 1/4 the cost of incarceration) or for the safety of the community, must they be taken off the streets? As it is, you hear that a person is sentenced to 6 to 10 years - chances are, they'll serve 1/2 of the lowest year. Also, not just taken off the streets, but kept off. It was the habit in Chicago years ago, to simply select some of the "least dangerous" convicts and open the gates - let them go in the middle of the night because there wasn't enough room. Over crowded and with statutes limiting how many people could be in one cell, etc. they had to release some to keep the most dangerous in (and this is not just Chicago, but I know because that is where I live and study).

The Criminal Justice system is riddled with flaws, but there is no easy solution. Harsher penalties would only mean a more flooded system, from the officers and courts to prisons cells. "Justice" would be harder to come by (as if it isn't hard enough already!) and more and more criminals would be let off with more lenient sentencing, despite what you may think.

Mandatory sentencing laws are in place in a number of states, and you see some of those problems in those places. But it makes us feel better, doesn't it?

I agree, the law these days let's peaple get away with anything.

Terms such as "inhumane" and "cruel" are subjective.
If the innocent get's convicted, it is the courts fault.
They should be punished.
Not society by allowing other scum to live.
Life is life no matter what.
What kind of statement is that?
I THOUGHT LIFE WAS A PEICE OF PIE!
Human values have never been consistent within cultures and societies, and have been changing every year. What's a little "coarsening of human values about life"?

I never said the system didn't work.

As a student of law and justice, I don't see it so much as a flaw of the legal system as it is a flaw of society. I think criminal behavior (besides being a choice of course) is the manifestation of contemporary norms, rather than a failure of society.

We have to have a legal system that fits in with our "doctrine" of democracy. We all have to be equal and have the right to fight for our rights and our lives.

There is something wrong with society that created what you called "scum," Jacko. If the CJ system weren't so bogged down, you would see a much swifter, more reactive system.

Nappy.
You and your misleading statistics.
Give me ONE name, with a viable source of information, of a human who was wrongly executed.

Lemondream.
"contemporary norms" are a product of society.
Yet I still don't fully understand your objection.

Soccerrocker1234.
Why do we have to have morals?
The State's laws come before your individual morals.
The definitions of "just government" and "cruel" have more grey area words defining them.
Personally, I don't beleive electric torture is cruel.
Whereas most, including the United Nations (because they like to stick their nose into everything that helps war) think it is.

Thank you!

And Jacko, I don't understand why the statistics were interpreted as 'misleading'.
They were from a perfectly fine organization.
Just becuase they go against your point...;P
Anyhow, if the link LemonDream provided doesn't satisfy you, you're just being stubborn.

When did I disrespect an opinion?
What are morals? What sets said morals?
With all the "multiculturalism" promoted around America and in some European countries, you'd think we would have various sets of morals. Which we do. Morals are just guidance for life. My morals and ethics differ from yours.
Why do you have to be so aggressive?
Nothing is "cruel" to me.
If used in the correct fashion.
I used "electric" torture as an example.
Electric, because it narrows the torture down.
And torture, because it's usually something people and I differ on.