DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**BrifsGefel** · 12-13-2005, 03:04 AM

It is. In the first instance the person still has at least part of their life left to them, and the possibility of some sort of compensation / restitution for the miscarriage of justice. In the second instance the person is, well, dead and buried. That's a pretty big difference from my point of view.

Bear in mind that a person can be kept in jail for for life (until they die) and after the death is when the information can surface that removes the guilt. Furthermore, even if you are released, I don't think there is really a way to compensate for someone's losing 30 years. Now, Ben said "if even one innocent person dies, the system is broken and should not be used." I assumed he applied that logic to all systems and not this system selectively. In that case, a person can die in prison if given a life sentence. Therefore, is the the penalty of life also broken?

"The taking of a human life is so heinous that the perpetrator deserves to die." - wrxsti

No, the illegal taking of a human life is heinous, if you want to use that word.

"Well, if you imprison someone for thirty years, and later find evidence that he was innocent, then you are able to at least do something to compensate him. That's not true for the death penalty. When you're dead, you're dead.

The main reason I oppose the death penalty, however, is that it costs too much. For me, it's not a matter of morality, but utility." - Anti-Utopian

Same can be said about life imprisonment. Should we completely do away with a punishment simply because it takes a long time to carry it out and because it can be "partially compensated" if given out incorrectly? As for the money, that can be corrected by limiting the appeals process and removing other expensive things. The death penalty should be made less expensive than a life sentence.

12-13-2005, 03:04 AM	#16
BrifsGefel Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 302 Senior Member	It is. In the first instance the person still has at least part of their life left to them, and the possibility of some sort of compensation / restitution for the miscarriage of justice. In the second instance the person is, well, dead and buried. That's a pretty big difference from my point of view. Bear in mind that a person can be kept in jail for for life (until they die) and after the death is when the information can surface that removes the guilt. Furthermore, even if you are released, I don't think there is really a way to compensate for someone's losing 30 years. Now, Ben said "if even one innocent person dies, the system is broken and should not be used." I assumed he applied that logic to all systems and not this system selectively. In that case, a person can die in prison if given a life sentence. Therefore, is the the penalty of life also broken? "The taking of a human life is so heinous that the perpetrator deserves to die." - wrxsti No, the illegal taking of a human life is heinous, if you want to use that word. "Well, if you imprison someone for thirty years, and later find evidence that he was innocent, then you are able to at least do something to compensate him. That's not true for the death penalty. When you're dead, you're dead. The main reason I oppose the death penalty, however, is that it costs too much. For me, it's not a matter of morality, but utility." - Anti-Utopian Same can be said about life imprisonment. Should we completely do away with a punishment simply because it takes a long time to carry it out and because it can be "partially compensated" if given out incorrectly? As for the money, that can be corrected by limiting the appeals process and removing other expensive things. The death penalty should be made less expensive than a life sentence.
	Quote