TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Should death penalty/life imprisonment be banned?

Hi everyone, ive a concern about death penalties. Death penalties are punishment for very serious offences(eg smuggling cocaine etc) in many countries. Yes, they can be a major drawback for anyone who wants to commit a crime, thus dramatically bringing crime rates down. However, my concern is, is it right for the government to take away one's life just like that? I do not think that it is very reasonable as this is our own life and i feel that nobody should take away other people's life just like that.
Instead, i feel that death penalties should be replaced by life imprisonment. However, i still feel that life imprisonment is also another violating of human rights. I feel that at least during imprisonment, they should be given productive work to do , and the imprisonment periods can be shortened if the prisoner shows good attitude(which some country has). Life imprisonment or death penalty is simply morally wrong to me. Nobody should be denied of life. Hows that different from killing an animal or locking an animal in a cage. Many did these serious offences in a matter of folly, this does not mean it can be assumed that they will have these same attitude throughout their lives and should be locked up so as to prevent further damage to the society. If they can show sustained good attitude and improvement, their sentences should be reduced and they can even provide some contribution to the community after release.
I would like to get some feedback on my views


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jul 3 2013: Welcome to Human Nature-101. The penalty for fishing without a license is $50. The cost of a license is $62. The odds of getting caught fishing without a license are less than one. People frequently fish without a license. If the penalty was execution then people would not fish without a license. When a criminal is choosing how to be armed for a crime they will be less likely to choose a lethal weapon in they know the result could be death, both their victim and theirs. The difference in severity of penalties for armed and unarmed crimes is stark. If you relax the penalty you invite disobedience.
    • Jul 3 2013: For your examples, there will still be people doing it again however harsh the punishment will be, at least the minority. But my concern is, do we have the power to just decide how a human should live however bad they did? Is the power in our hands to decide the fate of another human? I do not think this is morally right.
      I do not think death penalty should not be implemented, rather life-imprisonment(which i also do not really support). I did not relax the penalty. Like ive said for shortening of sentences for good behavior thats implemented in several countries or many countries. I mean why not? Death penalty is certainly wrong. What if the person did it out of folly and thats death for him seriously? He should be given a chance to learn and eventually show good behaviour in prison.
      • thumb
        Jul 3 2013: Many people have no freedom because they live under dictators and warlords. How is depriving an offender of their freedom any different than the day-to-day existence of such unfortunate souls? If you are arguing that the death penalty has no deterring influence on capital crimes you are not being persuasive at all. Many capital crimes are surely averted because of the severity of the punishment. Again, surely, if the severity is reduced the crimes will increase. One who is guilty of stealing a days wages from someone should be made to restore two days wages to the victim. One who wrongfully and intentionally (non-accidentally) takes the life of another should me made to pay with their life. The death penalty is not "certainly wrong" as you propose. The death penalty is a necessary control mechanism for social order. People are not as good as you seem to think they are. There are many in our midst who would find murder to be a fulfilling experience. They are restrained by the threat of losing their own life if caught. Do you really want to lift those restraints? Thank you!
        • Jul 4 2013: im just simply saying death penalty is morally wrong though a great deterrent. For your last example,they would still be under bad-behaviour status and thus sentence not shortened, as simple as that.
      • thumb
        Jul 3 2013: Daryll,
        What Edward said..
        I think it is too hard to make this conclusion based on a single point of view or society. For example, national standards for prisons in the USA, including food, clothing, shelter, medical services, recreation are probably superior on many levels then the living conditions the prisoners came from. Admittedly, there are slums in a number of large American cities. Jails in other countries as reported by media are a living hell having not changed in 500 years.
        So, a convicted person of a heinous crime in the USA not sent to death would live in relative comfort albeit confined for the rest of his life. So much so, that prisoners needing organ transplants are routinely accommodated.
        The same crime in another country could warrant a 10 years sentence in their jails and be equally punished.
        • Jul 4 2013: So what if its more difficult provide lounging for them? From what you've said, you perceived these criminals abit lowly. You gave me an impression that they are useless and should be discarded off.
          Simply no death penalty to me
      • thumb
        Jul 4 2013: RE: "I'm just simply saying death. . . " First of all I am pleased to read your acknowledgement that the death penalty is a great deterrent. You do recognize that many, possibly thousands of, innocent lives are spared from forced slaughter by that very deterrent? The death penalty is morally wrong you say? Do you believe it would be morally wrong for you to use lethal force against a man who is about to-- forgive me for this ugly illustration-- forcibly rape your young child? If your answer is "no" and you believe lethal force is justifiable, and preferred, in certain cases, why would you deny such a justifiable, preferred option to society? Sadly, Daryll, we have more than a few among us who are restrained from acting-out their heinous desires only by the knowledge that they will be killed if convicted for doing so. To unleash them upon society would be immoral. Thank you!
      • thumb
        Jul 4 2013: Daryll,
        I don't believe you understood the point I was trying to make. If you believe that bad behavior deserves punishment, but not death, I understand your position.
        What I was trying to say that punishment in the USA prisons is not comparable to that in other countries. Am I bragging that we have nice jails and you don't?
        Some of our prisons have been describe as resorts, so there is little punishment, in fact, here there is education, rehabilitation, job training, but the bad news is the USA has the highest recidivism rates
        But, we do have the death penalty in some states. In my state, if you murder with callus indifference, murder children, and other egregious acts, you will be charged, if convicted, given the death penalty.
    • Jul 4 2013: That has been a very interesting conversation. My feelings on this subject are quite mixed. and my thoughts are generating more and more questions... such as:
      1. I wonder if death penalty could be a tool for the society to get rid of its "bad elements".
      2. If a society approves the death penalty, could it also approve euthanasia? ( "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering" ) , and the opposite?
      3. if a rapist and murderer of a child should be sentenced to death, should the same rule be applied to a meat production company that releases the e-coli bacteria in the market ,causing the death of hundred of children?
      4. What the world be like, if Socrates wasn't sentenced to death?
      • thumb
        Jul 4 2013: 1) To CONTROL bad elements is precisely what it is for. 2) "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering", this could serve as the definition for abortion also. I agree that euthanasia, abortion, and capital punishment share a common purpose. . . to end a human life. Only one of them is done to protect the innocent, strengthen the society, and control evil human deeds. There is no logical necessity for a society to accept all three. 3) If malice of forethought is proven those who knowingly participate in such a mass-murder should pay with their lives. If it was a result of carelessness, or was an accident, the penalty should not be death. 4) The world would be exactly as it is today.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.