A life for a life?

I don't know about you, but I wish some of the old ways of the west were still around. Like when you killed someone, you were killed as your punishment. There's no getting out of it by pleading insanity. You wouldn't be able to be in jail for years.

I just don't like paying for a murderer to be in a jail for X amount of years. Think about it, how many of our jails are filling up with killers who are in there for at least a couple years?
I don't like how people can get away with murder by pleading insanity. If you are so uncaring of life to take it for your own sick pleasure, then your life should be forfeit.

I'm probably going to get backlash for this post, but that's my opinion...

I completely disagree with your entire post.

That's my opinion.

No, not at all. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind and vengeance is utterly pointless. Humans should know better by now.

Talking about the cost thing studies show that the average cost of putting someone to death is actually more than keeping them in prison for the rest of their life.

I disagree with the death penalty for a few reasons but the main one is I don't think anyone is beyond redemption. I think all people can change and I think they should be put in prison for murder but I think they should be allowed time to rehabilitate.

Except in cases of self defense, I totally agree with you. Especially in the cases of psychiopaths/pschopaths, who can't be rehabilitated. And especially if their crimes were heinous.

That's my opinion. And I'm sticking to it!

If they are a psychopath then shouldn't they get even more leniency considering they don't have the capability to empathise?

But then you come to the situations we have now where people use the insanity card to get out of going to jail or the death penalty.

It's a slippery slope...

Logically, jmo, I'd have to say yes.

It's not an easy nut to crack, that's for sure; but my heart, and head, are with the innocents.

What does socitey do? Keep them locked up forever?
What happens when their numbers become too great for the systems to hold, and so forth?...gah.

If someone genuinely cannot be blamed for something they have done then what is the purpose in giving them a sever punishment? What purpose does that achieve?

I disagree entirely. Seems a bit backwards (ok, more than a bit) to kill in order to show that killing is wrong.

It seems like a terrible idea to me to kill human beings just because you don't know what to do with them.

I mostly agree, I don't think it should be done willy nilly but for really terrible cases and for really evil people then yes. I'm sorry but there are some people in the world who are just pure evil imo and why should they get to live their life whilst the innocent person/people they killed, not to mention their families lives are over? It could be brought back, but I think it needs to be investigated on a case by case basis, debated thoroughly first and needs concrete evidence that that person committed the crime. I think most people (not all) would feel differently if it was a member of their family that was murdered...

If they are genuinely insane, then you can't really do much except to put them in prison.

I just don't like people who take advantage of the system and use the insanity card, when they aren't insane, just to get a lesser sentence.

Hence why members of the family are not allowed on juries or to be the judge in any cases against an accused murderer.

Too look at this from the position of either the victim or the accused is to look at it with bias. Any legal system or law taken from the bias of those involved is going to be flawed by its very nature.

That isn't a reason to further punish those who are insane though.

Just like removing all incapacity benefits because a few people are exploiting the system would be unjust as it does not simply punish those who are doing the exploitation.