Nothing should be implemented globally through laws, because it would mean a central global government rulling every corners of the world. Death sentence is a sensible matter and one of the biggest impasses to be discussed. Some crimes are so brutal that make you wish the criminal died immediately, as punishment for his acts, and also to protect society from potential actions from him futurely.
There are cases where the criminal was spared from being killed, and ended harming more innocent people later, once he had a new chance to do so. It arises the question: if he had been terminated once the officers had the chance, couldn't those innocent people still be alive right now?
Is the society which protects criminals from death sentence protecting the innocent citizens from the criminals' menaces? At same time, with the exception of military open conflicts, do human beings have the right to take the life of each other and decide who has to die and who has to live?
Topic: Should the death sentence be implemented globally? (Read 182 times)
Should the death sentence be implemented globally? I would love to ask, isn't crime the same thing? Doesn't a country, community, or color of skin make a crime less severe?
I believe that death sentence is already implemented globally and there is no exception about it whether color or status because each of the system has a law that governs them and for everyone to abide by it transparency should be taken serious, however death sentence is not always a regular something in every society because the law has every crime stated and there various penalties so when a person commit the offense that attract the death sentence the court will charge the person guilty and sentence them but however not all the crime are the same even if they have the same name because there are some that can only lead to a day, weeks, months and so on, so it doesn't mean that they would sentence everybody to death that committed any offense. Isnt there in the bible where they stone people to death? That must be the law back then just as the two more criminals besides Jesus being crucified.
Yes. death sentence is necessary so that criminals will think twice before committing a crime. If they re not afraid of consequences then criminals will just keep doing it. Aren't we all afraid to walk outside if criminals walk free after they just killed someone?
If we exclude all the countries you mentioned, only the United States remains, which applies the death penalty in some of its states. The United States and Egypt are the only two examples where death sentences are not issued for ideological or doctrinal reasons, and premeditated murder is almost the only crime punishable by death. Please correct me if you know other countries.
On the other hand, death sentences are still legally enforced in many countries, but not implemented. That is, death sentences are issued, but not implemented and the accused spends the rest of his life in solitary confinement and is denied visits. In my country, for example, death sentences are still issued for premeditated murder, but the last death sentence to be implemented was in 1991 for a serial killer.
Personally, I am against the legalization of the application of the death penalty for any crime (except for military laws) for moral and humanitarian reasons. I do not see that any authority has the right to kill people, especially since it can be replaced by alternative punishments such as life imprisonment and hard labor for the benefit of society.
Haven't checked in detail, but you may be right. Seems that death sentence are still enforced mainly in Asian Islamic countries. And looks that some of these countries have brutal ways to implement it like stoning. IMO, if you already have such thing it should be implemented in more humanistic way.On the other hand, death sentences are still legally enforced in many countries, but not implemented. That is, death sentences are issued, but not implemented and the accused spends the rest of his life in solitary confinement and is denied visits. In my country, for example, death sentences are still issued for premeditated murder, but the last death sentence to be implemented was in 1991 for a serial killer.
Personally, I am against the legalization of the application of the death penalty for any crime (except for military laws) for moral and humanitarian reasons. I do not see that any authority has the right to kill people, especially since it can be replaced by alternative punishments such as life imprisonment and hard labor for the benefit of society.
Lifetime imprisonment also have some sensitive questions. Like for example you have serial killer or terrorist. How much taxpayers money is spent to feed, threat him, pay for things like electricity, heating and etc. In 30 or 40 years or how much he is going to live in total it ends with not that small money.
No, because there is no direct relation between death sentence and crime rate. Though, in some cases I would support death penalty for crimes like terrorism, murder or raping, but globally it doesn't looks like good idea.
Lookw hich countries have death sentence now. Mostly it's 3rd world countries with flawed law enforcement, authiritarian regimes which are using death penalty to remove their opponents. I'm not even talking about countries like Iran, Taliban or Saudi Arabia where thing goes beyond common sense. In XXI century you still can get death sentence for not following some stupid religion regulations.
I don't think it's good examples to follow...
Lookw hich countries have death sentence now. Mostly it's 3rd world countries with flawed law enforcement, authiritarian regimes which are using death penalty to remove their opponents. I'm not even talking about countries like Iran, Taliban or Saudi Arabia where thing goes beyond common sense. In XXI century you still can get death sentence for not following some stupid religion regulations.
I don't think it's good examples to follow...
If we exclude all the countries you mentioned, only the United States remains, which applies the death penalty in some of its states. The United States and Egypt are the only two examples where death sentences are not issued for ideological or doctrinal reasons, and premeditated murder is almost the only crime punishable by death. Please correct me if you know other countries.
On the other hand, death sentences are still legally enforced in many countries, but not implemented. That is, death sentences are issued, but not implemented and the accused spends the rest of his life in solitary confinement and is denied visits. In my country, for example, death sentences are still issued for premeditated murder, but the last death sentence to be implemented was in 1991 for a serial killer.
Personally, I am against the legalization of the application of the death penalty for any crime (except for military laws) for moral and humanitarian reasons. I do not see that any authority has the right to kill people, especially since it can be replaced by alternative punishments such as life imprisonment and hard labor for the benefit of society.
Should the death sentence be implemented globally? I would love to ask, isn't crime the same thing? Doesn't a country, community, or color of skin make a crime less severe?
I know, looking at it from a religious lens, God doesn't want the death of a sinner, and all, but any crime that deserves death should not spare the offender. If someone is arrested for murder, doesn't the pain feel the same in Nigeria as it does in the rest of the world?
It's the same pain and loss worldwide, so why shouldn't the death sentence be implemented globally, instead of just in some parts of the world? A criminal deserves to be punished regardless of their country or skin color.
That is true about death of someone biblically. God gave His only begotten son for our lives.I know, looking at it from a religious lens, God doesn't want the death of a sinner, and all, but any crime that deserves death should not spare the offender. If someone is arrested for murder, doesn't the pain feel the same in Nigeria as it does in the rest of the world?
It's the same pain and loss worldwide, so why shouldn't the death sentence be implemented globally, instead of just in some parts of the world? A criminal deserves to be punished regardless of their country or skin color.
John 3:16
New International Version
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
New International Version
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
And the bible also tells about God doesn't want one to die but all of us to be saved.
1 Timothy 2:4
New International Version
4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
New International Version
4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
And as for every country's law about death sentence, it comes from the deep rooted history of each culture that we have lived and born. I've read stories about those that have been sentenced for death that were innocent. I think it's still common story nowadays to see such someone's life put into this penalty but going with the actual reason, they're innocent and have been framed/
It is also quite power hungry of one to assume they should have control over not only their own local community but the entire planet Earth, no? Who has this qualification of telling millions of people thousands of miles away what they have to do or else and how did they get it?
Well, Op failed to understand that each country or society has their own system of operation with a different constitution that varies from one another. It's impossible to have a single working constitution since each society have different traditions and culture. What is legal in your society might be a taboo in my society. Assuming the world is operating under same law, some society will feel marginalised or abandoned either because of their population or geographical location.
Quote
Looking at it from a religious lens mankind seems poorly qualified to determine who should be killed and who shouldn't in comparison to leaving justice in the hands of the divine realm by leaving one's fate to nature. Its one thing to prevent harm as considered needed for the safety of others by restraint, and another thing entirely to specifically punish someone in vengence or revenge.
Looking at it from religious perspective, the holy books spelt out the necessary punishment for various offences but people are scared to implement it since majority of them are guilty of the offence. The deity grants the authority the power to execute the offenders and not allow them to live free for nature to determine their fate. Of course, there are some instances people are told to allow divine intervention.
Op, even if death sentence is implemented globally, not every offence deserves death sentence and that is where arguments will set in. Who determines which offence should be punishable by death? Which and which offence should be given death sentence? Lět each society implement what align with their traditions imo.
No, because there is no direct relation between death sentence and crime rate. Though, in some cases I would support death penalty for crimes like terrorism, murder or raping, but globally it doesn't looks like good idea.
Lookw hich countries have death sentence now. Mostly it's 3rd world countries with flawed law enforcement, authiritarian regimes which are using death penalty to remove their opponents. I'm not even talking about countries like Iran, Taliban or Saudi Arabia where thing goes beyond common sense. In XXI century you still can get death sentence for not following some stupid religion regulations.
I don't think it's good examples to follow...
Lookw hich countries have death sentence now. Mostly it's 3rd world countries with flawed law enforcement, authiritarian regimes which are using death penalty to remove their opponents. I'm not even talking about countries like Iran, Taliban or Saudi Arabia where thing goes beyond common sense. In XXI century you still can get death sentence for not following some stupid religion regulations.
I don't think it's good examples to follow...
Should the death sentence be implemented globally?
Who would enforce such a thing as a global death penalty? It would mean that the governments of nations are not sovereign regarding their nation. It would mean that in the USA, where each man is his own government, that all of the people were subjected to a One-World-Government.
For anybody who is interested, the death penalty globally is something that has already been implemented. Is there anybody walking around who is 300-years-old? If there is, we don't seem to have proof of it. And 300 is only the beginning. What about a 1,000-y-o?
The question we should be asking is, Why has the death penalty already, long ago, been implemented globally? And a second question is, Who has implemented it? And a third question might be, How do we get out of the death penalty? And a fourth might be, Do we really want to get out of death?
Considering that we don't clearly know the answers to these questions, what in the world is really going on IN the world and in life? Science doesn't seem to have the answers. All their ideas about Big Bang are simply guesses that don't really make sense... even to them. So, what is really going on?
Who would enforce such a thing as a global death penalty? It would mean that the governments of nations are not sovereign regarding their nation. It would mean that in the USA, where each man is his own government, that all of the people were subjected to a One-World-Government.
For anybody who is interested, the death penalty globally is something that has already been implemented. Is there anybody walking around who is 300-years-old? If there is, we don't seem to have proof of it. And 300 is only the beginning. What about a 1,000-y-o?
The question we should be asking is, Why has the death penalty already, long ago, been implemented globally? And a second question is, Who has implemented it? And a third question might be, How do we get out of the death penalty? And a fourth might be, Do we really want to get out of death?
Considering that we don't clearly know the answers to these questions, what in the world is really going on IN the world and in life? Science doesn't seem to have the answers. All their ideas about Big Bang are simply guesses that don't really make sense... even to them. So, what is really going on?
Death sentence is the hardest deterrent against crime. It must be used in rare of the rarest cases. Suppose person A rapes a child, now if he knows that he will be hanged (or tortured till death) he will simply kill the child to remove any evidence because he knows very well that he will only gain by killing and removing evidence.
On the other hand if he knew that he will serve in jail for X years (with rigorous punishment's) for raping but if police find out that he kills there will be death punishment with torture it might serve as a deterrent to some.
On the other hand if he knew that he will serve in jail for X years (with rigorous punishment's) for raping but if police find out that he kills there will be death punishment with torture it might serve as a deterrent to some.
I would love to see mass murderers be tortured rathe than a quick easy death penalty.
Me too.It is an interesting viewpoint and I am not sure whether "interesting" is the right word here, but you get me. I have just recently seen a German father say that he regrets there is no death row in Germany because for a murderer to receive a lifetime penalty, it is actually not enough. His child was killed and he said that all the murderer knows now is that his life will geographically be limited to a building that he can't leave anytime soon. I totally understood that point.
The one thing that shies me away from supporting the death penalty in any way is the fact that there are misjudgments. I can't even think of the feeling someone must have if they are wrongfully convicted. It is a problem. A huge problem.
There was this policeman who interrogated Anders Behring Breivik, the guy who killed all these children in Norway, the island Utoya. I am not sure what his role before was (policeman's role), but he said that it felt unreal to not be allowed to just shoot him in the head. Of course I understand that feeling. If a person slaughters humanity, how does that person still have access to all the implicit and explicit rules that humanity created over so many years in the first place? It's tough.
Death sentence is the hardest deterrent against crime. It must be used in rare of the rarest cases. Suppose person A rapes a child, now if he knows that he will be hanged (or tortured till death) he will simply kill the child to remove any evidence because he knows very well that he will only gain by killing and removing evidence.
On the other hand if he knew that he will serve in jail for X years (with rigorous punishment's) for raping but if police find out that he kills there will be death punishment with torture it might serve as a deterrent to some.
On the other hand if he knew that he will serve in jail for X years (with rigorous punishment's) for raping but if police find out that he kills there will be death punishment with torture it might serve as a deterrent to some.
I would love to see mass murderers be tortured rathe than a quick easy death penalty.
Me too. 
Death penalty is not really needed and has been proven not to be a deterrent for crime, and in my view is ... kind of generous. A killer should be given plenty of time to try to redeem by working for the society and plenty of time to think how life can be wasted living in a shithole when you decide to kill. I guess there are worse things than being dead?
There are a million cases to be honest, some situations are clear - killing to steal or similar. Others like self-defence or trying to protect or even in a situation to a limit... that is different.
There is always a moral aspect on this in the sense that killing a killer makes the society a killer, which is not justifiable.
There are a million cases to be honest, some situations are clear - killing to steal or similar. Others like self-defence or trying to protect or even in a situation to a limit... that is different.
There is always a moral aspect on this in the sense that killing a killer makes the society a killer, which is not justifiable.
I think torture needs to get a better name.
Special cases. A mass murdering piece of shit should always be tortured for years if possible.
Think about it a guy gets really mad and punches his loved one they fall smash their head and die.
Another guy kidnaps kids rapes them tortures them and kills them.
So they both get the death penalty.
The kid raping mass murderer gets over you only can get him once.
The guy that slipped one time in his life suffers over kill.
I would love to see mass murderers be tortured rathe than a quick easy death penalty.
I think it’s a very sensitive topic but there are some crimes that potentially deserve the death penalty. Any iind of physically sexual assault committed against a child could warrant the death penalty. I wouldn’t argue against that at all. Serial killers probably don’t deserve to live also. What if a supposed convict is wrongly/falsely imprisoned though & gets sentenced to death for something they didn’t do.
..
the main reason death sentences stopped was due to finding out some innocent people were put to death.. so fix the system
You should see how Japan deals with their criminals and who those are selected to be out to death by hanging. The crime itself needs to be specially grotesque and the author must have already confessed to the crime or have enough hard evidence for prosecutors to have zero percentage of chance to be charging an innocent person.
See for example the case of the "Otaku murderer" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Miyazaki)
We are talking about an unhinged young man who predated on little girls for him to abduct them, mis member them and later molest their death bodies. He was caught red handed, taking pictures to one of his next victims and he later admitted to the the serial killer all the city/town was after. Japan seems to have a very good system, they keep people like this locked up just for one day to get them executed with short warning.
Of course, we cannot compare Japan to any other developing country, I wised we had a system like that here in South America.
^^^ Too bad you can't ask the million or so dead Ukrainian and Russian troops what they think about the death penalty.
Should the death sentence be implemented globally? I would love to ask, isn't crime the same thing? Doesn't a country, community, or color of skin make a crime less severe?
I know, looking at it from a religious lens, God doesn't want the death of a sinner, and all, but any crime that deserves death should not spare the offender. If someone is arrested for murder, doesn't the pain feel the same in Nigeria as it does in the rest of the world?
It's the same pain and loss worldwide, so why shouldn't the death sentence be implemented globally, instead of just in some parts of the world? A criminal deserves to be punished regardless of their country or skin color.
I know, looking at it from a religious lens, God doesn't want the death of a sinner, and all, but any crime that deserves death should not spare the offender. If someone is arrested for murder, doesn't the pain feel the same in Nigeria as it does in the rest of the world?
It's the same pain and loss worldwide, so why shouldn't the death sentence be implemented globally, instead of just in some parts of the world? A criminal deserves to be punished regardless of their country or skin color.
Times are changing and some nations have begun to abolish the death sentence. Even in Nigeria, most death sentences are not executed. The convicts will just remain in prison for life. Some other countries depend on religious laws such as Islam which supports the death sentence. So they still uphold and implement the death sentence.
I don't support the death penalty except in special cases. I heard of an inmate who was convicted of murder and also killed his cellmate. Such a person has shown that he has no remorse and might even kill more people if he has the opportunity. Such a person might have to die to save others or be placed in solitary confinement forever. In all, I prefer those who murder to get at least fifteen years and above in prison. Within this period they might have gotten redemption. Some might be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole if it involves open mass killing or terrorism.
My problem with the death sentence is that many people could be wrongfully killed. We have witnessed cases where people convicted of murder were released because more or new evidence shows that they were innocent. If they had been executed they wouldn't have gotten that second chance.
if the justice system worked properly of absolute proof of undeniable 100% guilt, where the crime itself is of a most vile and extreme nature, sure have a death penalty
however the justice system is weak/broke. innocent people get locked up by weak evidence. whereby a death sentence becomes a natural crime in of itself, as the justice failed the innocent person
so before considering re-enabling death sentence, fix the justice system. then we can put the real vile criminals to their deserved death without harming the innocent whom have been victim to a failed justice system
..
the main reason death sentences stopped was due to finding out some innocent people were put to death.. so fix the system
however the justice system is weak/broke. innocent people get locked up by weak evidence. whereby a death sentence becomes a natural crime in of itself, as the justice failed the innocent person
so before considering re-enabling death sentence, fix the justice system. then we can put the real vile criminals to their deserved death without harming the innocent whom have been victim to a failed justice system
..
the main reason death sentences stopped was due to finding out some innocent people were put to death.. so fix the system
It's the same pain and loss worldwide, so why shouldn't the death sentence be implemented globally, instead of just in some parts of the world? A criminal deserves to be punished regardless of their country or skin color.
Instead of wasting some souls just because they committed a crime that's punishable through death, it's better to use them in carrying out some experiments that could be beneficial for mankind. If they pull through that experiment and survive, they will be made to serve a jail term in a secluded area but if they die, it still means they've served thier altimate penalty. At the end, it's all for the benefit of the society we will all live behind.
Yep. The society that censors what they don't want us to know about, so we keep on being their slaves.
It's the same pain and loss worldwide, so why shouldn't the death sentence be implemented globally, instead of just in some parts of the world? A criminal deserves to be punished regardless of their country or skin color.
Instead of wasting some souls just because they committed a crime that's punishable through death, it's better to use them in carrying out some experiments that could be beneficial for mankind. If they pull through that experiment and survive, they will be made to serve a jail term in a secluded area but if they die, it still means they've served thier altimate penalty. At the end, it's all for the benefit of the society we will all live behind.
Why have so many discussions about capital punishment when instead we can instate crapital punishment?
What is crapital punishment? Crapital punishment is where you get pooped on as a punishment for a crime.
Regards,
-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.
What is crapital punishment? Crapital punishment is where you get pooped on as a punishment for a crime.
Regards,
-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.
Death penalty is not really needed and has been proven not to be a deterrent for crime, and in my view is ... kind of generous. A killer should be given plenty of time to try to redeem by working for the society and plenty of time to think how life can be wasted living in a shithole when you decide to kill. I guess there are worse things than being dead?
There are a million cases to be honest, some situations are clear - killing to steal or similar. Others like self-defence or trying to protect or even in a situation to a limit... that is different.
There is always a moral aspect on this in the sense that killing a killer makes the society a killer, which is not justifiable.
There are a million cases to be honest, some situations are clear - killing to steal or similar. Others like self-defence or trying to protect or even in a situation to a limit... that is different.
There is always a moral aspect on this in the sense that killing a killer makes the society a killer, which is not justifiable.
In my opinion, death penalty or the ultimate penalty (which is death) would be only be applied in very specific circumstances and national contexts. For example, there are countries which are dominated by authoritarian rules and a ruling party which systematically violates the human right of those who go against them politically, I would be afraid in those countries death penalty could be readily abused by those in power to kill those who have a different way of thinking. So that could discard many developing countries in both Asia and latin America.
Death penalty should only apply if the country has a very strong separation of powers and decentralized power, also a system of justices in which most citizens get access to a fair trial and due process, otherwise death penalty would be out of question.
Death penalty should only apply if the country has a very strong separation of powers and decentralized power, also a system of justices in which most citizens get access to a fair trial and due process, otherwise death penalty would be out of question.
Should the death sentence be implemented globally?
Only for the people who think it should. After all, the only reason most people die is that they kill hemselves.
Humans have the latent ability to regenerate any part of the human body. - https://x.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1853482053049958787
Only for the people who think it should. After all, the only reason most people die is that they kill hemselves.
Humans have the latent ability to regenerate any part of the human body. - https://x.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1853482053049958787
Should the death sentence be implemented globally? I would love to ask, isn't crime the same thing? Doesn't a country, community, or color of skin make a crime less severe?
I know, looking at it from a religious lens, God doesn't want the death of a sinner, and all, but any crime that deserves death should not spare the offender. If someone is arrested for murder, doesn't the pain feel the same in Nigeria as it does in the rest of the world?
It's the same pain and loss worldwide, so why shouldn't the death sentence be implemented globally, instead of just in some parts of the world? A criminal deserves to be punished regardless of their country or skin color.
It is also quite power hungry of one to assume they should have control over not only their own local community but the entire planet Earth, no? Who has this qualification of telling millions of people thousands of miles away what they have to do or else and how did they get it?I know, looking at it from a religious lens, God doesn't want the death of a sinner, and all, but any crime that deserves death should not spare the offender. If someone is arrested for murder, doesn't the pain feel the same in Nigeria as it does in the rest of the world?
It's the same pain and loss worldwide, so why shouldn't the death sentence be implemented globally, instead of just in some parts of the world? A criminal deserves to be punished regardless of their country or skin color.
Looking at it from a religious lens mankind seems poorly qualified to determine who should be killed and who shouldn't in comparison to leaving justice in the hands of the divine realm by leaving one's fate to nature. Its one thing to prevent harm as considered needed for the safety of others by restraint, and another thing entirely to specifically punish someone in vengence or revenge.
Should the death sentence be implemented globally? I would love to ask, isn't crime the same thing? Doesn't a country, community, or color of skin make a crime less severe?
I know, looking at it from a religious lens, God doesn't want the death of a sinner, and all, but any crime that deserves death should not spare the offender. If someone is arrested for murder, doesn't the pain feel the same in Nigeria as it does in the rest of the world?
It's the same pain and loss worldwide, so why shouldn't the death sentence be implemented globally, instead of just in some parts of the world? A criminal deserves to be punished regardless of their country or skin color.
I know, looking at it from a religious lens, God doesn't want the death of a sinner, and all, but any crime that deserves death should not spare the offender. If someone is arrested for murder, doesn't the pain feel the same in Nigeria as it does in the rest of the world?
It's the same pain and loss worldwide, so why shouldn't the death sentence be implemented globally, instead of just in some parts of the world? A criminal deserves to be punished regardless of their country or skin color.
Jump to: