46 replies to this topic

[wjfox]

I've been researching the use of capital punishment worldwide, and created this graph which I'll be using for the timeline (2038). Whilst I doubt the death penalty will be completely abolished, it's likely to be considerably reduced in prevalence over the next few decades, as this trend appears to show.

Certain theocratic/authoritarian regimes will surely retain it, but even these countries may face pressure in the longer term.

Thoughts/suggestions?

[KingstonDon]

Nice graph I do surely await the day the last American state abolishes the death penalty, It'd be quite ironic if the authoritarian regimes abolished/ceased its usage earlier than them, haha

[Ltsmba]

So if this data is accurate that means we roughly hit 50% of countries in the world with the deathy penalty abolished.

[Time_Traveller]

Countries that Retain the Death Penalty

As of 2008 per Amnesty International, 58 countries, representing about one-third of all countries worldwide, retain the death penalty for ordinary capital crimes, including the United States, plus:

Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad And Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States Of America, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

The United States is the only westernized democracy, and one of the few democracies worldwide, to not have abolished the death penalty.

Countries that Abolished the Death Penalty

As of 2008 per Amnesty International, 139 countries, representing two-thirds of all countries worldwide, have abolished the death penalty on moral grounds including:

Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote D'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niue, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome And Principe, Senegal, Serbia (including Kosovo), Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela.

From http://usliberals.ab...thPenalty_2.htm

I think eventually in at least 5 or 6 Centuries by the mid- 21st I would think that all the worlds countries will get rid of it and find a better way and also great graph as well.

[wjfox]

^^ The figures are different, depending on which measurement you use, e.g. "ordinary crimes", "de facto ban".

This was my source for the data:

http://www.infopleas...a/A0777460.html

[Shimmy]

That exponential line of best fit that been stuck on is ridiculously oversimplistic, the data doesn't necessarily fit an exponential equation too well. And if you look at the actual reasoning behind countries banning it and which countries have done it then it makes even less sense. Nearly all truly secular, democratic governments have banned it already so the trend is likely to straighten out very soon, unless Islam suddenly disappears from the world later this year..

[Craven]

Yeah. I think that approximation is a very simplistic longshot.

[jjf3]

Why should it get abolished? Shouldn't people like blood thirsty murderers who kill a bunch of ppl be put to death? I actually think that the death penalty might slowly come back. As the population increases and prisons get crowded where will we put them all?

[KingstonDon]

Why should it get abolished?

Shouldn't people like blood thirsty murderers who kill a bunch of ppl be put to death?

I actually think that the death penalty might slowly come back. As the population increases and prisons get crowded where will we put them all?

I personally don't believe in the ol' eye for an eye thinking,

A person who has committed a most heinous crime put to death for reasons of either vengeance or a lack of resolve to deal with the problem is no way to execute justice.

The deterrence agrument is flawed as well, it is well known and widely accepted that the death penalty does not deter murder ...

All that money spent to kill those "blood thirsty murders" I would spend expanding my knowledge on why it happened, what variables were in play and how to try to prevent it in the future as well as rehabilitate those to whom we can offer assistance.

In europe, the death penalty is practically non-existent, yet we enjoy a far smaller murder rate than the US. - procentually ofcourse -
The death penalty is obsolete and inconsequential to human progress.

Nothing more but a testament to how emotions and irrationality triumphs over rationality and reason ... time and time again.

[jjf3]

Most of the crimes punishable by death are based on emotion or greed. Jails and therapy really doesn't work for these psychopaths. In my opinion they shouldn't be taking up any more space. What can we learn from crazy people? Psychologists spend years studying the minds of the likes of Howard Hughes and Hitler. We're no closer to figuring out what exactly is wrong with them. As the population rises prison will get more crowded and the line between insane/planned murder is getting blurry Oh and it probably takes more money for them to keep the criminal alive (medicine, food, tests) then it does to kill him

[KingstonDon]

Most of the crimes punishable by death are based on emotion or greed.

Jails and therapy really doesn't work for these psychopaths. In my opinion they shouldn't be taking up any more space.

What can we learn from crazy people? Psychologists spend years studying the minds of the likes of Howard Hughes and Hitler. We're no closer to figuring out what exactly is wrong with them.

As the population rises prison will get more crowded and the line between insane/planned murder is getting blurry

Oh and it probably takes more money for them to keep the criminal alive (medicine, food, tests) then it does to kill him

Ok, first => Death penalty costs more : http://www.msnbc.msn...-question-cost/

Second, any study of Hitler can't be considered any kind of "valid argument" , they never found his body, the "researchers" never actually talked to him.

Third, the line between "insane and planned murder is getting blurry"? What scientific evidence have you got of that? Or is it your own opinion transformed into fact ? ...again .

Fourth, how humane is an idea that goes "If there isnt any space for these humans and nobody wants them, lets get rid of them" => kinda sounds like Hitler to me.

Finally, we can learn alot from "crazy people", psychologists spent years studying minds of ordinary people that did extraordinary things and found mental illnesses like Schizofrenia, bipolar disorder and found out that an inflicted illness like shellshock wasn't sheer cowardice but a serious condition that could be helped by providing support and counsel ... to name a few

Thousands of soldiers got executed in world war 1 , not because of their "cowardice" but because of human ignorance

... the bane of man.

[Shimmy]

death penalty might cost more, but it shouldn't, it could be made far far more efficient. Just give a years period for retrials or appeals and then give them a firing squad. Also america having a higher murder rate may have something to do with guns being legal in so many states and incredibly easy to get hold of.

[Craven]

Only in america death penalty can be more expensive than feeding, and nursing someone for life... But well prisons are great industry there. There are like bazillion prisons in california alone...

[jjf3]

Third, the line between "insane and planned murder is getting blurry"?  What scientific evidence have you got of that? Or is it your own opinion transformed into fact ? ...again .

Fourth, how humane is an idea that goes "If there isnt any space for these humans and nobody wants them, lets get rid of them" => kinda sounds like Hitler to me.

OK thanx didn't know that about the death penalty. Although, I am still uncomfortable with murderers or people consider murdering someone, getting the choice of Free housing, free food, free medical care, if they know that they have that choice by killing just one person. Any desperate person can do it, if they wanted to. Shouldn't that option be eliminated?

I know there are grey areas where this is concerned. Forensic Science is solving cold cases every day. Some people may be wrongly accused. But then again, "everyone in prison is innocent." Eventually, I hope to see a computer program in the near future that would initially stop 90% of all crime. EG. Minority Report.

And your statement starts with "how humane..." Humane? In my view these people lost all human rights as soon as they killed a bunch of people. I am talking about psychopaths and mass murderers and mass terrorists. Not just a guy who accidentally shot someone. Although, it is difficult to draw that line.

"If there isn't any space for these humans and nobody wants them, lets get rid of them." That's not exactly what I said, but it's sort of a taboo that nobody, anywhere is talking about and can frankly be a topic all on its own. It's called population control!!!! And it is probably one of the steps towards actual world peace and utopia.

Insane VS Planned Murder? Answer Lawyers. Lawyers want to defend, not to prove their innocence (they may not even be innocent) but they do it mainly for the money!


I think the death penalty should be a choice for the affected families.

[Roh234]

Why should it get abolished?

Shouldn't people like blood thirsty murderers who kill a bunch of ppl be put to death?

I actually think that the death penalty might slowly come back. As the population increases and prisons get crowded where will we put them all?

I personally don't believe in the ol' eye for an eye thinking,

A person who has committed a most heinous crime put to death for reasons of either vengeance or a lack of resolve to deal with the problem is no way to execute justice.

The deterrence agrument is flawed as well, it is well known and widely accepted that the death penalty does not deter murder ...

All that money spent to kill those "blood thirsty murders" I would spend expanding my knowledge on why it happened, what variables were in play and how to try to prevent it in the future as well as rehabilitate those to whom we can offer assistance.

In europe, the death penalty is practically non-existent, yet we enjoy a far smaller murder rate than the US. - procentually ofcourse -
The death penalty is obsolete and inconsequential to human progress.

Nothing more but a testament to how emotions and irrationality triumphs over rationality and reason ... time and time again.

Most of the crimes punishable by death are based on emotion or greed.

Jails and therapy really doesn't work for these psychopaths. In my opinion they shouldn't be taking up any more space.

What can we learn from crazy people? Psychologists spend years studying the minds of the likes of Howard Hughes and Hitler. We're no closer to figuring out what exactly is wrong with them.

As the population rises prison will get more crowded and the line between insane/planned murder is getting blurry

Oh and it probably takes more money for them to keep the criminal alive (medicine, food, tests) then it does to kill him

Ok, first => Death penalty costs more : http://www.msnbc.msn...-question-cost/

Second, any study of Hitler can't be considered any kind of "valid argument" , they never found his body, the "researchers" never actually talked to him.

Third, the line between "insane and planned murder is getting blurry"? What scientific evidence have you got of that? Or is it your own opinion transformed into fact ? ...again .

Fourth, how humane is an idea that goes "If there isnt any space for these humans and nobody wants them, lets get rid of them" => kinda sounds like Hitler to me.

Finally, we can learn alot from "crazy people", psychologists spent years studying minds of ordinary people that did extraordinary things and found mental illnesses like Schizofrenia, bipolar disorder and found out that an inflicted illness like shellshock wasn't sheer cowardice but a serious condition that could be helped by providing support and counsel ... to name a few

Thousands of soldiers got executed in world war 1 , not because of their "cowardice" but because of human ignorance

... the bane of man.

1) It only costs more in the US because look what the person on death row gets. An unecessary amount of appeals that can take decades before one is put to death.

Life sentence

Death = Life sentence + killing equipment + special court.

No wonder it takes more time.

1 Appeal and death, thats it, how its supposed to be.


2) DNA sequencing cannot be used as to find out why one is insane. We do have his skull in Russia. Besides we had many diaries of Hitler and people who were close to Hitler and we could find out why. Its not like we have no evidence. Not much to learn from a person who rapes his wife then kills her. Besides why do we need to feeds thousands of insane people while we can keep 10 alive and learn from them.

3) Lots of sane people have pleaded insane to escape the penality.

4) Overpopulation cannot be justified for the death penality.

5) Again, we don't need thousands of people and waste more money.

6) It is a deterrance in other countries. You won't get a warm prision with a toilet and 3 meals a day while waitng in death row. You'll be shot or hanged, the proper way to dispose scum.

7) There are people who kill for greed or to cover a crime. Are you going to study them?

Stict guide lines like DNA testing could be put to prevent innocents from being killed.

[jjf3]

Why should it get abolished?

Shouldn't people like blood thirsty murderers who kill a bunch of ppl be put to death?

I actually think that the death penalty might slowly come back. As the population increases and prisons get crowded where will we put them all?

I personally don't believe in the ol' eye for an eye thinking,

A person who has committed a most heinous crime put to death for reasons of either vengeance or a lack of resolve to deal with the problem is no way to execute justice.

The deterrence agrument is flawed as well, it is well known and widely accepted that the death penalty does not deter murder ...

All that money spent to kill those "blood thirsty murders" I would spend expanding my knowledge on why it happened, what variables were in play and how to try to prevent it in the future as well as rehabilitate those to whom we can offer assistance.

In europe, the death penalty is practically non-existent, yet we enjoy a far smaller murder rate than the US. - procentually ofcourse -
The death penalty is obsolete and inconsequential to human progress.

Nothing more but a testament to how emotions and irrationality triumphs over rationality and reason ... time and time again.

Most of the crimes punishable by death are based on emotion or greed.

Jails and therapy really doesn't work for these psychopaths. In my opinion they shouldn't be taking up any more space.

What can we learn from crazy people? Psychologists spend years studying the minds of the likes of Howard Hughes and Hitler. We're no closer to figuring out what exactly is wrong with them.

As the population rises prison will get more crowded and the line between insane/planned murder is getting blurry

Oh and it probably takes more money for them to keep the criminal alive (medicine, food, tests) then it does to kill him

Ok, first => Death penalty costs more : http://www.msnbc.msn...-question-cost/

Second, any study of Hitler can't be considered any kind of "valid argument" , they never found his body, the "researchers" never actually talked to him.

Third, the line between "insane and planned murder is getting blurry"? What scientific evidence have you got of that? Or is it your own opinion transformed into fact ? ...again .

Fourth, how humane is an idea that goes "If there isnt any space for these humans and nobody wants them, lets get rid of them" => kinda sounds like Hitler to me.

Finally, we can learn alot from "crazy people", psychologists spent years studying minds of ordinary people that did extraordinary things and found mental illnesses like Schizofrenia, bipolar disorder and found out that an inflicted illness like shellshock wasn't sheer cowardice but a serious condition that could be helped by providing support and counsel ... to name a few

Thousands of soldiers got executed in world war 1 , not because of their "cowardice" but because of human ignorance

... the bane of man.

1) It only costs more in the US because look what the person on death row gets. An unecessary amount of appeals that can take decades before one is put to death.

Life sentence

Death = Life sentence + killing equipment + special court.

No wonder it takes more time.

1 Appeal and death, thats it, how its supposed to be.


2) DNA sequencing cannot be used as to find out why one is insane. We do have his skull in Russia. Besides we had many diaries of Hitler and people who were close to Hitler and we could find out why. Its not like we have no evidence. Not much to learn from a person who rapes his wife then kills her. Besides why do we need to feeds thousands of insane people while we can keep 10 alive and learn from them.

3) Lots of sane people have pleaded insane to escape the penality.

4) Overpopulation cannot be justified for the death penality.

5) Again, we don't need thousands of people and waste more money.

6) It is a deterrance in other countries. You won't get a warm prision with a toilet and 3 meals a day while waitng in death row. You'll be shot or hanged, the proper way to dispose scum.

7) There are people who kill for greed or to cover a crime. Are you going to study them?

Stict guide lines like DNA testing could be put to prevent innocents from being killed.

Your thinking on my level again, nice to see you around again ROH. The entirety of the justice system needs to be re looked at and reexamined. There's a lot of politics and corruption involved. Everybody remembers Casey Anthony. She was GUILTY and yet, she's out walking free. Is she living a good life? probably not. But it's still completely baffling to me, that she got off.

[wjfox]

Your thinking on my level again, nice to see you around again ROH. The entirety of the justice system needs to be re looked at and reexamined. There's a lot of politics and corruption involved. Everybody remembers Casey Anthony. She was GUILTY and yet, she's out walking free. Is she living a good life? probably not. But it's still completely baffling to me, that she got off.

I've just read her Wikipedia page (the trial wasn't covered here in the UK). Indeed, seems unbelievable that she's free.

[jjf3]

OMG you were lucky in the UK then!!! They had it on all the news shows 24/7. And I mean ALL of them! The media had a big role to play in muddying the waters. It was to the point where you grew sick of it. You knew she was guilty and you just wanted the trial over with so they can get back to reporting on other stuff that's happening in the world.

[Innsertnamehere]

You people are talking about human lives here. Sure they killed another person, but they are human also. Killing them makes you a killer. Don't drop to their level so to speak. Lock em up in prison so they can't hurt anyone else, and let them live the rest of their "lives" locked up in a hole. Trust me, its alot worse to be locked in a cell with no hopes of getting out than it is to be killed. It's almost even more of a deterrent than the death penalty.

[jjf3]

You people are talking about human lives here. Sure they killed another person, but they are human also. Killing them makes you a killer. Don't drop to their level so to speak. Lock em up in prison so they can't hurt anyone else, and let them live the rest of their "lives" locked up in a hole. Trust me, its alot worse to be locked in a cell with no hopes of getting out than it is to be killed. It's almost even more of a deterrent than the death penalty.

The State or country executing murderers doesn't make ME a murderer, it makes the government of that state or country a murderer. And frankly every government has murder on their hands, so them killing a psychopathic serial killer wouldn't make much of a difference in that sense.

Trust you? Why should we trust you? What do you know about being locked up in a cell for the rest of your life? Lolz Jk.

But seriously saying they have no hope of getting out really only applies to a very few prisoners. Most prisoners do have a chance to get out. If they have the right connections and of course money, they will get the minimal sentence. If they can get the media involved, they have a better chance at walking out free as a bird!!!!