Parents murder kid (discussion on death penalty)

[borka]

grab amnesty annual reports

look at index at the end of pdf for DP

Afaik there hasn't been executions for 20 years till 2012

Japan's executions actually increased in 2012 after a long hiatus.

While the global trend for the death penalty is actually declining around the world, Japan—and other notable countries such as India and Pakistan—resumed executing criminals after a long stint of being execution-free. At least seven death row inmates were killed in Japan last year, ending a 20-month period without executions.

Why the change? "It all depends on which political party is in power," Evans said. One prime minister will come into power and abolish the practice, then the next will just reinstate it, leaving the lives of criminals in the hands of changing political whims.

edit - found url: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rnational/

better numbers:
http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/co ... ntry=Japan

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/0 ... 15,%202012.
http://www.jca.apc.org/stop-shikei/epam ... pan_e.html

USA
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studies ... -resources

[TeckXKnight]

yeah, im sure they cost a lot, but dont other inmates have the same fair opportunities to prove their innocence?

the info on death penalty here is almost all hidden except for a short report after its done, which is probably considered extremely inhumane by american or european standard, and people in general dont know the true costs of executions but only controversial internet hear-says around. (or i may not be searching enough.)

No actually. A life sentence without parole or appeal is what's most common. Especially under our crappy 3-strikes law where if you commit any tiny crime and were convicted 3 times you were sent to prison for life.

[LadyV]

A child is brutally tortured and murdered. And you all wish to discuss the death penalty? I find this disturbing. You should be mourning a child who could not defend them self.

[Tonkyhonk]

thanks borka, but ive browsed them and have basic information from other sites, but not about costs and such in details. and as it says;

Additionally, Japanese citizens do not receive information about the administration of the death penalty, making it difficult for them to develop well-informed opinions.

and

No actually. A life sentence without parole or appeal is what's most common. Especially under our crappy 3-strikes law where if you commit any tiny crime and were convicted 3 times you were sent to prison for life.

no? where is the human right for those supposedly have committed lesser crimes compared to death rows?

A child is brutally tortured and murdered. And you all wish to discuss the death penalty? I find this disturbing. You should be mourning a child who could not defend them self.

i thought this thread was made for discussion on death penalty instead of the content of the crime itself.

[TeckXKnight]

A child is brutally tortured and murdered. And you all wish to discuss the death penalty? I find this disturbing. You should be mourning a child who could not defend them self. :(

You can mourn and hold others in your heart and still discuss other things. Life moves on is the most important lesson you can take away from death.

no? where is the human right for those supposedly have committed lesser crimes compared to death rows? ¦]

Right? Our criminal justice system is not so great at protecting the rights of citizens. This is why I practice jury nullification whenever I'm called in for small cases such as possession of 1/16th ounce of marijuana. Otherwise some poor kid is going to spend the next few years of his life in prison becoming a worse human being.

[borka]

No actually. A life sentence without parole or appeal is what's most common. Especially under our crappy 3-strikes law where if you commit any tiny crime and were convicted 3 times you were sent to prison for life.

Under that rule i'd be a lifer since i totally refused military service (after serving a small amount of my duty), having been politically active and being at court
( but luckily it's not Biz like in the USA yet )

@Vera
Sadly we can't help that poor Kid anymore (and those that die every 4 seconds in this world, nor the parents that are often victims of the circumstances themselves to be that desperate) - but in such a discussion different opinions show up that might help to think about inhumanity and convince more people getting involved to change it ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txpkLAao_kE

[Mernil]

Why death penalty?
Because incarceration costs a LOT to the society.

And none of this long term death penalty, put them on a pyre, and kill them with fire.

Now unintentional manslaughter is entirely different, this is the kind of crime prisons are made for.

Also don't serve us some of human rights bullshit for this kind of case.
First because torturing a baby to death isn't human.
And then because we must stop being so hypocrite; Humankind is being torturing (innocent) animals for centuries. We even call them "food".
I don't understand why we should be any better with our kind when persons are such monsters.

[overtyped]

I stopped at the 1st sentence, to 1st say, let me tell you what a low life scumbag little dicked low-iq loser you are...(Does that make you want to read the rest of my point?). Now I will read the rest of yours and see if any of it is worthy of any further comment.....reading...reading....wandered to my son's monitor as he plays Happy Wheels....back to reading....sees idiotic rant about lesser crimes and some one who had an "Accident" being the target of some victim's demand for the death penalty, in comparison to premeditated torture and murder...rolls eyes at the ridiculous LACK of a point in such an analogy....nope...nothing else to say....thank you for your comment.

The line that someone has to cross to be executed is different from judge to judge, from society to society. In some places you may be sentenced to death for rape, while in other places that is too harsh a sentence. Perhaps 200 years from now they will look back at us and wonder how savages like us would allow the government to decide who lives and who dies, based on which society you happen to be living in.
Isn't the law supposed to be blind? The law isn't supposed to exist to make people feel better, because by that logic let's just sentence everyone who steals something to death because that will give the people stolen from the most satisfaction. One other glaring problem with execution is the fact that there are cases where people are executed then they later find out they did not commit the crime.
If even a single person is wrongly executed by the state, then that's one person too many, not to mention how often they botch the execution procedures, giving prisoners the most agonizing of deaths, you may be bloodthirsty enough to revel in someone else writhing in pain while they die but I sure don't, and I would never live in a state that allows legal human slaughter.
For the record you are a fool, because only a fool would be so butthurt after being told he is one on the internet.

[Rhiannon]

The line that someone has to cross to be executed is different from judge to judge, from society to society. In some places you may be sentenced to death for rape, while in other places that is too harsh a sentence. Perhaps 200 years from now they will look back at us and wonder how savages like us would allow the government to decide who lives and who dies, based on which society you happen to be living in.
Isn't the law supposed to be blind? The law isn't supposed to exist to make people feel better, because by that logic let's just sentence everyone who steals something to death because that will give the people stolen from the most satisfaction. One other glaring problem with execution is the fact that there are cases where people are executed then they later find out they did not commit the crime.
If even a single person is wrongly executed by the state, then that's one person too many, not to mention how often they botch the execution procedures, giving prisoners the most agonizing of deaths, you may be bloodthirsty enough to revel in someone else writhing in pain while they die but I sure don't, and I would never live in a state that allows legal human slaughter.
For the record you are a fool, because only a fool would be so butthurt after being told he is one on the internet.

She, not he. Assuming Idiot. To point one, your view regarding future historians musing about the savages allowing different sentences for different crimes in different societies, and the horror of such a situation, would only apply to (And that future discussion would only take place in) a one-world government with uniformed laws which does not exist at this time and is therefore moot. If it did exist I would agree, nor am I opposed to the idea of it. As to the rest of that bleeding heart that is staining the carpet under your desk. I never said anything about a blanket NOR general acceptance, desire or agreement with the death penalty as a "Oft spun conviction/act". I think it should be relegated to a VERY STRICT set of circumstances and situations BEYOND doubt and WITHOUT any foreseeable possibility of falsehood. Believe it or not, that situation happens FAR more than you obviously would like to admit.,,such as in THIS particular case. Your counter is true and has happened in cases and should be a lesson to adhere to my point and place for the "ultimate fate" conviction.

[NOOBY93]

The line that someone has to cross to be executed is different from judge to judge, from society to society. In some places you may be sentenced to death for rape, while in other places that is too harsh a sentence. Perhaps 200 years from now they will look back at us and wonder how savages like us would allow the government to decide who lives and who dies, based on which society you happen to be living in.
Isn't the law supposed to be blind? The law isn't supposed to exist to make people feel better, because by that logic let's just sentence everyone who steals something to death because that will give the people stolen from the most satisfaction. One other glaring problem with execution is the fact that there are cases where people are executed then they later find out they did not commit the crime.
If even a single person is wrongly executed by the state, then that's one person too many, not to mention how often they botch the execution procedures, giving prisoners the most agonizing of deaths, you may be bloodthirsty enough to revel in someone else writhing in pain while they die but I sure don't, and I would never live in a state that allows legal human slaughter.
For the record you are a fool, because only a fool would be so butthurt after being told he is one on the internet.

She, not he. Assuming Idiot. To point one, your view regarding future historians musing about the savages allowing different sentences for different crimes in different societies, and the horror of such a situation, would only apply to (And that future discussion would only take place in) a one-world government with uniformed laws which does not exist at this time and is therefore moot. If it did exist I would agree, nor am I opposed to the idea of it. As to the rest of that bleeding heart that is staining the carpet under your desk. I never said anything about a blanket NOR general acceptance, desire or agreement with the death penalty as a "Oft spun conviction/act". I think it should be relegated to a VERY STRICT set of circumstances and situations BEYOND doubt and WITHOUT any foreseeable possibility of falsehood. Believe it or not, that situation happens FAR more than you obviously would like to admit.,,such as in THIS particular case. Your counter is true and has happened in cases and should be a lesson to adhere to my point and place for the "ultimate fate" conviction.

How exactly does gender matter? He's not an "Assuming Idiot", he just doesn't care about genders and saying "they" would sound a bit weird so he says "he" because the majority of the community is male. Also, what do you mean beyond doubt? For example, if a crime wasn't proven, then they wouldn't sentence the criminal to death, but they did which means they thought the crime was beyond doubt done by him, and yet after he got executed they found out he didn't do it.
And that takes you back to the question, who says the rules? Where is the "beyond doubt" line? If I'm almost certainly a brutal murderer, and someone else is completely certainly a rapist, do I get set free or go to jail, and he gets hanged (or however you want these people to die)?
And as overtyped said, punishment is not for enjoyment, it's supposed to either "repair" the criminal or scare the other criminals into not being criminals, but scaring obviously doesn't work since in the history people punished criminals very severely and they still existed more than they do today. You can't "repair" someone by killing him. These kinds of people need help, they're not normal people who just decided killing their kids is right, and punishment would make them think "nevermind, that was wrong, won't do it again!". They're sick people who need to be treated, and especially not killed.
Don't get me wrong, I can't help myself but want these kinds of people to die, but rationally speaking, I don't think that's the right choice.