Don't let the door hitcha in the ass on the way out! (Death penalty)

[Amethyst Hunter]

I support it...

...in cases where it's proven beyond all doubt that the perp did it, and only in cases where violence applies (rape, murder, terrorism). In those cases, I think the death penalty should not only be applicable but put to good use.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for a piece of shit that thinks it's fun to rape and/or murder (often repeatedly). These kind are a danger to everyone else and they have nothing worthwhile to offer in permanent incarceration. Get rid of 'em, I say. You'll save on the tax dollars it costs to house and feed them too.

Revenge? Maybe. Certainly, it won't undo the damage already done. But I think true (and fitting) revenge would be for the perp to suffer and die exactly in the same manner as what he did to his victims. I don't buy the excuse that lethal injection or other such is "cruel and unusual" - How about people who suffered under brutal sexual assault, or were set on fire, or literally cut into pieces *while they were still conscious*? How about a young New York woman who was kidnapped, raped, choked and had her head wrapped in plastic wrap so she suffocated and was then thrown off a bridge? (True case; happened in 2006) You gonna tell me THAT'S not cruel and unusual?

And yes, if God forbid I or a loved one was the victim of such a horrendous crime, I'd want the perp dead. Why should that scumbag get to breathe air when we've been denied it?

One of the things I dislike about my home state is that Illinois enacted a moratorium on executions, thanks to former governor George Ryan (who, I might add, is now serving a prison sentence on corruption charges). I guarantee you Ryan didn't have any change of conscience when he pushed that bullshit measure through; he did it solely to make himself look good. (Ryan's on record as being one of the worst governors in IL for scandal)

I don't know whether or not the death penalty deters crime, but it would sure cut down on the number of scumbags taking up space in prison.

[DesignFox]

I haven't researched it, but from what I'm told, it is actually more expensive to execute someone than let them drag on in prison for life.

Proving someone is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, going through mutliple appeals, etc. etc. drives up the cost of executions.

However, I think rapists and serial killers above all others deserve the death penalty. There is no room for that sort of behavior in our society.

I don't even think scum like that deserve a second shot at innocence, let alone air to breathe...but I'd hate the idea of convicting and killing someone who might be innocent.

And I'm holding back...I have some strong feelings on what should be done with rapists in particular. :mad::(

[crazylegs]

Why do we kill people, who kill people, to show people that killing people is wrong?

[Pedersen]

I don't have the statistics handy, and don't feel like looking them up. But I do know that the number of people on death row who are being proven innocent (thanks to DNA testing) is truly disturbing.

I agree with the death penalty. But, due to the severity of it, I also believe we have to be able to be a lot more certain than we already are. This is one penalty that there are no takebacks for. No compensation can be given to the innocent person who is executed.

And, in an alarmingly high percentage of the cases, we find out we were wrong.

In another noticeable fraction of the cases, defendants are represented by incompetent lawyers who miss opportunities to bring in evidence that would clear them. However, since their lawyer had the opportunity to bring this evidence in, they are denied appeals.

I agree with executing those who would commit such crimes. But I need a criminal justice system that I can fully believe in first.

[blas87]

The inmates in prison show the newbie that it's wrong by assraping them daily.

That thought alone is the only thing that comforts me when I think of the piece of shit that killed my cousin. There's a lot of scumbags in prison, but most of them frown upon murderers, rapists, and the like.

I support the death penalty as well. Too bad Wisconsin will never have it again.

[DesignFox]

Why do we kill people, who kill people, to show people that killing people is wrong?

Because some people are incurable. Their behavior can't be corrected, they feel no remorse for what they've done. Why keep someone deranged like that alive and give them the opportunity to kill again?

[AFPheonix]

If I thought that execution ever actually did something good for society, then I'd support it.
But:
1) It costs us as taxpayers far more to execute someone than it does to keep them separated from everyone else for life.
2) The death penalty so far in this country has been skewed towards minorities. Until we as a nation are a true meritocracy, then the government should not be putting people to death.
3) We've killed people who were found to be innocent. Until we as a nation can be 100% certain of a person's guilt, we should not be putting people to death.
4) It doesn't serve as a deterrent. It never has. What's the point? Revenge? We have a justice system, not a revenge system.
While my heart goes out to victim's families, the reality is that another death is not going to bring their dead back to life, or make the bereaved better people or really even make them feel better. It does nothing for them.

[LadyMage]

I am against the death penalty, all times, every time

Human life is human life, we have no right to take it from someone else, plus the death penalty forces those of us who hate killing to kill. Why do I say this, because the death penalty is state sanctioned, meaning by the people of the state, in a sense. That forces the blood of prisoners killed by the death penalty onto my hands, and I don't like that one bit!

Also the main reasons for killing can not be prevented because they are that primal

1. impusle - you had a real sucky day, your spouse is found in bed with your best friend and you kill them both, you had no control, you where too angry to think and did the first thing to come to your mind. I don't care how in control you are we are all at risk of doing this, some more then others of course. How is the death penalty going to deter that one?

2. Forced too - like in a war, or another form of self defence since the other person might kill you. Cops do this all the time, should we send them to the chair? How about the boys and girls forced to go to war? Should they get the gas chamber?

3. Too messed up to care - Ted Bundy, BTK killer, Jeffery Dhamer, Jack the Ripper.... need I go on?

funny, the death penalty can't fix any of those things last I checked. Oh and it is not even humane. Injection does not put the killer to sleep like many believe, they are not given enough drugs to do so. Why? To cut costs, however they are given drugs to paralyze them, so you don't see them suffering. Its a magic trick of death and pain cause the person suffocates as he or she dies. That or has a heart attack because of the other drug.

I also hear tell that states with the death penlty have more crime then those without, hmmmm but that stat I am shaky on so that doesn't weigh as much as the others.

My solution, keep them locked up, give them gruel to eat and a slab to sleep on, and if they want to take their own lives, let them. Thank you good night!

[AFPheonix]

I forgot to elaborate more on the minorities/poor point.
A lot of the time people pegged for murder can't afford their own representation, so are appointed a representative by the court. A lot of the time, these lawyers are overworked, underpaid, and may frankly suck.
There have been many occasions where because of the shoddy work of these lawyers, their clients get slapped with the murder charge and death penalty. That doesn't sit well with me at all.

[blas87]

Those against the death penalty and more in favor of prison, I hope you never experience the loss of a loved one like I have. I experienced losing my cousin to a violent death. It was done with malice and complete intention to kill her and her unborn baby. It was done in cold blood. I hope you never experience being on the edge of your seat praying to God that either your family kills the asshole or the police catch him soon. I hope you never experience the trauma of such a gory death and even worse, the agony of a long trial and the possibility that the killer might be found innocent, even if it's a SMALL chance. Knowing that we live in such a fucked up society where the legal system is more pro criminal and less pro victim....I thank God every day that that piece of shit was caught and put in prison.....but guess what? He is eligible for PAROLE...yes, he gets a chance to get OUT...here's something we forgot to cover.....the fact that murderers and rapists and molesters can get PAROLE.....

I honestly have no idea what I will do when this guy comes up for parole and he gets a possibility to get out of prison. Knowing the way the justice system is going these days, he most likely WILL get out. I guess I'll have to wait to cross that bridge, but it scares the living hell out of me.

I'd rather lose a few bucks here and there knowing that people like him, especially him, could just be killed, and not ever have the chance to get out and kill another person again.

[DesignFox]

I am against the death penalty, all times, every time

<snip> ... the death penalty forces those of us who hate killing to kill. Why do I say this, because the death penalty is state sanctioned, meaning by the people of the state, in a sense. That forces the blood of prisoners killed by the death penalty onto my hands, and I don't like that one bit!

<snip>
My solution, keep them locked up, give them gruel to eat and a slab to sleep on, and if they want to take their own lives, let them. Thank you good night!

I never considered it from this point of view. It is an interesting perspective.

As for letting them take their own lives- they don't. Prisoners don't get the opportunity nor are they left with the tools to commit suicide. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but there's a reason the toilets are stainless steel and prisoners aren't allowed shoelaces...

I do agree with everyone that we need a better system for determining guilt. Only those truly proven guilty should be put to death, and like I said earlier, I hate the thought that innocent people get executed.

I think it's equally horrible that there are some innocent people who get to rot in jail for the rest of their lives! In some ways, perhaps that's worse........ I don't know. :(

[Saydrah]

I am against the death penalty.

Give people who would be eligible for the death penalty a choice: Die by lethal injection peacefully, without filing a costly appeal, or spend life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Two choices. Both ensure the person is never a menace to society again.

[blas87]

Saydrah, if all brutal murderers were never given the option of parole, I wouldn't be so pro-death penalty. I am more worried about parole than anything else.

I am more afraid of that guy getting out of prison than I am of my own death, whatever it may be from. Sometimes I can't sleep because I fear that in the next 10-15 years, my family won't be informed of his parole and he'll be set free. That or we'll be ignored and he'll be set free.

[AFPheonix]

If he had life in prison with no possibility of parole, would that be ok for you? What would killing him do for your emotional and mental health?

I had a girl I used to give riding lessons to who got off on a bad track and be murdered by her crazy meth-head boyfriend. I don't wish death on her killer, but I do wish a life spent in a very small box with no freedom, thinking over what he did. That is enough for me.

[LadyMage]

Those against the death penalty and more in favor of prison, I hope you never experience the loss of a loved one like I have. I experienced losing my cousin to a violent death. It was done with malice and complete intention to kill her and her unborn baby. It was done in cold blood. I hope you never experience being on the edge of your seat praying to God that either your family kills the asshole or the police catch him soon. I hope you never experience the trauma of such a gory death and even worse, the agony of a long trial and the possibility that the killer might be found innocent, even if it's a SMALL chance. Knowing that we live in such a fucked up society where the legal system is more pro criminal and less pro victim....I thank God every day that that piece of shit was caught and put in prison.....but guess what? He is eligible for PAROLE...yes, he gets a chance to get OUT...here's something we forgot to cover.....the fact that murderers and rapists and molesters can get PAROLE.....

I honestly have no idea what I will do when this guy comes up for parole and he gets a possibility to get out of prison. Knowing the way the justice system is going these days, he most likely WILL get out. I guess I'll have to wait to cross that bridge, but it scares the living hell out of me.

I'd rather lose a few bucks here and there knowing that people like him, especially him, could just be killed, and not ever have the chance to get out and kill another person again.


Not all of them can, and most of them don't, also never wish those kinds of things on anyone, karma can bite you back for that big time, just a warning.

See killing the killer won't bring the dead back, killing the rapist won't get rid of the rape, killing won't return innocence when innocence is lost. Its an old, outdated, usless idea that need to hit the trash hard!

I am sorry for your lost, but those words you speak are anger and fear, nothing more, remember that killer has a family too, he is still human no matter what he did. I hope he doesn't get out, but if he does don't shoot him, don't harm him, wait for him to mess up again, and get caught again, and get raped in the butt by bubba again

[Boozy]

I don't support the death penalty. No exceptions. Killing people is wrong. I don't kill people, and I do not allow my country to do it in my name.

[Lyra]

wait for him to mess up again

You see, this is where I have a problem. Who is on the recieiving end of him messing up again? How would you feel if it was your daughter, sister, mother, cousin, et al?

For your punishment to work, everytime he gets out, he has to mess up (or end) annother person's life.

With the death penalty, he's done.

I agree very strongly that we need MUCH better checks and balances on proving guilt. Too many folks are getting out of life sentances (or the death penalty for that matter) when it's proven thru modern technology that they were innocent all this time. Not only is that scary to me in a "what if that had been me?" way, it's awful that these people spent all this time in prison, or under the threat of death for something they did not do.

Obviously some improvements need to be made in our "justice" system.

However, when it is proven...and considerable time has gone by while they played with "bubba", then the death penalty should be carried out on these people who think it's just fine and dandy to rape and murder people.

Yes, it's revenge. Personally, I think it's fair revenge. Justice, IMHO.

[IDrinkaRum]

I do not support the death penalty at all. Killing is killing no matter if it's the person who ends up the prisoner in the legal system or the government, local or federal.

As (I believe it was) Martin Luther King, Jr. said: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, we'd all be blind and toothless".

Life in prison without parole. Enough people locked up in the jails, there will always be short tempers/fuses, they'll kill each other anyway. That's how Jeffrey Dahmer was killed - by another inmate.

[LadyMage]

You see, this is where I have a problem. Who is on the recieiving end of him messing up again? How would you feel if it was your daughter, sister, mother, cousin, et al?

For your punishment to work, everytime he gets out, he has to mess up (or end) annother person's life.

With the death penalty, he's done.

I agree very strongly that we need MUCH better checks and balances on proving guilt. Too many folks are getting out of life sentances (or the death penalty for that matter) when it's proven thru modern technology that they were innocent all this time. Not only is that scary to me in a "what if that had been me?" way, it's awful that these people spent all this time in prison, or under the threat of death for something they did not do.

Obviously some improvements need to be made in our "justice" system.

However, when it is proven...and considerable time has gone by while they played with "bubba", then the death penalty should be carried out on these people who think it's just fine and dandy to rape and murder people.

Yes, it's revenge. Personally, I think it's fair revenge. Justice, IMHO.

yes our system needs to be fixed, I agree with that, but remember that person is still human

if they killed someone close to me I would be sad yes, but I would not stoop to their level, I would not become bloodthirsty, I would not want revenge because it never ends well, it never feels good, and it eats you inside out.

There is no 'fair revenge' only revenge and its bitter, not sweet. I am not a murderer, I am not a killer, and I will not avenge someone for something that I can not fix, can not change, and their blood will not cure. Their blood will not bring back the dead, nor will it fix everything. Justice is taking them off the street for good and putting them in a small box with no sunlight, no fresh air and no more sex (except for bubba/bertha, depending on the jail), revenge is killing them, giving them release early via death.

Now which sounds better, since we can't see hell and not everyone believes in it folks ;)

[rahmota]

I am conditionally for the death penalty. If we can be certain beyond all uncertainty ,not just reasonable doubt, that a person premeditatedly murdered a person or in certain rapes then doing the rope dance would be somethign I would pay to see. Not to mention all the other reasons why there are current problems with the Death penalty implementation like AFP said.

In cases of accidental death, or crimes of passion and such prison, rehabilitation and other methods would be something I would agree with.

Its too unfortunate that we dont have real psychics where the sort of punishments could be quite a bit more creative and effective.

How would you feel if it was your daughter, sister, mother, cousin, et al?
For myself honor would require the person's death at my hands, failing that that person would die at the hands of the state. I would be duty bound to see to it that that person did not spend the rest of their life gloating about it, enjoying the air that my person should have been breathing. And this may sound cold but there are people in this world I could put a bullet in their head and then go out to mcdonald's without a second thought or it ever coming back to haunt me.

Evil, true evil such as the cold blooded mass murderers, rapists and seriel killers do not deserve to live in our world. We put mad dogs down. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahlmer, folks like that are no better or no more deserving of life than a mad dog.

Enough people locked up in the jails, there will always be short tempers/fuses, they'll kill each other anyway. unfortunately the prison system goes out of their way to make sure the prisoners are unable to kill themselves or each other. In the county jail i was at they took the erasers off the pencils, you could not have a sharp pencil, the sporks where soft bendy plastic, everythign was rounded, you couldnt have hardback books, the sheets where easily ripped, and even doing something like chin ups on the back of the stairs was forbidden as you might injure yourself. If you just took an island and threw the prisoners on it and let them survive or die then that might work or you might wind up with some sort of southern hemisphere country with a fascination for odd hats and overly excitable animal handlers....:p

[rahmota]

2. Forced too - like in a war, or another form of self defence since the other person might kill you. Cops do this all the time, should we send them to the chair? How about the boys and girls forced to go to war? Should they get the gas chamber?

I placed this one in another posting as the answer to it might be a bit long.

Soldiers do not get the luxury of having such deep philosophical thoughts as does their actions constitute murder or self-defense. It is not their job to think about these things. That is the job of the generals and the politicians and the philosophers.

Soldiers are given the task of carrying out their mission. Of being placed in a situation that may or may not require them to use deadly force to resolve the situation. usually though the only way to resolve it is the application of force. Because the people they are opposing are willing to use force to prevent the soldier from doing their job. It is the soldiers job to clean up the mess when politicians and philosophers are unable to learn to play nice together.

Police officers are a different situation than soldiers as they are tasked with keeping civil order and are public servants. Their job and their duties are not to use lethal force as the first solution to a mission profile. Unfortunately there are times when they are forced to do so.

Civilians and people in general though have a basic right to defend themselves by any means necessary. And this includes the right to kill a person in the case when that person is trying to kill them. I do not like the way our current justice system will punish a person for killing their attacker. If a person attacks another and the person being attacked defends themselves with lethal force that person does not deserve to be punished for their actions. Maybe not given a medal either at times but definately needs more support and consideration and help than they do receive.

Life is filled with complex situations. There are times though when the swirl of chaos does still and thigns come into focus with a startling clarity of purpose and these times are usually the ones where life and death hang in the balance.
Soldiers do their job and that job is to sometimes kill in the name of their country, their duty, their citizenry.
Police officers protect and serve the public. Sometimes this measn they must fight or die to prevent themselves or another from being killed. They must hold themselves to the highest standards to avoid needless bloodshed but it is still soemtiems required.
Many civilians go their entire life untainted by the touch of evil or violence. Some must defend themselves against it when it is forced upon them. Punish them not, nor pity them but help them.

[CancelMyService]

I would support the death penalty if there was a way to be 100% sure everyone executed was guilty. Even with DNA we seem to be a long way from that. For all the "WHAT ABOUT *insert obviously guilty serial killer/rapist*, SHOULDN'T HE BE KILLED?" that the pro-DP crowd always throw in people's faces, I say how many innocent people with shitty lawyers are you prepared to sacrifice to satisfy your need for revenge? How many people who had the bad luck to run into overzealous cops/judges/DAs are you willing to sacrifice? Not to threadjack, but while cops in general are deified in this country, the truth is a lot of the times they just want to close a case and don't want to be bothered with things like facts or evidence that might disprove their theories and send them back to square one. Not saying all cops are like that, but IMO most of the folks who consider them to be unassailable never had to deal with the police firsthand.

It's also funny that a lot of conservative/right wing people are so rabidly pro death penalty. The same people who will rant endlessly on how you can't trust the government to do anything correctly are certain that the same government is properly administering the harshest punishment possible.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I am against the death penalty.

Give people who would be eligible for the death penalty a choice: Die by lethal injection peacefully, without filing a costly appeal, or spend life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Two choices. Both ensure the person is never a menace to society again.

They didn't give their victims any choice. They don't deserve any choice themselves. I'm with Blas on this one. I don't give a rat's ass if some shithead who raped and executed countless women suffers one whit of pain getting a lethal injection. Tough shit.

Yes, I agree that as it stands now, the death penalty can be skewed towards minorities (Two words: Bush. Texas.), and putting innocent people to death is something that should be avoided at all costs. That's why I said it should only be done in cases where it's proven beyond all reasonable doubt that yes, this is the guilty party, we have every shred of evidence short of actual video footage of him doing the crime (unless they actually DO have footage; then it's a no-brainer).

[CancelMyService]

The only problem is there's been more than one case where it was "proven beyond all reasonable doubt" at trial only to find out years later that it was in fact the wrong person.

Until there's a way to be 100% sure only the guilty are executed I can't get behind the death penalty. I'd rather have murderers get life in prison with no parole than risk killing an innocent person.

Another thing, what kind of punishment is killing someone and letting their punishment end after a few years (allowing for appeals and all that). Having someone sit in prison for 50 years to ponder what they've done is more of a punishment IMO.

[Seshat]

If you just took an island and threw the prisoners on it and let them survive or die then that might work or you might wind up with some sort of southern hemisphere country with a fascination for odd hats and overly excitable animal handlers....:p

Possible. :)


Exile


Exile is only viable as a punishment if you separate the genders, sterilise the exiled, or in some other way prevent there from being children of the exiles. Otherwise you get innocent children stuck in a horrid culture.

Early Australia demonstrated that, and so did the Bounty mutineers who moved to Pitcairn Island.

For early Australia: we don't teach the schoolchildren all the details, but read between the lines. The high-ranking officers and their wives and families were rotated and could go home, but the general populace of soldiers were unmarried, and were the ones who could be sent to permanent exile in Australia. Yeah, the misfits, the criminals, and the too-dangerous.
The convicts were mostly male. Some were simply poor and imprisoned for crimes of desperation - stealing loaves of bread and the like. Others were truly criminal.
There were female convicts. Therefore there were also children, at least after a while. Not many of either. There were also officers' wives and families, also not many of either, but those were (I would imagine) untouchable. But ever-present reminders of what everyone else couldn't have.
Add the stresses of survival in a place which, as you all no doubt know, is totally unsuited to the types of agriculture familiar to these people - and you can imagine the culture of the time.
And you can imagine what was likely to happen to Aboriginal women. I'm honestly impressed by how much patience and tolerance the Aboriginal elder councils are showing to "white" Australia in the ongoing negotiations for land rights & such.

For the Bounty mutineers: some of the descendants of the mutineers are still on Pitcairn Island, some were moved to Norfolk. There was a relatively famous rape trial about Pitcairn Island, not so long ago. Here's one report on it. Pitcairn Rape Trial (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3705988.stm)

So yeah - I'm totally against any sort of prison-exile where innocent children can be born to the exiles. (Exile in the political-exile sense, where the exiled is simply going to some other healthy culture, is totally different.)

Imprisonment vs Death Penalty

Unless we have some foolproof way of determining guilt, I'll be against the death penalty as a punishment. However, I'm for death as euthanasia and this applies to some killers.

I'm pro-euthanasia, in cases of incurable suffering and no quality of life. I'm also pro-euthanasia in cases of incurable mental illness that cause suffering to others: such as the majority of people who are helplessly serial killers/serial rapists/serial torturers.

If they can be safely kept locked away and safely given suitable life-quality enrichment, then euthanasia is not necessary. But I would imagine that many of them are just too damn dangerous. I do not consider killing those who are driven to murder, rape or torture by mental illness to be a punishment, but a mercy euthanasia.

I honestly believe that for most serial killers, there has to be something seriously wrong with them. In their brain, in their personality: something. I don't know what, but something. I believe that most of them simply can't learn to understand what they're doing, so punishing them is as pointless as punishing a dog for not doing trigonometry.

The decision to euthanise or imprison these dangerously ill people should be made medically, not judicially, though oversight by an ethics committee (which may include the judicial) is necessary. However if they've committed crimes while ill but are eventually cured, they should be placed in the care of the judicial system.

So having separated out the murderer-because-their-brain-is-broken types, let's look at the murderer-but-mentally-normal types of people. In these cases, we need absolute proof of guilt, for reasons which lots of previous posters have explained. Without that, I'm against the death penalty.

However, presuming absolute proof of guilt, there's no point to allowing repeated appeals and the like. We know who did it, we know why, yadda yadda. Let there be two, maybe three or four or five, reviews by different ethics/judicial committees; just so that people don't get killed because a committee has a bad day. But no need for expensive repeated appeals and retrials; we have this magical absolute proof.

With that proof, I see no need to keep alive people who intentionally murder/rape/torture and are likely to do so again. By this, I mean people like the 'black widow' who marries rich men, arranges their deaths, and inherits. And does so over and over.
I don't see a need for society to kill desperate people who kills their abusive spouses because they can't see any other way out. And there's no reason at all to kill people who kill to defend themselves, children or dependents.
Of course, the middle of that continuum gets tricky - where do you say 'these ones we kill, those we imprison and re-educate'?

Effects on executioners/euthanisers

But there's still one thing that makes me wonder whether the death penalty is a good thing. The effect on the executioner. Heck, the effect on euthanisers makes me wonder about being pro-euthanasia, too.

I don't know much detail, but I watched a show on executioners on the History channel. Edutainment, I know, and probably sensationalised. But apparently quite a few executioners ended up suicidal or depressed, and most were ostracised.

I do know that people who euthanise shelter dogs and cats suffer terribly. I know that police who have to shoot people get paid-by-the-state therapy and for good reason. I know that people who have to cut losses by closing fire/flood doors on a few people to save many end up terribly traumatised.

To be a good executioner or euthanasia-doctor, you need enough empathy to make sure you do the job right. But that's also enough empathy to be horribly psychically injured by it.

[LadyMage]

They didn't give their victims any choice. They don't deserve any choice themselves. I'm with Blas on this one. I don't give a rat's ass if some shithead who raped and executed countless women suffers one whit of pain getting a lethal injection. Tough shit.

Yes, I agree that as it stands now, the death penalty can be skewed towards minorities (Two words: Bush. Texas.), and putting innocent people to death is something that should be avoided at all costs. That's why I said it should only be done in cases where it's proven beyond all reasonable doubt that yes, this is the guilty party, we have every shred of evidence short of actual video footage of him doing the crime (unless they actually DO have footage; then it's a no-brainer).

Then why be them, why kill them in cold blood and give them no choice. Also a lot of those people do tie up the legal system by appealling and trying to save their skins, so technically they still have the choice, they still have the chance of stopping it. We can not take away their right to appeals, since that would be unconsitutional, which is for another time. Why not just not kill them, thus ending the back log.


I also do believe in assited suicide..... for the terminally ill that want it cause they don't want to be in pain, not the people in jail.

seshat - I like your point on exuctioners, no one ever thinks of those poor people that have to do it directly. Think of them people, they might not want to do it.

rahmota - my point about cops and soilders wasn't about punishing them, it was to point out that anyone who kills either by orders or by self defense, in the black and white world of DP should be killed too. They took a life, therefor their lives should be taken. I poined out that was a major flaw

[blas87]

I just cannot see murderers and rapists as people with human beings with feelings. Their victims were people with feelings. Did those pieces of shit care about their feelings or their right to live and not be raped? Not really. Did the guy who killed my cousin and her unborn baby care about her feelings? Not so much. After he killed her, he hid her body underneath a bed and fled the state. That shows just how bad he felt about it.

I'm sorry, but I don't give two shits about how a murderer feels. They didn't give their victims a choice. They didn't care. Why should I care about their feelings? They don't deserve any rights after doing such awful things with no remorse.

I'm sure as hell once they've been incarcerated, sure they feel bad. But it's too late to take it back. And there's no guarantee they'll never do it again. The only way we'll know is if we let them out and they do it again. So that asshole could get out, and ANOTHER family will lose a loved one. Another mother and father will have to lose a child. Another unborn baby may die.

Again, I do not advocate parole. It's basically playing Russian Roulette with innocent people's lives.

[CancelMyService]

blas, you also are certain that the person who killed your cousin did it. There's an alarming number of people on death row who's cases aren't as open and shut.

[blas87]

Perhaps I am being a little closed minded, but from what I'm speaking of, I am only referring to those who have without a doubt killed someone and are 100% guilty.

[Boozy]

Perhaps I am being a little closed minded, but from what I'm speaking of, I am only referring to those who have without a doubt killed someone and are 100% guilty.

Every person on death row later found to be innocent was, at one time, judged 100% guilty.

Human error is unavoidable. As long as there is the death penalty, there is a possibility of innocent people being killed.

[MadMike]

Every person on death row later found to be innocent was, at one time, judged 100% guilty.

Human error is unavoidable. As long as there is the death penalty, there is a possibility of innocent people being killed.

And that's the problem I have with the death penalty. I'm of two minds on the subject for many reasons, but this is the one that leaves me unable to support it -- if you kill someone and later find out they were innocent, you can't bring them back.

[rahmota]

Every person on death row later found to be innocent was, at one time, judged 100% guilty.

Human error is unavoidable. As long as there is the death penalty, there is a possibility of innocent people being killed.

Which is why I am conditionally for it. Only in those conditions which are limited to a degree of certainty beyond the normal reasonable doubt. When the state is dealing with a life it must be held to a no doubt level of certainty.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Then why be them, why kill them in cold blood and give them no choice.

Big difference there. Scumbags are cold-blooded; they've proven that with their vile acts. Executioners aren't necessarily. They certainly don't have to take any pleasure from their job - in fact, it's probably better that they don't - but what they're doing is no different than putting down a rabid animal for the safety and good of the rest of the law-abiding decent citizenry.

I seriously doubt that many, if any, of the worst actually do reflect in prison over their crimes and ever come to any sort of repentance. Some of them have even flat-out said that if they had the chance to do it again, they would in a heartbeat. So much for 'rehabilitation.'

I rather like the way the ancient Egyptians went about things. When someone was to be executed - although, mind you, a lot of those weren't always quick and easy - what they did was erase all record of that person's name from public documents and monuments. To those ancients, erasing a person's name meant literally erasing them from existence, dooming them to what was basically an afterlife in hell, because in time they would be forgotten.

I think that's what we need to do with all these assholes getting fame out of the deal. They shouldn't get any sort of recognition beyond that of "this is what so-and-so did" in news accounts. No book deals. No interviews (only cops and the like would be allowed to do that). No publicity whatsoever that sensationalizes these wastes of carbon and possibly inspires future scumbags (and I do believe at least one has mentioned that he thought of another serial killer as his 'idol'; I don't remember the names though). Relegate them to oblivion where they belong.

[LadyMage]

ok you supporters forced my hand... if we do kill someone innocent on death row, what should happen to the people of the state? Remember DP is state funded, meaning everyone in that state kills the person on death row.

If that person is proven to be innocent, does that me we all get DP? We did murder that person in cold blood, we did it, its 100% proven. So what happens?


Just a little mind puzzle for everyone, have fun

[Lace Neil Singer]

I've noticed a lot of people throwing out the "loads of innocent people were executed" argument; do you have any official stats to back this up? Just wondering.

[Boozy]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412

128 people have been released from death row since 1973; 119 of these have been completely exonerated.

[Amethyst Hunter]

ok you supporters forced my hand... if we do kill someone innocent on death row, what should happen to the people of the state? Remember DP is state funded, meaning everyone in that state kills the person on death row.

If that person is proven to be innocent, does that me we all get DP? We did murder that person in cold blood, we did it, its 100% proven. So what happens?


Nothing. That's a strawman argument. By that same logic, we're all guilty, even anti-war liberals, of supporting an illegal and unjust war, since it's our tax dollars going to fund Dictator II's romp in IraqNam.

Place the blame/punishment firmly where it belongs - on the perpetrators, not on convenient targets. I don't consider myself responsible for any people that may have been innocent and who were executed because I had nothing to do with it. I wasn't involved in the trial process, I don't know anything about the case, I didn't make the decision to send the person to death row, I didn't cover up any 'evidence', I didn't pull the switch/stick in the needle/whathaveyou. I refuse to accept guilt for something I didn't do and had no part whatsoever in.

If innocent people were executed wrongly (and I'm not saying whether they were or weren't because I don't know the specifics of each and every individual case), then the system needs to get straightened out so that the chance of human error (accidental and deliberate) is reduced, and, like Rahmota said, it's applicable under particular and strict conditions, not necessarily applied to each and every person that gets tried for murder or whatnot.

Incidentally, your question is very similar to one involved in the abortion debate, that being: if abortion is made illegal and inaccessible in the States, what should happen to the women who have abortions anyway? No one can answer that because it's not a one-size-fits-all scenario and individual factors apply. The same is true here.

[Boozy]

I don't consider myself responsible for any people that may have been innocent and who were executed because I had nothing to do with it. I wasn't involved in the trial process, I don't know anything about the case, I didn't make the decision to send the person to death row, I didn't cover up any 'evidence', I didn't pull the switch/stick in the needle/whathaveyou. I refuse to accept guilt for something I didn't do and had no part whatsoever in.

That's the problem with our democracies. No one takes responsibility. You support the death penalty and have possibly voted for politicians, judges, and district attorneys who also support it. And yet refuse to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the failures of your elected government?

Injustices are being done in your name. Anti-war protesters are campaigning tirelessly against the war for this very reason, but when you discover that people's lives are being destroyed by a system that you support, you shrug it off as "Not my fault, not my problem."

This "not my problem" attitude is the beginning of the end for democracies, in my opinion.

[LadyMage]

That's the problem with our democracies. No one takes responsibility. You support the death penalty and have possibly voted for politicians, judges, and district attorneys who also support it. And yet refuse to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the failures of your elected government?

Injustices are being done in your name. Anti-war protesters are campaigning tirelessly against the war for this very reason, but when you discover that people's lives are being destroyed by a system that you support, you shrug it off as "Not my fault, not my problem."

This "not my problem" attitude is the beginning of the end for democracies, in my opinion.

beat me too it. We the people did vote for it, therefore we had the final say, I argument is no strawman, you voted for the person that wanted dp, therefore you allowed this to happen

this does put us anti dps in a bad spot but we are willing to make the sacrifce to prove a point (sound familiar? ;)

[Amethyst Hunter]

That's the problem with our democracies. No one takes responsibility. You support the death penalty and have possibly voted for politicians, judges, and district attorneys who also support it. And yet refuse to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the failures of your elected government?


Please point out to me where exactly I said that.

I vote. As a voter, I look at my options carefully. Those that seem trustworthy will earn my vote. That includes factors in regards to things like DP.

If an elected official betrays that trust, then absolutely they should be nailed for it (and while we're on this subject, WHY have George II and all his cronies not been impeached and slung into court yet like they damn well ought to be?? /rhetorical question). If blame is assigned to everybody by default, then why don't I just go around smacking the shit out of people who voted *both* times for Bush? (and believe me, I'd like to) After all, doesn't that mean that they're just as guilty of the war, the failing economy, the rise of terrorism, the rollback/restriction of women's and gay people's rights, and God only knows what else?

It doesn't. As convenient as it might be to take out my frustration on those people, it isn't right, because *they* did not make those poor decisions - it was the *officials* wielding the power that did. And you'd better believe there ARE scores of people protesting like crazy, and have done so since day 1 of 2001.

That's how you keep the system of checks and balances. My original argument still stands. It is NOT my personal fault if someone innocent dies on death row - it is strictly the fault of the people involved in the case that effed it up, and as such, THOSE are the people who deserve to be punished, not the average citizen on the street.

And as for the 100% truly-beyond-all-doubt guilty who do get death, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not inclined towards any sympathy whatsoever for them. Maybe we should have spared fine folks like John Wayne Gacy, or Ted Bundy, let them out on parole for good behavior in X number of years so they can go off and kill some more innocent people. Did you know that Ted Bundy once kidnapped two victims and kept them alive for several days before forcing one to watch while he tortured and killed the other?

Good riddance to those kind, I say. Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw (DarthRetard, you'll love it): "It's God's job to judge bin Laden - it's OUR job to arrange the meeting!" - Marines

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Why do we kill people, who kill people, to show people that killing people is wrong?

We don't. We do it to make sure we don't have to worry about a killer killing someone else.

People who say it's not a deterent are kidding themselves. It sure is a deterent to the guy they kill. He's 100% guaranteed not to kill anyone else.

[LadyMage]

he can't kill cause he is dead, that's not a deterant, it didn't stop him the first time. I bet he did know about it but it didn't stop him

death after the fact is revenge, pure and simple

[LadyMage]

Please point out to me where exactly I said that.

I vote. As a voter, I look at my options carefully. Those that seem trustworthy will earn my vote. That includes factors in regards to things like DP.

If an elected official betrays that trust, then absolutely they should be nailed for it (and while we're on this subject, WHY have George II and all his cronies not been impeached and slung into court yet like they damn well ought to be?? /rhetorical question). If blame is assigned to everybody by default, then why don't I just go around smacking the shit out of people who voted *both* times for Bush? (and believe me, I'd like to) After all, doesn't that mean that they're just as guilty of the war, the failing economy, the rise of terrorism, the rollback/restriction of women's and gay people's rights, and God only knows what else?

It doesn't. As convenient as it might be to take out my frustration on those people, it isn't right, because *they* did not make those poor decisions - it was the *officials* wielding the power that did. And you'd better believe there ARE scores of people protesting like crazy, and have done so since day 1 of 2001.

That's how you keep the system of checks and balances. My original argument still stands. It is NOT my personal fault if someone innocent dies on death row - it is strictly the fault of the people involved in the case that effed it up, and as such, THOSE are the people who deserve to be punished, not the average citizen on the street.

And as for the 100% truly-beyond-all-doubt guilty who do get death, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not inclined towards any sympathy whatsoever for them. Maybe we should have spared fine folks like John Wayne Gacy, or Ted Bundy, let them out on parole for good behavior in X number of years so they can go off and kill some more innocent people. Did you know that Ted Bundy once kidnapped two victims and kept them alive for several days before forcing one to watch while he tortured and killed the other?

Good riddance to those kind, I say. Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw (DarthRetard, you'll love it): "It's God's job to judge bin Laden - it's OUR job to arrange the meeting!" - Marines

1. God (if he exists) can judge on earth too last time I checked
2. I never said parole, lock them up for good, but don't kill them, use them for medical research or something, get some use!
3. Normally, we vote for the people in charge, Bush is a messed up and special case, but we are usually responsible, and people did vote for him
4. If I had the answer to the impeachment question, I would given it years ago

[ebonyknight]

If I thought that execution ever actually did something good for society, then I'd support it.
But:
1) It costs us as taxpayers far more to execute someone than it does to keep them separated from everyone else for life.
2) The death penalty so far in this country has been skewed towards minorities. Until we as a nation are a true meritocracy, then the government should not be putting people to death.
3) We've killed people who were found to be innocent. Until we as a nation can be 100% certain of a person's guilt, we should not be putting people to death.
4) It doesn't serve as a deterrent. It never has. What's the point? Revenge? We have a justice system, not a revenge system.
While my heart goes out to victim's families, the reality is that another death is not going to bring their dead back to life, or make the bereaved better people or really even make them feel better. It does nothing for them.

The only thing you are missing is a bow on top.

Couldn't have put it any better or more succinctly than that.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

he can't kill cause he is dead, that's not a deterant, it didn't stop him the first time. I bet he did know about it but it didn't stop him

death after the fact is revenge, pure and simple

It didnt' stop him the first time, but it sure stopped him every other time after that.

I don't see it as revenge, though I can certainly see why it would be viewed that way. I personally get no pleasure from knowing someone was executed. These people who sit outside the prison gates and cheer do not amuse me in the least. It's kind of sick and morbid.

To me, it's society protecting itself against those who have no respect for life and for our society. And while you could argue that life in prison does just that, consider this: does the guy in prison on a lesser charge deserve to have to share quarters with someon who might shiv him the shower or laundry? He hasn't been sentenced to death or injury. And I dont know about you, but frankly I'm so cynical that I do not trust the system to make sure the murderer never gets out. Consider prison overcrowding. How much would getting rid of the worst of the worst improve the lot of those who actually have to live in prison? And consider people like Polly Klaas and anyone else raped and murdered by repeat offenders who were released back into our midst.

Guys being condemned to death when they are not guilty is a big problem. Society failing to protect people against criminals who can not and will not be rehabilitated is an ENORMOUS problem.

[Seshat]

death after the fact is revenge, pure and simple

Euthanasia excepted, society killing someone who has not committed a crime and who cannot be determined as (sufficiently) likely to do so is unwarranted.

However, society killing someone who has killed/raped/tortured in a way which makes it clear he is likely to kill/rape/torture again is a preventative measure, protecting his future victims.

(As stated in my previous posts, we can't yet prove or predict criminality enough for me to believe the death sentence is warranted. Yet.)

[tropicsgoddess]

I believe in an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. It's not fair that somebody who murdered an innocent person is still alive while the victim is dead. It may cost more to execute death row inmates than it would to keep them incarcerated for life, but I honestly would rather have my tax dollars put towards executing criminals so they can't hurt anybody else anymore.

[unholypet]

I agree with death penalty. I don't think its biased on a certain racial group, or because of Republicans, or of Bush.

You know why?

Statistis don't lie, and there are a million for everything anymore. Too many variables, and too much grey area.

You guys have yet to mention that a judge, jury, DA, and the courtroom participants decide what happen.

They may not be right every time, but its huma error that can or cannot prove something beyond the shadow of doubt. Its human error we may not have the science to prove things, why haven't we thought of/invented it?
---

An eye for an eye, etc. has been used a lot here. Its worked much longer than our curren civilization has been around, you are treated as you treat others.

That's why we have courts, and the justice system. It takes a while, because it takes THAT many people to pull something off. The majority rule on opinion and belief, because you can't make 100% happy anywhere.

---

I have family that's been mind-raped, and its an awful thing to see. The bastard that did it got away with it, because he is a church official. How is that fair?

If you; mentally scar a woman so that she is unable to take a shower in her own home without locking every door and window, shutting all the blinds, turning off all lights, and having her family watch out for noises around the bathroom. He called the house with an untracable line, and terrorized her an her family for months, despite what the police were allowed to do.

This guy was only found because he couldn't resist peeking in a window at her the one night she tries to be brave and shower home alone. The cops didn't respond fast enough to grab him there, but did find him a block away.

The kicker? This was 15yrs ago, and she is still scared. This freak was let loose, and ended up raping a woman down the road from his first victim.

He's free again, and is reported running from police, STILL doing this to women.

How is that fair?

---

Lastly, what about over population? Its helping our planet to cut back on some of the stress its under. We're no more than animals, and we're the top of the food chain. There's nothing to keep us under conrol but each other.

Why not get rid of the proven bad apples, to try and keep the shiny apples shiny?

[blas87]

unholypet, I am so sorry that happened. I am definetly with you on this issue.

[Seshat]

Statistis don't lie, and there are a million for everything anymore. Too many variables, and too much grey area.

Statistics don't lie, but can mislead. If 100% of people surveyed say one thing - but only people attending a conference about that thing were surveyed, the statistic is misleading.

However, that's a side issue.

You guys have yet to mention that a judge, jury, DA, and the courtroom participants decide what happen.

I think we did, but as an unspoken assumption that was part of the 'human error' and 'reasonable doubt' discussions.

They may not be right every time, but its huma error that can or cannot prove something beyond the shadow of doubt. Its human error we may not have the science to prove things, why haven't we thought of/invented it?

We're working on it. There are a lot of people researching attempts to prove the issues more and more.

The Law And Order set of TV series' are fictionalised, but present many of the dilemnas of proof quite well.

An eye for an eye, etc. has been used a lot here.

And can easily lead to feuds.


I have family that's been mind-raped, and its an awful thing to see. The bastard that did it got away with it, because he is a church official. How is that fair?

It isn't. That's a remaining aspect of 'might makes right', which we haven't eliminated yet.


The kicker? This was 15yrs ago, and she is still scared. This freak was let loose, and ended up raping a woman down the road from his first victim.

He's free again, and is reported running from police, STILL doing this to women.

How is that fair?

That's why I'm in favour of locking up people who have committed violent/dangerous crimes and are, in the best judgement of specialists, likely to continue to do so.

I'm not in favour of the death penalty until our accuracy of determining guilt or innocence is greatly increased. When it's closer to 100%, then I'd be in favour of simply killing these people.


Lastly, what about over population? Its helping our planet to cut back on some of the stress its under. We're no more than animals, and we're the top of the food chain. There's nothing to keep us under conrol but each other.

Why not get rid of the proven bad apples, to try and keep the shiny apples shiny?

Because at present they're not proven to be the bad apples, we're not doing any better than educated guesses.

As for overpopulation: I prefer reducing population at pre-birth. Pre-conception, if possible. I'm strongly in favour of educating women, and providing effective, cheap, and as-harmless-as-possible reversible contraception to everyone at puberty. Which is probably a different thread, but that's my preferred population-reduction method.

Of course, if we keep building cities on the slopes of active volcanoes, in earthquake zones, and so on, we'll have catastrophic reductions. And there's multiply resistant tuberculosis in the wings, and other such threats. We're overdue for a catastrophic reduction worse than the Indian Ocean tsunami.

[Boozy]

Lastly, what about over population?

I do not care for this argument for the death penalty. The thought that we can cure overpopulation by killing the "undesirables" is a frightening idea.

Certainly, we can't be placing value on human life according to how much space and resources we have available.

[AFPheonix]

Not to mention we don't execute nearly enough people in this country to actually make a dent in overpopulation.

No one that's against the death penalty in this thread is for parole for inappropriate people. We just think that locking those people up for life is sufficient. As for jail overpopulation, well, that's due less to violent offenders than it is to non-violent drug offenders, victims of our shitty war on drugs.

[Seshat]

I do not care for this argument for the death penalty. The thought that we can cure overpopulation by killing the "undesirables" is a frightening idea.

I'm disabled. Do I need to mention my instinctive reaction to this idea?

[IDrinkaRum]

Please do not shoot me for this, but it's a relative "joke" on how one can tell the difference between Democrats & Republicans:

Democrats allow abortion to get rid of the "undesirables" right away.

Republicans say "Wait until they are born, grown up, and when they f^&k up, then we get rid of them."

Ahem, I'll now go back into the corner and hide.

[machinest]

I think that as another problem the idea that their are "things that people deserve to die for "can bleed over into the general society and the less stable members of that society are more inclined to take matters into their own hands.

[unholypet]

I'm disabled. Do I need to mention my instinctive reaction to this idea?

"Undesirables" to me, are cold-blooded killers, rapists, and the like.

Disability has nothing to do with being an "undesirable."

[DesignFox]

Well, after reading Kara's post and looking up the Carr brothers... Those are two men that deserve what's coming to them. :mad: :(

Link to the thread is below for those who may have missed it. She warns that it is not safe for work.

http://www.customerssuck.com/board/showthread.php?t=27222

[BlaqueKatt]

I haven't researched it, but from what I'm told, it is actually more expensive to execute someone than let them drag on in prison for life.

Proving someone is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, going through mutliple appeals, etc. etc. drives up the cost of executions.


I have researched it and you are correct-A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life.

Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000."

source (http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html)

this is not what I used for my own personal research but it was easy to find

"A 1987 study presented evidence that 350 people convicted of capital crimes in the USA between 1900 and 1985 were innocent of the crimes charged. In most cases the discovery of new evidence resulted in acquittal, pardon, commutation of sentence or dismissal of charges, often years after the original conviction. Some prisoners escaped execution by minutes, but 23 were actually executed."---Stanford Law Review, vol. 40, No. 1, November 1987, pages 21-179.

[BlaqueKatt]

he can't kill cause he is dead, that's not a deterant, it didn't stop him the first time. I bet he did know about it but it didn't stop him

death after the fact is revenge, pure and simple


I totally agree with this-Of the 16 states that have higher than average murder rates-15 have the death penalty-how's that deterrent working for you?

[DesignFox]

Well, it doesn't really matter what I think- my state did away with the death penalty not too long ago...

But, there are some very rare cases where I think it would be appropriate.

(the following is really disturbing...I probably should warn you of that in case any of you are sensitive)

Anyone heard of the Phoenix Strangler?

http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/crime/serialkillers/phoenixstrangler/index.shtml

Crazy Mo-Fo.

Probably should be executed, but at least they locked him away for life with no parole. (his sentence is for 504 years, I believe.)

He's pure psycho. There is something seriously wrong with his psyche. I don't see a point in keeping him around. And there's no doubt in this case. It's him. He's guilty.

THOSE are the kind of crimes I feel warrant the death penalty.

Not spur of the moment or single isolated incidents.

In the case of this guy... he will NEVER be rehabilitated, and I wouldn't even want to take the chance that he or any criminal like that might escape prison...

[Seshat]

He's pure psycho. There is something seriously wrong with his psyche.

And that's why I call it euthanasia in these cases. He's too severely ill for any currently known treatment to help him, much less cure him.

I don't know if he's suffering, but his illness causes great suffering. For society's sake, I believe that such people should be euthanised if untreatable.


NOTE: someone who is equally psychotic but in a harmless way need not be euthanised. In their case, provided their suffering isn't too great, there is no harm to anyone in keeping them somewhere where they're safe and waiting for research to provide effective treatment.

[Ree]

It's easy to say that a criminal deserves the death penalty if it has been proved beyond all doubt that they are guilty.

The problem is, it's a very fine line. In every case, in order to render a guilty verdict, the jury has to feel that the prosecution has made their case, beyond all reasonable doubt. Juries are human and mistakes happen, however.

Just ask Steven Truscott (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/truscott/) (who was sentenced to death, but had that sentence overturned)
David Milgaard (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/milgaard/) or Donald Marshall Jr (http://archives.cbc.ca/version_print.asp?page=1&IDLan=1&IDClip=12858&IDDossier=0&IDCat=354&IDCatPa=262) or any of a number of people wrongfully convicted (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wrongfullyconvicted/).
Canada no longer has the death penalty, and in those cases, it's a good thing.

Capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/i/homiciderates.gif

In fact, statistics have shown that, in the first year following the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, murder rates actually decreased. Over the next 20 or so years, the rates varied, but they never rose above the rate at the time of abolition, and in 1995, the rate was the lowest it had ever been.

Capital punishment is vengeance.
I realize it's easy for me to sit back and spout these opinions and statistics when I have been fortunate enough to have never lost anyone dear to me to a violent crime, but I honestly don't think that it would have changed my feelings.

Killing another person does not bring back the loved one. It merely lowers us to that level.

[DesignFox]

Seshat, I agree that in those cases it would be like euthanasia.

I had some stronger words to use though, and didn't want to risk offending anyone. You put it quite nicely for me. :)

[Seshat]

You're welcome, Design Fox.

I've given this sort of issue serious thought over the years. I do believe that some people are simply lacking some key traits. These traits include the ability to perceive that others are separate from oneself, the understanding that others are feeling beings, the understanding that they're capable of suffering, and the belief that that suffering matters.

I think it's pointless to try to punish someone for lacking an ability. We don't punish the one-legged person for being unable to walk, after all. I honestly think that there is a portion of the populace which is as unable to be empathic towards others as a one-legged person is to walk.

All we can do for these people is compassionately euthanise the dangerous ones, and compassionately do our best for the ones who aren't dangerous.

[Boozy]

All we can do for these people is compassionately euthanise the dangerous ones, and compassionately do our best for the ones who aren't dangerous.

You can call it euthanasia if you'd like, but its still the death penalty.

I think you're cheating a bit - trying to dress up a foul concept in humanitarian terms.

[Seshat]

Of course it is. But the motivation is different. At least in my head, it's not punishment.

In my head, it's the same sort of thing as an animal rescue putting down a dog that's been so badly mistreated it can never be safely homed with a family.

In both cases, there's a being (animal or human person) who is so twisted up in the head he/she can never be part of society. You can lock the being up for the rest of his/her life, or you can gently put him/her to sleep.

That said, I know that if a dog has bitten a child or killed a farmer's livestock, the child's parents or the farmer will look on the euthanasia of the dog as punishment. And the majority of society would look on the euthanasia of a serial killer as punishment. There's no escaping that. It's human nature. It's just not how I, as an individual, see it.

I also think that if the executioner can think of themselves as a medical specialist, euthanising incurably twisted people, it will help keep the executioner more sane.

[DesignFox]

Thank you Seshat! That's the analogy I would have used. I guess I should have just gone ahead and said it... :o

Like I said earlier, I don't think the death penalty is anything that should be considered lightly. But in some cases I believe it is necessary- maybe even kinder than letting that person exist in such a twisted state.

[BlackIronCrown]

1. impusle - you had a real sucky day, your spouse is found in bed with your best friend and you kill them both, you had no control, you where too angry to think and did the first thing to come to your mind. I don't care how in control you are we are all at risk of doing this, some more then others of course. How is the death penalty going to deter that one?

2. Forced too - like in a war, or another form of self defence since the other person might kill you. Cops do this all the time, should we send them to the chair? How about the boys and girls forced to go to war? Should they get the gas chamber?

3. Too messed up to care - Ted Bundy, BTK killer, Jeffery Dhamer, Jack the Ripper.... need I go on?


Addressing your points one by one:

1) This is what's generally known as a "crime of passion" or in the example that you provided "murder in the 2nd degree". Crimes of passion have never gotten the death penalty by default.

2) Self-defence never incurs the death penalty either. Killing in order to defend your own life (and being able to prove it) is not a crime. Neither is war considered to be murder; war is the death of an enemy as sanctioned by the state.

3) The only reason why some of these never received the death penalty is because they were judged insane and therefore not culpable for their actions. Ted Bundy is an interesting case; there is much evidence available that if he had not been put to the death, he would have been released in 20-40 years back into the population. His intelligence and talent for dissimulation were unparalelled; he was perfect for getting people to assume that he was "rehabilitated".

The point of execution is not to provide a merciful end for a person who has committed a crime. It is in order to protect society; to prevent that person from ever committing their crime again in cold blood. Execution is reserved for those whom the state thinks cannot be rehabilitated.


My solution, keep them locked up, give them gruel to eat and a slab to sleep on, and if they want to take their own lives, let them. Thank you good night!

I consider this to be the less humane option. You have murdered someone; now we shall lock you up in a cage, keep you fed and clothed for the rest of your natural lfie, locked in a zoo with the other wild animals. Cruel and unusual punishment, really.

1. God (if he exists) can judge on earth too last time I checked
2. I never said parole, lock them up for good, but don't kill them, use them for medical research or something, get some use!
3. Normally, we vote for the people in charge, Bush is a messed up and special case, but we are usually responsible, and people did vote for him
4. If I had the answer to the impeachment question, I would given it years ago

Just a note here: We cannot use prisoners for medical research. We cannot force them into any situation that is considered to be cruel and unusual punishment, as it is not constitutional. Even hard labor is considered to be under fire these days - cruel and unusual.

I have no problem with permanent incarceration (provided it is permanent), but if you are going to suggest it, we need to find something to do with them that will not violate caselaw on the subject.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412

128 people have been released from death row since 1973; 119 of these have been completely exonerated.

Nice statistic.
However, let's put this into real perspective.

From the same website you are using, I gathered the information that from 1993-2007, 3349 people have been sentenced to Death Row.

In that same time period, 78 people have been exonerated.

So, of the people that have been convicted from 1993-2007, 2.33% of the people that were convicted were innocent. That indicates that, so far as we know, the remaining 97.67% are guilty of their crimes.

That's a fairly high success rate for guilty.
Commentary?

[Ree]

Is the loss of one innocent person worth it to exterminate another ten guilty people?

Doesn't that make us just as bad as those we are executing?

[Boozy]

So, of the people that have been convicted from 1993-2007, 2.33% of the people that were convicted were innocent. That indicates that, so far as we know, the remaining 97.67% are guilty of their crimes.

That's a fairly high success rate for guilty.


You've got to be kidding me.

You're really think there is an acceptable number of innocent citizens killed by their own government?

[ebonyknight]

That's a fairly high success rate for guilty.
Commentary?

For me, it could be 99.99999% and I would still be against it. Even ONE is one too many.

[Sylvia727]

So, of the people that have been convicted from 1993-2007, 2.33% of the people that were convicted were innocent. That indicates that, so far as we know, the remaining 97.67% are guilty of their crimes.

That's a fairly high success rate for guilty.
Commentary?

97.67% is a fairly high success rate for a process of this magnitude. Obviously, I'd like it to be much higher, but it's still pretty good when one considers all the things that can go wrong. But, if we sentence them to life without parole, they'll have 20 - 60 years to prove their innocence. If we kill them, that's the end of the line. We can't take that back.

Let me ask you something: if I handed you a gun with 98 empty chambers and two loaded chambers, would you play Russian Roulette with it? Or you want to find a better and safer alternative?

That's why I support the death penalty in a utopeian society, where the success rate is absolutely 100%. Until then, it's not a risk we can in good conscience take. Although I do think Seshat has a good point about euthanasia. It would have to be heavily researched and verified that the criminal was unrehabilitable, of course, but that is the safest and humanest option.

[BlackIronCrown]

You've got to be kidding me.

You're really think there is an acceptable number of innocent citizens killed by their own government?

Ah. Here is where I must state things very carefully to avoid being misunderstood.

I believe that, in accordance with human nature and the nature of the universe, that there is no such thing as a perfect system of any kind.

I also recognize that while individual life is valuable, it is not as valuable as the health of a human society/nation/government as a whole. Cancers develop in the body politic and must be surgically removed. Inevitably, there will be collateral damage in the operation.

Since a perfect system can never be instituted and since incarceration on a permanent basis is more prone to eventual failure rather than execution (simply due to time span involved), I take a different tact. Those who are innocent but who are executed wrongly are martyrs for society. They are heroes who have given their lives to protect society. While regrettable and deplorable, those martyrs will always exist since we can never have a perfect system. We will make constant improvements to make it more perfect, but we must be resigned to never being able to achieve 100%.

So, yes, I would consider that percentage to be an acceptable casualty rate, just as one would have acceptable casualty rates in conducting a war.

97.67% is a fairly high success rate for a process of this magnitude. Obviously, I'd like it to be much higher, but it's still pretty good when one considers all the things that can go wrong. But, if we sentence them to life without parole, they'll have 20 - 60 years to prove their innocence. If we kill them, that's the end of the line. We can't take that back.

Let me ask you something: if I handed you a gun with 98 empty chambers and two loaded chambers, would you play Russian Roulette with it? Or you want to find a better and safer alternative?


First, see my reply to Boozy. It covers the 1st paragraph.

As for your Russian Roulette question, if that is the highest number of chambers we can build into the revolver, than yes.

If finding a better and safer alternative is not playing Russian Roulette at all, then I would take that (in terms of the analogy) to mean abandoning the current legal system altogether and determining another method.

[Sylvia727]

As for your Russian Roulette question, if that is the highest number of chambers we can build into the revolver, than yes.

If finding a better and safer alternative is not playing Russian Roulette at all, then I would take that (in terms of the analogy) to mean abandoning the current legal system altogether and determining another method.

I wouldn't want to participate in a system where there was a 2% chance of me or my fellow citizens dying wrongfully. I'd rather have life without parole incarceration.

As far as your martyr analogy, I can understand what you mean, and I think you have a point. But I think you're thinking too nobly, too abstract, for the concrete and dirty realities. If I'm convicted and executed for a crime I did not commit, I won't be thinking "Yay, my chance to die for the greater good." Nor will my family be proud of me for "taking one for the team." I will be seen and treated as a heinous criminal who deserves to be punished for terrible crimes, and that's how I will die: wrongfully murdered by the people who are sworn to protect me. Post-humous exoneration is not going to bring any relief to my family, except perhaps a measure of vindication, and further anger against the government and its legal system.

(Also, do you know you can multiquote? It's the cream button with a " and a + next to the regular quote button. Press multiquote on the first few, and then quote on the last one or reply at the bottom of the page.)

[Ree]

(Also, do you know you can multiquote? It's the cream button with a " and a + next to the regular quote button. Press multiquote on the first few, and then quote on the last one or reply at the bottom of the page.)Thanks for providing BlackIronCrown with the multi-quoting tip, Sylvia.
All multiple, consecutive posts have been merged.

[rahmota]

I also recognize that while individual life is valuable, it is not as valuable as the health of a human society/nation/government as a whole.
Hmm right here is where i see a bit of a problem between you and I. I believe that the individual is more valuable and important than a society as a whole. This is because society is made up of individuals and stronger when the individual is respected and voluntarily acts in accordance with his or her fellow individuals in something.

My loyalties are in order from greatest to least importance: family, friends, hometown, county, region (ie appalachia which covers OH,KY, WV, etc..), state, country then humanity as a whole at the very bottom of the list.

So while I do support the death penalty it must be carefully applied like any other dangerous tool.

[MMATM]

There are two conflicting ways of looking at the issue, from what I've seen.

BlackIronCrown's way is more biological, while rahmota's way is more traditional.

Biologically, it makes more sense to kill as many of the murderers/rapists/etc as possible with the least possible collateral damage, to prevent further corruption or destruction within civilization. Humanity as a whole will benefit more from the removal of the ruined portions of its society despite the loss of some genuinely good sections, much like a living body. This sort of system requires sacrifice (or "martyrdom") for the benefit of the species as a whole, and is more in line with the tenets of evolution and the survival of human beings in general.

Traditionally, however, based on religion or a code of honor and/or ethics, the self is held sacred and one's immediate surroundings and companions are the most important, while those further away and having less impact on the self directly are therefore less significant. This is largely how Americans as a populace view the world, despite many who claim to think otherwise, and is likely the case in other countries (but I can't say for certain). This system is more ethical, but may end up inadvertently harming the good parts of society by offering the "benefit of the doubt" to those undeserving of it.

I used to be strongly for the death penalty, but having read some of the arguments in this thread I'm forced to rethink. I still support sanctioned death as a method of eliminating the incurably damaging aspect of our society, and don't (nor will I likely ever) see it as "lowering ourselves to 'their' level". As such, arguments that "executing murderers makes you a murderer too" have little sway with me.

The way I see it, if you (anyone) commit any crime that directly or indirectly affects another person, the most proper punishment would be to lose your right to any moral defense from the same crime committed by another person directly or indirectly affecting you. Unfortunately, this chain would continue to expand until all those inclined to commit crimes by nature or circumstance would have lost moral protection from their own evils, but this system also relies on the inherent goodness of humanity (which has always been and continues to be biologically unfeasible). So, while the justice system needs drastic revamping on all levels, there will never be a system that I consider "perfect" except one that boasts a flawless record of correct conviction and appropriate sentencing, which due to omnipresent human error is unattainable.

For the record, I am typing this at six in the morning after having not slept all night. I apologize for my verbosity, but I hope I've communicated my opinion as eloquently and understandably as possible, given the circumstances.