Correct me if I'm wrong, but a jury must be unanimous in its decision. By placing people who disagree on a jury... you get a hung jury every time.

1: As long as there are humans... there is human error. What about the poor sucker who gets imprisoned for 25-to-life in error? Which is worse? Death or life in a concrete matchbox? Keeping people alive for 25 years in prison is expensive. As it has been said many times before, I'd rather not pay for a convicted murdering rapist to enjoy a boring but cushy prison stay. Right, wrong... relative... but money isn't. Money just keeps on going in the toilet.

2: If a sterile, quick-n-painless death is the most barbaric act you've witnessed, you need to travel more... check out what my favorite band refers to as "The Violent World."

3: Despite having DUI laws... people still DUI. Oh well, too bad, right?

While I concur with the well-armed citizenry being an important aspect to crime deterrence... it can't be our social / legal safety net. God still needs some lightning bolts up his sleeve if he is to be a god that is to be respected.

human error occurs yes, but we shouldn't be resigned to it. why throw the baby out with the bath water? i don't think killing innocent people is a justifiable cost of human error.

i am very well traveled, thank you. not sure what that has to do with having high standards though.

not sure what dui has to do with death penalty.

I don't believe the option of the death penalty is extreme at all. I believe the lack of the option, however, is foolish given certain offenders' 99% recidivism regardless of therapy or whatever other touchy-feely crap that disease-coddlers would have you believe. Don't confuse my responses in this thread as "Man, we should put everybody in the gas chamber!" I am referring to exercising the option when the option makes sense.

Unanimous in guilt. Then unanimous in death. Even one in the other direction and things change.

for guilt or innocence, a unanimous decision is required. For sentencing, if death penalty is on the table and depending on the state, a non-unanimous decision usually reverts to life without parole. I believe some states do provide for a 3/4ths majority to exact a death sentence, but don't hold me to that.

This is precisely why I, a former advocate of the death penalty, am now against it.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pag...u_sid=10222619

I'm glad he's being freed.

As pig said earlier in this thread:

I don't believe that tit for tat solves the problem. I don't believe death is a penalty. These personalities that often crave capture would like nothing better than to die. I don't want think it's right to give them what they want.

I was born Jewish and lost large portions of family in Europe during the war but would not have wanted to see Hitler executed.

I do not believe child molesters, even when prosecuted beyond a reasonable doubt, should have the luxury of being laid to rest.

Put them behind bars WITH the general population and when the nature of the crime is known, nature will take its course.

If a person is truly guilty, and is truly beyond reform, I have no problem with the death penalty. However, we can't figure out either of those with 100% certainty, and therefore I am against the death penalty.

If someone is 100% guilty, I still don't want my government murdering them. It's a monumental failure of society and government every time an innocent or guilty person is murdered by the state.

So does this mean you blame society and the government if someone becomes a murderer?

There's plenty of blame to be assigned, and there are no absolutes outside of maths. First and most importantly the blame lies with the killer. This person is directly responsible for his or her actions, and there's no denying that. The problem, though, is that the blame does not lie 100% with this person. I'd say 70%, but that's just a random number intended to suggest that while the killer has the majority of blame, he or she does not have all of it. What caused this behavior? Why does this person think it's acceptable to take someone else's life? Why was his or her behavior not curbed before becoming so severe?

These are all questions to ask in order to prevent this from happening again.

Would you consider murder to be an innate human trait or a learned behavior?

Statistically, it's more likely to be a learned behavior, but not always. Either a learned behavioral trait or innate trait can often be detected in some anti-social behavior as a child. You know when some idiot quotes CSI and says something like, "Torturing animals is a sign of being a sociopath"? Well they're on the right track, even though they're just trying to sound smart. Many of the warning signs that someone may be capable of murder can be detected earlier in life and steps can be taken to curb said behavior before it even becomes violent.

Even behavior that stems from neuro-chemical issues can often be curbed.

How do you reconcile this with the same belief that you hold that says taking the life of someone else in self defense is still murder?

No reconciliation is necessary as the ideals are compatible. Are you referring to the defender position or aggressor position in your home defense scenario in relation to the party that needs their behavior curbed?

which side is irrelevant to the question I was asking.

You said "Many of the warning signs that someone may be capable of murder can be detected earlier in life and steps can be taken to curb said behavior before it even becomes violent." but you also say that even if one kills in self defense, that's murder, so what I see you saying is that you can 'cure' the desire to commit murder, even self defense killings. Do I have that right?

I see it more as removing the temptation. Those that invade the home or commit whatever crime one believes warrants murderous protection are the initial problem. If, by some miracle, the right combination of social programs are developed in order to identify and assist children who display patterns that could lead to destructive behavior, and thus criminals become a rarity... then there's really no one to shoot. The excuse of "well what if a criminal breaks in" goes from extreme to insane. Let's say hypothetically that somehow just the right programs are put in to place. Criminality begins to drop off in a few years and continues until it's at record lows. The US suddenly has the lowest crime rates in the Western world. Let's say there are maybe a dozen murders a year in the whole country for several years, home invasions are almost as rare. Shootings are almost unheard of aside from accidents. How often will a homeowner need to shoot a home invader?

The problem would fix itself. Not only that, but I see these, aggressive murderers and defensive murderers, as different problems with different causes.

What about those who resort to crime at a later stage in life with no previous sign of violence growing up?

Crime from desperation usually also has roots in childhood. Crime is almost never the only choice. Most people who are poor and desperate enough to commit crime are 1) deterred by punishment and 2) sympathy and empathy for the possible victims. Both of those reactions represent a healthy mental state.

But you can never be 100% sure of that they are guilty.

Some people that are pro-capital punishment often says something like "Okay, you can't be 100% sure but lets say 99.9%."

Okay, so one in thousand should be able to be put to death innocent? That's pretty facsist I think. Not that I would support it even though it was 100%...

Yep even Saddam and Hitler
 

Two wrongs never make a right. Killing people is wrong, IMHO. The fact that someone else behaves immorally or engages in atrocities it doesn't give anyone else the right to follow suite. I'm certainly not in favor of having my taxes go to engage in killing people.

I also do not believe in locking people away in "hell hole" prisons is the answer to anything. Someone once said you can judge a society by the way they treat their convicts. That quote, I'm sure, is bastardized. But you get the point.

When it comes to people who have been convicted of "capital crimes" I favor a life without parole system. One possibly managed federally. In 2005 the death row population was around 3500. I say we build one or two prisons to house these inmates. Privileges and fellow inmate contact would be extremely limited. Family visits and phone calls? Sure, as soon as your victim(s) phones home you can do the same. I see no reason why we couldn't declare someone legally dead without doing so physically.

As for all other inmates I think we should be doing more to ensure they're treated humanly and live in a safe secure environment. Locking people up in institutions where everyday life is often a violent struggle for survival is short sighted. The vast majority of these inmates will be released someday. Do you really want someone who's been living like an animal for the past 20-30 years walking the streets in your neighborhood?

Which is why the correct answer to Ustwo's question is:
"My personal beliefs on the topic of capital punishment are irrelevent in regards to whether I'd do my civic duty to remain in this courtroom without a predetermination of guilt based on any ideological positions one may hold about any particular punishments."

It's late, and I haven't been around for a while, so it'd probably be best to work on how to word that rather than attempt any amount of trickery to wedge oneself into a potential jury pool.

Some similar variation of the answers given to Congress' questions about abortion to potential supreme court justices would suffice. The gist is the same: it's simply not appropriate to head into court with any set of preconceived notions of how things should be decided before the evidence phase is concluded. In practice, we know this to be bullshit, just about everyone I know has some idea about the big topics in the world. It's perfectly legitimate to tell the court that despite any strong beliefs you have about this complex topic, you're going to do your best to address the evidence in front of you without a bias one way or the other. Oh hey, that's a valid and straightforward response to Ustwo's question, as well.

The whole questioning of willravel about how he'd answer this question is a "gotcha" anyway, because in a real court of law, capital crimes are addressed by two distinct phases: the trial (evidence) phase and the penalty phase. Your judgement of guilt or innocence isn't supposed to be predicated upon your belief of whether a particular punishment is appropriate for the crime the accused is on trial for--and that goes both ways.

If questions like that were allowed, it'd be the same as allowing the prosecution to stack the jury of all pro-death penalty citizens...which would obviously present a problem if you're trying to approximate anything like justice.

And given that's the whole premise of this debate, I don't know why anyone would want prosecuters to go down that road.


EDIT: I should also mention that I am personally opposed to the death penalty for the reasons already listed by a few people. I have personally experienced the tragedy of crime *as well* as the been on the receiving end of a broken criminal justice system.

I don't think either of those unique experiences grant any more legitimacy of my views on the subject. Without them, and without the rampant errors infused in our legal system, I would still be morally and fundamentally opposed to state sanctioned murder.