Death Penalty - Why or Why Not?
 

I'll start:

I tend to be conservative in many areas (as some of you are aware), but I diverge with the death penalty.

First, I think there is good reason to believe that we HAVE executed innocent individuals, based on the recent history of DNA evidence clearing men who've been scheduled to die. Obviously the legal system failed them, it was only new technology that spared their lives. What about people who were executed before such technology was available? How many of those men were innocent? There are also cases of corruption among police, laboratories and prosecuters where innocent men have been convicted. While they are alive in prison, there still exists a chance of exoneration. There is no exoneration if you are dead.

My Second reason is purely philosophical and religious. In my world view, our goal is to reach salvation and oneness with God. We struggle to do that throughout our lives as we fail repeatedly. When a person is executed, there is no more opportunity, no more chance to experience epiphany, to experience the saving grace of God.

The Third reason is that I believe the Death penalty is purely societal revenge. This is in opposition to using deadly force to defend oneself or another from serious physical harm or death (which I am NOT opposed to). A brutal killer in prison will not hurt any more innocents. I also don't see that survivors who peg their emotional healing on a revenge killing are better off for it.
----------------------

ok, discuss...

I think you've stated it well. I agree with all 3 reasons (minus the religious part).
One of the arguments given in favor of the death penalty is its use as a deterrent, but studies have shown this to be false. In fact, states who recently implemented the death penalty or restarted it have seen an increase in the number of violent crimes.

If you look at blacks and whites convicted of murder, in similar situations, the black guy is 40% more likely to get the death penalty.
I guess that's playing the race card to say that, but I don't think it's a very fair system where you're that much more likely to die just because of skin color. In fact, being black is a better prediction of whether you'll die than if you had previous felony convictions.
Here's a <a href="http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/death03.htm#RaceofDef">source</a> for my claim.

I don't give a shit about God and I don't agree that because someone is locked up they cannot harm anymore.What harm does the victim's families feel when some psycho like Paul Bernardo rapes,tortures and dismembers their daughter's ,then bitches because he doesn't like the way his chicken is cooked in prison.Or how about Clifford Olson, a sexual psychotic who get's to watch porn on the internet.That's some nice punishment.If it were up to me,these monsters would be stoned to death on public t.v during primetime just to show anyone else their fate incase they have any bright ideas.Fuck the bleeding hearts,kill'em all.

I believe that a person who has shown so little regard for human life deserves no regard shown for their life, either. However, that isn't enough for me to support it.

A conviction is not irrefutable proof of guilt, just as an acquittal is not irrefutable proof of innocence. I believe some innocent people have been put to death, and therefore, the death penalty is wrong. There is no "Oops. Sorry about that." once a person is dead.

My other idea is: how can the state say that the intentional taking of another life is so wrong that we're going to punish you by intentionally taking your life.

I used to be pro-death penalty, but now not so much. Mostly because of the chance of "false positives" so to speak. Once people have had their convictions overturned based on better or new evidence, then I think you also have to stop all executions. Also, the cost to taxpayers is huge. Appeal after appeal. Isn't the average death-row inmate (except in TX) in prison for over 10-15 years before the sentence is carried out? Might as well just leave them there.

EDIT: Grammar check!

exactly, it's not fair to minorities.


once we get that fixed, i'll be all for it.

I've got one question for all of you.

Timothy McVeigh?

And in regards to gibber71's post, I also think punishment should be more like punishment, and not a state-paid vacation.

I would have hoped that Timmy would have gotten stuck eventually anyway, for free.

Yeah, stuck like Jeffrey Dahlmer

Exactly.

I'am fully against death penalty:

- as lebell said, the risk of executing innocent people is too high.

- it is no determent, USA has more muders that an lot of other nations. For me I would rather die than waste ~20 years in jail. if i go to jail not and get free in 20 years i would be 48, my whole life would be gone.

- For me, the state has to be an idol for the society, if the state shows me that killing is right it is a bad example for society

- in most cases I think the society and therefore the state has some responsibility for the criminals, the society is "making" their criminals, therefore I think they should try to correct those errors and not follow a "just throw 'em away" tactic.

- "an eye for an eye" is the tactic of the blind;)

I think the arguement that innocent people being executed is a very valid point.However people like Paul Bernardo and his lovely accomplice Karla Holmolka raped,tortured and murdered 2 girls while videotaping the whole thing.Your right,the death penalty is not a deterent which is precisely why these people should be stopped because they can't change.Normal people don't do things like that.

And Timothy McVeigh will never again steal a Ryder truck.

i think the guy/girl goes thru more punishment living in a prison (where he'd get abused and stuff) than just ending the torture for him/her

What's the difference between putting them in a maximum security prison for the rest of their lives without hope of parole and killing them? Either way, they are off the streets. I also have a problem with prisoners receiving too many benefits. But that can easily be fixed. That's not a reason for having the death penalty.

In a perfect world that's ideal,but in the case of Karla Holmolka she has already had parole hearings and one day she will be released into society in years not decades.This is only one example, but if she does the same thing again?

Too many risks of convicting the wrong guy.

I point to Donald Marshall, David Milgard, Guy Paul Morin, and Stephen Truscot as examples of guys who were convicted of murder and turns out they didn't do it after all.

There's 4 I can personally recall their names. Milgard was in prison for over 20 years. How do you make that up to a guy?

I believe in the death penalty for extreme cases. With the amount of automatic appeals processes, executing innocents is extremely unlikely. There are people on this planet who are so evil they don't deserve to exist among civil people. Why waste resourses warehousing these animals for a lifetime? In the cases of child killers, rapist murderers,and serial killers, I say put them out of their misery, save some tax dollars and make the world a better, safer place.

For those who are arguing the death penalty is more economical than keeping the perps in prison for life, a <a href="http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/feb01/10death.htm">quote</a>:
"In Texas in 1992, the average death penalty case cost taxpayers $2.3 million -- over three times the amount needed to incarcerate a prisoner for 40 years. "
Haven't researched it exhaustively, but I don't think economics holds water when arguing for the penalty.

First, a point of clarification: murders, except for ~6%, have one of the lowest recidivism rate of ex-offenders. However, your point is valid for the remainder who *would* kill again. Your issue seems to be that the risk of a person killing again is too much to bear. Wouldn't the answer then be truth in sentencing--life in prison means life in prison. That is, no parole--ever. Would that adequately address your two main concerns of a) innocent people wrongly executed and b) release of people who might kill again? Such a solution is definately appealing to me for the reasons already mentioned throughout the thread.

I'm against the death penalty in most cases, but only because there are so many wrongful convictions. If there were concrete evidence-- ie a clear videotape, caught at the scene, or IDed by a neighbor or something that could have walked by and said "Hey Jack! How's the wife?" he was so close-- then I'm all for it.

As for religious arguements, big deal. Read the Old Testament-- God used to turn people into pillars of salt for less.

And morally? Soldiers kill, cops kill if they have to, and as a society and government we accept this. There are times when it is a defined threat, including the pain of watching the person come up for parole every 20 years (like the madness that is Charles Manson's or Mark David Chapman's parole hearings) is too much.

That's assuming the person is bitch rather than butch. I think if they'd allready killed a person they are 1. Confined away from most other prisoners and 2. Not likely to become somebody's bitch.

A great arguement posted on both sides.Maybe we should let the victim's families decide the fate of those who go above and beyond to commit heinous acts against innocent people.I can only speak for myself but, If I were in the position of being a family member of a victim,my decision would be an easy one,especially thinking that on any given day the accused could be jerking off and pleasuring themselves with the memories of their actions.

Another reason against the death penalty: I've read that it actually costs more money to kill someone under the death penalty than to put someone in prison for life. (Appeals are expensive).

Death Penalty for revenge makes sense to me in a stateless society. (One without written laws, etc.) Someone does something bad to you or your family, you kill them. The next person will think twice about messing with you or your family.

In a modern context, arresting someone, trying them, convicting them, appeal after appeal, and then finally killing them- The crime and the victims are so far removed from the penalty, it offers no deterrence.

i would argue against some of the arguments people have against the death penalty because i believe them to be weak arguments.

nevertheless, i am conservative, and i would prefer to just put the people in prison for life (if it was guaranteed that they would serve their time, and none of that appeals and good behavior, and other bullshit).

So why not revamp the current appeals process instead? You did it, and we're -sure- you did it, the guard caps you right there in the courtroom. Maybe have the defendent standing on a tarp to eliminate some of the mess. That would sure as hell deter -me- if I saw that.

It would also ease the amount of money prisons need now that there are no violent killers in there. I'm all for rehabilitation, but not those bitches, they can die.

That solution doesn't address the seperate issue that innocent people might be executed before they are exonerated. Besides, I'm assuming you are *already* being deterred from committing murder so you don't count in regards to the deterrence value of public executions.

There would still be violent killers in prison -- just not on death row. Not every state has the death penalty and not every murderer receives the death sentence so instituting immediate execution would *not* release money for prisons (allowing your assumption that death row inmates require a disporportionate amount of funds to monitor them to stand unchallenged -- which, btw, is an inaccurate assumption).

Truth in sentencing movements aren't seeking to rehabilitate. They aim to secure a "real" life sentence that can be only be reversed in the case a convicted murderer is exonerated--not by a parole board.

I agree. I say the hell with human rights! Murderers reach a sub-human status when they kill another person, I'd say they should be treated like the animals they are... make the rest of their lives miserable as hell... so they wish they'd died. This way the state doesnt spend as much money on them either (and their life expectancy significantly reduces as well)

Then the same assumption is made that killers -aren't- being deterred. If they know the punishment, and still do it anyways, it defeats the purpose. I say improve DNA testing, and shoot em where they stand when they're guilty. At the very least, stop pampering criminals that are in jail-- Cable? Weight rooms? -I- don't even have those kinds of luxuries. If they act as a rabid animal, treat them as one-- cage them in a small box, or shoot them.

I'm for the death penalty. I like the idea that a murderer can't escape and once again torment society.(And they do escape folks) Just the idea that these scum are having a comfortable time in prison makes my blood boil. So if it costs a little more to make them loose this mortal coil so be it.

This was already said, but it remains my main point on opposing the death penalty. Why does a government spend so much money condemning a man for murder, then turn around and perform the same act? It just seems like a great hypocrisy to me.

Now, on the other hand, if we could do something about lowering the standards of living for prisoners in jails, then I'd be totally against the death penalty. Bring back those medieval torture chambers. That would keep them straight.

(Seriously just kidding about the torture chamber thing).

I say: bring on the public executions. Of course, these shows should only be available for bloodlusty adults.

It's a hard question to answer. To paraphrase Tolkien (because I can't remember exactly how he put this sentiment) "Some live that deserve death, and some die that deserve life. But who are you to judge?"
If the crime was sufficiently bad, and the evidence incontrovertible, then I agree with the death penalty in theory. The trouble is that most of the time there is a shadow of a doubt in convictions, and if you're not absolutely certain that you've got the right person...

I'd have to say Easytiger pretty well summed it up. (And with Tolkien no less. Bonus points! ;) ) In theory, this practice works. But until we can be sure we have the right people, it won't be practical. (and it's the appeals process that is costing so much money, not the executions)

As for Quadraton's point, it's NOT the same thing. Murder is the taking of life without justification. If I shoot a person in self defense, it isn't a crime. If I shoot a person because I just don't like them, that is a crime.

Think of the death penalty as the revolver some people keep in their bed-side drawer. If used properly, it keeps you and your loved ones safe from harm. If used improperly, you end up shooting your dog in the middle of the night on accident.

The argument that prisoners face more punishment with life in prison than the death penalty seems needlessly vengeful to me. I am staunchly liberal. But I am not in support of paying for the continued existence of a person doomed to die in prison. Kill him (or her, in the extremely rare circumstance) and get it over with. I agree with the concern of executing the wrong individual. I am not for a gallows outside the courtroom in case of a guilty verdict, but I don't think killing is wrong in this case.

I think one of the misperceptions that leads people to think our appeals process can right wrongful convictions is that those people think appeals courts can or will review the judgement. They don't and can't do that. Appeals courts review whether judicial rules were violated or not. They can't (and won't) view new evidence, review whether a judge or jury correctly viewed the evidence, or anything of that nature. The presiding judge and jury are called the "fact finders". They are the ones who determine issues of fact--not appellate judges.

For example, say two witnesses take the stand. One lies and claims the defendant was indeed seen at the murder seen with a bloody knife. The other witness says that the defendant was definately *not* the person who was standing there. Once the jury decides who they want to believe their decision will *never* be overturned. Even if ten years later the first witness recants and evidence is produced that the D.A. paid him to present false testimony the higher courts won't and can't view that evidence. Now, the exeption in that case is that the current appeal (remember that appeals take years and there are multiple levels) can then incorporate that evidence as part of the defendant being denied due process (typically one of the main points in most all appeals) but *usually* the court will only view the evidence if it was alleged in the first complaint. If the attorney didn't file an original appeal or alledge that the first witness lied in the original appeal (remember, this would have been pure speculation at that point since the evidence didn't come to light until ten years later) then the defendent is most likely shit out of luck. The rare exception is that an attorney can file a habeas corpus and present the new evidence there--but the court doesn't have to hear the case and there are sticky procedural issues that then come into play (e.g., does the new evidence, in the totality of the circumstances, prove that the defendant was harmed). Of course, this assumes the public (state paid) attorney is still on the ball after ten years (instead of handling his or her avalanche of other impoverished clients or the rare *paying* client [three guesses as to who takes precedence in the que]) and that he or she actually objected to the testimony during the first case (one has the "preserve" the error on the record before the appellate court will review the proposed error).

Whew, that was long! Anyway, hopefully that imprecise and simplified summary will indicate to those who took the time to read it the insurmountable odds one has to overcome in order to "prove" his or her innocence in the unfortunate event of a wrongful guilty verdict. Now you might more clearly understand why you have heard of some people who still remain on death row even though DNA evidence has exonerated them (hint: the higher court either can't or won't review the "new" evidence).

I'm all for it.
If someone is proved without doubt too be a killer. they should be removed from this planet.The system that is in place is not tough enough by far.There are far to many people in prisons who are not sorry for what they have done and will repeat offend again.Along with serial rapists and child abusers.