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.

Until we can bring back the dead, I will not be for the death penalty.

You bet I'm for it. In my opinion, you'd have to be crazy NOT to be for it. I mean, you go out and kill somebody, or whatever, and then get proven guilty, and you get to live? What kind of justice is that? It costs more to house this killer per year than I make in two! Some justice, huh? And to total up $30,000/year for 30 years...that's $900,000. You give that guy 30 days to prove otherwise, and that's it. Get rid of the idiot, and you've saved $895,000. What have we got to lose there? Prisons would be smaller, it would be a deterrent, prison budgets would be smaller...hell yeah, I'm all for it.
I kill you for no real reason, I don't deserve another 30 seconds. You kill me for no reason, you've got 10 seconds before my wife blows your brains out.
Rapists get 2 weeks of Bubba in a jail cell, and it's off with him. Don't even tempt me to say more...you'll read a freakin' novel, I swear it.

You might want to think through your scenario a little more. Removing all prisoners off death row would only take ~5,000 from our prisoner pool of ~2 million (1 million physically behind bars). You _really_ believe that's going to alleviate our budget problems? Placing all murderers on house intensive house arrest would relieve the budget (reducing high appeals costs, prisoner can pay restitution and fines for his/her own supervision, etc.) _and_ the population with the _lowest_ recidivsm rate would be reintegrated back into society with the maximum supervision possible. Of course, I doubt our society is even ready to hear about a program like that. Yet, arguing for executing prisoners on death row to reduce the costs of imprisonment isn't going to aid the problem.

Not purely because of how expensive it is to put some of the scum to death.

I didn't say it would eliminate the problem, but it would help some. There are numerous other reasons I'm for it. Like I said, I'm not even going to get started on it, otherwise I'll be here for a really long time.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85971,00.html

Almost five years after Terry Nichols (search) was sentenced to life behind bars in a federal prison for his role in the Oklahoma City bombing, Oklahoma prosecutors are hoping to win a more severe punishment on state charges: his life.

Nichols was to appear before a judge Monday at a preliminary hearing that will determine whether there is enough evidence to send him to death row on 160 counts of first-degree murder.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/89629/0_21_nichols.jpg

Martha Ridley said she has waited eight years for Nichols to be prosecuted for the death of her daughter, Kathy Ridley, in the April 19, 1995, attack on the Oklahoma City federal building.

"These people deserve justice," Ridley said. "He wasn't given the death penalty and these people are just as dead today as they were April 19. And they will never come back."


This afternnoon in Oklahoma City a trial with capital implications will begin. The reasons why some of the people of Oklahoma City want this trial are stated above. They want closure and do not feel they've gotten it. Others directly involved oppose re-opening the whole can of worms for about the same reasons.

I'm in favor of a society having the right to execute individuals for the greater good.

Where the death penalty is on the books it should be implemented as called for by law and sentencing guidelines.

Do I think it should be the law in all states?

yes.

im a major supporter of the death penelty...but it has to be somewhat humane...i think the electric chair is wrong, lethal injection...sure

oh, and i believe that criminals with the death penalty should have mandatory organ donation...we always need a few extra hearts out there...

The Death Penalty
 

I myself oppose it on all aspects. I dont see anything that is good or rightful or just about it. It is simply just wrong.
It doesnt take away the pain the victims go through and it doesnt bring back the lost ones. If a mistake is made and soemone is falsly judged you cant go back and fix it. And in my opinion nobody has the right to decide who has the right to live and who doesnt have the right to live.

100% against it.

Moral reasoning: Taking a human's life when life imprisonment does just fine at protecting society is simply uncalled for and unnecessary. The death penalty serves no other purpose than revenge - continuing the vicious cycle of hate.

Logistical reasoning: It costs far less, after the necessary appeals process, etc etc, to keep someone in prison for life than to put them to death. Prison for these people is not "free cable TV and workout rooms." It is quite the opposite. They're removed as a danger to society just fine by giving them life in prison without parole, and it costs less of my tax money overall. Not to mention it errs on the side of caution when it comes to wrongly convicting someone.

There is no reason to continue this post unless all you are asking for is a flame war. This topic has already been beaten totally to death on this and the other boards. Those who are against it refuse to look at the other side and the other side totally disagrees with both of you. Why don't we just drop it.

I will say this. There was a time, not all that long ago, when I was a major proponent of the Death Penalty. Then I read an article in Time Magazine, and have since seen the same story on 20/20, about a Medical Examiner in Boston, I believe it was, that would skew the results of her examination of evidence toward the prosecution. Since this discovery, dozens of "guilty" defendants have been set free as they were cleared of their crimes by the "new" evidence. It was to late for several that were already given the ultimate punishment. After that, I changed my mind. I am now against the Death Penalty, and favor Life Imprisonment with no (read absolutely no) chance of parole.

hmm...I must have missed the earlier posts of this topic.
Im sorry, It might seem like asking for a flame war, but its not.. perhaps my approach was too eager. Oh well,.. the reason i put up this thread was because I havent heard a supporting view towards the topic that would convince me and at the sametime I know theres lots off people who do support the death penalty. I think its always interesting hearing people state the reasons for their opinions. ;)

The topic was addressed on TFP 3.0 IIRC. I don't think it's addressed on this version.

Either way, just so long as everyone is civil and knows this thread is being watched for flaming because its sensitive nature, all should be well.

Be erspectfully inquisitive and you should be fine, be rude in any way and you'll find yourself in trouble.

If they're guilty, fry 'em.

Sometimes I wish the death sentence was handed out a little more liberally.

If you live your life as you should, chances are, you'll never end up on the wrong side of the glass.

Yes.
It's a good topic.
In my opinion, the death penalty is a useful tool for prevention and protection and a worthwhile method of deterrence for those who have no empathy and will perhaps be deterred by the threat of mortal consequences. It also has its place in human affairs as a punitive procedure.

When there is proof beyond any doubt that someone commited a heinous crime simple to amuse themselves,I am 100% in support of the death penalty.

We dont have it here but we should. I am all for it. I dont think those who have killed by choice and there are plenty of them out there should be let live.
Now we can harp on and on about all those who were wrongly accused, Im not talking about them. I am talking about all those who have been proven without doubt through DNA or with the weapon in their hands.Bundy ,Manson and co. Are they sorry they killed, I very much doubt it.As for the costs to "remove" them from this planet a box of bullets isnt that costly and hell it only takes one good head shot.
Give the money it costs to keep them locked up to the orpnans of those whos parents have been murdered, or towards school funds for single parent families whos spouse has been murdered and who have to work their asses off to give their kids a good life.there are plenty of hungry kids out there who could do with the 3 meals (cos killers after all are humans and need 3 good square meals a day) provided each day to these wasters.
"But they have to spend the rest of their lives in a cell" like thats so much tougher than waking up every morning and having to cope with the loss of your partner, or looking at friends with their kids knowing that your child suffered a brutal death at the hands of a beast, and know that this killer is sitting in a cell growing old and fat.If all those of you want them to live on "moral" grounds lets get something productive from them , there are plenty of mine fields around the world that need clearing, or medical products that need testing.

Thousands die daily for far worse reasons. Accidents, murders, etc.

We propose to kill those that would kill others, sometimes in mulitples, to protect the innocent.

If you shoot a mad dog he bites no one else.

As for the supposedly innocent few that get caught in the system, see the thread about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

We need to see this on a civilization wide level, not just personal views. You pruge a disease whenever possible to save the body.

I agree with LD but I can't seem to stay out of these things.

Rockogre and I apparently either think alike or have a mutual admiriation thing goin'. There are times when it is totally acceptable. Our court system has its flaws and I am sure that some who were innocent have been victims of capital punishment. Thousands of lowlifes have escaped capital punishment only to go do it again and again and aga.........

Yes. If he/she is guilty, like BoCo says, "Fry 'em".

But if you want real deterrence, do it with dispatch.
None of this 20 years on death row, 3 squares and cable BS.

I am for it under the right condition. If you are a serial killer, then you deserve to die. If you have killed a child, you deserve to die. Now even though I am not a big fan of the cops, I do think that if you kill a cop, you deserve to die. Just my stand on the issue

I'd be fore it if everyone who "did the crime did the time" and we could restore dead people a-la _Sixth Day_ to cover mistakes. Heck I'd be all for expanding the punishment to the crimes of aggravated rape, reckless endangerment, manslaughter, kidnapping, treason, and bullying.

Unfortunately we haven't figured out how to raise the dead and these kind of penalties tend to fall on the poor and unknown. Can you even conceive of someone like gary conduit ever getting the death penalty as presently enforced.

100% for the death penalty, especially if the criminal killed a child. I would rather than kill him then have him live in a cell and the citizens pay to feed him.

I said it on the previous thread, but:

Studies have shown that states who restarted or began using capital punishment actually showed an INCREASE in violent crime and murder rates significantly greater than the increase in those same rates nationally.

There is really no difference between executing someone and keeping that person in jail for life with no chance of parole. Other than the fact that the costs less and allows us to right the wrong if we wrongly convicted that person. Once you kill an innocent person, there's no bringing them back.

By the way, here's an interesting little quiz on the death penalty:
http://www.patweb.com/dpquiz/main2.htm

Only in an "eye for an eye" situation. If you've killed, and we can prove it, then there's no reason in my mind not to kill you as quickly and humanely as possible.

And some peoples trials get botched, I know, but when I think of all the barrels they carted out of Dalmer's place, filled with human body parts, I see no reason why he lived as long as he did.

Same for Charlie Manson.

Same for Timmy McVey

By the same token, I think there needs to be some kind of prison reform. Some of the guys who are continually in and out of the system for small time shit are obviously not being taken care of the way things are now.

Thank you, there are some interesting views you have put up. Whats youre opinion about the message the death penalty sends? I fear it might send a messagw that 'killing is alright if you have a good reason'..when in my opinion the goal should be 'killing others isnt alright at all...'

What do you think?

Kill 'em all.

A persons life really isn't as important as we all thought.


Well, not to the people in charge at least.

I am against it.

Apart from the many reasons already cited here, I don't like the whole feeling of that the State thinks it has done its full duty, and that justice has been done. The justice system comes into play when society has failed. In many cases, I feel that its just a convenient way for the Government to say, "hey, we did our job".

I believe psychos such as the ones mentioned are one of the most important resources we have right now. They should be studied. We have to learn more about them. Killing them off isn't teaching anybody anything. We need to find them before they present a threat, not after they've become killers.

This is one topic where I really don't think I could win over any hearts and minds, so I'll just say I'm opposed to it.

Reasons:
- Innocent people will be executed.
- All human life is precious. Those who are in favour of the DP realise this and conclude that we should execute murderers. I realise this and think we should not.
- The DP a it stands is extremely racist.
- It costs $2m more, and that money could be spent to save lives.
- The penal system should be about rehabilition, and justice should not be about revenge. The DP goes against both of these principles.
- The DP is a frustrated sign of failure by society. It says that we can do nothing more for these people. We give in. We quit. I refuse to give up hope and believe that if good is to triumph over evil, then we must fight it on this, the most difficult of battle grounds.
- I am not a christian, but think that many of its principles are wonderful. I keep asking myself, "What would Jesus do?". I am sure that pulling the lever is not the answer.

Some have don't deserve to be alive, and they are a complete harm to society,
and I don't want to pay for their live-time incarceration.

First, only the MOST obvious cases should be death penalty.
(Too many prosecutors use it to gain notoriety, and a notch in their belt)
Second, let ALL the appeals processes go through completely.
(They can prove it otherwise by then, or there is ANY doubt)
Third, do it with lethal injection.
(This is not about inflicting pain; this is about get someone out of here not worthy of an investment)

Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy,
The men who drug that poor man to death behind their truck.
(These are people who do not deserve to be on Earth)

Not the man or woman who panicked during a robbery.
Not the wife who killed her kids while depressed
Not the person who PROBABLY murdered his associate.

But the most obvious, most heinous,
the ones who do not care about life, unlike normal people.
(This is NOT about revenge)
They do not deserve to be here,
and I do NOT want to pay for their continuing infamy & anti-celebrity

Only these should be applied to the death penalty.

I am against the death penalty for much of the same reasons that lebell set above.

I also agree that some prisoners are given too many rights and many are paroled far too early. Life in prison should be life in prison.

I would much rather have Timothy McVeigh rot for eternity, locked up and treated like an animal and beaten and scorned by his fellow prisoners. I think that would have been a much harsher punishment than the easy out he got.

I'm sorry, I just consider the death penalty a retroactive abortion...it is mearly societies way of saying we dont want to deal with your shit anymore. As long as one is leagal I have no problem with the other

Re: Death Penalty - Why or Why Not?
 

yes tehy do in a round about way, they cost money to keep and that money should be used to feed the hungry or shelter the shelterless, or maybe get SS afloat again.

I think it is now fair game to point out to some of those who have posted about the money issue that it is cheaper to imprison than execute. By about 2 million dollars.

Take maximusveritas's quiz (linked above) to learn about that and a whole lot more.

Just recap...

$ execute > $ imprison

I think death is too easy a way out. Convicted killers should be locked into a 4X4 room with bright lights, no entertainment, no communication with the outside world. Each meal should be the same thing over and over again. Make their existence a living death, their cell a concrete coffin.

I'd agree to that, but the pot smokin, granola eatin, sandle wearin, volvo drivin, hippies won't let us.

The death penalty is official state sanctioned cold blooded murder.

While not as heinous as the acts these guys commit, it is the same, we simply sterilize and say it's for the greater good.

Economically it's more expensive to kill than keep, a point a few others have already brought up.

If you're looking to relieve the prison system of it's financial burderns why not release the non-violent drug offenders? recent tallys show that nearly 250,000 prisoners are drug offenders with an average of 58% of them non-violent. Surely releasing and supervising this 58% will alleviate the financial burden on the prison system more than killing the 3600 currently on death row.

But what if they escape? Of the 1.1 million folks in prison in 1998 (the latest statistic I could find) only 1/2 of 1% were reported as escapes or AWOL. Most from minimum security prision and community correctional facilities. Hardly the mulitple murder types.

But cops and soldiers kill....That's true, but they only kill in defending their life or the lives of others. While this isn't always the case, most cops and soldiers don't discharge their weapons without good reason and if they do they face serious scrutinizing.

I have no qualms about killing in defense of my life or the lives of others; the killing of a prisoner, a prisoner who poses no threat to society because he's been incarcerated, with sterile precision is wrong.

Timothy McVeigh wouldn't have rented any more Ryder trucks; Not because he's dead, but because he was in prison.

Our Justice system is a way to assign blame and proper punishment for their crime. Incarcerate them for life; death is too good. The death penalty only absolves the state from the responsibility of applying the appropriate punishment.

It's been said before, but I'll say it again. This, this wishing for pain on the part of the criminal, is the cruel and unusual punishment. It is an Old Testament sentiment, and better suited for the Middle Ages than here and now.

As for the figures provided by maximus' quiz:
I would be interested to know what the average cost of living a year in prison is, rather than Texas as an example, and the average cost of execution. Further, I would like to know how much of that is spent on appeals and other court proceedings, and how much is actually spent throwing the switch. I go now to research.

All right. I got several different numbers for average cost, but the $20,000 figure seems the best. It is from a study done in 1997 by the Department of Corrections, I think. So we'll brook that, assume it hasn't gone up. Now, the cost of the actual execution materials in Texas, where they use lethal injection, is $86.08. Not much, but big surprise, no one actually thought the method was the expensive bit. So the cost clearly lies with the 12 years(on average, from a '99 article in Economist) that the prisoner resides on death row, and all the appeals and so forth that are filed during that span. 12 years? That is indeed cruel to make a person wait that long. I think the solution is obvious. I am not suggesting the death penalty in all cases, but there are certain times when I don't think we need to wait all that long. McVeigh. Confessed. Why did we wait so long? The law said we had to. Lawyers did their dance...anyway. The cost comes in the courtroom, not the electric chair.

My two cents, not that most of you will care. As a philosopher, I can see that there are 3 strong arguments and 1 weak argument for the death penalty. Lets start with the weak one first as it is the most disturbing.
I have heard people argue that murders should be killed to save taxpayer money. As was previously stated in this thread, it actually costs more to execute someone than it does to lock them up for 40+ years. Besides, I am a little uncomforable thinking about the value of anyones life, including that of a convicted murderer in terms of money spent or money saved. Weak argument, lets move on.

The classic argument for capital punishment is that it detours crime. However, almost 95% of all murders do not wake up in the morning knowing that they are about to kill someone. Furthermore, again as was already previously mentioned, there is no evidence that captial punishment detours crime in any way, some statistics even seem to point to the opposite.

Second, capitial punishment has been argued for on the basis that it is justice, eye for an eye and all that. But how can this be justice? Most capitial punishment today is done through lethal injection. How many murderers have you read about go around lethally injecting someone? or for that matter strap peps into electric chairs? NO ONE! (ok so there is a possible world in where someone does do this, but its not going to be a common place occurance.) So I ask how is this justice? I dont see it myself because the punishment does not fit the crime for many different reasons, most of which have already been covered so I wont repeat them here.

Lastly, and probably the best argument in my humble oppinion for CP is that it guaruntees that the offender never has the chance to escape prison (be released?) and commit further acts of crime against humanity. True, no doubt about it, once those SOB are dead they arent going to be coming back to kill anyone else. But then again, what happens if they were innocent? then what? cant say 'oops, man we screwed up? sorry about the 25,000 volts dude." If and only if we could guaruntee that each and every person on death role was guilty would this be a good argument, but as we cant, and because it isnt handed out evenly to all convicts, I don't think this one works either.

Personally, I am against CP in all but the most extreme cases. The rest of the time I think we should lock them up in an 6ft by 8ft cell, with one small window 10 feet up the wall, for 23 1/2 hours a day for the rest of their natural lives w/o the possibility of parole. For me, as an agnostic, this is way worse of a punishment that any supposed hell that may or may not be waiting for me on the other side. I think most of use would agree that if they had to choose between the death sentance or staying in the cell for the rest of our lives we would pick the death sentance, I know I would.

Hello Publius,
Welcome to TFP and congrats on your first post.

I can't say, as a philosopher (though what one does to earn this title I don't know), that I agree with your analysis of the situation but you do come down on the right side of the argument :)

On a light hearted note, I can guarantee that CP does very little to deter the sorts of crimes that CP punishes.

More seriously, I don't think the 3 and 1 analysis grasps the pro-CP position. For a start life long imprisonment is almost as certain to prevent reoffending as CP - we all like to think of Shawshank like escapes, but they are very rare, especially from max security. Also, the "value" of human life will be a central, and hence strong, part of any utilitarian argument for or against CP. Finally, I do not think that there is necessarily any 'eye for eye' or religious connotations here. The driving force of the pro-CP position seems to be that some crimes are so serious and terrible in nature that only the most serious of punishments will match it.

What I most dislike about this debate is the pleasure which many people seem to take in revenge. Be it painful deaths or rotting away in prisons for 23 1/2 hours a day. Before being able to decide whether CP is right or not you must decide what the penal system is for. In my mind it is to prevent reoffending until the prisoner has been rehabilitated. No revenge, no 'eye for an eye', no cruelty, no death. Anything beyond this, I believe, is cruelty for the benefit of those on the outside and that is as barbarous as the crimes we are punsihing.

the death penalty should exist and be praciced as needed.

i do not believe in torture. a bullet in the head is good enough.

the reason i say this........

in my maybe not so enlightened thoughts I see it simply. if you have three bad guys, two commit a crime and are killed as soon as evidence is prsented, the third guy may say 'i think that may be a bad idead.'

its like poaching. the worlds biggest illegal ways of money making, next to drugs, is poaching and animal smuggling. you can make millions off of smuggling animals, go to jail for two years, and come back home.

in my maybe primitive mind i think if we took a guy who did this, and slit his throat other people just might hesitate before doing it again.


i know a LOT of innocent people have been murdered in the name of law. but i also know that we are no in the DNA age and its getting easier to figure out who made the foul.

i worry about civilians lives, liberties and health care. I can't see wasting money on people who threw away their freedoms by killing or rape (just examples). they kkilled, they raped. their life is forfeit. take them out, give that money to some family on the verge of bankrupcy due to someone's illments.

Your argument seems to go:

i) Capital Punishment of criminals deters crime.
ii) Crime is bad
i + ii) Execute criminals.

As you can see that means that anything from jay walking to genocide should be punished with CP.
But, you are aware of this apparent weakness. The problem is you don't tackle it. You merely say "killing or rape (just examples)" to try and narrow down the field of crimes.

What you need is a few more premises before you can jump to that conclusion. You need to say why rape forfeits life but not manslaughter, or why manslughter but not fatal negligence, or why torture but not GBH. A line must be drawn somewhere and it must be based upon reason, not "I feel that's about where it should be". Either rise to that challenge, or start frying those jay walkers.

4thTimeLucky: nice post. :)

i definatly see your point above. let me make this up as i go along. Please note that these are an expression of my opinion and certainly not fool-proof. hell, i'm an idiot.
--
Any person above the age of 18 who murders, is proven to have tortured someone in a heinous way, raped, or poached/smuggled Protected Species of animal shall be put to death.
--

that certainly doesn't fit the criteria you gave me but i'm tired as all hell and am not willing to make the changes at the moment. if i had actual influence, though, i certainly would.

its just that there's way too much shit to deal wih and I find myself grinding my teeth when people who need a quick trial get put off for another 'no question' murder trial.

also, for sake of people who desperately needs funds for heatlhcare
and what not, it would be a way to save millions. i'm not saying these people are worthless scum, kill them.

i'm saying that, hey, they willingly went out of their way to cause serious harm of another life. they threw their freedom away for doing such and we shall NOT pay to keep this person alive when many citizens are dying for lack of funding. a clean, painless, cheap death is more than acceptable.

I like the way Samarians handled it. Eye for and Eye. With some special exceptions like accidental.

WhoaitsZ

I can't help but feel you have provided a "that feels about right" line, delineating crimes which are punishable by death from those which aren't.
What do murder, rape and poaching endangered species have in common that makes them special crimes?

The problem is that they may not have done. 1 in 7 people on death row are found to be innocent, using DNA evidence, after they have been convicted.
The sad state of US justice means that those condemned to death are ridiculously likely to be poor, black men who's defence has been pathetically incompetent and uninterested in seeing proper justice done. Until this can be changed we will always need a lengthy appeals process to protect the innocent. And if we need this process then it would be cheaper and better for society to simply scrap the death penalty altogether.

So... spend millions of dollars improving the defences of people accused of murder,
OR... spend millions of dollars on a necessarily lengthy and costly execution process,
OR... save millions of dollars - and fall in line with the moral concensus of the rest of the western world - by scrapping a cruel, unusual and discriminatory form of punishment.

Seems like a no brainer to me.