Capital Punishment?
 

doesnt pertain to election ( well it might with potential supreme court appointments could ....) but

Whos Pro?
Whos Con?
Why?


I'm going to post my own thoughts in a bit- gathering my sources so to speak- but I figure others might need time too- so I'd post now as a headsup. Definatly a hotbutton issue.


So please- give me a bit to get my sources (Cathechism, Pope, etc) together. That said- not necessiarly a religious issue, but for many it will be

Opposed. No one has the right to take someone's life as a punishment, no matter the crime.

The concept of capital punishment acting as a deterrent for others is nonsense. The potential for mistakes is palpable.

Opposed.
As posted previously, no one has the right to take anyones life. Of course I'm sure it would be a lot harder to have that opinion if someone you loved got murdered, but killing the murderer still wont bring anyone back.

Opposed. Here are some facts and figures from Amnesty International

This old chestnut again!

I've gone on record as being opposed. I'm just waiting for the usual "it's cheaper to kill 'em" nonesense this thread usually brings up. :)

Mr Mephisto

I'm in favor so long as without a doubt they have been proved to be guilty.

opposed
mainly bc there is never 100% proof that everyone who will be executed is guilty....and yeah, killing one person who is innocent is worth throwing away the whole system, especially if that one person is me :)

also, death row is more expensive than lifetime imprisonment, last i remember. Most of that is just due to the length of the death row stay, the cost of every appeal, etc...I think timothy mcveigh is one of the quickest i have ever seen, but i really don't keep up with executions.

Still, the fact it isn't infallible makes it enough of a detriment to society to force me to oppose it.

opposed, mainly for the reasons given already.

Timothy McVeigh was so quick because he formally waived his right to appeal.

For, in the most part. Particular for representatives of law enforcement found to be corrupt or having perverted the course of justice.
Most of the people released have been done so on the basis of retesting evidence to check DNA samples. The technology wasn't available then, but it is now and if the evidence is solid enough to release these people 20 years after the crime it is enough to convict others.
Like the '63 people' thread, how many innocent sacrifices are acceptable? A lot of people think more than zero, if it's for a good cause.

Many members have already weighed in on this here:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=death+penalty

and here:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=death+penalty

I'm in favor of killing people that don't deserve to live.

opposed. I was formerly an ardent proponant of Capital Punishment until it was brought to my attention that there have been death sentences issued under very flimsy, circumstatial and, in several cases, completely fabricated evidence. Subsequent investigation exonerated the accused...in a few cases, a little too late. I can no longer justify the death penalty to myself.

opposed.
premeditated murder carried out by the state does not do anything to deter.
in addition to most of the reasons outlined above.

I'm pretty sure that if people knew they wouldnt be killed for killing, more murders would happen.

Some bum has no house, no nothing... they want a life sentence in prison... How bout we just kill someone and we'll get 3 hots and cot for the rest of life!

That's merely 1 situation.

Yeah, being fed and clothed for the rest of my life doesn't sound like a punishment to me.

Ideally, attackers would be shot and killed be their intended victims. If that doesn't happen, killing them is going to be more costly than imprisonment, and it does not do anything to deter criminals. Life, no parole, no questions asked.

Definetely for capital punishment. There are some crimes that if comitted to someone around me, I'd be sorely tempted to do it myself.

How is execution more costly than imprisonment? Bullets are very cheap compared to taking care of a prisoner for 20-50 years.

mr: you **do** understand that one of the most basic features of modern forms of justice is that the state assumes the position of victim in a criminal case. this is what enabled the modern judicial system to supercede what preceded it--you know, the logic of feud. i do not understand how folk can fantasize about a reversal of this.

and i am not at all sure where the statements above yours are coming from--that it would be a relatively good thing to get a life sentence in prison. i really dont.
unless you are implying that life under capitalism is worse than being in prison---unless you find yourself in an economically elite position---i dont understand the logic of these comments.

It's not that hard, just read what was posted. I'd rather live in prison with 3 hot meals a day, I can study, get a college degree, work out, and have a bed to sleep in, Than to spend life on the streets with no home, no money, no nothing.

Not only that, but crime syndicates have been well known to keep running their organization from inside prison. Do you think they will fear imprisonment if they can keep on doing what they are doing, making their family, friends, rich, and not have to worry about the police?

That's about as logical as it gets honestly.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are some murderers, etc.. that deserve to die. But in recent years I have been rethinking my position. Not because I think it is morally wrong but because of the way the criminal justice system operate.

I have no criminal court experience but it seems to me that the police and prosecuters sometimes plant evidence against the person they think (are sure) is guilty. The OJ case being one of them (although he did get away with it). I don't think they are trying to convict the innocent, they probably are convinced they have the right guy.

I saw a special on 20/20 or 60 minutes a while back where a judge wanted to destroy the old rape kits because too many on death row were being cleared by the new DNA tests. Her opinion was "well, there may be co-ejaculators" and they were already found guilty and have run out of appeals. She feared opening up new cases would swamp the system.

I hope I am never arrested for anything.

Studies show otherwise.

A major supporter of the death penalty, PROVIDED, it can be imposed without ANY doubts whatsoever to the guilt of the defendant

Support, but the system needs to be streamlined. Justice delayed is justice denied.

BTW, the death penalty needs to be dramatically expanded. Child rapists (violent rapists of any kind, for that matter) should be put to death.

opposed.
as much as I hate to see a murder live to a ripe old age in prison, killing that person is the wrong thing to do.
state sponsered murder is still murder. (no matter how you try and justify it)
death penalty is not a deterent.
innocent people have been put to death.
two wrongs don't make a right.

State sponsored "murder" isn't murder at all. When in doubt, read the code. ALL states have malice as an essential element of murder. Without malice, it's not murder.

Executed murderers have a recidivism rate of 0.0%. That's not true of non-executed murderers.

This doesn't make any sense.

The legal definition of malice:

The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

So essentially, you're saying that because the State does not define the death penalty as without just cause or reason, it is not the same as murder, which the State does define as without cause or reason.

Well naturally! Otherwise the State would be commiting a crime that it recognizes itself.

The problem is in what the State considers with just cause or reason. Simply because the State says it is so does not make it so. And that is why we have a debate on the subject.

You're essentially saying "The death penalty is ok because it is ok." That's not a good enough rationalization.

I'm opposed for fear of putting to death an innocent person.

Wrong. The Death Penalty is the legal killing of a person with just cause (being convicted with due process of law and sentenced to death), while murder is the illegal killing of a human being by a human being with malice aforethought. Murder is illegal. The death penalty is legal.

Reword and nit-pick all you want, but state sponsored killing is wrong IMO.

Opposed simply for economic reasons. The appeals end up costing more than it does to let someone rot in jail for the rest of their lives.

Well, i don't think it is justified under any circumstances, especially in light of the fact that many innocent people have and will be put to death. Besides, killing the criminal does nothing to help the victim.

It's not a "nit-pick", it's a vital element of the crime that isn't present. That's why going 53 mph in a 55 mph zone is legal, but going 53 mph in a 25 mph zone is illegal.

The point is state sponsored killing is wrong, not if it's legal or not.

I think it boils down to this: If you are in favour of capital punishment, you should be prepared to sacrifice your own life for your beliefs. I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that anyone here has 100% faith in our legal system. Are you prepared to be the victim who though innocent has been found guilty and condemned to death?

I am not prepared to sacrifice my contribution to my family and to my society in order to give a 'sense of closure' to victims' families or to satisfy some public perception of justice. I actually happen to believe that except for the serial killer, a murderer can for the most part be rehabilitated and returned to society as a contributing member. If they can't, as in the case of the serial killers, then at least they can be studied and learned from in order to hopefully educate our sociologists and psychologists in order to help prevent or perhaps cure future persons from being afflicted by whatever mental disease/disorder caused them to commit their crime.

excellent point--and the data backs you up. Murderers have one of the lowest (if not the lowest) recidivism rates. One main reason being that they are simply too old once released (increased age and reduced recidivism link documented for over 200 years now). Another being that most murders are pretty spontaneous--not like the general picture I think people form: that there are murderers and non-murderers walking around the cities just waiting to be discovered.

Yeah. Exactly. Most states do not have the death penalty - therefore it is illegal in most states. Simply because something is legal or illegal in a particular state does not make it the right thing. This WHOLE DEBATE is about the states that think the death penalty is acceptable. You can't argue it is acceptable simply because those states say it is.

Again, you can't argue "the death penalty is ok because the death penalty is ok". You're not basing your argument on anything at all. Stick with the other common pro-capital punishment arguments, such as deterence, retribution - but even then you'll need to back those up with something other than your nihilism.

I am opposed to state sponsored capital punishment. In an ostensible democracy, when the state kills someone, it makes all the citizens killers.

The only exception I would make is if there were 100% surety, including a confession, to a multiple or aggravated murder.

I am aware that that is an inconsistent position.

I am for execution of repeat offendors of violent crimes. If an individual was convicted of three separate violet crimes (meaning murder or rape), then I have trouble believing he/she was innocent of all three. If someone can show me an example of a criminal who was found innocent of three separate violent crimes, then I'll be willing to change my stance. In my opinion, execution is not a deterrant. It is a punishment. I'm not interested in stopping people from killing each other; if it were possible to do so we would have found a way to do it already.