The death penalty does not work. It is not a deterrence.

[CatWoman]

Murderers should be incarcerated and made to THINK about their crimes. Let the guilty conscience be their executioner.

True, some do not have consciences.

But I think most do.

Jan. 13, 2004 | LONDON (AP) -- A British family doctor convicted of killing 15 patients -- but suspected of killing hundreds more -- was found dead in his prison cell Tuesday, the Prison Service said.

Dr. Harold Shipman was found hanging in his cell at Wakefield Prison in northern England at 6:20 a.m. and pronounced dead almost two hours later, the service said.


Shipman, who worked in the Manchester suburb of Hyde, preyed largely on elderly women, killing them with lethal injections. His crimes horrified the nation and raised questions about how he was able to evade detection for so many years.

http://salon.com/news/wire/2004/01/13/killer_doctor/index.html

[Bunny]

1. Not to be ornery, but I doubt that conscience had anything to do with

the doctor's demise. After all, no one with a conscience would kill over 200 people for kicks. I think it was more of an exercise in asserting control over his fate. If he couldn't live on his selfish terms, then he wasn't going to live at all. These types of people are nothing if not selfish.

[The_Gopher]

82. By keeping the death penalty, look at the fine company that puts us in....

In 2002, 81% of all known executions were in China, Iran and the USA.....

countries that still use the death penalty:

AFGHANISTAN, ALGERIA, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BENIN, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KENYA, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MAURITANIA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, TUNISIA, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE

that's some great company we're keeping!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

120. You forgot Israel.

Except they don't have trials for their death penalty cases. They just kill the person in the streets or shoot missiles at them from fighter jets.

[hlthe2b]

129. It is possible that doctor did not take his own life...

As we've seen with several high profile incarcerated individuals in this country--from Dahmer to the convicted child molesting Priest, Geoghan.

I'm quite anti- death penalty and agree that for population at large, there is no deterrent affect. One would be hard pressed to argue against a deterent affect against repeat offenders, however, so we have to be careful with that argument.

[bluestateguy]

2. Execute white collar criminals

Make "economic terrorism" a capital crime punishable by death. I'm talking about the crooks at Enron and WorldCom. Put them to death. Conservative white men need to be made to realize that they too can be executed.

[Vitruvius]

59. And the death penalty would absolutely DETER white-collar criminals and

rich Rethugnican criminals.

The US applies the death penalty only to poor people -- people with little or nothing to lose. Of course it isn't a deterrent. If we applied it to rich criminals -- people with a lot to lose -- it would absolutely be a deterrent.

Additional candidates for execution:

- Rich executives who knowingly violate workplace safety standards and kill people -- right now, there are more people killed every year in workplace accidents than in automobile accidents. Even 10 or 20 executions of the executives responsible would scare the rest and save tens of thousands of workers' lives per year.

- Rich executives who sell strategic technologies to the enemies of our country, or who collaborate with the enemies of this country. Like Prescott Bu$h who made a bundle working with the Nazis, and like the executives who made a bundle selling CBW weapons and materials to Saddam Hussein.

- Rich oil and defense industry executives that help steal elections, then profiteer from wars of aggression.

- Rich execs who knowingly make unsafe products. Like the Ford Pinto -- where the execs calculated that it would be more profitable to keep the exploding gas tank that sometimes incinerated the vehicle's occupants because it would cost less to hire shyster lawyers to beat most of the lawsuits than to fix it.

- Tobacco executives -- because they knowingly peddle a product that kills. An addictive product that kills. I see no reason they should be treated any better than any other drug kingpins. Execute a few of them and the rest might decide to make an honest living rather than getting rich by killing people.

All of the above are mass murderers -- with body counts far greater than small-scale serial killers like Ted Bundy.

And this only scratches the surface...

P.S: If we also confiscated the wealth of these malefactors, we would not see multi-generation BFEE-type crime families; if Prescott Bu$h had been executed for his crimes and his ill-gotten wealth confiscated, his grandson George W. Bu$h would be just another low-class coke addict serving 20 years as some bruiser's prison bitch.

Of course, none of this will ever happen; ruling classes never execute their own kind. Which is why I am against the death penalty:
1) because it is only for poor people,
2) because it is applied with not much concern over whether the person executed is guilty or innocent (because poor peoples' lives don't count, and human sacrifices are heap powerful magic in primitive cultures -- like Bu$h's America) and
3) because it will never be applied to the rich mass murderers it could actually deter.

[lazarus]

3. My biggest, #1 problem with the death penalty

Besides the moral and ethical issue, of course:

It's irreversible. What happens when we find out that, oops, the cops planted that evidence, sorry, Mr Jones, you weren't actually guilty of murder after all.

[library_max]

4. It's been proven over and over that the death penalty is no deterrent.

Murder one is one of the least recidivist of crimes (unusual cases like Shipman notwithstanding). Most people who commit murder either fully expect to get away with it completely or are so far gone that they don't much care what happens to them. Either way, the difference between the death penalty and life in prison isn't likely to matter to them.

And as other posters have pointed out, the death penalty leaves no margin for error, and yet error is inevitable in any human-run system.

[afraid_of_the_dark]

32. Read the behaviorist literature...

The only way that a distant, highly unlikely punishment like the death penalty deters the individual is that they try more fervently not to get caught... if they're even thinking about the consequences at the time of their actions.

[OneTwentyoNine]

114. Yep,and not one RICH person will ever sit in "old sparky" Never ever...eom

[funkyflathead]

5. Here is the problem with the death penalty:

TOO MANY APPEALS.

Quick executions would make it more of a deterrent.

Yes I support the DP.

[PVnRT]

10. Yeah, those pesky appeals

where defendants who are innocent get another trial and mprove it. Those bastards! Who needs the Bill of Rights! Let's just execute people as soon as they are arrested! That's what makes funkyflathead feel good!

[Don Claybrook]

17. But quick executions would violate the Bill of Rights

That old Constitution gets in the way sometimes, doesn't it?

Of course, it would be far cheaper and serve societies needs just as well to commute death sentences to life in prison, but that would leave the bloodlust unquenched.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Not necessarily

There should be an expedited review process that does its best to make sure that the case was handled fairly and that the sentence is carried out.

The death penalty is not about vengeance or deterrence of OTHER criminals. It is all about preventing criminals who have already taken at least one life from continuing their habit.

[Damndifino]

28. Death as prevention?

"The death penalty is not about vengeance or deterrence of OTHER criminals. It is all about preventing criminals who have already taken at least one life from continuing their habit."

Doesn't keeping them in prison have the same effect?

[Silverhair]

31. No, it doesn't. Because life does not really mean LIFE.

In the 1870's one of my ancestors was murdered, along with his wife. But the woman lived for several days. She was able to tell who shot her, and when he was caught was able to confront him and positively ID him. He was tried and sentences to hang. The sentence was reduced to life. About 20 years later the governor released him, in 1901. This problem has been with us for a long time.

A life sentence just isn't a life sentence. The people who feel so much sympathy for the felon, always come back wanting the sentence reduced still further.

I would support life sentences over the death penalty if the bleeding hearts could give some kind of assurance the a life sentence would actually mean LIFE.

But there is no limit their pleas for mercy. One of Hitler's inner circle was sentenced to life, yet not too many years later there were people pleading for his release on grounds of mercy. Only the Soviets held firm, and he stayed in prison until he finally died.

[Damndifino]

33. Then it should

Life should mean life; and in the case of most murderers, that ought probably to mean a lifetime of psychiatric treatment. In Britain, the law has been modified to allow life-means-life sentences to be passed. Harold Shipman, the serial-killer referred to by the thread's author received one of these. Some psychiatrists have cited the fact that he had no hope of release as a possible reason for his suicide.

The pressure for "real" life sentences increases when there isn't recourse to the death option.

[meow2u3]

64. Life does mean life under Federal jurisdiction

When a Federal convict receives a life sentence, Federal law states that it means life without parole.
Trouble is, state laws don't always follow suit. Take Texas, for example. Life actually means 40 years to life. Other states are more specific. Life would mean life without parole, and life with parole takes the form of 25 to life, or 15 to life, etc.

[OhioStateProgressive]

34. violence begets violence

to start with the crime of murder, and provide "justice" by a second murder is illogical

and just plain wrong

[Silverhair]

So are you willing for life to mean LIFE? N/T

[OhioStateProgressive]

40. yeah

I have no problem with that...I see no moral issues with making people live the rest of their natural life in prison if they commit murder

But the Death Penalty is indefensible

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Yes, it remains a good idea

Lots of people go to prison. Thanks to the "War on Drugs," many who are there have committed minor offenses. Yet we store them with those who are murderers.

The death penalty protects visitors, staff, guards and even other prisoners from the murderers who have already taken at least one life and would have no limitations on their ability to do so again. Life in prison is a sentence, but it is liberating if that is the worst that can be done to you and you like to kill.

Then there is the risk of escape. Any prison you can design, someone can escape.

[OhioStateProgressive]

44. which part of murder is wrong don't you understand?(nt)

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Execution is not murder

Hence, I understand every part of the statement.

[OhioStateProgressive]

56. execution is State Sponsored killing

I am not concerned with what you know or what you don't know

The Death penalty is wrong, and those of us truly enlightened know it

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Not all killing is murder

But the murder these thugs continue to commit while in prison remains murder.

[OhioStateProgressive]

68. yes, all killing is murder

you aren't gonna get anywhere on this topic with me.

executions are State Sanctioned revenge killings

"how can we teach peace if we make war?"

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. So, killing in war is murder?

I don't think so.

It is not revenge when you shoot a wild animal threatening your community. It is safety.

[OhioStateProgressive]

71. i think all war is murder

yes

[Muddleoftheroad]

88. 'Nuff said

I think your viewpoint is unrealistic.

[Th1onein]

63. Either you support life, or you don't....

I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I do not support the death penalty, no matter what the circumstances. Period. Fini. It costs more to put a man to death than it does to keep him in prison until he dies by natural means.

I also don't think we should have abortion on demand in this country. I don't think it is the woman's choice, alone. I think that we should support life. Period. Fini.

[Muddleoftheroad]

67. I support innocent life

Prison shouldn't be a death sentence for everyone sent there. We should not put guards and staff and visitors at risk for a few butchers. Nor should we risk all the lives of criminals who are sent to prison for far lesser crimes.

I also support a woman's right to choose.

At least your opinions are consistent, I will give you that.

[Solomon]

117. Ever heard of solitary confinement?

No chance to murder anyone in solitary confinement. Muddle, you should get some statistics on how many incarcerated murderers commit murders while in prison. I'd be interested in seeing that. I'm willing to bet that it's not as many as you think.

Nope. Death penalty is flat out wrong wrong wrong. No excuse for it. Especially when we know that it does not deter crimes. Out of all the reasons for the death penalty, revenge, etc., deterence is the only acceptable reason. The only problem is, it doesn't work.
And when you consider the unevenness of its application, it is immoral.

[yagotme]

134. Ever hear

of the guards and other staff that have to give food, move, give first aid if necessary, transport them for medical treatment? Solitary confinement, unlike many of the old movies out, does not mean absolutely no contact with anyone. Even with a solid steel door, there is a window/type vent. Blood, urine, feces, homeade weapons, anything and everything a prisoner can use will be utilized if he feels like it. These persons have 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, to sit there and think of ways to mess up anyone that gets too close to them, or their port hole. They are surrounded by steel and concrete, which by the way, you can make and sharpen some pretty lethal weapons from. (Worked in a maximum security prison for over 3 yrs, prison included a death row.)

[Solomon]

135. And you still lived to tell the tale!!?

Wow!!. Wonder why you weren't murdered by the convict.

[outinforce]

52. Why?

Why is denying a person his/her freedom for the rest of her/his life any more defensible than the DP?

In fact, I can think of several people who might argue that an end to their life would be preferable to say, 50 or 60 years in one of our penitentaries or prisons.

I could, I think, argue quite well that it is more cruel to sentence someone to life in a 6x8 cell for the rest of his or her life than it is to put them to death.

It seems to me that if someone seriously argues that "life" should mean "life", then they are really saying that there is nothing -- nothing at all -- that could be done to rehabilitate, reform, or redeem the person who is subject to such a terrible sentence.

So what is the point of a life-time sentence? It certainly is not to rehabilitate the person. Nor is it to reform him or her. And the state can certainly have no business in attempting to redeem a lost soul.

"Life" meaning "Life", it seems to me, is more about revenge. For if it were not, then its advocates would argue for "life" with the state doing all it can during the sentence to rehabilitate or reform the person under the sentence. And, it seems to me, its advocates would also argue that when a group of "experts" agree that the person under such a sentence has reformed him/herself adequately to rejoin society and not be athreat, he/she should be allowed to do so.

But "Life" = "Life"?

Only, it seems to me, if you believe in punishment.

And what is the point of punishment? And how does the "Life" Penalty (which, I would argue, is a very violent sentence, given what the state allows to take place in prisons and penitentaries) any more humane than the "Death" penalty?

[OhioStateProgressive]

54. I do understand all of your points

and do agree in theory with them

however if I was left with a choice of ending the DP and Life in Prison, I think the first evil to be addressed needs to be state sanctioned killings

[outinforce]

57. And Why?

And why, exactly, do you consider state-sanctioned killings (and here I assume you mean the execution of criminals who have been given, prior to their execution, full due process of the law, and that you do not mean people killed in wars), "evil"?

[OhioStateProgressive]

62. this is why

I find it evil because I find killing to be evil

I find it evil that a country, America, that claims the moral high ground, sanctions the State to take human lives

[outinforce]

92. I Still Do Not Understand

You have said that you find killing to be evil.

I am really trying to understand this notion.

I can say that I consider some killing to be evil.

But I really do not happen to think that a person killing another in self-defense is evil.

Nor do I find the unintentional taking of life (like what apparently occured on I-95 near Baltimore the other day) to be "evil". Even though the driver of the tanker, as far as we know, apparently did something that caused his truck to careen off an overpass onto a crowded highway, and that caused his death and the death of at least four other people, I would not consider that to be evil, especially if the tanker truck drive had a heart attack or something like that. I would consider it very, very tragic -- but not evil.

Nor would I consider the sort of "killing" that occurs when someone carries out the provisions of a person's living will, and disconnects the person from life support equipment, evil. In fact, I do not know whether I would even consider that action to be "killing".

Perhaps you might be willing to share your own thoughts on what you consider to be "killing" -- for instance, does disconnecting someone (with their prior consent, of course) for life support, constitute "killing" them, in your view? And perhaps you might also be willing to share your won thoughts on why it is, precisely, that you consider all killing (and I assume, for this discussion, that you mean the killing of human life) to be evil.

Thanks.

[OhioStateProgressive]

100. fair question

I was referring to concrete acts of killing another human being...not car accidents, or medical accidents, or abortions...but the deliberate act of stopping anothers life with lethal force...I understand the grey areas you speak of, but I do not believe it is productive to be a "relativist" about it

I consider it evil because it is the end of life, and for another person to commit the act is evil...for "The State" to sanction into law the act of killing people, whether thru the DP or War, I say it is evil

[outinforce]

104. Do You Consider....??

Thanks for your reply.

I'm still a bit curious about what you think concerning killing and death.

Do you consider what Ted Bundy did (intentionally luring several young women to come with him, and then intentionally murdering them. He, I think, even went so far as to plan out his murders) to be as evil, less evil, or more evil than what the state did to him after he confessed to all those murders (the state executed him)?

In the Ted Bundy case, there was no question as to his guilt.

[OhioStateProgressive]

105. well

I certainly can understand some things are "more" evil than others, but I don't believe in relativism

I believe the executions are in some ways worse than the murders, and in some ways less bad

it is worse because it is Institutional, in a society where our teachers teach mutuality and non aggression, our Government reinforces that by making war and having executions

[outinforce]

109. I'm not sure I understand...

"it is worse because it is Institutional, in a society where our teachers teach mutuality and non aggression, our Government reinforces that by making war and having executions"

I'm not sure I quite understand you here.

Are you suggesting that the death penalty is wrong because it is inconsistent with what teachers teach our children in school?

If so, then I am having a bit a difficulty with the notion that our teachers teach mutuality and non-agression.

It has been more than a few years since I was in school, and I have no children, so it is possible, I suppose that things have changed radically since I attended public schools.

But I recall rather clearly that almost all the high schools in the city I grew up had varsity, junior varsity, and even "freshman" football teams. These teams were coached by guys who were also teachers.

Now, I may have a completely different notion of "agression and mutuality" from yours, but I would think that any school that sponsors a football team -- indeed, several different football teams, could hardly be accussed of teaching its male students at least "non-agression".

Even discounting the perhaps extreme example of football, my high school offered things like debate and a math team -- where students were encouraged to "excel" and to "beat" other teams or to "defeat" their opponents in debate.

I am sure that I must be mis-interpreting your point here. Can you help me out?

[OhioStateProgressive]

111. interesting reply

i really wasn't thinking about sports teams...but that is a good point

mainly I am talking about the fact that we are taught to respect others, to not hurt others......if kids get in fights, they are put in "time out' or inschool suspension...not paddled...there is a rationality in it that our government does not exercise on a grand scale.

we make excuses to justify war, instead of going with the inherited knowledge we are born with of not wanting to hurt people

[Solomon]

119. It's evil because it is not applied

evenly. Why should a corporate exec who causes workers to die in a fire because he skirts safety regulations to make money, not be subject to the death penalty?

All it takes is for one person to be found innocent by dna (and there are many) to show that the death penalty is wrong.

[yagotme]

131. No,

it doesn't. Sometimes these criminals kill, or severely injure other prisoners, or prison staff. If found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and the proper (sometimes automatic) appeals process takes place, then I believe justice should be swift. Now, before you start flaming about 'Joe Innocent" being on death row, I'm referring to the "smoking gun" cases, where multiple witnesses/preponderance of evidence shows that, indeed, this is the person that commited the crime. As stated previously, this is a human-run system, and mistakes are bound to occur. But, "Joe Innocent", while locked up, should be a model prisoner. If he continues criminal activities behind bars, then I believe that this should also weigh against him during the appeals process.

In IL, the term "Correctional Facility" is used. If a man finds himself on death row, and continues to defy authority at every chance, then it is not likely he will succeed back on the street, or out in general population with other inmates. Just my $.02.

[Anaxamander]

23. Oh boy...

Yeah, goddamn this "innocent until proven guilty" horseshit. Let's see some heads roll, huh?

Yes, I am against the DP.

[HereSince1628]

6. But its about more than deterence...its also about revenge

I don't subscribe to that thinking personally, but others do.

[funkyflathead]

7. Take a life, forfeit your own

Really simple.

[PVnRT]

11. So you want revenge, not justice

I suppose you think that regular torture in jails will also help with crime too, hmmmm?

[funkyflathead]

14. Your a Dean supporter right?

Well he supports the DP.

[PVnRT]

16. Well, see

I'm one of those people that recognizes that I'm not going to agree 100% with any candidate. Nice try.

[HereSince1628]

15. Justice is a balance sometimes seen as weighing punishment

to meet the seriousness of the crime. But in cultures around the world justice isn't only concerned with the criminal, its also concerned about the victim.

I think its human nature for victims to want satisfaction. What we teach each other about appropriate nature of that satisfaction, an how we structure our judicial system to measure out that satisfaction says a lot about our society.

[Anaxamander]

39. Here's one just as simple:

If killing is wrong, then why should the government kill?

[devinsgram]

8. Has anyone ever thought

about this? The states with the highest rates of applying the death penalty also seem to have the highest rate of natural disaters. Think about it.

[no one in particular]

12. Umm... Haven't thought about that.

That sounds suspiciously like the "God gives California earthquakes cuz of them there homosexuals" argument.

[LeahMira]

26. Karma? Really?

The states with the highest rates of applying the death penalty also seem to have the highest rate of natural disaters.

Don't know about that, but they never seem to run out of people to execute. Perhaps their rate of violence is also higher?

[outinforce]

93. Hmmmmmm.....

I think I am correct when I say that two of the cities with the highest rates of murder in the USA are Washington, DC and New York City.

Neither the District of Columbia nor the State of New York have the death penalty.

Co-incidence?

Discuss among yourselves.....

[Solomon]

121. This statistic moves around quite a bit, so it doesn't mean

anything. Sometimes it's Baltimore, and Maryland has a death penalty. Sometimes it's Detroit. (I don't know if Michigan has the death penalty). Your argument means nothing. It's been proven a million zillion times that the death penalty does not deter murder.

Also consider that most murders are committed between family members and people who know each other. People who discuss murders always imply that these murders are randon acts of violence against people in general.

I know it seems like common sense that the death penalty deters, but studies defintely show that it does not.

[outinforce]

153. I Don't Disagree with You

The post of mine to which you were replying was itself a reply to a post which said, "Has anyone ever thought about this? The states with the highest rates of applying the death penalty also seem to have the highest rate of natural disaters. Think about it."

The person who made that post did not make any real argument -- only presented some interesting figures.

So I presented some figures which I considered equally interesting.

I'm not quite sure which argument you think I was making -- the argument of mine that you suggest "means nothing".

Since I believe rather strongly that it is a good idea (and I speak here only for myself) for me to ask questions of another poster instead of leaping to conclusions that a fellow poster never really made and which a fellow poster may never have intended, let me ask you this: You say that "It's been proven a million zillion times that the death penalty does not deter murder."

I'm not quite sure what argument you are advancing when you make that statement. Are you suggesting that since people still murder even when there are death penalty laws on the booksm and since some people are never deterred from committing murder, that those two facts -- standing alone -- should mean that we should abolish the death penalty?

If that is in fact your argument, then would you mind sharing your views on whether we should or should not have speed limits on our roads?

[no one in particular]

9. I've been torn for some time on this

In some cases, where the guilt is overwhelmingly obvious, it should be done. Not as a deterrence, but as a solution to a violent individual

On the other hand, too many mistakes are made in dp cases. That's why if there is to be a dp, it should be rarely used.

While we're at it, lets save some money. Clear out the prisons of non-violent offenders and lock the murderers up forever and we'd save tons of dough.

[DrWeird]

13. I agree with you on the DP.

Do you still think sexual offenders should be forcibly castrated?

[CatWoman]

19. yep

[DrWeird]

35. I don't get it.

If the death penalty doesn't work and isn't a detterence why would castration work?

[CatWoman]

60. I didn't know castration didn't work

see below -- someone made that point and I asked to be educated.

What's up, Doc? :hi:

[library_max]

20. I believe that it's been tried without success.

That is, that castrated rapists continued to be rapists. Rape is about power, not about sex.

[CatWoman]

30. can you provide me some info on this?

[library_max]

113. Y'know what?

I've been doing my research, and the assertion I made is old news which has since been refuted by more recent studies. I withdraw it.

[Anaxamander]

43. I have to agree...

Without getting too graphic, a castrated rapist could still use foreign objects.

[CatWoman]

142. While Ted Bundy at times did use foreign objects

He still had intercourse with each of his victims.

The Green River Killer, too -- he continued to have intercourse with his dead victims, even though they were rotting.

[terryg11]

18. Many don't think they will get caught

so obviously they don't worry about the death penalty. As far as people guilty of euthanizing others out of pity, love or othr sentimental reasons, I imagine they know the risk and are willing to accept it since they are doing it for reasons other than hate,money or whatever REAL criminals commit these crimes for

[sendero]

22. I think...

... that the standard of proof in a death-penalty case should be much higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

But the fact that the death penalty is no deterrence means jack to me. The punishment for most crimes are not a deterrent, the criminals are sure they will not get caught, or can rationalize their actions to be innocent.

Penalties are just that, penalties. If someone has the sense to make that "rehabilitation", good for them.

I'd be a lot more interested in making certain crimes (mostly white collar crimes) carry more penalties and victimless crimes carry less. The only time I can get exercised over the death penalty is when there is any question of the guilt of the convicted.

[kodi]

24. it does work, it stops murderers from murdering again

deterrence? hardly. most people dont consider they will get caught or be executed when they murder, so deterrence is not a significant part of the situation in having capital punishment on the books.

but "deterrence," as in the general population being afraid to murder due to the capital consequences is not actually the point of the state killing a killer. the state sanctioned killing of a killer is to prevent that person from doing it again, to spread around thru society the guilt of taking a human life, and to prevent further vendetta against the killer and his/her own family and associates by the family and friends of the murdered.

the normal response to learning your family member is murdered is to want to kill the person yourself. that is a natural attitude, but one which is disruptive to modern society, so the state takes on the task of revenge, and it is revenge, pure and simple.

is it moral? is it ethical?

stand in a morgue and look at your own family member murdered before you speak from the knowledge this emotion affords.

thinking of this situaton from the reality of being a survivor of a murdered family member or friend changes completely the way one views this subject compared to the abstract exercise most work from on this matter .....as my sig line indicates.

[library_max]

25. It also stops falsely accused people from being falsely accused again.

So I guess it's win/win.

And if we had the death penalty for thoughtless posts on DU, I guess it'd stop people from doing that again too.

I wonder what it is that makes death penalty advocates think that the most biased people are the best judge of the issue. Usually, the rational view is the other way around - that lack of bias clarifies the rights and wrongs of a thing.

[Pithlet]

36. Oh please

"stand in a morgue and look at your own family member murdered before you speak from the knowledge this emotion affords."

Yeah, we all know that people who are against the death penalty have no empathy for the victims or their loved ones, and don't love their own loved ones as much as people who are for the death penalty do. I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm tired of that being thrown in an anti-DPers face. It's absurd.

[DrWeird]

37. I've had a family member murdered.

And I think the death penalty is just another form of murder. Before you are so quick to kill somebody put yourself in the shoes of the child who will never see their father again because some hot shot prosecutor was running for an election and wanted to get in good with the bloodthirsty electorate.

[coolhand27]

76. You could look at it this way.....

If the child's father didn't kill anyone to begin with, this wouldn't be a problem. The murderer's child is also a victim of this crime, and I fail to see where the "bloodthirsty" electorate and "hot shot prosecutor" are at fault.

[Sophree]

38. Huh?

"so the state takes on the task of revenge, and it is revenge, pure and simple."

Ours is a system of justice, not revenge, such as it should be in a civilized society. The death penalty is barbaric and immoral and would be so even if it were fool-proof, which it is not.

[ulysses]

41. I'm sorry for your experience

but no, it's neither moral nor ethical. Vengeance is not justice -if it were, we could simply go back to mobs and vigilantes and be done with it - and it's not a business in which the state has any justifiable involvement.

And yes, I would certainly expect to want to kill the murderer of a family member of mine with my bare hands, but that desire would still not justify state-sponsored executions.

[outinforce]

94. Could You Explain?

"so the state takes on the task of revenge, and it is revenge, pure and simple."

My understanding of what you have said here is that the death penalty is "revenge -- pure and simple".

But, if that is so, then why would locking a person up for life (or even for 10 - 15 years ---- or even for one day or one hour -- not also be considered "revenge"??

Is it that such a form of "revenge" would be less pure -- or is it that it would be less simple -- or is there some other explanation?

I'm really trying to understand here.....

[VOX]

27. State-sanctioned killing serves no purpose.

I do not want my government harvesting souls while I sit back and toke up.

[LeahMira]

29. This is what I think...

I think that sentences should be reduced and no one should serve any more than ten or fifteen years.

But... while the person is in jail, every resourse we have available should be brought to bear on the individual. If he needs an education, educate him. No job skills? Give him some training, and not just washing dishes in the prison kitchen either. If he needs counseling or drug rehabilitation or to have his teeth fixed, all of those things should be there for him. Then, when he is released, he will be in a position to take his place as a productive member of society.

I do agree that some people who commit crimes are insane, and until we figure out some sort of cure, they need to be hospitalized in a maximum security facility, but they need to be treated as humanely as possible given their condition.

I am totally sick of this attitude of throwing people in jail and "throwing away the key." We don't throw people away in this country, or at least we shouldn't. They are human beings, for heaven's sake! Besides, in most states we call the prison system the "department of corrections." Well, so why are we not correcting the people who commit crimes?

There's plenty of time even in one year (not to mention ten or so years) for a person to think about what he's done and to mourn the loss of freedom that is a consequence of his actions.

That's JMO.

[pnb]

137. Huh?

"But... while the person is in jail, every resourse we have available should be brought to bear on the individual. If he needs an education, educate him. No job skills? Give him some training, and not just washing dishes in the prison kitchen either. If he needs counseling or drug rehabilitation or to have his teeth fixed, all of those things should be there for him. Then, when he is released, he will be in a position to take his place as a productive member of society."

On other words, reward criminals for their crimes...GREAT!!

I can just picture it...a kid sees that he may have problems paying for college so rather than get a job, he can go mug someone, get caught and get his education for free...well not actually free, I guess we would pay for it instead.

Lovely.

[outinforce]

45. In What Sense Does the DP Not "Workl"

In what sense, exactly, does the DP not "work"?

Do you mean that even with the DP, we still have people who murder?

Well, in that same sense, do the speed limits we have on our highways "work"? The fact that we have people who get speeding tickets would suggest that if the standard for having a law "work" is that they completely and totally deter people from committing the crim they proscirbe, then speed limits do not "work".

Or how about laws against spousal abuse? Do they "work"? Is the penalty for spousal abuse too low? Too high? How hight would it need to be to completely and totally deter people from committing spousal abuse?

It seems to me that the death penalty, instead of being crafted totally as a deterrant (although there is certainly some of that) or even as "revenge" (though, here again, there is certainly an element of that), is a message that is sent to anyone contemplating murder.

The message is this: We, as a society, have very few crimes that we find so repellant, so terrible, so beyond our comprehension as the crime of premeditated murder. We fully understand that there will always be people within any society as large and as complex as ours who consider it perfectly OK to plan out and carry out the murder of another innocent human being. But if you happen to be one of those people, you need to understand that our society's view of such a crime is that you commit a crime that is one of the worst crimes our society can contemplate. You will, in our view, cease to be considered an "innocent" human being. You will have the innocent blood of another human being (and, perhaps, several innocent human beings) on your hands. And because we veiw this crime as being so terrible, so awful, and so beyond what we as a society can tolerate, we will, if we find you guilty of this crime, put you to death for it.

We will give you the benefit (a benefit you denied to the person you murdered) of a trial by jury -- and full due process of law. You will have multiple opportunities -- in many different courts -- to plead your case and to appeal your conviction -- even to appeal your death sentence -- that is how highly we view the life even of someone who has innocent blood on his hand (A view of life that you did not have when you, with malice aforethought, elected to plan and carry out the murder of another human being). And, if we execute you, we will do so in the least painful and most humane we we know of. (Again, something you might not have done when you planned to take the life of another human being.)

We do not, by these words, intend solely to deter you from your crime, because, as we noted, we fully understand that there are some in a society as large and complex as ours who will never -- never -- be deterred from their plans for murder.

But we want you to understand how we view the willful taking of human life which is known to be innocent.

[Pithlet]

46. Taking a human life is one of the worst crimes

How is willful taking of human life ever right? If it is so morally despicable, then why isn't it so when the state does it? After all, the state then has blood on its hands, does it not?

And how do you take care of the fact that innocent people are executed? The state does have innocent blood on its hands, I assure you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Allowing someone to murder is also wrong

Murderers commit murder. For the worst of them, it is what they do. And it is what they continue to do once in prison. Locking them up and giving them life doesn't stop them from being a threat. They remain very much a threat.

When people you know go to prison and you see how much those facilities are terrorized by the worst our society has to offer, then you see that the death penalty does have a purpose.

[DrWeird]

50. I'm not exactly an expert on the Bible.

But I'm pretty sure one of the more lucid parts is where Jesus denounces the death penalty.

[outinforce]

55. I'm No Expert Either

But I do think that Jesus had one opportunity to denounce the death penalty as being wrong or evil or whatever and that he did not take the opportunity to do so.

It was when he himself was hanging on the cross -- the subject of a Roman Empire-imposed death sentence.

I believe I am correct when I say that on either side of Jesus there was a criminal who was also being crucified.

And I think that at one point one of those criminals yelled out something like this to Jesus, "If you are so high and mighty and so holy and righteous, then save yourself. Proof your holiness by saving yourself."

Jesus, I think, did not respond at this point. Rather, if my memory serves me correctly, the criminal on the other side of Jesus said something like this: "Be quiet! We deserve to die. But this man did nothing wrong. He is without blame. But we are punished justly." And I think this same criminal then asked Jesus something about remembering him when he sets up his kingdom.

Now, as I recall, Jesus did not say, "Oh, heavens no and let me correct you there! You are most definitely NOT being punished justly! The death penalty is an affront to heaven!"

No, as best I can recall, confronted by a person who acknoweldged the justice of the death penalty in at least one case, Jesus did not take the opportunity to correct him at all.

Instead, I think Jesus blessed the second criminal (despite his statement that implied that the death penalty -- at least in his case -- was just) and told him, if my memory serves here, "I'll see you later today in Heaven."

At least that is what I recall.

[arewethereyet]

73. an excellent assessment

as regards Christianity and ALL politics there's always this

"render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's"

by which meant don't use faith as some mechinism to avoid political matters (people didn't want to pay taxes, would rather do good or something to that effect).

That seperation of church and state goes WAY back.

But to get Biblical, putting criminals to death is not murder nor is self defense or accidental death or even warfare. The best way to think of it is to knowingly take innocent life. As an example where our little local mass murderer Lee Malvo knocked on a random door and shot the person who answered in the face, killing them and his only intention was to kill whoever answered the door.

[Solomon]

126. arewethereyet are you saying that life belongs to Caesar?

I hope that's not what you are saying but it seems so. I don't get that one at all. I'm not willing to concede that. Now it may be that the state can take my life, but I don't believe that it belongs to the state. An interesting issue.

[library_max]

156. Oh, well, if you want to go by the Bible,

Christians are required to forgive wrongdoers "seventy times seven," offer the other cheek, walk the extra mile, etc. If you go by Jesus's teachings, we couldn't have a criminal justice system at all. Jesus submitted himself to a lot of things that he forbade Christians to do to others. After all, dying for the sins of humanity was the whole point. And as far as the two thieves was concerned, the subject was guilt or innocence, not the appropriateness of crucifixion as a punishment.

[Pithlet]

58. You don't have to kill them to lessen that threat

Your argument is flawed. By not killing a murderer, you aren't automatically allowing them to kill again. Locking them away for life in a high security prison with other murderers would be a better, less costlier solution, and it eliminates the chance that you execute an innocent person. It isn't worth it for one innocent life. Not one.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. That is naive

People die in prison all the time. The murderers who kill on the outside sign up for a repeat performance while on the inside. And if you give someone life without parole, they have nothing to risk whatsoever. They can kill and kill again. Nothing will stop that.

Even in a high security prison, you have guards, staff, visitors and other prisoners. Your choices places their lives at risk. All of their lives are innocent enough to not warrant death.

[Pithlet]

72. And it's extremely naive

to think that innocent people don't or won't get executed. There are ways to prevent the deaths that happen in prisons. They happen because prisons are overcrowded and mismanaged. The solution is to make better prisons, not risking killing innocent people. Mismanaged prisons do not give the state license to kill. It's not right when murderers do it. It's not right when the state does it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. Innocents die either way

In my way, far fewer innocents are put at risk. We should work to redo the capital punishment process in our country, to ensure that the best technology is used and that the process is as good as it can be.

Then we should get on with it.

While we can minimize deaths in prison, we can't prevent them all. What one person can design, another can outwit, especially if you have 24-7-365 to dwell on it.

[Pithlet]

98. That is our fundamental difference

You seem to view innocents executed as collateral damage. It's necessary in order to insure the DP. At least it is fewer innocents. And, I say, if you or your family are that innocent, you'd probably change your tune fast.

One innocent is one too many. Nothing will ever totally eradicate murder. It will always happen. Putting the state into the mix, and allowing innocent people to be killed by the state is barbaric. I'm sorry, but there is no other argument unless you are okay with innocents being executed. You seem to be. Or, you think that the system can be made so that won't happen. I think that is more naive than any argument I've made.

[Muddleoftheroad]

101. No system is perfect

Unlike you, I accept that and look at what happens if we DON'T execute.

Yes, one innocent is one too many, but your method is condemning many more than mine, so there goes your moral high ground.

[Pithlet]

103. Don't presume

to know what I do and don't look at. Want to compare highgrounds? I know that people kill innocent people all the time. I am no less horrified than any pro-DPer. Getting rid of the death penalty does not make that situation any worse. People will kill regardless. All getting rid of the death penalty does is abolish an imperfect, arbitrary and unequal system that leads to the death of *more* innocent people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. One system works

In my system, if you are a murderer, I can guarantee you won't get a chance to murder again. Since the rates of recidivism are high for prisoners, why give them the chance?

Getting rid of the death penalty creates a whole class of criminal that has nothing to lose and everything to gain by being a murdering bastard. In prison they gain power, status and even potential escape by doing what they do best and they know they can never be killed for it.

[Pithlet]

112. No, it doesn't

"Your" system guarantees that we can't undo a punishment if we find out that someone didn't commit the crime they were accused of. Your system doesn't acknowledge the flaws in the prison system that lead to the problems you're talking about, and try to fix those instead of killing them all and letting God sort it out later.

Are you really okay with innocent people being executed? And it is worth it to you? You never answer that directly, you just turn it right back around to how killing reduces recidivism. Because it sounds ugly to say that you're okay with collateral damage, doesn't it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

115. My system

Would actually entail doing a lot to the prison system and creating an expedited review so that all death penalty cases are closely examined.

But ultimately where you and I disagree is the final punishment. You seem OK with "collateral damage" as long as you aren't the one doing it. As long prisoners kill, even if they kill a lot more than any death penalty, then you are OK with it.

Inoocent people die either way. I'd love for a perfect system. It doesn't exist. It can't exist because people aren't perfect. But it sure as hell isn't a good idea to let murderers hang around and commit murder time and time again.

So, until there is a perfect system, I will choose one where the guilty are executed after a fair review.

[Pithlet]

139. My way

Certain: take away the chance that the state will take an innocent life.

Your way. Uncertain: Leave in place a system that takes the lives of innocent people, because of what other convicted criminals MIGHT do.

Justice isn't about getting everyone in order to make sure we get it right, and to hell with the innocent ones who might get caught in that net. It's about EACH INDIVIDUAL in this country receiving equitable and fair justice. And if it turns out they were wrongly convicted, being able to correct that wrong doing. Your way can't do that, because dead is dead. Mine can.

I'm not okay with ANY collateral damage. I'm not okay with ANYONE innocent dying. Especially innocent people methodically, and purposefully being put to death by the government that is supposed to protect us and ensure us equal and correct justice.

I don't want to live in a country where it is possible that I, or anyone else could be wrongly convicted and put to death. As it stand, I, or any of my loved ones, could, until the death penalty is removed.

I still think your tune would change if it was you or a loved one on death row for something they didn't commit. But, as long as it's others suffering, you're okay with it. See how that can be turned back on you?

[Solomon]

128. You have put american philosophy on its head.

Our philosophy for generations has been it is far better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.

I was lately reading the story of Guaridano Bruno, a 15th century monk who, was burned to death by christians because he believed that the universe is infinite. The book talked about the inquisitors and torturers. Their stated policy was they would burn a hundred innocent men if that's what it took to get one guilty man. Your philosophy seems to be more in tune with the 15th century than our philosophy today.

[yagotme]

138. Collateral damage...

It is your argument to place MORE innocents at risk than the method muddleoftheroad is suggesting. And if one innocent is one too many, then what is the value of several innocents?

[Solomon]

127. And its also naive to believe that convicted murderers

can go around killing other prisioners at whim and not be dealt with by other prisoners. He wouldn't last very long.

Staistics statistics statistics. You continue to express your fear without backing it up with statistics. If murderers killing in prison were a significant problem, you would have every death penalty advocate pointing this out. The studies show otherwise, so they keep their mouths shut.

[outinforce]

96. An Argument I Understand!

"it eliminates the chance that you execute an innocent person. It isn't worth it for one innocent life. Not one."

With all the talk on this thread about "killing" and "revenge" and such, it is really -- really -- refreshing to see an argument that I can understand!

If I understand your argument here, Pithlet, you are saying that the death penalty should not be used, because it flows from a human institution -- the legal system. And, since it is a human institution in which human beings exercise their sometimes-lfawed judgments, there is always the risk -- however slight -- that an innocent person's life will be taken.

And I understand you to say that all of the benefits that might flow from a society having a death penalty -- whether those benefits are "deterrence", "justice", revenge" or sending a message -- are simply too meager a justification for the possibility that one innocent life might be taken by imposing the death penalty.

If THAT is, in fact, your argument, I applaud you for it, Pithlet. Because that is an argument that, for me anyway, is persuasive and cogent.

[Pithlet]

99. Yes, that is my argument.

It isn't the only reason I'm against the death penalty. But it is one of the biggest. I can't see getting around that argument unless one is okay with innocents being executed. And I know some are. They view it as collateral damage. The price of doing business. That, to me, is unacceptable, especially when there are alternatives.

[outinforce]

106. Thanks. But What Are Your Thoughts Regarding.....??

Thanks for your reply.

I'm curious about your thoughts regarding the death penalty in those situations in which there is absolutely no doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

Abolishing the death penalty in those cases in which there is even the tiniest bit of doubt as to whether the accused did or did not commit the crime is, I think, very persuasive. My own feeling is that you have articulated a position that is humane -- "even one innocent person is one innocent person too many".

However, there are, I think, situations in which there is absolutely no doubt as to the guilt of the accused. The case of Ted Bundy comes to my mind. He confessed to the intentional murder of a number of young women whom he lured to follow him. He said, I think, that he received a sexual rush from stalking his victims, luring them to himself, and then murdering them. There was, as best I can recall it, no doubt -- zero -- that he had done what he said he had done.

In those types of cases -- where there is no doubt as to the guilt of the accused person, what would be your position regarding the death penalty, if you don't mind sharing it here.

[Pithlet]

110. I'm still against it

For many reasons, but I'll stick to my "no innocents" argument.

Because, instances where there is absolutely no chance of innocence are extremely rare. There is almost always the chance that the person didn't do it, even if the evidence seems damning.

Even more so, to allow it only for those circumstances still opens up the chance of innocents executed because of human fallibility. People can be framed. Police can make mistakes. Police and investigators can, and have, done the framing themselves, in an attempt to make a case airtight. Eye witnesses can, and often are, mistaken. People even confess to crimes they did not commit. It happens all the time.

As long as there are people who have something to gain by executing someone, there will always be the chance that it gets screwed up, and someone innocent dies.

What it boils down to is that no matter how heinous the crime, it is not worth it to me to risk other's lives to punish the one person we are "absolutely sure" committed the crime. He/she can sit in jail the rest of his/her life. Really, IMO, that is worse than death. I would rather die then never step foot out of a jail again.

[Solomon]

130. Outinforce. Tell us how the killing of Ted Bundy makes us

a better society than keeping him in solitary confinement for life? What exactly is the benefit gained that makes the death penalty worthwhile in the case of Ted Bundy? Even if we take your argument about proving that the person committed murder, how does knowing for sure that he did it, justify the death penalty.

Let me point out while you are trying to answer my question, that there are other convicts who we knew for sure did the killing, but because of a different jury, judge, or state, DID NOT get the death penalty while another pour sod did.

What really is the point of killing these murderers other than revenge or vengence, which as I understood, "is mine saith the Lord"?

[outinforce]

155. I would like to attempt a response.....BUT

I would like very much to respond to each of your very excellend (truly) questions here, Solomon. For what it is worth, your questions demonstrate to me that you have given careful thought to the issue of the death penalty, and that you feel strongly about it. The fact that you ask the questions you do means, I hope, that your feelings on the death penalty are not so strong that you will not listen to other points of view regarding it.

Unfortunately, though, it is (where I am) late of a Friday afternoon, and I have other commitments that will require me to leave this computer until at least later this evening, and perhaps not until later this week-end.

Before I go, however, I want you to know that something you mentioned has triggered a thought in my head.

You said, "Tell us how the killing of Ted Bundy makes us a better society than keeping him in solitary confinement for life? What exactly is the benefit gained that makes the death penalty worthwhile in the case of Ted Bundy?"

And later in your post you said, "What really is the point of killing these murderers other than revenge or vengence"

The thought (really a question) that occurred to me was this: If killing Ted Bundy was nothing more than an act of state-sponsored vengence --- an act which at best did nothing to make us a better society and at worst diministed our goodness as a society, then what is the nature of confining someone in solitary confinement for life (with no hope of parole) any less an act of state-sponsored vengence which at best does nothing to make us a better society and at worst diminishes our goodness as a society?

Solitary confinement for life -- which can, I think, cause a great deal of suffering on the part of the person incarcertate -- seems to me to be far more cruel (in terms of the actual time and nature of the suffering) than simply injecting a person with a needle which, in a few minutes will carry chemicals that will very quickly, and with little or no pain, save him/her from a life of lonely misery and regret.

It would seem to me (at least without giving it further thought) that the penalty you suggest as an alternative to the death penalty is far more cruel and, frankly, far more vengeful, than the death penalty.

I hope I have not put words into your mouth. As I said, this is just a thought I had -- not something I have thought completely through. I would be most interested in your thoughts, because I am sure there must be something I am missing in what you have suggested.

Understand, though, that I may not be able to reply to you this evening.

I hope it is warmer where you are than it is here.

[Solomon]

125. Muddle. Please please let us see some statistics.

You are taking it for granted that convicted murderers continue to murder while in prison. Not true for the most part. You are making up stuff to support your point. Sure, some guys have committed murder in prison. I'd like to see how many of them were convicted murderers as opposed to murders committed by other segments of the prison population.

[outinforce]

49. Differences

There is, it seems to me, a difference between someone who, with malice aforethought, plans out and takes the life of someone else -- someone else who is known to be "innocent".

A murderer does just that -- s/he plans out and then carries out the taking of another human life -- a life that is, as far as anyone else knows completely and totally innocent. A murdered has knowingly planned and knowingly carried out the taking of another human life that s/he knw to be innocent.

When the state executes a murderer, it first takes gteat care to assure that the life it is taking is not "innocent". It first goes to great lengths to assure that the person whose life it is taking is, in fact, guilty of the most heinous of crimes. This is absolutely different from what a murderer does.

Does the state sometimes make mistakes? Yes. And that, it seems to me is the starting place for a discussion of the DP. But even when it makes a mistake, the state does just that -- it makes an error in concluding that someone is guilty. It at least endeavored to establish guilt. A murderer, by contrast, is totally unconcerned with anything like that.

If a state were to use the DP to knowingly execute people it knows for a fact are innocent, then it it no better than a murderer.

But a state that expresses its profound revulsion for the knwoing taking of human life which is known to be innocent by ending the life of a person who does such a thing is much, much different from a murderer.

IMHO.

[Pithlet]

61. No

Ending a life is ending a life. The motives are different.

"Does the state sometimes make mistakes? Yes. And that, it seems to me is the starting place for a discussion of the DP. But even when it makes a mistake, the state does just that -- it makes an error in concluding that someone is guilty. It at least endeavored to establish guilt. A murderer, by contrast, is totally unconcerned with anything like that." I'm sure that is comfort to the innocently executed person and their family.

I do agree that the innocent factor is the starting point for the discussion. And, IMO, you can't move beyond that. There is no way to absolutely guarantee that a person will not wrongly be executed because any system involving humans will have its flaw. Therefor, it HAS to be thrown out. It isn't worth the price of one innocent life to satisfy the state's need for vengeance.

[coolhand27]

77. Best post of the thread!!!

Couldn't agree more.

[Pithlet]

79. So, what do you think

about innocent people being mistakenly put to death by the state? Do you think it is worth it to have the death penalty?

The reason I ask is the issue of innocent people always gets shunted aside when debating with someone who's pro-DP. Every time. I wanted to ask someone I haven't debated with yet so that I can see if I can get at least one pro-DPer to address that issue.

[lazarus]

90. One out of seven

One out of seven people on death row since the DP has been reinstated have been released as innocent. 888 have been executed.

You gonna tell me we haven't executed some innocent people?

You can't unexecute someone. If for no other reason, that is why the death penalty is wrong. Mistakes are made, a lot.

And one out of seven is totally unacceptable.

[Solomon]

124. Outinforce. The flaw in your argument is that

after all the constitutional protections, the appeals, etc. which you seem to decry, there are still innocent people executed by the state.

[MrSlayer]

51. I'm fine with the Death Penalty and would like to see it expanded

to include child molestors and rapists. Sometimes murder is justified, there can never be justification for taking advantage of a child or raping anyone.

[outinforce]

53. Are You Aware....

Are you aware that many pedophiles are simply born that way. They did not choose to have an attraction to children.

Why would you punish by death someone who acts on an apparently innate behavior?

Would it not be more compassionate to attempt to rehabilitate them (difficult as that might be)?

[arewethereyet]

65. lets assume that this is true (and I'm not saying it's not)

but you offer no proof, no matter, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt...

so they're born that way.

all the more reason to do eliminate them from society.

all you can ever ope for it to THINK that they are rehabilitated, you'll never know and I am not willing to roll the dice when the consequences are as serious as this.

one other point I offer for consideration:
is capital punishment about the taking of a criminal's life or is it about the forfeiture of his(her) own life by the criminal ? if you know that the consequences of a given crime mean you cease to live, then who is making the choice to die ? The state or the criminal ? Actions or consequences.

Either the criminal has chosen the risk or they are incapable and if they are incapable then they can never be trusted.

Just another viewpoint on this thorny issue. Discuss.

[outinforce]

97. Since You Invited Discussion, I will.....

"so they're born that way. All the more reason to do eliminate them from society."

You'll excuse me, I hope, arewetheryet, for saying this, but this is exactly the same sort of thing many people (or, say about 25 - 30 years ago) used to say about gay people. "If fags are born that way, all the more reason to eliminate them", was, as I recall, something I often heard people (people who did not know that I was a "fag", because I really did hide it very well) say.

People back then believed that some folks were born "queer". And they further believed that most -- the overwhelming number of men, especially -- were born as red-blooded, by God, straight-as-an-arrow heterosexuals, who could only be "changed" into "queers" if they were somehow "recruited" by men who either had been born "queer" or had themselves been recruited away from their "natural" heterosexuality.

No one it seems, thought that any male could possilby ever really, truly, actually consent to something as digusting, perverted, unnatural, and immoral as sex with another man -- unless, of course, they had somehow been "recruited" into such an act by someone who was disgusting, perverted, unnatural, and immoral.

Some of society's worst condemnations were reserved towards people who practiced "the love that dare not shout its name". It is for that reason that so many people remained in the closet.

And, in many states, engaging in homosexual activities was punishable, I think, by death.

We've come a long way sisnce then, of course.

But it does rather amaze me at how we are still quite quick to condemn some people to death, simply because of their innate tendencies, and our ownj discomfort with them.

[MrSlayer]

To quote Perry Farrell.

Some people should die, that's just unconscious knowledge.


Child Molesters fall into that category.

[arewethereyet]

85. put them in general population and it doesn't take long

honor among thieves and all

[DjTj]

74. It is essential for plea bargaining.

The Green River serial killer would never have told use where the bodies were if prosecutors couldn't offer him life instead of the death penalty.

Isn't it better that we were able to solve those crimes and give the victims' families peace?

[coolhand27]

78. Actually it would have been better

if he would have been caught after one murder and sentenced to death. Then "victims' families" would be changed to "victim's family".

[cryofan]

75. Deterrence not main objective, but instead justice for victim's family

If a person is killed, the family wants justice. If justice is not provided, the victim's family feels that society is not working right. If a lot of victim's families feel the same way, then the fabric of society fall apart, etc. People will not pay taxes, and they will run red lights and many other bad things. This is all tribal stuff...goes back a long way.

[David Zephyr]

80. Catwoman is Correct.

I know you know that I agree with you, but just wanted to weigh in here with you against capital punishment. It's barbaric and stupid.

[LibertyorDeath]

81. The death penalty never was about deterrence it's about the power

of the state to exact revenge in the name of justice.

Whos justice is a whole other thing...

[corporatewhore]

83. Its also a racist institution

[arewethereyet]

84. I believe that there have been more whites than black executed

this got vetted some time ago and didn't really hold up

[Pithlet]

86. I'm not sure about that.

Do you remember where you heard that, or do you have a source?

[corporatewhore]

91. Check this out

The 1972 Furman V. Georgia case abolished the death penalty for four years on the grounds that capital punishment was rife with racial disparities. Over twenty five years later, those disparities are as glaring as ever.

# African Americans are 12% of the U.S. population, but are 43% of prisoners on death row. Although Blacks constitute 50% of all murder victims, 83% of the victims in death penalty cases are white.

# Since 1976 only ten executions involved a white defendant who had killed a Black victim.

# In all, only 37 of the over 18,000 executions in this country's history involved a white person being punished for killing a Black person.

# A comprehensive Georgia study found that killers of whites are 4.3 times more likely to receive a death sentence than killers of Blacks.

# More than 75% of those on federal death row are non-white. Of the 156 federal death penalty prosecutions approved by the Attorney General since 1988, 74% of the defendants were non-white.

http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/fiveRs1.html

[Solomon]

132. What an idiotic thing to say.

Since whites outnumber blacks almost ten to one, then of course it would seem that more whites are executed. But if you look at the ratios, you get a far different picture.

Jesus, some of us simply refuse to wake up to reality.

[Rex]

87. It was never meant as a deterrent

IMO the death penalty is meant to make the guilty pay for their crime. I guess you could call it the ultimate penalty.

[F-5]

95. I agree.

Make the murderous assholes sit in jail and think about what they have done. Make them suffer with their consciences for the rest of their lives.

[okieinpain]

102. I don't care if it deters or not. but some folks deserve to have

theirs heads chopped off. sorry but that's the way I feel.

[TexasMexican]

108. I agree.

[Solomon]

133. Who decides which ones and

why?

[TexasMexican]

143. A Judge and a Jury

For the death penalty you cant have any "manditory minimums" or other bullshit like that.

It has to be decided on a case by case basis. A jury trial is a case by case basis.

[Pithlet]

144. And what happens

if the judge and jury were wrong. How do you bring back someone from the dead?

I'm hoping to get at least ONE person to address that. No one ever does.

[TexasMexican]

145. You pay the family some money for compensation and you go on.

[Pithlet]

146. Wow.

Okay. The death of an innocent person killed by the state can be alleviated by paying off the family? And it is worth it just so we can have such a penalty in place? Even if this twisted way of looking at things were okay for the family, it still isn't for the person wrongly convicted. He was still wrongly punished, and there's no way to change that. Paying off the family with blood money doesn't fix it.

You're okay with living with the chance that you or a loved one could be wrongly killed by the state, because they could pay you or your family off if they're wrong? At least you're honest. I still find that very scary.

[TexasMexican]

147. Depends on the level of innocence.

I'm willing to accept the risk of execute an "innocent" as long as the "innocents" are limited to people with a record of prior crimes and violence.

If it is ever found that they wrongly executed someone who was completely innocent and had no violent priors then maybe I would be willing to reassess my position then.

[Pithlet]

148. Either they murdered someone or they didn't

There is no such thing as only a little innocent.

I think I see where you're coming from. You think that if someone is accused of murder, then they must not be completely innocent. Even if they didn't actually commit the murder, they must be guilty SOMETHING, right? With that kind of thinking, I guess I should be glad I'm a white, female and belong in an upper-income bracket, huh? There's no chance of people like ME being falsely accused of a crime, is there? So, no problem!

[TexasMexican]

157. No you dont see where I'm coming from.

I dont assume just because someone was accused of a crime that they are guilty of that crime.

My line of thinking is that if someone has been convicted of murder and given the death penalty they probably deserve the death penalty even if they werent guilty of the murder.

IMO if someone has a long violent history and they have been convicted of murder then they deserve to die.

Even if they werent guilty of murder they wouldnt get the death penalty unless they had some history. You only need to convince 1 person on the jury that you dont deserve the death penalty and you wouldnt get it. If you cant convince one person that you dont deserve to die either you dont care enough about your own life or nothing you can say can overcome your bad history. Fuck even that kid Malvo was able to convince a jury that he didnt deserve to die after all the shit he did.

I personally wouldnt give someone the death penalty for just the murder of 1 person. If that was the only crime they ever commited I wouldnt put them to death for that. The way I figure it, even if its morally wrong, I figure there might be some good reason to murder 1 person.

I personally would give the death penalty to people who murder multiple people, people who were given a chance and murdered someone again, or to people who murder 1 person but also had a long violent criminal history.

I wouldnt really weep too much over a person with a violent history being killed, even if it were for a murder he didnt do. If he was a robber then it would have been justified if someone he tried to rob shot and killed him. If he beat women or something those women would have been justified in killing him. The fact that none of his victims ever killed him up to this point is what the real trajedy is.

Like I said earlier if someone wants me to or people like me to have a second thoughts about the death penalty then they will have to try harder to find some people with cleaner records for us to weep over.

[Pithlet]

158. Nope. I pretty much read you right.

You are perfectly okay with killing someone for something they didn't commit, because they've committed other crimes.

I don't think there's any convincing you. Until more people like me are convicted and killed, you don't care. You pretty much state so in your last sentence. I read you perfectly fine.

[Pithlet]

159. A little justice system 101 for you while we're at it.

Once someone has been convicted and served their sentence, we don't punish them again a second time, especially if it's a crime THEY DIDN't COMMIT. So, no, it isn't okay to throw them in as potential death penalty candidates, and risk the REAL murderer going free to kill again. That makes NO sense.

[Solomon]

149. My God man! Have you lost your marbles?

Jeeezuz, what would make you say this? Why don't we just give death peanlties for any prior crime?

One thing a lotta people don't get. The concept of what a "crime" is, is POLITICAL. The rich people decide what is and what is not, a "crime." Be careful there's not a guillotine waiting for you one day.

[Pithlet]

152. Also

IF it is ever found? The odds that it has already happened are very great, indeed. You might do yourself some good to re-think the position. Maybe do a little research on how the death penalty is actually meted out in this country. You might be surprised.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

116. not cost effective in NY it cost t$23 million per capital case

where it would only cost taxpayers $2.5 million to incarcerate him for life withoput parole for 40 years
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

[Muddleoftheroad]

118. Expedited review

The U.S. -- not each state -- should create a system of expedited review that ensures fairness and good evidence while speeding up the process and getting rid of endless legal machinations.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

122. oh sure! lets expedite the proceedure and raise the chances for ERROR!

since 1992 117 inmates on death row EXONORATED...proven INNOCENT by DNA test!!! gesssssssh
and since 1992 with Project Innocent (founded by Barry Scheck And Peter Nuefeld) 739 inmates exonorated of ALL crimes!

sorry muddle but I THANK GOD THAT YOU ARE NOT A LAW MAKER

[Muddleoftheroad]

123. You choose to misunderstand

Review should be thorough and professional, not haphazard and dependent on resources. It should go over the transcripts and make sure appropriate legal, medical and technical issues were looked at properly.

I don't think that the Supremes are in the best position to do this. We should create a panel that is. As for the 287 (assuming that is an accurate and unbiased number), the system I propose would go over each case, so they would be found.

Then we should move forward with the rest.

[Solomon]

136. Who would you put on this panel?

People who are biased in favor of the death penalty, or people who arer biased against? And why are people who are biased against the death penalty routinely kicked off of juries? This is another issue that should be talked about. I mean, is this really right? If you were on trial for your life, how would you feel to sit there and see all the death penalty doubters kicked off the jury? Wouldn't you feel like the remaining death penalty supporters on the jury are now looking for the reason why you ought to get it? It's a side issue but an important one since we do have the death penalty. Why are the antis kicked off the juries and why is that okay?

[Pithlet]

141. Exactly.

The only reason they weed out the non-DPers is because if they didn't, there would be far fewer, if any, executions. Leave even one person who is iffy with the death penalty, and you don't get the death sentence. A case would have to be extremely horrific and convincing to get a non-DPer to go along with the sentence. Just one of the many reasons why the system is so incredibly flawed, and has to be in order for it to be applied. Make it perfect, and no one dies.

I just hope that I, or anyone I care about, is never at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Pithlet]

140. They're humans

They will make mistakes. It is impossible to make sure such a system is completely infallible. Impossible. Move forward with the rest and hope we don't kill someone innocent? Unacceptable.

[Solomon]

150. It's too flawed to support the penalty

extracted. I still can't believe the number of people who accept innocent deaths.

[Pithlet]

154. I think it is because

most think that anyone who's been accused of anything must be low-life scum or they wouldn't have been accused of anything. Those aren't people like THEM. That would never happen to them or someone they care about. So, who cares?

I've always suspected such, but rarely bring that up, because I don't like to just assume the rationalization behind an individual's viewpoint without knowing more about them. But, I do think that's the reason the majority of the time.

[Fescue4u]

151. It IS a deterrance

No criminal who has received the death penalty has ever comitted another crime.