the death penalty

[katia]

this is not a poll.  i don't believe that the death penalty can bring about peace but it does bring about justice, i feel that it is entirely justified...if there were a mad animal biting people, i would have no compunction about shooting it....not to punish it...not to deter other animals (both are ridiculous) but to ensure that he didn't bite more people.  my philosophy is that mass or serial killers have reduced themselves to the level of a rabid dog, and society must take whatever steps are necessary to protect itself.

life in prison instead?


how would you like to be a low paid prison guard, sent in to break up a fight between 2 or more inmates who are serving life?
they wouldn't want to hurt you would they? they wouldn't want to become a big shot in prison by killing you would they?
look at the cots of keeping someone in prison for life (till what, 80 - 90 years old). room and board, medical treatment, medication, etc the total is extremely high. If someone is a violent offender, wouldn't it be better for society to execute the person and put the money to better use on social programs?
moreover:


1. those who are executed will [never] kill again.
2. the overall cost for imprisoning a criminal for life is far more expensive than simply executing them after "X" amount of years.
3. if our judicial system was run more efficiently, the death penalty would serve perfectly as a deterrent.


Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence, many having already served over 2 decades on death row. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person. Once someone is executed the case is closed. If we execute an innocent person the real criminal is still out there and will have successfully avoided being charged.

Re: DNA
DNA is available in less than 10% of murder cases. It's not a miracle cure for sentencing innocent people to death. It's human nature to make mistakes.

Re: Appeals
Our appeals system is designed to make sure the trial was in accord with constitutional standards, not to second guess whether the defendant was actually innocent. It is very difficult to get evidence of innocence introduced before an appeals court.

Re: Deterrence
The death penalty isn't a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think about the consequences or even that they will be caught (if they think at all.)

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

Re: Alternatives
48 states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says, is swift and sure and is rarely appealed. Being locked in a tiny cell, forever, is certainly no picnic. Life without parole incapacitates a killer (keeps him from re-offending) and costs considerably less than the death penalty.

Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty isn't reserved for the "worst of the worst," but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Re: Victims families
The death penalty is very hard on victims' families. They must relive their ordeal in the courts and the media. Life without parole is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Some victims families who support the death penalty in principal prefer life without parole because of how the death penalty affects families like theirs.

Opposing the death penalty doesn't mean you condone brutal crimes or excuse people who commit them. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning the facts and making up their minds using common sense, rather than revenge or "eye for an eye" sloganeering.

you can all hate me more now.  >  opinions? comments? thoughts? rants?

[The Middle Way]

Ok, you have presented 'both sides' of the argument.

At top you present what I must characterize as a lame argument for (I should ignore the low-paid guard appeal, any person that likes that kind of work enough to do it is in for a penny in for a pound as they say.): the EVER-POPULAR Bottom-line Cost Benefit Analysis; (so one is a taxpayer? Good luck with that. I am not, so I do not remotely care; taxes are supporting a trillion-dollar effort to make the oligarchy even filthier-rich in the Middle East, so wtf; I have no skin in that game.), which isn't remotely supported with any actual facts or figures here.

Per: "IF.... would serve perfectly as a deterrent"; I would also demand that one back that up, even beyond the WOULDA SHOULDA COULDA aspect, which of course is absurd.

The rest of your argument is correct, against. Good job.

I thought you were for the death penalty. The argument doesn't bear out the statement in the first paragraph, 'I feel that is is entirely justified', in fact goes overwhelmingly the other way, so, I'm baffled.

N

[RebeccaFog]

I'm baffled too.  and boondoggled and even buffalo'd.

I disagree with the death penalty.  I like your argument against it.

Were you trying to be ironic with the "i feel that it is entirely justified..." stuff?  If so, you need a rewrite.

Question:

   Is this post meant to get an argument going? or is it a statement? Or is it a yea or nay kind of response that ye be seeking?

   P.s.
   I will gladly take the place of the next prisoner up for execution.

[Nero]

(Nero panics and quietly backs out of the room knowing he's on the verge of another 11 page tirade)

[Sarah Louise]

Many (or maybe even most) criminals don't care about the death penality.

Today life is considered "cheap", if you kill the victim, there might be no witnesses and you get away with it.  The odds of the police actually catching you is 50/50, if you get caught, it might take years to come to trial, if (and that is a big if) the jury actually convicts and and calls for the death penality, you get an average of 25 or more years before your number comes up.  And with the way the legal system works today, there is a large likelyhood that when you do come up for death, there will be a fight over how it can be done and you get years more while that if worked out in court.

Do I believe that a "cold" blooded killer deserves death, Yes.  Do I believe someone who has committed multiple murders deserves death, Yes.  Do I believe a child molestor deserves death, Yes (and that one I say with deep personal feelings).

Do I believe most cases fit this discription, No.

The death penality should be used "rarely", but when it is used, it should be carried out expidiciously, not 25 years later (that to me is cruel and unusual punishment).


Sarah L.

[RebeccaFog]

(Nero panics and quietly backs out of the room knowing he's on the verge of another 11 page tirade)

Go for it, young man.

I figure I can't go any further than what I've already stated.

I know opinions won't be changed and I can accept that.

I hope people don't get angry at each other.  These are opinions. It's not like we are holding someone in our own little tribe and arguing how to handle that person. People who disagree can handle their anger by writing to their representatives rather than taking it out on others here.  Just my opinion.

[The Middle Way]

Life is cheap...

The death penalty should be used ...

one statement tends to follow the other, doesn't it?

[Sarah Louise]

Talk about taking statements out of context.  If your going to quote, please include the entire sentence.

I almost consider the way you have done that to be imflamatory and rude.  In both cases you ignore what the intent was, I said "Today life is considered "cheap", (with more description following) and I said "The death penalty should be used, "RARELY" (with more description following)


Sarah L.

[The Middle Way]

you can frame it how you like.

show me how it's out of context. you are referring to putting people to death. that's your context.

you have claimed, (appropos of what? you have enough experience as a criminal???) that criminals believe life is cheap.

then below, which I accurately quoted, you say "THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE USED", which means this or that death, you believe should be enforced, which indicates quite strongly that your value of life is CONDITIONAL; it's difficult not to draw the inference that life is cheap, if one uses a more-or-less critical faculty, as in an actual argument.

modifiers such as the omitted 'rarely' do not interest me, in the context of Katia's assertion that 120 people recently were found innocent on death row.

Should I make an argument that your post is 'inflammatory', because you disagree? That's your second context.

Posted on: July 23, 2007, 07:42:17 AM

Sarah Louise, your take is arguably more compassionate than some who support the Death Penalty; this doesn't exclude you from that group. Any one reading this thread can read your words and take what they want from it. I took what I needed from it to support my argument, which is the kind of thing what happens <in an argument>.

[Sarah Louise]

I don't mind when people disagree with me, people disagree everyday.  What I was against what quoting without the entire sentence and changing the context and meaning of what I felt I had said.

Whether it is the death penalty or something else there will always be differing opinions, and each is just the persons or groups opinion.

Since I am not here to fight, I will leave my statement as written and refrain from posting in this discussion.


Sarah L.

[Fer]

A killer that kills without mercy deserves to be punished with death.  No question about it.

[Nero]

(Nero listened through the door and now runs before he unleashes a tirade that will crush entire forum)

[Laurry]

I agree with the following statements:

- Those who are executed will never kill again.
- The death penalty is not a deterrent in preventing more murders.
- In our society today, life is cheap.

Had more, but thought I would comment on these.

Those who are executed will never kill again
Not only do dead men tell no tales (except on CSI Miami) but they also cannot harm anyone.  This presupposes that the person executed did, in fact, actually kill someone to start with...with our judicial system, this may be pushing it.  I still remember several years ago when the two Menendez sons killed their parents and the jury member wanted to go easy on them "because they were orphans".

The death penalty is not a deterent in preventing more murders
As stated earlier, most murders are not planned.  Those who do plan to murder someone probably would not be stopped by the chance that IF they are caught, they MAY get put to death (sometime a long ways down the road).

In our society today, life is cheap
Let's see, we have music that glorifies "busting a cap in that MF", we have thousands of homeless that most don't care about, and we abort thousands of pregnancies "just because".  Oh, but why do I keep seeing the same folks protesting the death penalty but advocating Pro-choice?  Wouldn't the consistent position to be protest both, or neither?

Personally, I would like for sentencing to work like we all thought it did when we were kids.  You got sentenced to 10 years, that meant 10 years (or maybe 9 with good behavior), not 3 years like it means now...and Life in prison was until you died, not just 20 years or so.  Prisoners farmed the land and raised livestock to provide their food, so the cost of keeping an inmate was reduced, but we all decided that was cruel and unusual punishment, so we gave them cable-TV and air conditioning.

Don't get me wrong.  Prison is a bad place (unless you like being raped, beaten or killed) and I have no desire to go.  Still, I wonder if we have made it too humane and Prison itself is no longer a deterrent for "lesser" crimes.

These are my opinions.  They are no more "right" than the ones you may hold, but they are no more "wrong" either...simply mine at this moment.  I reserve the right to keep them or change them without notice or explanation.

.....Laurry

[Fer]

When these controversial subjects are presented, there will be some who will try to make their opinion a personal issue.  I have my views, youve got yours, dont try to make me change my viewpoints because it will not work.  It is really not that complicated at all.  Attacking people who give an opposite viewpoint from yours & twisting their words is infantile.

[Laura Elizabeth Jones]

I used to support the death penalty, I do not support it anymore. There, I said what I had to say and I am not going to rant and argue. There is enough of that stuff on the net anyways.

[LostInTime]

Please stick with debating the issue at hand. I would much rather see people listing pros and cons rather than trying to tear into each other over an issue.

Otherwise the topic will be locked.


Posted on: July 24, 2007, 11:07:14


Thought I would come back and offer up a topic of conversation.

Studies have shown that the death penalty does deter killers and has had an impact on murders within the United States. A 2003 study (revisited in 06) done by Naci Mocan (who does not support the death penalty) showed that each person who is executed decreases murder in the population by 5. Other studies have come in with other figures, as high as 18.

Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say

The Impact of Incentives on Human Behavior: Can We Make it Disappear? The Case of the Death Penalty

[The Middle Way]

... i don't believe that the death penalty can bring about peace but it does bring about justice, i feel that it is entirely justified...if there were a mad animal biting people, i would have no compunction about shooting it....not to punish it...not to deter other animals (both are ridiculous) but to ensure that he didn't bite more people.  my philosophy is that mass or serial killers have reduced themselves to the level of a rabid dog, and society must take whatever steps are necessary to protect itself.

Which isn't, in and of itself, unreasonable. Take them out and summarily shoot them, is a more humane solution and more honorable way to do it, is my take on that...

If this is the Wild Wild West.

Ok - I have a belief system that is the basis for my point of view and my entire argument, and since that subtext is not getting picked up necessarily, I guess I hafta spell it out: It's bad karma to kill. period. What goes around comes around, again and again, you are putting out bad intention in spades with the whole thought, and such intention feeds all the bad juju what we got here. Golden Rule stuff. When there is a person who tells me that a loved one has been murdered, I will excuse that emotionally-held opinion on this, practically entirely. I understand that.

In the abstract, I have to wonder why a compassionate person jumps the gun and draws the conclusion, Death Penalty, YES.

And I am not so very interested in speculation based on facts and figures, which I don't necessarily trust in the first place. The death penalty extends suffering, and does so for a substantial period of time, according to my belief, indefinitely. You buy into killing, at any level, for any justification, you align yourself with killers. I don't think this requires a lot of parsing-out.

[Nero]

Otherwise the topic will be locked.

LOL Please LIT, don't allow any of us to inhibit you!

(Nero listened through the door and now runs before he unleashes a tirade that will crush entire forum)

Can Nero, probably bulging to bust by now, undo what you do?

Nope. LIT's my boss.

[The Middle Way]

 Whenever there is suffering there are deep roots for it. Might be that there is a cycle of behavior, of abuse, of a lot of very ugly things that makes a person decide to go for killing another human being as if going for the gusto. By drawing the conclusion that it's a good idea to continue these cycles, and enforcing that idea, in my view is actually worse than doing nothing at all, in the long run.

Round and round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.

ON DETERRENT:
Talking about incentives as all stick and no carrot sure feels like it ignores psychology, not to mention the  whole range of ethical questions it might indicate.

NONE

[Jeannette]

You don't feel sorry for the people that were brutally murdered? They don't sentence people to death who "accidentally" kill people. Those that are sentenced thought about it, and in many cases took great pleasure in killing their victims. For some, death for the guilty is the only way to gain closure for the murder of their loved one.  Those that kill take no regard for their victims lives, why should they get any pity?
We don't have death penalty in France but I strongly support it.