NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I'd like to see what NS-ers make of the Death Penalty


I personally can't support it

*In a forward-thinking and moving world, it seems so awkward to be kept with such a punishment which many seem to deem as 'revenge'

*Multiple life sentences would suffice, IMO, as the highest punishment attainable

*With all the problems of the world today, I do not wish to see anybody else die, no matter how guilty they are

I'm for....I've always said, nothin' wrong with a little revenge.

And besides, no matter what happens, they won't be repeat offenders. :twisted:

I'm for....I've always said, nothin' wrong with a little revenge.

And besides, no matter what happens, they won't be repeat offenders. :twisted:
A popular bumper sticker says, "We kill people to show people that killing people is wrong."

A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty.

It would appear that if you want to reduce murder rates in States with the death penalty, all you have to do is simply repeal the death penalty.

Average of murder rates among death penalty states in 2002: 5.2

Average of murder rates among non-death penalty states in 2002: 2.8

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT

This is a no brainer!!

Its tougher than that, Canuck. A good number (perhaps the majority) of states which have the death penalty don't haven't executed people in years, even decades. Moreover, those states which have abolished the death penalty tend to be richer in general which would mean less murder rates as well.

This is one of those issues where reasonable people can have honest disagreements and both sides have equally valid arguments depending on how you look at it.

Personally, I oppose the death penalty because there's always the chance you'll end up executing the wrong person. If I were on a jury, I wouldn't be able to vote for the death penalty no matter how heinous the crime for precisely that reason, but that's me, and I don't condemn others for feeling oppositely.

So some of you think that some of those sickos that savagely murdered, raped, and tortured innocents should be spared with a life sentence? That makes no sense. A lot of the killers are bums that actually live a better life in a prison cell than they did before, so that be more like a prize than a punishment. Now, if you killed someone defending yourself against an armed attacker, its understandable, but killing out of cold blood isn't. Life for a life is the way for coldblooded killers. The death sentence isn't to show an example, it is pay for the lost life, to get rid of any chance of the killer killing again.

So some of you think that some of those sickos that savagely murdered, raped, and tortured innocents should be spared with a life sentence? That makes no sense. A lot of the killers are bums that actually live a better life in a prison cell than they did before, so that be more like a prize than a punishment. Now, if you killed someone defending yourself against an armed attacker, its understandable, but killing out of cold blood isn't. Life for a life is the way for coldblooded killers. The death sentence isn't to show an example, it is pay for the lost life, to get rid of any chance of the killer killing again.Notice I mentioned reasonable people in my post above--reasonable.

Just thought I'd point that out.

That was reasonable. Some deserve death, others don't. Thats what it basically said. Do you deny that some should die and others shouldn't?

That was reasonable. Some deserve death, others don't. Thats what it basically said. Do you deny that some should die and others shouldn't?The question should be: who chooses? Who makes the call that one human should live and another should die? And if death is deemed an appropriate response to some crime--and I understand why it would be considered such--then what recompense can you make if it turns out you judged the person you have executed incorrectly? The potential for convicting and executing an innocent is too high currently to satisfy my conscience.

And while the basis of your statement might have been reasonable, your tone certainly wasn't.

Its tougher than that, Canuck. A good number (perhaps the majority) of states which have the death penalty don't haven't executed people in years, even decades. Moreover, those states which have abolished the death penalty tend to be richer in general which would mean less murder rates as well.
The figures speak for themselves, whether there has been executions or not.

The other large bonus for eliminating the death penalty is that you don't end up executing an innocent person.

Heh, I know. I hate killers, my great grandda was murdered after he told a robber to go to hell when the robber pointed a gun at him. The bastard got off after a few years in jail.

If someone made the mistake of putting the wrong person on death, then it was a foolish decision. People who are convicted and are really innocent, those trials are very vague, with poor evidence, something life should not depend on. Death should be decided only if they are sure as hell they did it, and only then.

The Death Penalty should only be an option in highly publicized cases.

Heh, I know. I hate killers, my great grandda was murdered after he told a robber to go to hell when the robber pointed a gun at him. The bastard got off after a few years in jail.

If someone made the mistake of putting the wrong person on death, then it was a foolish decision. People who are convicted and are really innocent, those trials are very vague, with poor evidence, something life should not depend on. Death should be decided only if they are sure as hell they did it, and only then.See--that makes more sense, but the problem is that there are too many places in the US where if you're poor (race has little to do with it), you can't afford an attorney experienced enough to build an effective defense. The end result is that there have been a number of cases in recent years that have been overturned or that have resulted in commuted sentences simply because the defense attorney provided by the state was incompetent. And were I on a jury--or worse, before a jury--I'd hate to think that my life might be determined by whether or not I had the money to hire the right attorney.

The Death Penalty should only be an option in highly publicized cases.
The death penalty should never be an option in a modern civilized country, especially the US.

http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/jan00/dppotter.html

The death penalty has no deterrent value to society. No evidence supporting either a general deterrent or a specific deterrent impact exists and no evidence supporting an incapacitation impact exists.

The death penalty performs no crime control function whatsoever.

The death penalty, in fact, not only does not deter homicide and other crimes, but through a brutalization effect actually increases both homicide and violent crime markedly, seriously increasing the danger to society in states where it is used with any degree of frequency whatsoever.

The death penalty, even as constructed in post-Furman statutes, is arbitrary, discriminatory and capricious in its application.

The death penalty, in every jurisdiction, discriminates on the basis of race of offender, race of victim, gender, age, and socio-economic status.

The death penalty, as currently structured and administered, results in jury confusion and misinterpretation of the law at every stage of the process. This confusion seriously prejudices the defendant and results in both reversals on appeal and in a large number of wrongful convictions.

The death penalty, as currently structured and administered, results in the wrongful conviction and execution of the innocent at a level totally unacceptable in any civilized society.

The death penalty is enormously costly, strains the budgets of both state and local governments and diverts funds from more effective crime control strategies and victim assistance programs. This is true in all jurisdictions regardless of state statute. The cost of executions exceeds the cost of life imprisonment by a factor of better than two to one in every jurisdiction studied. And this enormous cost is borne by the taxpayers for a crime control policy that only makes violent crime worse.

Heh, I know. I hate killers, my great grandda was murdered after he told a robber to go to hell when the robber pointed a gun at him. The bastard got off after a few years in jail.
Why did he get off?

He was charged with manslaughter...

Its tougher than that, Canuck. A good number (perhaps the majority) of states which have the death penalty don't haven't executed people in years, even decades. Moreover, those states which have abolished the death penalty tend to be richer in general which would mean less murder rates as well.
The figures speak for themselves, whether there has been executions or not.


No, they don't. The death penalty, if applied rarely to never, should be more solidly in the camp of having it outlawed rather than allowed.

A more proper comparison would be between Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia vs the Rest of the DP states vs Non-DP states.

He was charged with manslaughter...Sounds like something out of "Law and Order." I'm sorry to hear about your great grandpa.

He was charged with manslaughter...
Well you don't execute someone for manslaughter. Correct?

Nope, but that wasn't a correct charge. He got off with manslaughter because the defence said my great grandda put himself in the situation by showing his money. He was killed just outside a bank, the killer followed him out. How is that putting yourself in the situation? That was pure cold blood, and the bastard's lucky my grandda doesn't get his hands on him, that son of a bitch would have prayed for a death penalty.

He was charged with manslaughter...

The it wouldn't matter whether or not the death penalty was around, manslaughter isn't a capital offense.

Nope, but that wasn't a correct charge. He got off with manslaughter because the defence said my great grandda put himself in the situation by showing his money. He was killed just outside a bank, the killer followed him out. How is that putting yourself in the situation? That was pure cold blood, and the bastard's lucky my grandda doesn't get his hands on him, that son of a bitch would have prayed for a death penalty.
Well the topic is Death Penalty. The fact here is that the State did not charge the individual with murder. So it is a failure in process rather than whether there was a death penalty or not.

Yes, your right, walking up behind and 72 year old man and blowing his brains across the sidewalk because he had some cash he wanted keep isn't anything to be to upset over. In fact, lets just let all murderers off with manslaughter and see what good that does!

Sounds to me like the problem was with the system--that the DA felt it would have problems sustaining a charge of murder. Was he convicted at trial or was he pled down to manslaughter?

The Brutalization Effect of the Death Penalty

Neither incapacitation nor deterrence theories are supported by the scientific research on capital punishment. In most public policy debates the burden of proof is on those advocating a measure to demonstrate its effectiveness. If that were the case in the death penalty debate adherents would fail miserably. But the fact is that the death penalty not only doesn’t deter murder, it encourages people to kill.

Studies of capital punishment have consistently shown that homicide actually increases in the time period surrounding an execution. Social scientists refer to this as the "brutalization effect." Execution stimulates homicides in three ways: (1) executions desensitize the public to the immorality of killing, increasing the probability that some people will be motivated to kill; (2) the state legitimizes the notion that vengeance for past misdeeds is acceptable; and (3) executions also have an imitation effect, where people actually follow the example set by the state, after all, people feel if the government can kill its enemies, so can they (Bowers and Pierce, 1980; King, 1978, Forst. 1983).

Let me clear here. The scientific evidence on the brutalization effect is compelling. We are not talking about one or two speculative studies. We are talking about a body of research that has found over and over again, in state after state, that the use of the death penalty increases, and often sharply increases, the number of homicides.

Trial. I'm not sure how the whole thing worked exactly, but here is what I know.

The guy killed the oldest living man in my family. The trial went on for weeks. The defence said my great grandda put himself in the situation, which led to the original sentence being changed. The man pled guilty as soon as manslaughter was offered for it. He gets off on manslaughter after the lying bastards called lawyers said my grandda was at fault for going to a bank for money and the guy admits his guilt. Gets off on easy street, he moved someplace thousands of miles away now.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."- Friedrich Nietzsche

This quote pretty much explains why I'm against death penalty.

I totally agree with capital punishment. I think it serves as a detetrent to and prevents many crimes. I think the crime rate in many countries would be way higher if there was no capital punishment.

Trial. I'm not sure how the whole thing worked exactly, but here is what I know.

The guy killed the oldest living man in my family. The trial went on for weeks. The defence said my great grandda put himself in the situation, which led to the original sentence being changed. The man pled guilty as soon as manslaughter was offered for it. He gets off on manslaughter after the lying bastards called lawyers said my grandda was at fault for going to a bank for money and the guy admits his guilt. Gets off on easy street, he moved someplace thousands of miles away now.Sounds like the prosecution was having some problems proving intent, which is required for murder in most jurisdictions, and they decided it was better to put the guy in jail for a while rather than let him walk completely. It sucks.

I totally agree with capital punishment. I think it serves as a detetrent to and prevents many crimes. I think the crime rate in many countries would be way higher if there was no capital punishment.
If you scroll up, you will see links to web sites that say exactly opposite about deterrence.

Homicide Rates Fall in Canada After Abolition of Death Penalty

The abolition of the death penalty in Canada in 1976 has not led to increased homicide rates. Statistics Canada reports that the number of homicides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished. In addition, homicide rates in Canada are generally three times lower than homicide rates in the U.S., which uses the death penalty. For example, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 population and the rate in Canada was only 1.8.

Although I do not condone the untimely death of any living being, I must also admit that society should come to terms with the fact that there are individuals out there that are purely a detriment to the human race. If these individuals are accused of commiting a crime that warrants capital punishment, there should be more extensive investigations to collect and test forensic evidence so the results are incontrovertable. Appeals should only be considered on the solid basis of contradicting forensic evidence and not to prolong the length of time until execution.

In the long run, it should save on the costs of keeping them in jail for "consecutive life terms". This in turn saves our tax payers money, or the money may be used towards other social issues.

(Hey, wouldn't this be a form of population control also? There are people out there who complain of the population growing too fast..... Well, let's get rid of the bad ones! If there weren't so many people in this world, maybe these criminals could have received the individualized attention they needed in the first place & they wouldn't have committed these crimes!)

Statistics are not dependable. I can promise you that the homicide rate in the US would be much higher had there not been a death penalty here. To contradict the statistics in Canada, you could just check the statistics in Saudi Arabia you will see that the crime rates are really low and I bet its due to their death penalty for murder, rate, armed robbery...etc. It also serves as a good punishment for people who commit these heinous crimes.

Although I do not condone the untimely death of any living being, I must also admit that society should come to terms with the fact that there are individuals out there that are purely a detriment to the human race. If these individuals are accused of commiting a crime that warrants capital punishment, there should be more extensive investigations to collect and test forensic evidence so the results are incontrovertable. Appeals should only be considered on the solid basis of contradicting forensic evidence and not to prolong the length of time until execution.
The Cost of the Death Penalty

One of the least obvious, but most important problems with the death penalty is it’s enormous cost. Research on cost has consistently shown that pursuing a capital case is at least twice as costly as housing a convicted murderer for life in a high security correctional institution. Cost studies in North Carolina, Kansas, Texas, Kentucky, Nebraska and New York all show varying costs but similar ratios with regard to expense of death as a sentencing option:

In New York each death penalty trial costs $1.4 million compared with $602,000 for life imprisonment. The cost of imposing the death penalty in New York State has been estimated to be $3 million for each case (NY Daily News, July, 28, 1998).

In Florida the cost of each execution was estimated to be $3.2 million, about 6 times the amount needed to incarcerate a convicted murderer for life. From 1973 to 1988 Florida spent $57 million on the death penalty (Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).

In Kentucky the cost of a capital trial varied between $2 and $5 million dollars (Blakley, A.F. 1990. Cost of Killing Criminals. Northern Kentucky Law Review 18, 1: 61-79).

The most comprehensive study of the costs of the death penalty found that the state of North Carolina spends $2.16 million more per execution than for a non-capital murder trial resulting in imprisonment for life (Duke University, May 1993; Carter, M. 1995. Cost of the Death Penalty: An Introduction to the Issue. Nebraska Legislature, Legislative Research Division; Cook, P.J. and D.B. Slawson. 1993. Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.).

In California the death penalty adds $90 million annually to the costs of the criminal justice system. $78 million of that cost is incurred at the trial level (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).

The Judiciary Committee of the Nebraska legislature reported that any savings from executions are outweighed by the legal costs of a death penalty case. The report concluded that death penalty does not serve the best interests of Nebraskans (Nebraska Press & Dakotan, January 27, 1998; Carter, M. 1995. Cost of the Death Penalty: An Introduction to the Issue. Nebraska Legislature, Legislative Research Division.).

In Texas the cost of capital punishment is estimated to be $2.3 million per death sentence, three times the cost of imprisoning someone at the highest possible security level, in a single prisoner cell for 40 years (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992; Dieter, R.C. 1994. Future of the Death Penalty in the U.S.: A Texas-Sized Crisis. Death Penalty Information Center. Washington, D.C.).

(Hey, wouldn't this be a form of population control also? There are people out there who complain of the population growing too fast..... Well, let's get rid of the bad ones!
Are you volunteering???

If there weren't so many people in this world, maybe these criminals could have received the individualized attention they needed in the first place & they wouldn't have committed these crimes!)
Heck of a way to get attention?

No matter how it is performed, the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment and has no place in civilized society.

Statistics are not dependable. I can promise you that the homicide rate in the US would be much higher had there not been a death penalty here. To contradict the statistics in Canada, you could just check the statistics in Saudi Arabia you will see that the crime rates are really low and I bet its due to their death penalty for murder, rate, armed robbery...etc. It also serves as a good punishment for people who commit these heinous crimes.
At her weekly Justice Department news briefing, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said that she has yet to find any evidence that the death penalty deters crime. "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point," said Reno. (Reuters, 1/21/00)

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the South repeatedly has the highest murder rate. In 1999, it was the only region with a murder rate above the national rate. The South accounts for 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest murder rate.

The experts can't find what you are promising to be true. All figures show that.

Also, the US is in fine company with the death penalty:

Amnesty International publishes an annual report on official judicial execution. In 2001 there were 3,048 reported cases in 31 countries. 90% of the deaths occurred in four countries. The People's Republic of China carried out 2,468 executions. Iran killed 139 people, Saudi Arabia 79 and the United States 66. In 2000 there had been 1,457 executions. The PRC has executed 20,000 between 1990 and 2001 with 1,781 people executed between April and July 2001 in a "Strike Hard" crime crackdown.

This topic is a can of worms.

I am for the death penalty when the justice system is just.

In America’s current legal system I cannot advocate the death penalty.

America changed the purpose of the courts from adjudicating public law to adjudicating public policy in 1937.
In the early 50s it changed the laws of the rules of evidence contrary to the due process as previously interpreted to expedite the conviction of those who were thought guilty.
The grand jury went from being an independent public organization to being subordinate to the prosecutor's office.
Most states the aba successfully lobbied to rid the states of justices of the peace, to create a system of judges further detached from the community.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the purpose of police is not to be peace officers, nor to protect persons' rights or property, put to protect the group rights in general [whatever that means (if there be any such thing as group rights, I know not any--Thomas Jefferson)] and to raise revenue for the state.
Juries are no longer selected from those of the community who are most cognizant of the facts, nor are they taken from one's peers.
Petite jury foremen are no longer allowed to be trained by the grand jury regarding the responsibities in recognizing inconsistencies in legal procedure, and evidence to ascertain if the defendant is being railroaded.
Jurors are not taught that they must vote their conscience and try both the law and the facts of the case. (That is why very few people charged with helping slaves escape were ever convicted. The jurors refused to convict because the statutes were unjust.)
They no longer teach in civics classes one's responsibilities on how to conduct arrests, the meaning of the Spencer Act, the Posse Commitatus, or how to arrest and detain an unruly or felonous peace officer, nor how to properly use firearms for the protection of ones life.
The so-called patriot act, and anti-terrorism bills among which have abridged 4th, 8th amendments and so many due process protections from unjust and unscrupulous accusation as to warrant serious consideration as to whether we can even trust the government with a death penalty.

i support the death penalty in theory, but i don't believe our current justice system is appropriate for dispensing it. of course, i don't care at all about the deterrence factor, either...i could care less if the death penalty scares other would-be criminals straight, i only care about correctly disposing of the criminal in question.

No matter how it is performed, the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment and has no place in civilized society.
Hear, Hear!!

Only seven countries practice the death penalty for juveniles, that is criminals aged under 18 at the time of their crime. Nearly all actual executions for juvenile crime take place in the USA, although, due to the slow process of appeals, no one under age 19 has been executed recently.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which forbids capital punishment for juveniles, has been signed by all countries except the USA and Somalia

Statistics are not dependable. I can promise you that the homicide rate in the US would be much higher had there not been a death penalty here. To contradict the statistics in Canada, you could just check the statistics in Saudi Arabia you will see that the crime rates are really low and I bet its due to their death penalty for murder, rate, armed robbery...etc. It also serves as a good punishment for people who commit these heinous crimes.


Maybe it is because religion is held in higher regard than in even the US? And just how are facts not dependable, and opinions are?

Correct me if I'm wrong...but don't the British execute criminals for treason?

I got that from Johnny English :oops: Still...

I'm for it if you don't have a decent rehabilitation program, against it if you do. When you can't rehabilitate criminals, it's dumb to keep throwing them back into society, then paying for the damage they do and paying to keep them alive in prison. When you can rehabilitate them though, it's wrong to kill anyone who could potentially become a productive member of society again.

Obligatory smacking-down of America: The U.S.'s penal system is especially dumb, because once you're convicted of a crime it's even harder to live as a legitimate citizen.

Death penalty for
Premeditated murder in cold blood.
Aggravated kidnapping aparentis.
Forcible Rape,.
Treason,
Piracy, Brigandry, and Outlawry that engages in above activities
Being a coconspirator in any of the above,
Politicians who lie.
Lawyers who lie. Lawyers who say they don’t lie—they’re lying. :)

Serious offenders should get executed straight away.

Petty offenders should get executed the third time they commit a crime.

Who's rights are more important? The criminal's rights? Or the rights of his/her potential victims?

Forcible Rape

Like GY said, rape isn't that bad.

I am for the death penalty in cases of murder, paedophilia and terrorism (such as the Loyalist campaigns in Northern Ireland).

These type of crimes, IMO, exact this type of punishment.

I'm for it if you don't have a decent rehabilitation program, against it if you do. When you can't rehabilitate criminals, it's dumb to keep throwing them back into society, then paying for the damage they do and paying to keep them alive in prison. When you can rehabilitate them though, it's wrong to kill anyone who could potentially become a productive member of society again.

Obligatory smacking-down of America: The U.S.'s penal system is especially dumb, because once you're convicted of a crime it's even harder to live as a legitimate citizen.

Correct. It is cheaper to just kill them than to keep them in jail.

Correct. It is cheaper to just kill them than to keep them in jail.

That should not be a reason in order to justify the use of the death penalty. Money should not come into it when making these type of decisions - it's somebody's life we are talking about here!

A popular bumper sticker says, "We kill people to show people that killing people is wrong."


Indeed. You've got to have moral consistency. If a state claims killing people (with the exception of extreme cases of self-defence) is wrong, then it must accept that such a moral rule applies to the state itself.

I'd also say that I think the death penalty creates a society based on violent retribution, as the state allows this. I think creating the violent climate, and a climate not based on rehabilitation, is dangerous indeed.

I'm glad my RL nation, the UK, has outlawed the death penalty (totally, now. It used to be in place for treason, breaking the official secrets act and piracy on the High Seas). I think its a real shame that America continues to allow it in some states.

That should not be a reason in order to justify the use of the death penalty. Money should not come into it when making these type of decisions - it's somebody's life we are talking about here!

What alternative would you suggest? Just chuck em in jail so that they come out even worse? Do you just expect them to get jobs and behave themselves when they come out? Nope. Those sorts of people have nothing to lose anyway, and so will simply go back to commiting crimes.

People who do crime have usually given up on life, right?

I am for the death penalty in cases of murder, paedophilia and terrorism (such as the Loyalist campaigns in Northern Ireland).

These type of crimes, IMO, exact this type of punishment.


What about Republican campaigns in Britain and Northern Ireland? Or is that 'freedom fighting'? :roll:

And paedophilia? I wouldn't say so. Thats a sickness that needs treatment.

What alternative would you suggest? Just chuck em in jail so that they come out even worse? Do you just expect them to get jobs and behave themselves when they come out? Nope. Those sorts of people have nothing to lose anyway, and so will simply go back to commiting crimes.

People who do crime have usually given up on life, right?

I'm not disputing that.

If you actually looked at my post above yours I said that I was for the death penalty. However, we should not have it just to save money, or even have that as a reason to bring back the death penalty.

What about Republican campaigns in Britain and Northern Ireland? Or is that 'freedom fighting'? :roll:[/quote[

Well, nobody ever mentions them - it's always the Catholics when it comes to talking about terrorism in Northern Ireland. And yes, to an extent I do see it as freedom fighting.

[quote]And paedophilia? I wouldn't say so. Thats a sickness that needs treatment.

No. It needs the death penalty, that's what it needs.

Correct. It is cheaper to just kill them than to keep them in jail.

That should not be a reason in order to justify the use of the death penalty. Money should not come into it when making these type of decisions - it's somebody's life we are talking about here!Not to mention that it's incorrect. It's actually cheaper to keep them in jail than it is to execute them once you figure in all the extra appeals that the state is generally on the hook for.

How many states have the death penilty, and how many actually use it? I know that loads of countries have it, but only about 4-5 regularly use it. New Zealand officially had it for high treason up until 1998, but the last person to be executed was in the 50s when it was around for other things.

That should not be a reason in order to justify the use of the death penalty. Money should not come into it when making these type of decisions - it's somebody's life we are talking about here!

What alternative would you suggest? Just chuck em in jail so that they come out even worse? Do you just expect them to get jobs and behave themselves when they come out? Nope. Those sorts of people have nothing to lose anyway, and so will simply go back to commiting crimes.

People who do crime have usually given up on life, right?
I think a lot of people are missing one of the main points here in this thread, if they have done any reading that is. The point is that if you live in a State that does not have the Death Penalty, then YOU are less likely to be murdered. The same applies in Canada, which has NO Death Penalty (Statistics Canada reports that the number of homicides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished.)

NO Death Penalty = Less Murders

AND the added bonus is that NO innocent person is ever executed!!

That should not be a reason in order to justify the use of the death penalty. Money should not come into it when making these type of decisions - it's somebody's life we are talking about here!

What alternative would you suggest? Just chuck em in jail so that they come out even worse? Do you just expect them to get jobs and behave themselves when they come out? Nope. Those sorts of people have nothing to lose anyway, and so will simply go back to commiting crimes.

People who do crime have usually given up on life, right?
I think a lot of people are missing one of the main points here in this thread, if they have done any reading that is. The point is that if you live in a State that does not have the Death Penalty, then YOU are less likely to be murdered. The same applies in Canada, which has NO Death Penalty (Statistics Canada reports that the number of homicides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished.)

NO Death Penalty = Less Murders

AND the added bonus is that NO innocent person is ever executed!!

Don't you think that the drop in murders over 25 years might have to do with numerous factors and not simply the abolishment of the death penalty? I mean, if in 1975 you had 721 murders, and then in 1976 you had 554 murders, that you could certainly chalk up to the death penalty, but to show how murders have dropped by 170 over 25 years and claim that it has to do solely with the abolishment of the death penalty is kind of ludicrous.

Correct. It is cheaper to just kill them than to keep them in jail.

That should not be a reason in order to justify the use of the death penalty. Money should not come into it when making these type of decisions - it's somebody's life we are talking about here!Not to mention that it's incorrect. It's actually cheaper to keep them in jail than it is to execute them once you figure in all the extra appeals that the state is generally on the hook for.

There's a simple response that...2 appeals..one immediately after sentencing, the other the US Suprme Court...after that...should take no more then a couple of years.

There's a simple response that...2 appeals..one immediately after sentencing, the other the US Suprme Court...after that...should take no more then a couple of years.So what happens to those people who in recent years have been exonerated--not just raised doubt enough to get the death penalty commuted, but exonerated--after even ten years in jail? What happens if we execute them and it comes out later that they were innocent? That they got screwed because their lawyer tied one on during the trial? That they were convicted because the prosecutor needed a win to keep his job? That he's going to die because the cop didn't like him that day and he had no way to fight back? It does happen, and far more often than any of us--even those of us who oppose the death penalty--like to admit. Are two appeals really enough if the system is rigged against you once you're convicted?

That's the ultimate problem for me--I don't trust cops or prosecutors because I don't trust the mindset that gets happy over the idea that he or she can make a living telling others what's right and wrong. And so I don't find it hard to believe that a cop might fake some evidence to get a guy he thinks is guilty or that a prosecutor might "forget" to give some evidence to defense counsel because it might screw his case up. I'm not saying I wouldn't convict if I were on a jury--just saying I wouldn't be able to sentence a man to death because of that doubt, that "what if" that sits at the back of my mind like a heckler.

There's a simple response that...2 appeals..one immediately after sentencing, the other the US Suprme Court...after that...should take no more then a couple of years.So what happens to those people who in recent years have been exonerated--not just raised doubt enough to get the death penalty commuted, but exonerated--after even ten years in jail? What happens if we execute them and it comes out later that they were innocent? That they got screwed because their lawyer tied one on during the trial? That they were convicted because the prosecutor needed a win to keep his job? That he's going to die because the cop didn't like him that day and he had no way to fight back? It does happen, and far more often than any of us--even those of us who oppose the death penalty--like to admit. Are two appeals really enough if the system is rigged against you once you're convicted?

That's the ultimate problem for me--I don't trust cops or prosecutors because I don't trust the mindset that gets happy over the idea that he or she can make a living telling others what's right and wrong. And so I don't find it hard to believe that a cop might fake some evidence to get a guy he thinks is guilty or that a prosecutor might "forget" to give some evidence to defense counsel because it might screw his case up. I'm not saying I wouldn't convict if I were on a jury--just saying I wouldn't be able to sentence a man to death because of that doubt, that "what if" that sits at the back of my mind like a heckler.

I might have your mindset if I'd never known victims of violent crime but I have...I am more convinced now then ever that a man must pay for his sins in this life...it may be a barbaric way of thinking..but my thinking has done a turn around in the past 20 yrs....certainly once I was elected to the tribal council and I delved into our past and cultural mores..I became convinced that the reason why the Death Penalty is needed is because the victim deserves the chance to meet his/her killer in the afterlife.

There is your problem..I do trust the cops and the prosecutors..you also seem to to think that the only men on Death Row are the guys next door who've never had so much as a traffic ticket. I don't think I could find on Death Row of most states a man only convicted of the one murder he/she was convicted of..most on there are repeat violent offenders, it's just that we got lucky to convict them of the one murder or event we were able to catch them at.

That should not be a reason in order to justify the use of the death penalty. Money should not come into it when making these type of decisions - it's somebody's life we are talking about here!

What alternative would you suggest? Just chuck em in jail so that they come out even worse? Do you just expect them to get jobs and behave themselves when they come out? Nope. Those sorts of people have nothing to lose anyway, and so will simply go back to commiting crimes.

People who do crime have usually given up on life, right?
I think a lot of people are missing one of the main points here in this thread, if they have done any reading that is. The point is that if you live in a State that does not have the Death Penalty, then YOU are less likely to be murdered. The same applies in Canada, which has NO Death Penalty (Statistics Canada reports that the number of homicides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished.)

NO Death Penalty = Less Murders

AND the added bonus is that NO innocent person is ever executed!!

Don't you think that the drop in murders over 25 years might have to do with numerous factors and not simply the abolishment of the death penalty? I mean, if in 1975 you had 721 murders, and then in 1976 you had 554 murders, that you could certainly chalk up to the death penalty, but to show how murders have dropped by 170 over 25 years and claim that it has to do solely with the abolishment of the death penalty is kind of ludicrous.

There is a negative correlation between the presence of the death penalty and the number of murders.

That is to say, there are less murders when the death penalty is not present. Only experimentation can show a cause and effect relationship, but correlation gives you a very good place to investigate.

And that's the other way round... if there are 721 murders in 1975, the death penalty gets abolished, then there are 554 murders in 1976, that's almost meaningless. Long term trends are needed to show the correlation. So, if there is a constant trend of a certain number of murders +2% each year up until 1975, and in 1976-2004 this shows a significant change to the downward, that can be chalked up as the correlation between the death penalty and the number of murders.

That should not be a reason in order to justify the use of the death penalty. Money should not come into it when making these type of decisions - it's somebody's life we are talking about here!

What alternative would you suggest? Just chuck em in jail so that they come out even worse? Do you just expect them to get jobs and behave themselves when they come out? Nope. Those sorts of people have nothing to lose anyway, and so will simply go back to commiting crimes.

People who do crime have usually given up on life, right?
I think a lot of people are missing one of the main points here in this thread, if they have done any reading that is. The point is that if you live in a State that does not have the Death Penalty, then YOU are less likely to be murdered. The same applies in Canada, which has NO Death Penalty (Statistics Canada reports that the number of homicides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished.)

NO Death Penalty = Less Murders

AND the added bonus is that NO innocent person is ever executed!!

Don't you think that the drop in murders over 25 years might have to do with numerous factors and not simply the abolishment of the death penalty? I mean, if in 1975 you had 721 murders, and then in 1976 you had 554 murders, that you could certainly chalk up to the death penalty, but to show how murders have dropped by 170 over 25 years and claim that it has to do solely with the abolishment of the death penalty is kind of ludicrous.
There is a wealth of information that concludes that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent to murder, and you speculate that that information is ludicrous. Perhaps you need to do more research before you condemn the facts.

So some of you think that some of those sickos that savagely ed, d, and d s should be spared with a life sentence? That makes no sense. A lot of the killers are bums that actually live a better life in a prison cell than they did before, so that be more like a prize than a punishment. Now, if you killed someone defending yourself against an armed attacker, its understandable, but out of cold isn't. Life for a life is the way for coldblooded killers. The sentence isn't to show an example, it is pay for the lost life, to get rid of any chance of the killer again.

Even though I sort of agree with you, I personally believe along with many others that even though life sentence obviously means the killer will be living, don't u think that living with the guilt of an person or persons is far worse than dying? I mean some of those killers are pyscho and want to die and thats common today. People kill, and then kill themselves. It's a growing trend among ers. And I kno someones going to argue against me and say "Oh well those ers don't care about the people they kill, they're cold hearted" well..that obviously means that they don't care about dying also so what good is the penalty..and someone mentioned sentencing the wrong person which is common too. Its very sad when u hear or read a news headline like "Innocent man sent to row." Isn't it? penalty is just a crime desguised with a title such as "The right thing to do". someone for a person is basically the same but the penalty is LEGAL in some states. In other words, the er is put into Jail and most likely will stay there...they're off the streets, the only difference penalty makes is the er is wiped off the earth. There will ALWAYS be and the people who commit the crimes obviously don't care that there's a penalty.

So some of you think that some of those sickos that savagely ed, d, and d s should be spared with a life sentence? That makes no sense. A lot of the killers are bums that actually live a better life in a prison cell than they did before, so that be more like a prize than a punishment. Now, if you killed someone defending yourself against an armed attacker, its understandable, but out of cold isn't. Life for a life is the way for coldblooded killers. The sentence isn't to show an example, it is pay for the lost life, to get rid of any chance of the killer again.

Even though I sort of agree with you, I personally believe along with many others that even though life sentence obviously means the killer will be living, don't u think that living with the guilt of an person or persons is far worse than dying? I mean some of those killers are pyscho and want to die and thats common today. People kill, and then kill themselves. It's a growing trend among ers. And I kno someones going to argue against me and say "Oh well those ers don't care about the people they kill, they're cold hearted" well..that obviously means that they don't care about dying also so what good is the penalty..and someone mentioned sentencing the wrong person which is common too. Its very sad when u hear or read a news headline like "Innocent man sent to row." Isn't it? penalty is just a crime desguised with a title such as "The right thing to do". someone for a person is basically the same but the penalty is LEGAL in some states. In other words, the er is put into Jail and most likely will stay there...they're off the streets, the only difference penalty makes is the er is wiped off the earth. There will ALWAYS be and the people who commit the crimes obviously don't care that there's a penalty.

Some of you people are mistaken in the belief that these men feel remorse over the killing, maiming, whatever they were convicted and that somehow life imprisonment will want these men to come to grips with that event..even if that is so...let's just assume for the sake of argument they are crying in their bunks every nite..and read their particular brand of religous readings...it still doesn't do anything for the one they murdered now does it?..They are living and breathing while those they killed have but the afterlife to give them comfort and for some they can not rest until justice has been done in their name.

The way I see it, a life sentecne and a death sentence are the same thing. In both sitautions, a person's life is taken by the state, to dispose of as it wishes.

I don't think the death penalty is wrong, but I do think it's stupid. If you have a death penalty, it must be applied uniformly so that it isn't exploited, and also extended to District Attornies who execute innocent people.

Some of you people are mistaken in the belief that these men feel remorse over the killing, maiming, whatever they were convicted and that somehow life imprisonment will want these men to come to grips with that event

Well I don't believe that the world works in such a black-and-white manner like that . . . IMO a life sentence is able to isolate dangerous people and keep them from harming the world anymore, and I feel like the Death Penalty seems too reminiscent of "an eye for an eye". Now if you would let me quote Gandhi on that-

"An eye for an eye will make the world blind"

The death penalty should be given for treason and murder. In my opinion you pay for a life that you have taken with your own

Why does everyone keep missing the point?

YOU are more likely to be MURDERED in a State that has the Death Penalty than if you live in a State without the Death Penalty.

Bonuses:

1. NO innocent people get executed.
2. Less cost to the State.
3. Better moral standard i.e. ALL killing is wrong.

Why does everyone keep missing the point?

YOU are more likely to be MURDERED in a State that has the Death Penalty than if you live in a State without the Death Penalty.

Bonuses:

1. NO innocent people get executed.
2. Less cost to the State.
3. Better moral standard i.e. ALL killing is wrong.

You say that, but look at countries like Great Britain, they dont have the death penalty for murder. But there are still murders

Some of you people are mistaken in the belief that these men feel remorse over the killing, maiming, whatever they were convicted and that somehow life imprisonment will want these men to come to grips with that event..even if that is so...let's just assume for the sake of argument they are crying in their bunks every nite..and read their particular brand of religous readings...it still doesn't do anything for the one they murdered now does it?..They are living and breathing while those they killed have but the afterlife to give them comfort and for some they can not rest until justice has been done in their name.
How do you know whether any of these people feel remorse? I would suggest that the majority would. Most murderers can be successfully rehabilitated.

Why on earth would you want to rehabilitate a murderer. They should be put to death for the crime they have committed.

Well I'd like to see what NS-ers make of the Death Penalty


I personally can't support it

*In a forward-thinking and moving world, it seems so awkward to be kept with such a punishment which many seem to deem as 'revenge'

*Multiple life sentences would suffice, IMO, as the highest punishment attainable

*With all the problems of the world today, I do not wish to see anybody else die, no matter how guilty they are Fine you push up the taxes it would take to just feed them.

Why does everyone keep missing the point?

YOU are more likely to be MURDERED in a State that has the Death Penalty than if you live in a State without the Death Penalty.

Bonuses:

1. NO innocent people get executed.
2. Less cost to the State.
3. Better moral standard i.e. ALL killing is wrong.

You say that, but look at countries like Great Britain, they dont have the death penalty for murder. But there are still murders
I cannot believe that you would use that as an argument.

Great Britains' murder rate is .8 per 100,000. The US murder rate is 6.3 per 100,000.

Well I'd like to see what NS-ers make of the Death Penalty


I personally can't support it

*In a forward-thinking and moving world, it seems so awkward to be kept with such a punishment which many seem to deem as 'revenge'

*Multiple life sentences would suffice, IMO, as the highest punishment attainable

*With all the problems of the world today, I do not wish to see anybody else die, no matter how guilty they are Fine you push up the taxes it would take to just feed them.
Actually it is cheaper to keep them in jail then to execute them:

http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/jan00/dppotter.html

I posted this earlier in this thread.

A lot of the killers are bums that actually live a better life in a prison cell than they did before, so that be more like a prize than a punishment.

may i ask how a socitety of this kind treats it's population?

Ah I've found the MarkFiore.com animation about Death Penalty I was looking for

Take a Look (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/execution.html)

It looks like this yet another source confirming many of the arguments for those who oppose the Death Penalty

Ah I've found the MarkFiore.com animation about Death Penalty I was looking for

Take a Look (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/execution.html)

It looks like this yet another source confirming many of the arguments for those who oppose the Death Penalty
I have seen that before. It is a very effective and totally accurate assessment.

MOST civilized countries do NOT have the Death Penalty.

Statistics are not dependable. I can promise you that the homicide rate in the US would be much higher had there not been a death penalty here. To contradict the statistics in Canada, you could just check the statistics in Saudi Arabia you will see that the crime rates are really low and I bet its due to their death penalty for murder, rate, armed robbery...etc. It also serves as a good punishment for people who commit these heinous crimes.

in scandinavia those who commits the fewest crimes of all classes are moslem immigrants, you don't think that islam may have something to do with it?

So some of you think that some of those sickos that savagely murdered, raped, and tortured innocents should be spared with a life sentence? That makes no sense. A lot of the killers are bums that actually live a better life in a prison cell than they did before, so that be more like a prize than a punishment. Now, if you killed someone defending yourself against an armed attacker, its understandable, but killing out of cold blood isn't. Life for a life is the way for coldblooded killers. The death sentence isn't to show an example, it is pay for the lost life, to get rid of any chance of the killer killing again.

so you mean that having the ability to decide wheter or not the person who killed your relative shall die is pleasurable? no offense, but in that case i think you are pretty sick...

Well I'd like to see what NS-ers make of the Death Penalty


I personally can't support it

*In a forward-thinking and moving world, it seems so awkward to be kept with such a punishment which many seem to deem as 'revenge'

*Multiple life sentences would suffice, IMO, as the highest punishment attainable

*With all the problems of the world today, I do not wish to see anybody else die, no matter how guilty they are Fine you push up the taxes it would take to just feed them.
Actually it is cheaper to keep them in jail then to execute them:

http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/jan00/dppotter.html

I posted this earlier in this thread.

Ahmm..how much do 7 .223 bullets cost the state, along with 7 Corrections Officers and mebbe an hour of overtime?

I might have your mindset if I'd never known victims of violent crime but I have...I am more convinced now then ever that a man must pay for his sins in this life...it may be a barbaric way of thinking..but my thinking has done a turn around in the past 20 yrs....certainly once I was elected to the tribal council and I delved into our past and cultural mores..I became convinced that the reason why the Death Penalty is needed is because the victim deserves the chance to meet his/her killer in the afterlife.

There is your problem..I do trust the cops and the prosecutors..you also seem to to think that the only men on Death Row are the guys next door who've never had so much as a traffic ticket. I don't think I could find on Death Row of most states a man only convicted of the one murder he/she was convicted of..most on there are repeat violent offenders, it's just that we got lucky to convict them of the one murder or event we were able to catch them at.Like I've said elsewhere on this thread, I can understand the desire for vengeance--I've felt it myself in the past. I was once as fervent a supporter of the death penalty as anyone, and I still support it in theory.

But the problem pops up in that space between "in theory" and "in practice." Admittedly, the vast majority of people on death row probably deserve to be in prison for some reason. But as long as there's the possibility, however small, that we as a society might execute an innocent in our rush to execute the guilty, then I can't support capital punishment, not while there are reasonable alternatives such as life imprisonment without parole.

Well I'd like to see what NS-ers make of the Death Penalty


I personally can't support it

*In a forward-thinking and moving world, it seems so awkward to be kept with such a punishment which many seem to deem as 'revenge'

*Multiple life sentences would suffice, IMO, as the highest punishment attainable

*With all the problems of the world today, I do not wish to see anybody else die, no matter how guilty they are Fine you push up the taxes it would take to just feed them.
Actually it is cheaper to keep them in jail then to execute them:

http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/jan00/dppotter.html

I posted this earlier in this thread.

Ahmm..how much do 7 .223 bullets cost the state, along with 7 Corrections Officers and mebbe an hour of overtime?
Perhaps if you read just how much it cost, for obtaining the Death Penalty through the courts, you wouldn't give such a glib response.

Looks like we should focus on making the court system for DP procedures more efficient, then.

Fine you push up the taxes it would take to just feed them.

Or we could do work-sentencing and make them pay for most of their own incarceration.

Fine you push up the taxes it would take to just feed them.

Or we could do work-sentencing and make them pay for most of their own incarceration.

Against it.

Too many people are wrongly convicted and sent to prison. How much worse would it be if someone innocent was put to death. Our justice system will never be precise enough to justly execute a criminal.

Oh there are some on Death Row where there is NO possibility that that convict didn't do it...oh some very much all to easily convicted with overwhelming evidence..I remember this one case where the murderer was caught on videotape..clear cut, face open, no fuzziness, even down to the sick look on the bastard's face....In such a case I would think even the most hardened of you anti-DP people would have your arguments fade a little.

I heard a good definition of the death penalty t'other day:

"Killing people that kill people to prove that killing people is wrong".

Made me laugh anyway, and no I don't agree with the death penalty.

I heard a good definition of the death penalty t'other day:

"Killing people that kill people to prove that killing people is wrong".

Made me laugh anyway, and no I don't agree with the death penalty.

The idea is that the State has the right for the good of it's citizens to ensure that a murderer pay the ultimate price for his/her crime(s).

I heard a good definition of the death penalty t'other day:

"Killing people that kill people to prove that killing people is wrong".

Made me laugh anyway, and no I don't agree with the death penalty.

The idea is that the State has the right for the good of it's citizens to ensure that a murderer pay the ultimate price for his/her crime(s).
Only God can judge who will pay the "ultimate price" for their crimes. All killing is wrong.

IF the State wanted to do the "right for the good of it's citizens", it would ban the Death Penalty for the following reasons:

1. The death penalty has no deterrent value to society. No evidence supporting either a general deterrent or a specific deterrent impact exists and no evidence supporting an incapacitation impact exists.

2. The death penalty performs no crime control function whatsoever.
The death penalty, in fact, not only does not deter homicide and other crimes, but through a brutalization effect actually increases both homicide and violent crime markedly, seriously increasing the danger to society in states where it is used with any degree of frequency whatsoever.

3. The death penalty, even as constructed in post-Furman statutes, is arbitrary, discriminatory and capricious in its application.

4. The death penalty, in every jurisdiction, discriminates on the basis of race of offender, race of victim, gender, age, and socio-economic status.

5. The death penalty, as currently structured and administered, results in jury confusion and misinterpretation of the law at every stage of the process. This confusion seriously prejudices the defendant and results in both reversals on appeal and in a large number of wrongful convictions.

6. The death penalty, as currently structured and administered, results in the wrongful conviction and execution of the innocent at a level totally unacceptable in any civilized society.

7. The death penalty is enormously costly, strains the budgets of both state and local governments and diverts funds from more effective crime control strategies and victim assistance programs. This is true in all jurisdictions regardless of state statute. The cost of executions exceeds the cost of life imprisonment by a factor of better than two to one in every jurisdiction studied. And this enormous cost is borne by the taxpayers for a crime control policy that only makes violent crime worse.

Gary W. Potter, PhD.
Department of Justice and Police Studies
Eastern Kentucky University
March 20, 1999

http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/jan00/dppotter.html

"The death penalty does, invariably and without exception increase the number of homicides in jurisdictions where it is applied."

Here are cold hard undeniable facts....and these are the ones I'm concerned with. Bottom line..THESE men deserved it..and THESE men got it...and they will never ever kill again..this much without stats I can assure you, and I could go on and on...these are the type of men you'd have me keep alive on my money?

http://www.thedeathhouse.com/deathhousenewfi_484.htm

http://www.thedeathhouse.com/deathhousenewfi_258.htm

dp

Here are cold hard undeniable facts....and these are the ones I'm concerned with. Bottom line..THESE men deserved it..and THESE men got it...and they will never ever kill again..this much without stats I can assure you, and I could go on and on...these are the type of men you'd have me keep alive on my money?

Stats from an egghead? Did you read the stats, and choose to ignore the basis and depth of the study? NO apparently NOT. YOU have ultimate wisdom? YOU would risk sending innocents to their death? You even suggested in an earlier post that 1 in 100 was an acceptable level of failure. Well I would disagree.

What you obviously choose to ignore is this fact:

STATES THAT DO NOT HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY HAVE A LOWER MURDER RATE

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168

That in itself is a huge benefit.

Sure some people commit the most heinous crimes. Well let them rot in jail. Perhaps someone commiting a crime in a non death penalty State would be more reluctant to pull the trigger, if they thought that they would have to spend the rest of their lives in jail?

Why ignore the FACTS?

Here are cold hard undeniable facts....and these are the ones I'm concerned with. Bottom line..THESE men deserved it..and THESE men got it...and they will never ever kill again..this much without stats I can assure you, and I could go on and on...these are the type of men you'd have me keep alive on my money?

And I will reiterate this fact again: It takes MORE money to execute someone rather than keeping them alive . . .

And about them deserving it: (unless they plead guilty) remember there is still the slimmest of chances they are NOT guilty

Here are cold hard undeniable facts....and these are the ones I'm concerned with. Bottom line..THESE men deserved it..and THESE men got it...and they will never ever kill again..this much without stats I can assure you, and I could go on and on...these are the type of men you'd have me keep alive on my money?

And I will reiterate this fact again: It takes MORE money to execute someone rather than keeping them alive . . .

And about them deserving it: (unless they plead guilty) remember there is still the slimmest of chances they are NOT guilty

CanuckHeaven...not ignoring your stats you posted...I simply don't attach the assertion that having no death penalty in a state somehow equates to less murders as if not having a death penalty means to a criminal...Wow.. no death penalty....I guess I won't kill this person then.

Superpower..if we refined the length of time (in some cases, years) and made the criminal pay for his own defense (or some other bleeding heart liberal anti-DP group) pay for his defense. Then it wouldn't cost as much.

You guys can point all you want gentlemen..but the two cases I pointed out to you..THOSE men will never kill again...It's almost unbelievable..the slimmest chance?...You make it seem as if they were boy scouts who inadvertedl killed someone..I've yet to read of a person on Death Row who didn't deserve it, most are repeat offenders of various criminal statutes.

As I said..7 .223 Bullets..7 Corrections Officers, and 1 hour of overtime is what it would cost to me.

Here are cold hard undeniable facts....and these are the ones I'm concerned with. Bottom line..THESE men deserved it..and THESE men got it...and they will never ever kill again..this much without stats I can assure you, and I could go on and on...these are the type of men you'd have me keep alive on my money?

And I will reiterate this fact again: It takes MORE money to execute someone rather than keeping them alive . . .

And about them deserving it: (unless they plead guilty) remember there is still the slimmest of chances they are NOT guilty

CanuckHeaven...not ignoring your stats you posted...I simply don't attach the assertion that having no death penalty in a state somehow equates to less murders as if not having a death penalty means to a criminal...Wow.. no death penalty....I guess I won't kill this person then.
So FACTS mean nothing to you then?

Superpower..if we refined the length of time (in some cases, years) and made the criminal pay for his own defense (or some other bleeding heart liberal anti-DP group) pay for his defense. Then it wouldn't cost as much.
By this reasoning then, if a person is TRULY innocent, and doesn't have the financial resources to prove it-----too bad? Also, is it only bleeding heart liberals who come to the defence of people accused of murder?

You guys can point all you want gentlemen..but the two cases I pointed out to you..THOSE men will never kill again...It's almost unbelievable..the slimmest chance?...You make it seem as if they were boy scouts who inadvertedl killed someone...
You are demonstrating, anger, bias, and contempt?

I've yet to read of a person on Death Row who didn't deserve it, most are repeat offenders of various criminal statutes.
Well perhaps you really should read some more. You know, do some research on the subject, instead of putting YOUR rights ahead of other US citizens, who are NOT guilty as charged.

Here is a list of 113 people who have been Freed From Death Row in the past 31 years:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110

That is 113, which is 113 too many, and many more innocents have already been executed. Sad to say the least.


As I said..7 .223 Bullets..7 Corrections Officers, and 1 hour of overtime is what it would cost to me.
An overly simple solution, to a very complex problem. So I guess you support legalized murder of innocent people????

Here's a discussion from the Third Way Cafe site.

(Whose views I do endorse) Notice what they say about race, money, and the example we set by our actions.
................................................................
When An Execution Takes Place


Bryan
There's so many things that people ought to be thinking about when an execution takes place. They should be thinking about the fact that [Cornelius Singleton] was mentally retarded. Are we really comfortable putting people with a mental age of 13 in the electric chair?
A second thing is, who are we killing this person for? The victim was a nun who had been working with this man for several years teaching him to read and write. Her order and her community of sisters and the priests were very, very adamant that he not be put to death. They don't believe in the death penalty. And yet, all of their requests were ignored. Members of her biological family were equally opposed to this execution.

Third, what are we saying about violence in this society? For the last 20 years we've talked about the death penalty as if it's the only response that we have to violent crime. In the early 1970's when the Supreme Court initially struck down the death penalty, people got very obsessive: what are we going to do with the crime rate if we don't have a death penalty? For the last 20 years, we've used the death penalty as our response, almost a formulaic response to frustrations about violent crime. At the same time the level of violent crime has continued to rise. This year (1992) we had record levels of murder in many of the states where the death penalty is most frequently sought.

......................................................................

I Watched the State
Kill my Friend
by William Vance Trollinger, Jr
Just after midnight on Wednesday, Sept. 24, 1997, the state of Missouri put Samuel McDonald to death by lethal injection. That night I was inside the Potosi Correctional Institute to witness the killing. How I ended up there has to do with friendship.

While I had opposed the death penalty since high school, my opposition had been abstract. I felt compelled to do something, but I acted on my moral outrage in a decidedly modest fashion. I contacted Death Row Support Project for the name of a condemned prisoner with whom I could correspond and that is how I became acquainted with Samuel McDonald, #CP-17.

Over the next few years I was able to piece together Sam's story. He grew up in a poor, churchgoing family in St. Louis. At 17 he enlisted in the Army and ended up in Vietnam. He earned a raft of medals, but the experience traumatized him, particularly when, in the process of "sweeping" a village, he killed an infant and an elderly woman. Like many Vietnam veterans, he returned to the United States mentally and emotionally unhinged and addicted to drugs.

On May 16, 1981, Sam, high on "Ts and blues" (a heroin substitute), robbed and shot Robert Jordan, an off-duty police officer, as Jordan and his 11-year-old daughter were leaving a convenience store. A poor African-American drug addict shoots a police officer in front of the man's daughter - that could have been enough to condemn him to death. But Sam was also assigned an assistant public defender who got into shouting matches with the judge. The judge also refused to order a psychiatric examination, despite evidence that Sam was suffering from a classic case of post-Vietnam stress syndrome.

Sam's appeals had just begun in 1985, when I sent him my first letter. We became regular correspondents and later had frequent phone calls. In conversations, we talked about prison conditions, the status of his appeals and the Supreme Court. We talked about God, organized religion and the efficacy of prayer. We talked about our families. Samuel McDonald and I became close friends.

Last summer Sam ran out of appeals. He was given an execution date: Sept. 24. While Sam handled this news with remarkable grace, I felt devastated that my friend was going to be killed and I worried that I had failed as Sam's "spiritual adviser." I also felt guilty for being afraid Sam might ask me to witness the execution. But friends reminded me that Christ requires not heroism (of which I was in short supply) but faithfulness.

When Sam did ask me to serve as one of his six "family and friend" witnesses, I said yes. After being thoroughly searched, I was ushered into a cramped waiting room, where I sat with Sam's five other witnesses: his son, cousin, attorney, minister and another correspondent friend. I learned much about Sam's childhood, his family's love and grief, and the near misses of Sam's appeals. At 11:40, after a stern warning from the guards that no "emotional displays" were permitted - "no standing, crying out or knocking on the window"- we were ushered into a tiny observation booth adjoining and above the death chamber. (In two other observation areas were the family of the slain police officer and the state witnesses.) Just after midnight the guards raised the mini-blinds. There, in a dazzling white room, lay Sam, on a gurney with a white sheet up to his neck. We could not see that he was strapped down and hooked up to the mechanical apparatus of death. He looked at us; we looked at him. He spoke rapidly, but I had no idea what he was saying. I repeatedly mouthed "I love you" to him. Then, after only a minute or two, his body convulsed, then became still. Sam, my friend, was dead.

After giving us a few minutes to look at Sam's body, the guards brusquely shut the mini-blinds and ushered us out of the observation booth. For 48 hours after the execution I had a compulsion to shower. The obscenity I had witnessed left me feeling unclean. Never in my life had I been so aware of the reality of evil as I was in that observation booth, watching the intentional killing of Samuel McDonald, a killing done in the name of the citizens of Missouri. For a long time I have known that capital punishment is wrong. Now I feel it.

In all of this I have also learned something about what it means to follow Christ. I began writing letters because I thought it was the easiest, safest thing I could do. But at the end I would have given anything not to have served as a witness to Sam's execution. This is a story of how even the tiniest step taken in faith can lead you into deep, cold waters where the grace of God is sufficient to keep you from drowning but does not keep you from feeling enormous pain, anger and despair.


.............................................................................................
Where is the Church?

Helen
There are polls showing that people who go to church tend to believe in the death penalty more than people who don't go to church. I call that a disturbing poll. Because it unmasks the God in whom we believe. We believe in a God who wants to inflict pain and hurt on people who inflict pain and hurt. This makes God just like us. We're making God in our own image.

.............................................................................................
Bryan
I look at my clients [death row inmates], I see people who were physically abused at three and nobody did anything. Sexually assaulted at seven and nobody did anything. Physically and sexually abused at 11 and nobody did anything. Hopeless and becoming drug-addicted at 14 and nobody did anything. Finally striking out against somebody at 16, and now everybody wants to do something --they want to line him up and execute him. We don't recognize that nobody comes out of the womb with a mission to kill.
We've got kids who've been sentenced to death as young as 15 years old for crimes they've committed in the state of Alabama. And local press and prosecutors will not only talk about how it's right for them to seek the death penalty against a 15-year-old, but they'll get supported and congratulated and applauded for having "the guts" to seek the death penalty for a 15-year-old. Really, where we need some guts is for somebody to stand up and say, "Look, I recognize that this kid has been abused all his life and we've got to do something now. We missed him when he was three. We missed him when he was seven. We missed him when he was 12. We've got him now that he's 15. We need to do something to respond to this victimization, not contribute to it by executing him."
...............................................................
Why I forgave my grandmother's murderer
Paula Cooper was 15 years old when she killed my grandmother. The prosecution wanted the death penalty. The judge, although he stated he was opposed to the death penalty, said that according to the state law, he had no choice but to sentence her to death.


Bill
At that time I had no problem with Paula being sentenced to death. I felt that if they did not issue the death sentence in this case, that what they were saying to my family was that my grandmother was not an important enough person to merit the death penalty. And I felt that my grandmother was a very important person.

It was about four months after this time I was having some personal problems. I was reflecting on my life and on some of the things that hadn't worked out very well. I began to picture someone who had a whole lot more problems than I did: Paula Cooper. I could see her slunk in a corner of her death row cell, tears running down her eyes, saying, "What have I done? What have I done?"

I began to think about my grandmother's life and some of the things that my grandmother stood for. I became convinced that my grandmother would have been appalled by the fact that this girl was on death row, that the state of Indiana was going to take her life, and that many of grandmother's friends and family were supporting this.

I came to a conclusion that forgiveness was the right way to go. At that time I had absolutely no love and compassion for Paula at all. My grandmother had been heinously murdered. But I was convinced that my grandmother wanted someone in our family to have love and compassion so I began to pray in tears, begging God to give me love and compassion for Paula on behalf of my grandmother.

I no longer wanted Paula to die. I began to correspond with Paula, and shared my experience of forgiveness with her. I told Paula about my grandmother and gave her some different verses in the Bible, sharing my grandmother's faith with her.

After I asked for love and compassion for Paula, within eight months I became very concerned about the other juveniles who were on death row for crimes that they had committed. And I began to ask for love and compassion for them also.

I carried that a step farther and began to pray for love and compassion for all 2700 death row inmates throughout the United States. And that prayer basically was answered, too, where I do have a love for all these people. I believe it's terribly wrong for the state to take their lives and it's because I see these people as human beings.

Vengeance is not the answer. Vengeance is never the answer. Many people in our organization say that it's a discredit to our lost loved ones to say that the life of another person would ever repay the life of the loved one we lost.

Having compassion for Paula Cooper did more for me than it did for her. Helping Paula Cooper did more for me than it did for her. That's the way that forgiveness is.

...................................................................

The Role of Race and the Death Penalty



Bryan
For over 200 years the death penalty was specifically prescribed based on the race of the defendant and the race of the victim. That is, in Alabama, it was a mandatory death penalty offense if a black person was convicted of raping a white person. If a white person was convicted of raping a black person, then the most a person could be punished was one year in prison. So, race of the defendant and race of the victim has historically played a dominant role in who gets the death penalty and who does not.

The death penalty and race:

between 1930 and 1972, 88% of those executed for rape were black men
between 1930 and 1972, 100% of those executed for rape were convicted of raping a white woman.
between 1930 and 1972, black women were three times as likely to raped as white women
In Georgia, according to a study of homicides conducted in the early '80s
you are 11 times more likely to get the death penalty if the victim is white than if the victim is black.
you are 22 times less likely to get the death penalty if the defendant is white than if the defendant is black.
Since the new death penalty statutes have come back in the 1970's, the same patterns have continued. [Cornelius] Singleton became the 10th person executed in the state of Alabama. That now means that 70% of the people executed here have been black, although the black population of this state is less than 27%. (1992)


Bryan
We've got 128 judges in the state of Alabama that preside over capital cases. Less than five of these judges are black. Less than five of them are women. As a result of that, when you go into a capital trial, you're likely to see a black defendant, a white judge, a white prosecutor, a white lawyer, and a nearly all white jury.



Blatant Racism
We have a case, out of Florida, where a trial judge, a white judge, was presiding over a case involving a black defendant. This judge was confident that the death penalty ought to be imposed even before the trial started.
At the end of the guilt phase, the trial judge saw the mother and father of this black defendant leaving the courtroom for a lunch break. He looked up and on the record he said, "Well, there goes the ****** mom and ****** dad. Why don't we get them to testify right now? We can save the state some money from having to bring them back to court." The penalty phase continued and the judge sentenced this man to death.
On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court acknowledged in a footnote what this judge said. The court then said in it's opinion, "We want to admonish state court judges in Florida to avoid the appearance of impropriety." That was the end of their discussion. And it's ironic to me that this judge, had he been a newscaster or a sports commentator, would have lost his job. But because he's a trial judge, presiding over black defendants and sentencing people to death day in and day out, he still sits on the bench today. The extent of his punishment was to have the court tell him to avoid the appearance of impropriety. It reflects the way in which we tolerate racial bias in the administration of the death penalty and in the criminal justice system.

Court Appointed Lawyers
There is no public defender system in Alabama. A poor person accused of a capital crime will get a lawyer appointed by the court. This lawyer may not do much work outside of real estate or divorce cases. They will get paid, by state law, no more than $1,000 to defend this client.

How might the trial go?
It will probably start a year or two after the arrest, with the client spending that time in jail.
The average length of a capital case trial in Alabama is two and a half days.
The defense, due to lack of criminal case experience or funds, will probably call few, if any, witnesses.
The defense may try to avoid being too closely associated with the client by saying things to the jury like, "I'm only representing this person because I was appointed. I think he ought to get the death penalty, too. But my job is to try to convince you otherwise."
Is it possible that a system can construct a verdict of guilt or death by the way it treats those unable to afford it's best services?

.............................................................................

SueZanne's Story:
My Father Didn't Want the Death Penalty for his Murderer

"If anything were to happen to me one day and I would die, I would still not want that person to get the death penalty." My father said these words to me not too long before he was killed and I was stabbed and seriously wounded.



SueZanne
We didn't live in a very good area but my father loved it very much because he was there to help. There were always people asking for money and food, and my father was always willing to give.
One day when we got home from shopping, the doorbell rang and my dad went to answer. I heard weird noises and I knew that something was wrong. I went running out and saw him in the kitchen doorway being stabbed in the chest many many times. I must have screamed because James Bernard Campbell turned around and came toward me. I turned very quickly and he stabbed me three times in the back. I went down. My father was trying to get up on his knees to help me. James Bernard turned again to him and started stabbing him in the back. My dad collapsed and I tried to get up and help him again.
The intruder led me backwards into the living room and was going to stab me in the face. I turned my head and he stabbed me twice in the head. I went down. I laid there looking under the couch because I could see my dad out of the corner of my eye, crawling to the door for help.
In all my father was stabbed about 24 times. I was stabbed six times. My father died before I could get to the phone to call for help.
The knife went into my brain in two areas, the areas affecting my memory and my speech. It took me a little while to get through that period of time. During the surgeries that followed I had a lot of time to think about how and why and where I was on the subject of the death penalty. I could clearly remember my conversation with my father and realized that I am very strongly against the death penalty. The death penalty would not bring my father back. It does not make the situation better, and we have to go on. We have to do something better.
I am angry with James Bernard Campbell but I have forgiven him. Every year that goes by I can forgive him a little more. I have a Bible with his name printed on it which I want to take to him when I'm ready. I don't know how it will make him feel, but I want a peace within myself.

................................................................................................

Sister Helen Prejean tells how basketball coach Dale Brown of Louisiana State University changed his mind on the death penalty.


Helen
In Louisiana, everyone loves Louisiana State University basketball. Everybody also loves LSU basketball coach, Dale Brown. Brown is a great guy and a big hero.

Every year he took his basketball team to the Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, to play with the guys there.

So one day after LSU came to the penitentiary to play, at the end of the day, the warden asked Coach Brown, "Want to go to Death Row?"

Brown says, "Sure."

So Brown and the team traipse on up to death row. Brown walks through. He looks in the cells. He comes out. He tells the warden, "Hey warden, you've got some pretty sleazy people in here. I'll tell you what. Give me a baseball bat, and I'll take some of them out for you myself and save you the electricity."

Then Brown goes home, and keeps playing basketball games.

One of the men on Death Row, Leslie Loewenfield finally gets a date of execution. He is moved to the death house. Loewenfield sends Coach Brown a letter which says:

"Dear Coach Brown. I enjoyed very much when you came up to death row to see us. I am about to be executed. Would you give me just one little visit? I would very much like to see you."

Coach Brown is a Christian man and so he responds. He goes to the death house and spends one hour with Leslie Loewenfield, about 50 feet from the electric chair. Loewenfield talks to Dale Brown, for about an hour before he is executed.

Dale Brown walks out of the death chambers and says, "This is barbarism. I am against the death penalty."
If people of faith, people who understand what it means to be redeemed, people who understand what grace is about, don't step forward and begin struggling against the problems that are so pervasive, we will not make any forward progress.


..................................................................................................

Bryan
I'm confident that we will come to a time in this society when we won't execute people. Because I think it reflects a lie about human nature. I think it reflects a lie about violence. I think it reflects a lie about race. I think it reflects a lie about poverty. Because I don't believe that any lie can live forever, I know that, at some point, we will succeed. And one day they'll write a history about how we evolved under this dark period when we really thought that we had to kill people to show that killing people was wrong, and emerged at some point where there was a little bit more light and we saw things a little bit more clearly. And we'll wonder, "My God, how could we have ever done that?" I can see that now.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contributers

The material on this page has been condensed from interviews gathered during the production of the video Beyond the News: Murder Close Up. Interviewed were:

Bryan Stevenson, an attourney who works with capital cases through the Alabama Capital Representation Resource Center, which he heads as director.
Helen Prejean, CSJ, the author of Dead Man Walking, the book which inspired the movie of the same name. She has written and spoken extensively on the death penalty issue throughout the U.S. .
Howard Zehr, a writer and photographer, and consultant on criminal justice issues. He has been active in developing Victim Offender Reconciliation programs in many communities. Howard's book, Death as a Penalty, delves deeper into the issues of capital punishment. Doing Life: Reflections of Men and Women Serving Life Sentences is a collection of portraits and inverviews with men and women serving life sentences.

Canuckheaven..as I said in my post...no..it's not your facts you presented but the conclusions those facts asserted...you're basically saying that a criminal won't kill in a non-DP state simply by that not being in that State's Penal Code?..

And tragedies do occur..but I'm not prepared to throw out the baby with the bathwater...yes..113 men who were innocent of ONE crime they were convicted (again with this assertion that only innocent men of one crime are one death row, have you also researched just how many are long-time violent repeat offenders?)....but of that 113 men..yes..tragic..but I have to weight the hundreds more guilty men who will never ever kill again.

Canuckheaven..as I said in my post...no..it's not your facts you presented but the conclusions those facts asserted...you're basically saying that a criminal won't kill in a non-DP state simply by that not being in that State's Penal Code?..
Words won't do, so maybe pictures will help?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif


And tragedies do occur..but I'm not prepared to throw out the baby with the bathwater...yes..113 men who were innocent of ONE crime they were convicted (again with this assertion that only innocent men of one crime are one death row, have you also researched just how many are long-time violent repeat offenders?)....but of that 113 men..yes..tragic..but I have to weight the hundreds more guilty men who will never ever kill again.
Innocent people are being put to death and you don't care as long as you get your pound of flesh?

113 is 113 TOO many, don't you agree?

Canuckheaven..as I said in my post...no..it's not your facts you presented but the conclusions those facts asserted...you're basically saying that a criminal won't kill in a non-DP state simply by that not being in that State's Penal Code?..
Words won't do, so maybe pictures will help?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif


And tragedies do occur..but I'm not prepared to throw out the baby with the bathwater...yes..113 men who were innocent of ONE crime they were convicted (again with this assertion that only innocent men of one crime are one death row, have you also researched just how many are long-time violent repeat offenders?)....but of that 113 men..yes..tragic..but I have to weight the hundreds more guilty men who will never ever kill again.
Innocent people are being put to death and you don't care as long as you get your pound of flesh?

113 is 113 TOO many, don't you agree?

It's not that I don't care Canuckheaven...it's just that I weigh that justice must be served on the guilty...and do I agree that 113 is too many?...of course..but as I said..not prepared to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Society must have a means of ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime....the State has a vested interest in ensuring a murderer is not allowed to murder again..life in prison is not assurance that he won't kill another prisoner...or guard...or prison nurse or doctor or teacher.etc

As long as I get my pound of flesh?..Hey...I've made no bones bout that. I think my tribe should have abadoned western concepts of jurisprudence and gone back to traditional tribal mores...in fact I openly suggested in council that we should follow our ways as far as the Death Penalty goes. You kill a human being..you will lose your life..simple as that.

I believe there are men..and there are animals.
If you kill another man..in cold blood..you become an animal.
Therefore.....you should be treated like one.

Murder 1......you lose your right to live.

however..you should be ABSOLUTELY convinced of the guilt of that person.
If there are ANY questions about your innocence...then the death penalty should be withheld, pending an appeal.

Canuckheaven..as I said in my post...no..it's not your facts you presented but the conclusions those facts asserted...you're basically saying that a criminal won't kill in a non-DP state simply by that not being in that State's Penal Code?..
Words won't do, so maybe pictures will help?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif


And tragedies do occur..but I'm not prepared to throw out the baby with the bathwater...yes..113 men who were innocent of ONE crime they were convicted (again with this assertion that only innocent men of one crime are one death row, have you also researched just how many are long-time violent repeat offenders?)....but of that 113 men..yes..tragic..but I have to weight the hundreds more guilty men who will never ever kill again.
Innocent people are being put to death and you don't care as long as you get your pound of flesh?

113 is 113 TOO many, don't you agree?

It's not that I don't care Canuckheaven...it's just that I weigh that justice must be served on the guilty...and do I agree that 113 is too many?...of course..but as I said..not prepared to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Society must have a means of ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime....the State has a vested interest in ensuring a murderer is not allowed to murder again..life in prison is not assurance that he won't kill another prisoner...or guard...or prison nurse or doctor or teacher.etc

As long as I get my pound of flesh?..Hey...I've made no bones bout that. I think my tribe should have abadoned western concepts of jurisprudence and gone back to traditional tribal mores...in fact I openly suggested in council that we should follow our ways as far as the Death Penalty goes. You kill a human being..you will lose your life..simple as that.

The purpose of life imprisonment is not only to punish the criminal, but to protect the public. I do not particularily care about criminals, but I do care about people who have been wrongfully convicted. Innocent men can be let out of prison. Innocent men that have been arbitrarily obliterated cannot be unkilled.

The death penalty itself is the bathwater.

My activisim against the death penalty rises out of my personal spiritual beliefs, but even if I don't have those to stand on, I would have serious trouble with retribution and vengence masquerading as justice and protection.

First, there's the legal system. A recent study by the University of Michigan showed that 328 criminal cases, including 73 death penalty cases, over the last 15 years were exhonerated. The study went on to suggest that there are many more innocent people currently in our penal system, including death row. We sit and debate the correctness of abortion, yet are willing to send innocent people to their certain death in a scattershot attempt to maybe exact vengence, not justice, on a potential criminal. How morally bankrupt have we become that this seems like good justification? Until the justice system is fixed and there is absolutely, positively no chance of a false conviction and termination, there should be no death penalty option.

Second, there's the world view. Again recently, March 31st, 2004, to be exact, the International Court of Justice found the United States guilty of violating the rights of many, if not most, of the 51 Mexicans currently on death row. By the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which was indeed ratified by the US, foriegn nationals have a right to speak with diplomatic officials on arrest. The US denied these Mexicans that right. How can we claim to be waging a just war against terrorisim and upholding world freedom when we are busy revoking our own promises and agreements and putting potentially innocent foriegn nationals on death row?

Third, there's the monetary cost. A study by the state of Kansas showed that the average death penalty case cost $1.26 million whereas the average incarceration cost is $740,000. In general, according to this report, the average cost of a capital scentence is 70% more than the cost of incarceration for a comprable crime. Not only do we save money by not having the death penalty, but we also have a chance to potentially rehabilitate the offender and allow them to make restitution to either the people affected by their crime or society as a whole.

Fourth, capital punishment is not a deterrant and, in fact, may lead to more aggressive criminality. A FBI report (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/02prelimannual.pdf) showed that in 2002, the murder rate in the South rose by 2.1% while the murder rate in the Northeast fell by almost 5%. The South accounts for 82% of all executions since 1976 whereas the Northeast accounts for less than 1%. Another study (45 Crime and Delinquency, 481-93 (1999)), this time done specifically in Texas, showed that there was no correlation betweent the number of murders and the number of executions. In a state with a stead death penalty turnover rate, it was expected that if there was a deterrence factor at work, as the number of executions rose, there would be a cooresponding drop in murders or felonies meriting capital scentences. No such coorespondence was found. A third study (36 Criminology 711-33(1999)) done in Oklahoma traced murder rates and sub-types of murder (felony-murder, stranger-robbery related killings, stranger non-felony murder and argument related killings) rates between 1989 and 1991. The idea was again that, as Oklahoma was lifting it's 25 year moratorium on captial scentencing, if there was a deterrance factor involved, it should be visible. Again, no evidence of such a deterrance factor was found and the study's investigator instead found an increase in stranger killings and non-felony related killings. A fourth study (3 Homicide Studies 129-50 (1999)) investigated Los Angeles murder rates both before and after California executed Robert Harris in 1992, again ending a 25 year moritorium on capital scentences. The study found that there was no decrease and actually reported a slight increase in homicides in the 8 month period after the execution occured. I could go on at length. These are just four studies out of thousands that have shown there is absolutely no evidence for deterrance in captial punishment arguments. All captial punishment illustrates is that society has become, in general, as bloodthirsty and callous towards human life as the criminal who committed the offense. How can we pass judgement on others when we ourselves are guilty of the crime?

Fifth, in violation of international law and it's own Constitution, the United States still continues to execute the mentally ill. Most countries have prohibitions against this, the United States included. Ford vs. Wainwright, 1986, determined that execution of the insane, or people who are not able to comprehend the reson for or the reality of their punishment, is a direct violation of Constitutional law. However, on January 21, 2000, Larry Keith Robinson, a diagnosed schizophrenic, was executed in Texas. Thomas Provenzano, who suffered from severe dellusional episodes, was executed on June 22, 2000 in Florida. John Satterwhite, who was both mentally ill and retarded, was executed on August 16th, 2000 by Texas. Somewhere along the line, there has been a disconnect and this, in and of itself, should be enough to stop all executions until it can be examined and corrected.

Sixth, race is still an issue. A recent report by Amnesty International showed that race was still a major factor in who gets sent to death row. Both black and whites are murder victims in equal numbers, yet 80% of those executed since reinstatement of the death penalty have been sent to death row for murders of white victims and more than 20% of black criminals sent to death row were convicted by all white juries. These findings were supported by a Governor-commissioned study at the University of Maryland, that found criminals were much more likely to be given capital scentences for the murder of white victims. Another study, (Associated Press, 4/16/01) this time in North Carolina, found race was a key factor in who goes to death row. Researchers from the University of North Carolina, using data from 502 murder cases tried between 1993 and 1997, found that defendants who's victims were white were 3.5 times more likely to receive captial scentences. A review of the captial punishment system conducted by the Justice Department and made public on September 12, 2000, found that 80% of the cases submitted for captial punishment over the prior five years involved racial minorities as defendents, with more than half of those cases being African-Americans. The report also found that 40% of the 682 cases given to the Justice Department for capital punishment were submitted by only five jurisdictions. Again, this should be enough to stop all executions until we can conclude that race is not a perjorative factor.

I won't go into the substance of my personal spiritual beliefs here. Suffice it to say, even were I a hard-line atheist, my research on the facts of captial punishment vs. the mindless vengence would be enough to make me a die-hard capital punishment abolishonist.

My activisim against the death penalty rises out of my personal spiritual beliefs, but even if I don't have those to stand on, I would have serious trouble with retribution and vengence masquerading as justice and protection.

First, there's the legal system. A recent study by the University of Michigan showed that 328 criminal cases, including 73 death penalty cases, over the last 15 years were exhonerated. The study went on to suggest that there are many more innocent people currently in our penal system, including death row. We sit and debate the correctness of abortion, yet are willing to send innocent people to their certain death in a scattershot attempt to maybe exact vengence, not justice, on a potential criminal. How morally bankrupt have we become that this seems like good justification? Until the justice system is fixed and there is absolutely, positively no chance of a false conviction and termination, there should be no death penalty option.

Second, there's the world view. Again recently, March 31st, 2004, to be exact, the International Court of Justice found the United States guilty of violating the rights of many, if not most, of the 51 Mexicans currently on death row. By the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which was indeed ratified by the US, foriegn nationals have a right to speak with diplomatic officials on arrest. The US denied these Mexicans that right. How can we claim to be waging a just war against terrorisim and upholding world freedom when we are busy revoking our own promises and agreements and putting potentially innocent foriegn nationals on death row?

Third, there's the monetary cost. A study by the state of Kansas showed that the average death penalty case cost $1.26 million whereas the average incarceration cost is $740,000. In general, according to this report, the average cost of a capital scentence is 70% more than the cost of incarceration for a comprable crime. Not only do we save money by not having the death penalty, but we also have a chance to potentially rehabilitate the offender and allow them to make restitution to either the people affected by their crime or society as a whole.

Fourth, capital punishment is not a deterrant and, in fact, may lead to more aggressive criminality. A FBI report (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/02prelimannual.pdf) showed that in 2002, the murder rate in the South rose by 2.1% while the murder rate in the Northeast fell by almost 5%. The South accounts for 82% of all executions since 1976 whereas the Northeast accounts for less than 1%. Another study (45 Crime and Delinquency, 481-93 (1999)), this time done specifically in Texas, showed that there was no correlation betweent the number of murders and the number of executions. In a state with a stead death penalty turnover rate, it was expected that if there was a deterrence factor at work, as the number of executions rose, there would be a cooresponding drop in murders or felonies meriting capital scentences. No such coorespondence was found. A third study (36 Criminology 711-33(1999)) done in Oklahoma traced murder rates and sub-types of murder (felony-murder, stranger-robbery related killings, stranger non-felony murder and argument related killings) rates between 1989 and 1991. The idea was again that, as Oklahoma was lifting it's 25 year moratorium on captial scentencing, if there was a deterrance factor involved, it should be visible. Again, no evidence of such a deterrance factor was found and the study's investigator instead found an increase in stranger killings and non-felony related killings. A fourth study (3 Homicide Studies 129-50 (1999)) investigated Los Angeles murder rates both before and after California executed Robert Harris in 1992, again ending a 25 year moritorium on capital scentences. The study found that there was no decrease and actually reported a slight increase in homicides in the 8 month period after the execution occured. I could go on at length. These are just four studies out of thousands that have shown there is absolutely no evidence for deterrance in captial punishment arguments. All captial punishment illustrates is that society has become, in general, as bloodthirsty and callous towards human life as the criminal who committed the offense. How can we pass judgement on others when we ourselves are guilty of the crime?

Fifth, in violation of international law and it's own Constitution, the United States still continues to execute the mentally ill. Most countries have prohibitions against this, the United States included. Ford vs. Wainwright, 1986, determined that execution of the insane, or people who are not able to comprehend the reson for or the reality of their punishment, is a direct violation of Constitutional law. However, on January 21, 2000, Larry Keith Robinson, a diagnosed schizophrenic, was executed in Texas. Thomas Provenzano, who suffered from severe dellusional episodes, was executed on June 22, 2000 in Florida. John Satterwhite, who was both mentally ill and retarded, was executed on August 16th, 2000 by Texas. Somewhere along the line, there has been a disconnect and this, in and of itself, should be enough to stop all executions until it can be examined and corrected.

Sixth, race is still an issue. A recent report by Amnesty International showed that race was still a major factor in who gets sent to death row. Both black and whites are murder victims in equal numbers, yet 80% of those executed since reinstatement of the death penalty have been sent to death row for murders of white victims and more than 20% of black criminals sent to death row were convicted by all white juries. These findings were supported by a Governor-commissioned study at the University of Maryland, that found criminals were much more likely to be given capital scentences for the murder of white victims. Another study, (Associated Press, 4/16/01) this time in North Carolina, found race was a key factor in who goes to death row. Researchers from the University of North Carolina, using data from 502 murder cases tried between 1993 and 1997, found that defendants who's victims were white were 3.5 times more likely to receive captial scentences. A review of the captial punishment system conducted by the Justice Department and made public on September 12, 2000, found that 80% of the cases submitted for captial punishment over the prior five years involved racial minorities as defendents, with more than half of those cases being African-Americans. The report also found that 40% of the 682 cases given to the Justice Department for capital punishment were submitted by only five jurisdictions. Again, this should be enough to stop all executions until we can conclude that race is not a perjorative factor.

I won't go into the substance of my personal spiritual beliefs here. Suffice it to say, even were I a hard-line atheist, my research on the facts of captial punishment vs. the mindless vengence would be enough to make me a die-hard capital punishment abolishonist.

Here's a law and order argument against the death penalty.

I studied criminal law under Fred E. Inbau, hard-line conservative Cook County DA, treason prodecutor, professor and author.

He opposed the death penalty because it cost him convictions.

He said in his long trial experience that when juries knew death was an option they got cold feet and let defendants off even if they were guilty because they couldn't stand the thought of killing womebody when it got right down to it.

When the death penalty was not an option, the prosecutors got more convictions.

See, defense lawyers put the defendants family in the courtroom. You can see his mom and wife and kids crying, shaking with fear. This has nothing to do with right and wrong but a whole lot to do with psychology. A juror who might have recently claimed to be gung ho for law and order and teaching these guys a hard lesson now sees the defendant as a human being. He sees the human cost of the decision he will make. He begins to ask: "Suppose I'm wrong? Suppose he's not guilty? He sure seems guilty, but can I be absolutely sure? What if new evidence turns up...after the guy's been executed? How could I sleep at night?"

So, if you want law and order, eliminate the death penalty!

Here's a law and order argument against the death penalty.

I studied criminal law under Fred E. Inbau, hard-line conservative Cook County DA, treason prodecutor, professor and author.

He opposed the death penalty because it cost him convictions.

He said in his long trial experience that when juries knew death was an option they got cold feet and let defendants off even if they were guilty because they couldn't stand the thought of killing womebody when it got right down to it.

When the death penalty was not an option, the prosecutors got more convictions.

See, defense lawyers put the defendants family in the courtroom. You can see his mom and wife and kids crying, shaking with fear. This has nothing to do with right and wrong but a whole lot to do with psychology. A juror who might have recently claimed to be gung ho for law and order and teaching these guys a hard lesson now sees the defendant as a human being. He sees the human cost of the decision he will make. He begins to ask: "Suppose I'm wrong? Suppose he's not guilty? He sure seems guilty, but can I be absolutely sure? What if new evidence turns up...after the guy's been executed? How could I sleep at night?"

So, if you want law and order, eliminate the death penalty!
A totally new slant and very well stated. It makes perfect sense too.

The bonus to States without the Death Penalty, is that the murder rate actually drops. The other huge bonus is that not one innocent will be murdered by the State.