NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/23279/page=UN_proposal/start=20

The "Ban of Death Penalty" Proposal requires the Approval of UN Delegates all over the world! Show compassion and help further human rights all over the planet. You can make a difference!

The UN has no right to dictate to sovereign nations on this issue. So I won't support such a proposal.

ewwwwww Rping...

Take it back to the other forums.

Well due to lack of attention to the proposal I thought it clever to post it in a RP context, here and for vote on the UN Forum.. it has received a ton of replies on the forum (most of which are totally unacceptable by any thinking human being) but not so many approvals - which sucks major behind :)

i definately think that the death penalty should't be banned, if someone murders someone else they desereve to die

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/23279/page=UN_proposal/start=20

The "Ban of Death Penalty" Proposal requires the Approval of UN Delegates all over the world! Show compassion and help further human rights all over the planet. You can make a difference!
1. This belongs in the UN forum, not in here

2. Shit proposals like this are what made my previous nation drop the UN.

3. The death penalty is not a bad thing for human rights. the things people do to warrant the death penalty are the things that are bad for civil rights.

Agreed, while this does not free the state of protecting all of its citizens from violations of human rights, which the death penalty itself is and thus clearly is outside a states responsibility.

I object with your argument that "death penalty is not a bad thing for human rights" as do major organisations such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch and the International Red Cross.

If a person murders or completely ruins a persons life (rape) then the the Goverment of a country have a right to put that person to death. A life for a life, its the only way people will learn that its not ok to do it.

if a person is convicted of a crime which warrants the death penalty, they deserve it, and ending a life that has ended and negaitvily affected many lives is no violation of the civil rights of a person who obviously did not give a damnabout the person they raped or killed.

I'm out.

I suggest everyone who considers the death penalty to be fair or "ok", read this page with more info than I could ever present:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng

Not the human is to be punished for commiting the crime, rather the state is required to ensure in a reasonable way, that the human does not repeat his crime and that the cause for such crimes is being removed.

You lose your 'civil rights' the minute you kill another Human being

If a person murders or completely ruins a persons life (rape) then the the Goverment of a country have a right to put that person to death. A life for a life, its the only way people will learn that its not ok to do it.

So it's all right for the government to take a life? That's something of a double-standard, isn't it?

I'm opposed to capital punishment due to the vast number of innocents that are incorrectly condemned. Also, it doesn't really seem to prevent crime much, if you look at statistics.

But with new modern technology the number of people convicted for murder who are innocent is practically nil.

If a person murders or completely ruins a persons life (rape) then the the Goverment of a country have a right to put that person to death. A life for a life, its the only way people will learn that its not ok to do it.

So it's all right for the government to take a life? That's something of a double-standard, isn't it?

I'm opposed to capital punishment due to the vast number of innocents that are incorrectly condemned. Also, it doesn't really seem to prevent crime much, if you look at statistics.Vast number? That's stretching the arguement quite alot! I've been to prison(not death row) and most people there, belong there(I assume it is so of death row as well).

Thank you that is exactly what i said. Murder is not an easy crime to be convicted of if your innocent.

Quite at the contrary, death row convictions are not often "wrong" due t othe fact that not many people are being sentenced to death in the first place. However even with modern forensic methdos, there still are innocent people being sentenced to death (and ultimately being innocently murdered by the state) due to errors in the judical system, which is indiscussably infallible due to it being comprised of human beings.

Any innocent life being taken with the approval of the state is capital murder by the state and these murdered by the state do not get their lives back. Neither do the victims of those who are being executed - and who are actually guilty of comitting a capital crime. No degree of modern technology will remove the human component of a judicla system and with humans having the ability of being biased or influenced in some form, the death penalty can never be a 100% just punishment.

But with new modern technology the number of people convicted for murder who are innocent is practically nil.
Hope your never in that small %.
If your going to do it do it. No six year waits!
No execution of the mad or of Children please.
Can't say I favour it but must admit if one of my children was murdered there would be no need for a trial.
As is my want I will sit on the fence on htis one.
Saying that it does not work as a deterent, the chance of getting it wrong is worrying, but for repeat offenders and people like manson it may be appropriate. Convince me!

You lose your 'civil rights' the minute you kill another Human being

See now, this is a quote based off emotion, and without logic.

Are you prepared to tell that to the Police Officer who has to use Lethal Force to bring down a criminal?

Are you prepared to tell that to the soldier who has to kill another human being in order to save his/her own life in a firefight?

Also, are you prepared to tell that to the President/World Leader that sends thousands of young people off to die in a war? That's killing them too, isn't it?

And while we're on this subject, I'm all for Capital Punishment. A person who takes another's life with *malice* intent, then yes, they deserve to die.

An Eye for an Eye, after all.

If a jury cannot be sure about the murder then the judge will not pass on a death sentence, the evidence had to be solid. But look at people like Roy Whiting and Saddam Hussain, look at what they have done and it was proved with solid evidence but Whiting was just imprisoned with the chance of parole so he could be out again. People like that should either be shot or.... not allowed to have appeal or parole

You lose your 'civil rights' the minute you kill another Human being

See now, this is a quote based off emotion, and without logic.

Are you prepared to tell that to the Police Officer who has to use Lethal Force to bring down a criminal?

Are you prepared to tell that to the soldier who has to kill another human being in order to save his/her own life in a firefight?

Also, are you prepared to tell that to the President/World Leader that sends thousands of young people off to die in a war? That's killing them too, isn't it?

And while we're on this subject, I'm all for Captial Punishment. A person who takes another's life with *malice* intent, then yes, they deserve to die.

An Eye for an Eye, after all.
If we go down the eye for and eye route then we should do EXACTLY that!

You lose your 'civil rights' the minute you kill another Human being

See now, this is a quote based off emotion, and without logic.

Are you prepared to tell that to the Police Officer who has to use Lethal Force to bring down a criminal?

Are you prepared to tell that to the soldier who has to kill another human being in order to save his/her own life in a firefight?

Also, are you prepared to tell that to the President/World Leader that sends thousands of young people off to die in a war? That's killing them too, isn't it?

And while we're on this subject, I'm all for Captial Punishment. A person who takes another's life with *malice* intent, then yes, they deserve to die.

An Eye for an Eye, after all.

Yes i completely agree i did actually mean if they did it out of pure hate or they just get a 'kick' out of it.

You lose your 'civil rights' the minute you kill another Human being

See now, this is a quote based off emotion, and without logic.

Are you prepared to tell that to the Police Officer who has to use Lethal Force to bring down a criminal?

Are you prepared to tell that to the soldier who has to kill another human being in order to save his/her own life in a firefight?

Also, are you prepared to tell that to the President/World Leader that sends thousands of young people off to die in a war? That's killing them too, isn't it?

And while we're on this subject, I'm all for Captial Punishment. A person who takes another's life with *malice* intent, then yes, they deserve to die.

An Eye for an Eye, after all.
If we go down the eye for and eye route then we should do EXACTLY that!

If you rape someone, they get to rape you back, if someone steals something off you, you get to take something from them. If someone smokes pot we should force energetic anger on them...

If a person murders or completely ruins a persons life (rape) then the the Goverment of a country have a right to put that person to death. A life for a life, its the only way people will learn that its not ok to do it.

So it's all right for the government to take a life? That's something of a double-standard, isn't it?

I'm opposed to capital punishment due to the vast number of innocents that are incorrectly condemned. Also, it doesn't really seem to prevent crime much, if you look at statistics.Vast number? That's stretching the arguement quite alot! I've been to prison(not death row) and most people there, belong there(I assume it is so of death row as well).

http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/deathpenalty/critical_info?opendocument

"Each year, at least 4 innocent people are convicted of capital crimes"

"A poll of police chiefs found that they ranked the death penalty as least effective in reducing violent crime."

"Since 1973, over 160 children in the U.S. have been sentenced to die. This is higher than any of the other 5 countries (Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) which authorize the death penalty for crimes committed by juveniles."

"Historically, more than 80% of those executed were convicted of killing whites, although people of color comprise more than half of all homicide victims in the United States."


All this and more tells me that capital punishment is barbaric and arbitrary, and has no place in a civilized country.

If someone commits rape then they should be litrally 'cut off'

Not the human is to be punished for commiting the crime, rather the state is required to ensure in a reasonable way, that the human does not repeat his crime and that the cause for such crimes is being removed.

Death penalty obviously works then, since it's highly unlikely someone who's dead is gonna repeat the crime = cause of the crime(s) in question removed.

Children are not even sent to jail in the UK never mind having the Death penalty

Death penalty obviously works then, since it's highly unlikely someone who's dead is gonna repeat the crime = cause of the crime(s) in question removed.

The human is not the cause, rather circumstances which motivated the human to commit the crime.

If someone commits rape then they should be litrally 'cut off'

What if it's a female commiting said rape - what're you (generic) gonna cut off?

That said, I do agree... very slowly, with no anaesthetic(sp?), using a _very_ blunt knife. :D

May your father, mother, sister or brother get into the situation and I want to see you spew that crap forth when you have to watch your close family relatives suffer like that.

All this and more tells me that capital punishment is barbaric and arbitrary, and has no place in a civilized country.

All it tells me is that the system isn't perfect.

Its a bit complicated with women because they dont commit rape as often as men but saying that men cant get pregnant and lets be honest there are not many men (who are honest to themselves) who would say they didnt like it.

If a person murders or completely ruins a persons life (rape) then the the Goverment of a country have a right to put that person to death. A life for a life, its the only way people will learn that its not ok to do it.

So it's all right for the government to take a life? That's something of a double-standard, isn't it?

I'm opposed to capital punishment due to the vast number of innocents that are incorrectly condemned. Also, it doesn't really seem to prevent crime much, if you look at statistics.Vast number? That's stretching the arguement quite alot! I've been to prison(not death row) and most people there, belong there(I assume it is so of death row as well).

http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/deathpenalty/critical_info?opendocument

"Each year, at least 4 innocent people are convicted of capital crimes"

"A poll of police chiefs found that they ranked the death penalty as least effective in reducing violent crime."

"Since 1973, over 160 children in the U.S. have been sentenced to die. This is higher than any of the other 5 countries (Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) which authorize the death penalty for crimes committed by juveniles."

"Historically, more than 80% of those executed were convicted of killing whites, although people of color comprise more than half of all homicide victims in the United States."


All this and more tells me that capital punishment is barbaric and arbitrary, and has no place in a civilized country.How many of those 4 are executed? The death penalty is punishment, well earned punishment, so is all of the penal system. Deterance is not even a consideration. Your third point depends on who you want to call a child. The forth point is moot, whites make up the majority of people in the US, hence the majority of murder victims. People tend to kill others who are much like themselves. That statisic also fails to mention that minoroties are more likely to die as a result of violence. If there were more executions of murderers who kill people of color, would that be ok?

Death penalty obviously works then, since it's highly unlikely someone who's dead is gonna repeat the crime = cause of the crime(s) in question removed.

The human is not the cause, rather circumstances which motivated the human to commit the crime.

So now you're advocating removal of personal responsibility too?

So now you're advocating removal of personal responsibility too?

In the case of crimes which lead to capital punishment, yes since no human is inherently evil and you always must consider their upbringing and possible previous events in their lives, messed up childhood, abuse as a child, mental illness, etc.No human is solely responsible for murdering another human, since that is not within our nature as social beings.

The UN has no right to dictate to sovereign nations on this issue. So I won't support such a proposal.

What you fail to see is that the UN is optional. You do not have to be in it. So they can dictate such a proposal because you do not have to be in it! If you do not like the proposal, vote against it. But if it passes and you dislike it that much, get out of the UN.

Thats not always the case, there have been serial killers who have good jobs and have had a 'perfect' childhood but due to a fasination with death they turn to killing.

Thats not always the case, there have been serial killers who have good jobs and have had a 'perfect' childhood but due to a fasination with death they turn to killing.

Yeah, that's me....wait, I mean, uhh....*runs away*

Its ok to joke about it but it does happen.

I read a psychology article that talks about how this current media obsession with serial killers may be breeding more than usual.

http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/deathpenalty/critical_info?opendocument

"Each year, at least 4 innocent people are convicted of capital crimes"

"A poll of police chiefs found that they ranked the death penalty as least effective in reducing violent crime."

"Since 1973, over 160 children in the U.S. have been sentenced to die. This is higher than any of the other 5 countries (Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) which authorize the death penalty for crimes committed by juveniles."

"Historically, more than 80% of those executed were convicted of killing whites, although people of color comprise more than half of all homicide victims in the United States."


All this and more tells me that capital punishment is barbaric and arbitrary, and has no place in a civilized country.

How many of those 4 are executed?

Even 1 is too many. Death is rather final, you can't undo it.


The death penalty is punishment, well earned punishment, so is all of the penal system. Deterance is not even a consideration.

Then why do many pro-death people use deterrance as an argument? And who's to say if you've earned a death penalty? Two people can be convicted of the same crime, and one can get death while the other gets prison. Is that right? Also, the one who gets death is more often black. That's what I meant when I said it was arbitrary.


Your third point depends on who you want to call a child.

Someone under the legal age. Not that hard to understand, is it?


The forth point is moot, whites make up the majority of people in the US, hence the majority of murder victims. People tend to kill others who are much like themselves. That statisic also fails to mention that minoroties are more likely to die as a result of violence. If there were more executions of murderers who kill people of color, would that be ok?

Did you even read the post? It said

"Historically, more than 80% of those executed were convicted of killing whites, although people of color comprise more than half of all homicide victims in the United States."

The point is that a murdered white apparantly is worth more than a murdered black, especially if the murderer is also black.

So now you're advocating removal of personal responsibility too?

In the case of crimes which lead to capital punishment, yes since no human is inherently evil and you always must consider their upbringing and possible previous events in their lives, messed up childhood, abuse as a child, mental illness, etc.No human is solely responsible for murdering another human, since that is not within our nature as social beings.

Awww diddums. So just because someone's had a screwed up life means that if THEY MAKE THE CHOICE (because at the end of the day, let's face it - it IS a choice, no-one's forcing them) to kill/rape/whatever someone, they should just be patted on the head and told "awww whadda shame that *insert $excuse* happened... just because you chose to kill someone doesn't make you a bad person."

Bleeding heart liberals! :P

I read a psychology article that talks about how this current media obsession with serial killers may be breeding more than usual.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

The mentality "before the law all are equal, but some are more equal than others" is not just dominant in the US, but many other nations aswell. While claiming that law does not discriminate, the contrary is statistically provable, the case. If you have money, you are "worth more" before the law, most often. If you are white and the "offender" black, you will be "worth more" most likely. Bias because of race, social status, wealth and other simple status symbols, can mean a lot before any court that claims to be impartial and just i nall regards.

The mentality "before the law all are equal, but some are more equal than others" is not just dominant in the US, but many other nations aswell...

Like I said, that just shows the system's screwy.

awww whadda shame that *insert $excuse* happened... just because you chose to kill someone doesn't make you a bad person
Tell that to the person who had to kill someone else in self defence. Thats killing of a human aswell, with the choice of the defender to kill the attacker. According to your logic, also those who kill in defence would be held accountable for their action and thus deserve capital punishment. How about soldiers killing during wars? They make the choice aswell or even get the order to do it and do not get any punishment normally (unless the soldier belongs to the country that loses the war, which always results in unfair judgement afterwards).

Murderers don't stop killing in prison. Is one innocent life worth the lives of all of the people that a killer will kill during a life in prison?
There is no method to predict or effectively prevent crimes, punishment is the only thing that a society can do.
I've saw 16 and 17 year ols who were absolute nightmares. Are they children?
The statistic that you posted failed to mention the race of the murderers only the victims. And, would it be ok if more people were executed for killing minorities, again?

awww whadda shame that *insert $excuse* happened... just because you chose to kill someone doesn't make you a bad person
Tell that to the person who had to kill someone else in self defence.

But then afaia self-defence isn't punishable by the death penalty - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

We're talking about pre-meditated, uninvited, cold-blooded murder in this 'ere thread, NOT the same thing at all!

awww whadda shame that *insert $excuse* happened... just because you chose to kill someone doesn't make you a bad person
Tell that to the person who had to kill someone else in self defence. Thats killing of a human aswell, with the choice of the defender to kill the attacker. According to your logic, also those who kill in defence would be held accountable for their action and thus deserve capital punishment. How about soldiers killing during wars? They make the choice aswell or even get the order to do it and do not get any punishment normally (unless the soldier belongs to the country that loses the war, which always results in unfair judgement afterwards).

Oh for cryin out loud..there is a huge difference between a soldier killing an enemy in war and a thug killing a store clerk for the $50 in his convenience store til....that's bout the most moronic thing I've seen you post.

Even so, the line between self-defence and murder is very very thin. As long as humans make the judgement on all of this, the result is never infallible and thus can be subject to bias of some sort. With this being the case and the death penalty being an ultimate and irreversible punishment, normal human thinking dictates that deat hpenalty is an unsuitable punishment, which must not be legalized by the state. If the state endangers itself of legally allowing an innocent citizen of being executed, then the state becomes a murderer. You best read that Amnesty International page I linked to earlier, because they can explain the entire issue much better than I ever could, considering that I took this stance just recently when I learned of the glaring injsutice in most judical systems.

Edit: Addition here's the link again:
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng

Even so, the line between self-defence and murder is very very thin. As long as humans make the judgement on all of this, the result is never infallible and thus can be subject to bias of some sort. With this being the case and the death penalty being an ultimate and irreversible punishment, normal human thinking dictates that deat hpenalty is an unsuitable punishment, which must not be legalized by the state. If the state endangers itself of legally allowing an innocent citizen of being executed, then the state becomes a murderer. You best read that Amnesty International page I linked to earlier, because they can explain the entire issue much better than I ever could, considering that I took this stance just recently when I learned of the glaring injsutice in most judical systems.Prison sentences are also irreversible.

normal human thinking dictates

No... in YOUR OPINION "normal human thinking dictates", in MY OPINION "normal human thinking dictates" otherwise.

Murderers don't stop killing in prison. Is one innocent life worth the lives of all of the people that a killer will kill during a life in prison?

The average time between sentencing and execution is 9 & 1/2 years, so that point is irrelevant.

There is no method to predict or effectively prevent crimes, punishment is the only thing that a society can do.

Some state governments estimate the typical cost for a single death penalty case -- from arrest to execution -- to be $1 million to $3 million. Life imprisonment costs have been estimated at about $500,000 per case. What if all that money was put on law enforcement instead?


I've saw 16 and 17 year ols who were absolute nightmares. Are they children?

Yes. If a child turns out bad, it's generally the fault of the parents' or other individuals in their environment. If anyone should be punished, it's them (though not capitally, of course).


The statistic that you posted failed to mention the race of the murderers only the victims. And, would it be ok if more people were executed for killing minorities, again?

In a recent study, it was found that blacks in Philadelphia were nearly 4 times as likely to get the death penalty as other defendants under similar circumstances.

Even so, the line between self-defence and murder is very very thin. As long as humans make the judgement on all of this, the result is never infallible and thus can be subject to bias of some sort. With this being the case and the death penalty being an ultimate and irreversible punishment, normal human thinking dictates that deat hpenalty is an unsuitable punishment, which must not be legalized by the state. If the state endangers itself of legally allowing an innocent citizen of being executed, then the state becomes a murderer. You best read that Amnesty International page I linked to earlier, because they can explain the entire issue much better than I ever could, considering that I took this stance just recently when I learned of the glaring injsutice in most judical systems.

Edit: Addition here's the link again:
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng

Personally I could care less what Amnesty International thinks...the vast overwhelming number of people on death row (at least the American version) are not some normal joe guy asserting his innocence. They tend to be repeat offenders, 80% of the inmate population are repeat offenders, they are violent-prone..have a rap sheet as long as my arm, and in all likelihood have committed other crimes for which we have never found out about. Like for example...there is this one gang-banger with 3 tears tattooed over his eye...many don't realize that the teardrops signify how many people he's killed since becoming inducted into the gang..now...we might not be able to convict him on any of those murders but there is no doubt of their significance to those of us who have either worked in law enforcement or gang surveiillance.

Personally I could care less what Amnesty International thinks...the vast overwhelming number of people on death row (at least the American version) are not some normal joe guy asserting his innocence. They tend to be repeat offenders, 80% of the inmate population are repeat offenders, they are violent-prone..have a rap sheet as long as my arm, and in all likelihood have committed other crimes for which we have never found out about. Like for example...there is this one gang-banger with 3 tears tattooed over his eye...many don't realize that the teardrops signify how many people he's killed since becoming inducted into the gang..now...we might not be able to convict him on any of those murders but there is no doubt of their significance to those of us who have either worked in law enforcement or gang surveiillance.

The fact that such people exist in these frighteningly large numbers, might be related to the fact that the US are an extremely violent people, embracing violence in just about every part of life? That the "right" to own a gun is a consitutional one in the US, which provides humans which are more often than not, not fit to own a gun, with means to kill other people quite easily? With the US lowering their own levels of inhibition to the degree that torturing is being made acceptable by the President and his administration, then I am not surprised that crimes are commited more often. How can you expect your citizens to behave well if they see from their leaders that crimes do pay off largely and wont normally be punished?

Threatening with harsher punishments for crimes wont be possible. Death is already the harshest and most inhumane punishment possible (unles of course you couple it with prolonged cruel torturing, which might happen if the current development continues, and I am sure people like you will be the strongest defenders of that when the time has come). That harsh punishments obviously dont deter people from committing crimes (as a child you probably didnt always do what your parents said since it is enticing to break the rules), is a statistically proven fact. All countries who do not have death penalties anymore, did not note an increase in criminal activity. Quite at the contrary, the abolishment of death penalty has resulted in a drop of capital crimes. But of course, this doesnt count... people are just making up things, because saving a human life, no matter how "low" it might be regarded, is worth it.

Murderers don't stop killing in prison. Is one innocent life worth the lives of all of the people that a killer will kill during a life in prison?

The average time between sentencing and execution is 9 & 1/2 years, so that point is irrelevant.

There is no method to predict or effectively prevent crimes, punishment is the only thing that a society can do.

Some state governments estimate the typical cost for a single death penalty case -- from arrest to execution -- to be $1 million to $3 million. Life imprisonment costs have been estimated at about $500,000 per case. What if all that money was put on law enforcement instead?


I've saw 16 and 17 year ols who were absolute nightmares. Are they children?

Yes. If a child turns out bad, it's generally the fault of the parents' or other individuals in their environment. If anyone should be punished, it's them (though not capitally, of course).


The statistic that you posted failed to mention the race of the murderers only the victims. And, would it be ok if more people were executed for killing minorities, again?

In a recent study, it was found that blacks in Philadelphia were nearly 4 times as likely to get the death penalty as other defendants under similar circumstances.What would the sentence be if there were no death penalty? Are we to use that money to hire psychics to predict or deter crimes? If a child turns out bad does that free them from responsiblty for thier crimes. You claim these statistics about the race of death row in-mates are so, maybe they are. It makes little difference. They present a better arguement for more executions, not fewer. Are you going to answer my question?

Well said, Gigatron. What country are you from, anyway? It's been bugging the heck out of me trying to figure it out.

What would the sentence be if there were no death penalty?

For now, to pacify some of the hardliners who fear that capital offenders would get out of jail "prematurely", the replacement for capitalpunishment is a conversion of all death row inmates to life sentence without the option of parole. This could later on be adjusted to allow parole, being responsibility of the nation themselves. The only goal of this proposal is, to remove the anti-human right punishment "death penalty", which has no place in most modern societies and is not missed in the societies who abolished this practice.

Well said, Gigatron. What country are you from, anyway? It's been bugging the heck out of me trying to figure it out.
I am from Germany.

What would the sentence be if there were no death penalty?

For now, to pacify some of the hardliners who fear that capital offenders would get out of jail "prematurely", the replacement for capitalpunishment is a conversion of all death row inmates to life sentence without the option of parole. This could later on be adjusted to allow parole, being responsibility of the nation themselves. The only goal of this proposal is, to remove the anti-human right punishment "death penalty", which has no place in most modern societies and is not missed in the societies who abolished this practice. How many would they kill during thier life sentences?

Nobody. Life sentence means they are in prison until their natural death occurs and usually prisoners are not able to kill anyone else, provided its a fully functional prison. If an additional proposal would get accepted in th efuture to change this from lifesentence without parole to lifesentence with possible parole, responsibility of the state, then it could result in the release of rehabilitated citizens fro mprison, to once again serve society as fully accepted members. After all the goal of prison should be to rehabilitate the prisoners, not to keep them inside until death - which is unfortunately not enforcable yet.

Yet another thread descends into anti-American rhetoric...I must say it all get a bit boring.

If someone commits a premeditated murder, that is not in self-defence, no accidental but premeditated murder then why should they not face the death penalty? Did their victim deserve the death sentence they received?
Two wrongs don't make a right, but if someone has such a low value for human life then they do not deserve anything better.

As far as trying to drag soldiers in a war into the argument.... :roll:

Nobody. Life sentence means they are in prison and usually not able to kill anyone else,provided its a fully functional prison.While I was in prison I saw 4 men killed, explain that to me please. Other in-mates are the victims of murderers who are left in prison. Do they not matter?

What would the sentence be if there were no death penalty? Are we to use that money to hire psychics to predict or deter crimes?


It's called life imprisonment. It works fine in just about all other democratic countries, not to mention a number of States. Why shouldn't it in yours?


If a child turns out bad does that free them from responsiblty for thier crimes.


When it comes to children rehabilitation, or even imprisonment, is better than death. The child has no legal rights such as voting, marrying, or fighting in a war, yet he can be put to death. Where's the logic in that?


You claim these statistics about the race of death row in-mates are so, maybe they are. It makes little difference. They present a better arguement for more executions, not fewer. Are you going to answer my question?

They present an argument for NO executions. Just because there are a number of wrongly condemned people of a certain group, doesn't mean that will become better with more people from another group. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that the death penalty is repeatedly used incorrectly and biased means that it shouldn't be used at all.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but if someone has such a low value for human life then they do not deserve anything better.

I would agree if such statements would apply to all of society and not be applied with the mentality of "all are equal before the law, but some are more equal than others." Abuse of the judical systems aswellas human error do and will continue to happen forever. Humans are not infallible, so no human has the right to decide who deserves what - not even if another human takes this right for himself.The state is supposed to be the norm and example, not commit the same crime as the murderer.

What would the sentence be if there were no death penalty? Are we to use that money to hire psychics to predict or deter crimes?


It's called life imprisonment. It works fine in just about all other democratic countries, not to mention a number of States. Why shouldn't it in yours?


If a child turns out bad does that free them from responsiblty for thier crimes.


When it comes to children rehabilitation, or even imprisonment, is better than death. The child has no legal rights such as voting, marrying, or fighting in a war, yet he can be put to death. Where's the logic in that?


You claim these statistics about the race of death row in-mates are so, maybe they are. It makes little difference. They present a better arguement for more executions, not fewer. Are you going to answer my question?

They present an argument for NO executions. Just because there are a number of wrongly condemned people of a certain group, doesn't mean that will become better with more people from another group. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that the death penalty is repeatedly used incorrectly and biased means that it shouldn't be used at all.I addressed the problem with life imprisonment above.Not everyone under 18 is a child. No, your arguements seem to suggest that too few whites are being executed, nothing more.

The mentality "before the law all are equal, but some are more equal than others" is not just dominant in the US, but many other nations aswell...

Like I said, that just shows the system's screwy.

That's a perfect argument for not letting the system kill people. If your system is screwy, you really shouldn't give it the power of life and death.

Yet another thread descends into anti-American rhetoric...I must say it all get a bit boring.

If someone commits a premeditated murder, that is not in self-defence, no accidental but premeditated murder then why should they not face the death penalty? Did their victim deserve the death sentence they received?
Two wrongs don't make a right, but if someone has such a low value for human life then they do not deserve anything better.

As far as trying to drag soldiers in a war into the argument.... :roll:

That's just it: How do you judge what was premeditated, self-defence, or accident? In many cases, you can't. But the courts give death penalties anyway, despite the reasonable doubt.

Nobody. Life sentence means they are in prison and usually not able to kill anyone else,provided its a fully functional prison.While I was in prison I saw 4 men killed, explain that to me please. Other in-mates are the victims of murderers who are left in prison. Do they not matter?

That's the fault of those in charge of the prison, and ultimately politicians for a) allowing prisons to become overly full and b) not giving enough funding for adequate security. Besides, as I said before, death-row prisoners are still in jail for an average of about 9 1/2 years, so they can do just as much inmate killing. Your point is irrelevant.

It should be up to the country...

It should be up to the country...

Indeed it should

Yet another thread descends into anti-American rhetoric...I must say it all get a bit boring.

If someone commits a premeditated murder, that is not in self-defence, no accidental but premeditated murder then why should they not face the death penalty? Did their victim deserve the death sentence they received?
Two wrongs don't make a right, but if someone has such a low value for human life then they do not deserve anything better.

As far as trying to drag soldiers in a war into the argument.... :roll:

That's just it: How do you judge what was premeditated, self-defence, or accident? In many cases, you can't. But the courts give death penalties anyway, despite the reasonable doubt.

Nobody. Life sentence means they are in prison and usually not able to kill anyone else,provided its a fully functional prison.While I was in prison I saw 4 men killed, explain that to me please. Other in-mates are the victims of murderers who are left in prison. Do they not matter?

That's the fault of those in charge of the prison, and ultimately politicians for a) allowing prisons to become overly full and b) not giving enough funding for adequate security. Besides, as I said before, death-row prisoners are still in jail for an average of about 9 1/2 years, so they can do just as much inmate killing. Your point is irrelevant.Death row prisoners are isolated, they aren't given the oppurtunity to kill again.

...Not everyone under 18 is a child...

That's an interesting opinion. I wonder how well it would work in defence of, say, under-age sex?

It should be up to the country...

Indeed it should

Thankyou 8)

That's the fault of those in charge of the prison, and ultimately politicians for a) allowing prisons to become overly full and.....snip

Prisons would be less full if you executed people who committed premeditated murder. :wink:

...Not everyone under 18 is a child...

That's an interesting opinion. I wonder how well it would work in defence of, say, under-age sex?The lrgal age of consent for sex is often under 18.

Not everyone under 18 is a child

According to the law and granting of civil rights, yes. According to death penalty in the US, a significant age below 18 is considered adult in most states of the US. I do not have the correct age here right now, but it is not 18. I think it is 15 or 16.


The overwhelming international consensus that the death penalty should not apply to juvenile offenders stems from the recognition that young persons, because of their immaturity, may not fully comprehend the consequences of their actions and should therefore benefit from less severe sanctions than adults. More importantly, it reflects the firm belief that young persons are more susceptible to change, and thus have a greater potential for rehabilitation than adults.

Mary Robinson, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights


Furthermore:

An execution cannot be used to condemn killing. Such an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to use physical violence against a victim. Additionally, all criminal justice systems are vulnerable to discrimination and error. No system is or could conceivably be capable of deciding fairly, consistently and infallibly who should live and who should die. Expediency, discretionary decisions and prevailing public opinion may influence the proceedings from the initial arrest to the last-minute decision on clemency.

Central to human rights is that they are inalienable -- they are accorded equally to every individual regardless of their status, ethnicity, religion or origin. They may not be taken away from anyone regardless of the crimes a person has committed. Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as to the best of us, which is why they are there to protect all of us. They save us from ourselves.

In addition experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges.

That's the fault of those in charge of the prison, and ultimately politicians for a) allowing prisons to become overly full and b) not giving enough funding for adequate security. Besides, as I said before, death-row prisoners are still in jail for an average of about 9 1/2 years, so they can do just as much inmate killing. Your point is irrelevant.

Death row prisoners are isolated, they aren't given the oppurtunity to kill again.

I was unaware of that. Still, the cost of keeping a death-row prisoner is several times higher than an ordinary prisoner. Money that better could be used to up prison secutity for the rest of the inmates.

...Not everyone under 18 is a child...

That's an interesting opinion. I wonder how well it would work in defence of, say, under-age sex?The lrgal age of consent for sex is often under 18.

BURNED! :shock:

Not everyone under 18 is a child

According to the law and granting of civil rights, yes. According to death penalty in the US, a significant age below 18 is considered adult in most states of the US. I do not have the correct age here right now, but it is not 18. I think it is 15 or 16.


The overwhelming international consensus that the death penalty should not apply to juvenile offenders stems from the recognition that young persons, because of their immaturity, may not fully comprehend the consequences of their actions and should therefore benefit from less severe sanctions than adults. More importantly, it reflects the firm belief that young persons are more susceptible to change, and thus have a greater potential for rehabilitation than adults.

Mary Robinson, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights


Furthermore:

An execution cannot be used to condemn killing. Such an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to use physical violence against a victim. Additionally, all criminal justice systems are vulnerable to discrimination and error. No system is or could conceivably be capable of deciding fairly, consistently and infallibly who should live and who should die. Expediency, discretionary decisions and prevailing public opinion may influence the proceedings from the initial arrest to the last-minute decision on clemency.

Central to human rights is that they are inalienable -- they are accorded equally to every individual regardless of their status, ethnicity, religion or origin. They may not be taken away from anyone regardless of the crimes a person has committed. Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as to the best of us, which is why they are there to protect all of us. They save us from ourselves.

In addition experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges.
Overwhelming international consensus, huh. Only one thing to say to that. So! As to the rest of your cut and pastes, you've nade those aguements before. They do little to convince anyone, no matter who's written them.

That's the fault of those in charge of the prison, and ultimately politicians for a) allowing prisons to become overly full and b) not giving enough funding for adequate security. Besides, as I said before, death-row prisoners are still in jail for an average of about 9 1/2 years, so they can do just as much inmate killing. Your point is irrelevant.

Death row prisoners are isolated, they aren't given the oppurtunity to kill again.

I was unaware of that. Still, the cost of keeping a death-row prisoner is several times higher than an ordinary prisoner. Money that better could be used to up prison secutity for the rest of the inmates.If those who wold be death row in-mates were allowed to join the rest of prison population how many more would they kill? Do you care if they kill other prisoners?

The mentality "before the law all are equal, but some are more equal than others" is not just dominant in the US, but many other nations aswell...

Like I said, that just shows the system's screwy.

That's a perfect argument for not letting the system kill people. If your system is screwy, you really shouldn't give it the power of life and death.

But then I didn't say the currently screwy systems *should* have that power, just that I believe that in a 'Perfect System' (and if there was such a perfect system, would it be necessary anyway?) it _should_ be allowed.

I realise that's hardly helpful to the current debate, but I'm more anti-screwed up systems than I'll ever be anti-death penalty.

Overwhelming international consensus, huh. Only one thing to say to that. So!

Only a member of a nation powerful enough to ignore international consensus can make such statements. Dont forget that dictators such as Saddam Hussein said exactly the same. See where it led him in the end.

That's the fault of those in charge of the prison, and ultimately politicians for a) allowing prisons to become overly full and b) not giving enough funding for adequate security. Besides, as I said before, death-row prisoners are still in jail for an average of about 9 1/2 years, so they can do just as much inmate killing. Your point is irrelevant.

Death row prisoners are isolated, they aren't given the oppurtunity to kill again.

I was unaware of that. Still, the cost of keeping a death-row prisoner is several times higher than an ordinary prisoner. Money that better could be used to up prison secutity for the rest of the inmates.If those who wold be death row in-mates were allowed to join the rest of prison population how many more would they kill? Do you care if they kill other prisoners?

Now you're just not listening. No death row = more money for prisons = better security = less in-prison violence.

...Not everyone under 18 is a child...

That's an interesting opinion. I wonder how well it would work in defence of, say, under-age sex?The lrgal age of consent for sex is often under 18.

Yes, I know. I live in the UK and have been enjoying legal sex since I was 16. The point is that a legally-defined age is a legally-defined age. If the law states that you are a child until you are 18 -- then you are a child until you are 18.

Death row prisoners are isolated, they aren't given the oppurtunity to kill again.

Not ime - not personal admittedly, but I was writing to someone on death row (and yes, he knew my opinions on the matter) for a few years and he wasn't _always_ isolated.

If a person murders or completely ruins a persons life (rape) then the the Goverment of a country have a right to put that person to death. A life for a life, its the only way people will learn that its not ok to do it.

So it's all right for the government to take a life? That's something of a double-standard, isn't it?

I'm opposed to capital punishment due to the vast number of innocents that are incorrectly condemned. Also, it doesn't really seem to prevent crime much, if you look at statistics.Vast number? That's stretching the arguement quite alot! I've been to prison(not death row) and most people there, belong there(I assume it is so of death row as well).
ONE innocent life is ONE too many. Besides, who gave you the right to judge?

Read the following irrefutable evidence:

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

Cost, Deterrence, Incapacitation, Brutalization and the Death Penalty
The Scientific Evidence

There is probably no public policy issue related to crime control that has been researched and studied over as long a period of time as the death penalty; in more varied ways than the death penalty; or in greater volume than the death penalty. Put simply, the dilemma is this: there is no crime control issue we know more about than the death penalty and there is no crime control issue where the scientific research has been more ignored by decision-makers and the public than the death penalty. The fact is that the death penalty debate is much more than a matter of conflicting opinions, morals, ethics, and values. There are a plethora of well established, scientifically documented facts at the disposal of both the public and lawmakers. These facts have emanated from research that has been replicated over and over again and subjected to the most rigorous scientific review process available. These facts are well beyond refutation. In sum, it is fair to say to a level of certainty that far exceeds the most rigorous standards of proof in any court in America, that the death penalty, as presently constructed and administered is deplorably bad public policy. In studies using entirely different methodologies, at different times, in different places, constructing research questions in different ways, the facts are immutable and unchanging. The scientifically proven facts of the death penalty are clear. Those facts are:


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. The death penalty performs no crime control function whatsoever.

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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

The overwhelming body of scientific studies supporting each of these propositions is presented in a written addendum to my testimony, summarizing every important scholarly study on the death penalty since 1980. I believe that if you take the time to read that scientific evidence it will become obvious that the weight of the scientific evidence against the death penalty is not just in preponderance, it is overwhelming and virtually unrefutable.

BAN THE DEATH PENALTY

The mentality "before the law all are equal, but some are more equal than others" is not just dominant in the US, but many other nations aswell...

Like I said, that just shows the system's screwy.

That's a perfect argument for not letting the system kill people. If your system is screwy, you really shouldn't give it the power of life and death.

But then I didn't say the currently screwy systems *should* have that power, just that I believe that in a 'Perfect System' (and if there was such a perfect system, would it be necessary anyway?) it _should_ be allowed.

I realise that's hardly helpful to the current debate, but I'm more anti-screwed up systems than I'll ever be anti-death penalty.

Fair enough. When someone develops a "Perfect System", let me know, and I'll reconsider my position.

Now you're just not listening. No death row = more money for prisons = better security = less in-prison violence.

May I just ask... what planet are you living on, 'cause it certainly ain't the same one I'm living on?

May I just ask... what planet are you living on, 'cause it certainly ain't the same one I'm living on?

Earth is ours. Whats yours again? Mars perhaps? Or Venus? Maybe Jupiter possibly even Pluto? Considering in what dark times of civilization some people here actually seem to live in, Pluto seems the most obvious choice.

BAN THE DEATH PENALTY

You know putting that in bold just means people are unlikely to read it 'cause it hurts to read it, doncha?

Now you're just not listening. No death row = more money for prisons = better security = less in-prison violence.

May I just ask... what planet are you living on, 'cause it certainly ain't the same one I'm living on?
Cromatar knows of what he speaks. Perhaps a little research on your part and you may very well learn the same wisdom?

But then I didn't say the currently screwy systems *should* have that power, just that I believe that in a 'Perfect System' (and if there was such a perfect system, would it be necessary anyway?) it _should_ be allowed.

I realise that's hardly helpful to the current debate, but I'm more anti-screwed up systems than I'll ever be anti-death penalty.

Fair enough. When someone develops a "Perfect System", let me know, and I'll reconsider my position.

When someone develops a 'Perfect System' you'll know 'cause you'll be on my invite list to the party. *wry smile*

BAN THE DEATH PENALTY

You know putting that in bold just means people are unlikely to read it 'cause it hurts to read it, doncha?
Only hurts to read it if you are afraid of the truth?

I support the bold,large letters and the red color. It "underlines" the importance of banning this punishment and glaring injustice of some people's moral perception regarding this issue.

Yes, it has been proven that the larger and brighter the font the more correct you are.

Now you're just not listening. No death row = more money for prisons = better security = less in-prison violence.

May I just ask... what planet are you living on, 'cause it certainly ain't the same one I'm living on?
Cromatar knows of what he speaks. Perhaps a little research on your part and you may very well learn the same wisdom?

Cromatar may well know of what he speaks... but I think he misses the point that people are people and afaics NO amount of money spent is gonna stop that from happening. Why? People are tw4ts and wanna have their power and if that means they need to kill for it, there's always gonna be someone willing to go that far.

Now unless you (generic) plan on segregating _every single prisoner_ (which imo would simply be another form of torture anyway) and providing for their each and every whim (which is hardly 'fair' to the poor (monetarily) family of the murdered), then there's still gonna be murder (or at the very least attempted murder) in the prison system.

Hope that made sense - I need coffee.

Yes, it has been proven that the larger and brighter the font the more correct you are.

Generally, it's traditional to debate the issues, not the presentation.

Now you're just not listening. No death row = more money for prisons = better security = less in-prison violence.

May I just ask... what planet are you living on, 'cause it certainly ain't the same one I'm living on?
Cromatar knows of what he speaks. Perhaps a little research on your part and you may very well learn the same wisdom?

Cromatar may well know of what he speaks... but I think he misses the point that people are people and afaics NO amount of money spent is gonna stop that from happening. Why? People are tw4ts and wanna have their power and if that means they need to kill for it, there's always gonna be someone willing to go that far.

Now unless you (generic) plan on segregating _every single prisoner_ (which imo would simply be another form of torture anyway) and providing for their each and every whim (which is hardly 'fair' to the poor (monetarily) family of the murdered), then there's still gonna be murder (or at the very least attempted murder) in the prison system.

Hope that made sense - I need coffee.
No Cromatar does not miss the point. Perhaps you have missed the point. If you read the web site I attached, it makes perfect sense NOT to have the death penalty. There will be LESS murders in jurisdictions that do NOT have the death penalty. It has been factually presented.

Now if you wish to refute them, by all means give it your best shot, hopefully with an argument that contains fact not personal preference.

Thanks for the support, CH. Right now I'm having a rough battle with the /"¤%& server.

Of course you can't stop all prison violence, but with better security guards can intervene in a conflict before a lethal outcome. Besides, I doubt that all prisoners that kill are convicted of crimes that would have resulted in capital punishment, anyway.

The death penalty is cool
The only way to solve one's death is to kill the guy who did it.


I'm not being sarcastic. It's the only way to fix something.

The death penalty is cool
The only way to solve one's death is to kill the guy who did it.


I'm not being sarcastic. It's the only way to fix something.

The death penalty is cool
The only way to solve one's death is to kill the guy who did it.


I'm not being sarcastic. It's the only way to fix something.

Murderers don't stop killing in prison. Is one innocent life worth the lives of all of the people that a killer will kill during a life in prison?

The average time between sentencing and execution is 9 & 1/2 years, so that point is irrelevant.

There is no method to predict or effectively prevent crimes, punishment is the only thing that a society can do.

Some state governments estimate the typical cost for a single death penalty case -- from arrest to execution -- to be $1 million to $3 million. Life imprisonment costs have been estimated at about $500,000 per case. What if all that money was put on law enforcement instead?


I've saw 16 and 17 year ols who were absolute nightmares. Are they children?

Yes. If a child turns out bad, it's generally the fault of the parents' or other individuals in their environment. If anyone should be punished, it's them (though not capitally, of course).


The statistic that you posted failed to mention the race of the murderers only the victims. And, would it be ok if more people were executed for killing minorities, again?

In a recent study, it was found that blacks in Philadelphia were nearly 4 times as likely to get the death penalty as other defendants under similar circumstances.What would the sentence be if there were no death penalty? Are we to use that money to hire psychics to predict or deter crimes? If a child turns out bad does that free them from responsiblty for thier crimes. You claim these statistics about the race of death row in-mates are so, maybe they are. It makes little difference. They present a better arguement for more executions, not fewer. Are you going to answer my question?
So....not are you only willing to support the death penalty, even if there are wrongful convictions, but the race of the individual as mentioned above (black), "present a better arguement for more executions, not fewer"??? That would make you a racist sir?

The death penalty is cool
The only way to solve one's death is to kill the guy who did it.


I'm not being sarcastic. It's the only way to fix something.
Would it be "cool" if it was YOU that was found guilty and yet you were innocent?

Somehow, I don't think it would be so "cool" then huh????

You know putting that in bold just means people are unlikely to read it 'cause it hurts to read it, doncha?
Only hurts to read it if you are afraid of the truth?

No dearie... posting almost an entire post in bold makes it painful for the eyes to read (ok, so my quoting was crap - I meant the whole bolded thing, but I wasn't gonna quote all that painful text all over again), which therefore means it's less likely to be read.

Why oh why oh why couldn't it'd've been posted in nice normal plain text, I might've been able to do more than scroll straight past it then?

I support the bold,large letters and the red color. It "underlines" the importance of banning this punishment and glaring injustice of some people's moral perception regarding this issue.

Much as my (admittedly crap) quoting may suggest, I wasn't on about the red bit - I understand the idea behind the red bit and have no complaints about that bit at all.

Yes, it has been proven that the larger and brighter the font the more correct you are.

Generally, it's traditional to debate the issues, not the presentation.

True, but if the presentation makes the points being put forward difficult to read, then it ain't likely to get read.

Now you're just not listening. No death row = more money for prisons = better security = less in-prison violence.

May I just ask... what planet are you living on, 'cause it certainly ain't the same one I'm living on?
Cromatar knows of what he speaks. Perhaps a little research on your part and you may very well learn the same wisdom?

Listen..the idea that more security will somehow stop inmate violence is ludicrous..there are some prisons with extremely good correction officer to inmate ration..yet still there are deaths...there is prostitution..there is drug use..when a man can make a shiv out of a toothbrush, come up behind another in the shower and jam it into his neck....within sight of a CO in some case..you'd think that the presence of a CO would deter their killing an inmate?...These guys are already in prison..why would it deter them?..Do you realize some of the biggest gangs in America are part and parcel of the US Penal system?..The Mexican Mafia..the Aryan Nation, they all have chapters in US prisons..these men will kill each other for smokes..

As for guns..do you think these men got their guns by buying them? They get them by stealing them from the docks where the weapons come in, they get them from stealing from law-abiding citizens who do go thru the system to buy a weapon..they buy them from dealers on the streat.

Yes, it has been proven that the larger and brighter the font the more correct you are.

Generally, it's traditional to debate the issues, not the presentation.

True, but if the presentation makes the points being put forward difficult to read, then it ain't likely to get read.

And Tygaland's objection to that would be... what? In any case, the numerous comments that have been passed on the post in question demonstrates that it has been read. However, all this is still debating its presentation, not its content, so I'll stop.

You know putting that in bold just means people are unlikely to read it 'cause it hurts to read it, doncha?
Only hurts to read it if you are afraid of the truth?

No dearie... posting almost an entire post in bold makes it painful for the eyes to read (ok, so my quoting was crap - I meant the whole bolded thing, but I wasn't gonna quote all that painful text all over again), which therefore means it's less likely to be read.

Why oh why oh why couldn't it'd've been posted in nice normal plain text, I might've been able to do more than scroll straight past it then?
Ok Lokea, just for you as per your request:

Read the following irrefutable evidence:

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

Cost, Deterrence, Incapacitation, Brutalization and the Death Penalty
The Scientific Evidence:

There is probably no public policy issue related to crime control that has been researched and studied over as long a period of time as the death penalty; in more varied ways than the death penalty; or in greater volume than the death penalty. Put simply, the dilemma is this: there is no crime control issue we know more about than the death penalty and there is no crime control issue where the scientific research has been more ignored by decision-makers and the public than the death penalty. The fact is that the death penalty debate is much more than a matter of conflicting opinions, morals, ethics, and values. There are a plethora of well established, scientifically documented facts at the disposal of both the public and lawmakers. These facts have emanated from research that has been replicated over and over again and subjected to the most rigorous scientific review process available. These facts are well beyond refutation. In sum, it is fair to say to a level of certainty that far exceeds the most rigorous standards of proof in any court in America, that the death penalty, as presently constructed and administered is deplorably bad public policy. In studies using entirely different methodologies, at different times, in different places, constructing research questions in different ways, the facts are immutable and unchanging. The scientifically proven facts of the death penalty are clear. Those facts are:


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. The death penalty performs no crime control function whatsoever.

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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

The overwhelming body of scientific studies supporting each of these propositions is presented in a written addendum to my testimony, summarizing every important scholarly study on the death penalty since 1980. I believe that if you take the time to read that scientific evidence it will become obvious that the weight of the scientific evidence against the death penalty is not just in preponderance, it is overwhelming and virtually unrefutable.

BAN THE DEATH PENALTY

Perhaps I'm just to simple in my approach, but yes..I've read the links that the anti-death penalty advocates have put here..but I break this down to its most personal level..which is where you need to start..I know that by executing Ted Bundy he will never ever kill again..I know that by executing Charles Manson..he will never ever kill again..I know that if I could execute the killer of Officer Stephen Faulkner of Philiadelphia, that man would never kill again..over 150 police officers have died in the line of duty last year..I know if I execute each and every cop-killer out there they will never ever kill again...see simple approach...simple conclusions. don't make it more then this..keep it personal and all of a sudden all that mountain of scientific evidence doesn't mean squat.

The argument that capital punishment degrades the state is moonshine, for if that were true then it would degrade the state to send men to war... The state, in truth, is degraded in its very nature: a few butcheries cannot do it any further damage.
- Henry L. Mencken

No Cromatar does not miss the point. Perhaps you have missed the point. If you read the web site I attached, it makes perfect sense NOT to have the death penalty. There will be LESS murders in jurisdictions that do NOT have the death penalty. It has been factually presented.

Now if you wish to refute them, by all means give it your best shot, hopefully with an argument that contains fact not personal preference.

If the only 'facts' you've got are quoting web-sites that support your theory, then any fool can play that game... look, I've got a link right here for you: http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

I haven't been arguing anything resembling "the death penalty deters homicide", nor have I debated against "it’s enormous cost" (see, I've been and read your link :P) ... what I've stated are the plain facts that IF SOMEONE IS KILLED then THEY ARE UNLIKELY TO KILL ANYONE EVER again. Now _you_ may not think that a bonus, but _I_ do.

As has been said time and again, people are people and people are tw4ts... no matter what's done (unless, of course, we really are all in The Matrix) people will remain being people and WILL KILL for their own gain - whether YOU like it or not.

When I first created my Nation, I looked down the list of approved UN proposals and one of the first ones I saw is "All children under the age of 16 have a right to a free education"... At this point I realized that this UN is made up of people who have the minds of children and do not comprehend the reality of running a society.

People have a right to live their lives without fear of malice, a right to speak their mind and hold their own personal beliefs, a right to have control over what is done by their government, and a right to defend themselves. To protect these rights, however, governments have to be able to defend their citizenry from threats both foreign and domestic, sometimes with the ultimate penalty.

Whenever someone proposes to strike all previous UN regulations from the record and start over fresh, I might give it a chance. But as long as it's run by these pansies it can talk to the hand.

Ok Lokea, just for you as per your request:

Thank you... and it honestly did make for much easier reading. I've already replied to it elsewhere anyway (I clicked the link instead, was easier on the eyes *g*), but wanted to say thanks anyway. :)

I haven't been arguing anything resembling "the death penalty deters homicide", nor have I debated against "it’s enormous cost" (see, I've been and read your link :P) ... what I've stated are the plain facts that IF SOMEONE IS KILLED then THEY ARE UNLIKELY TO KILL ANYONE EVER again. Now _you_ may not think that a bonus, but _I_ do.

If the state kills someone by mistake, then they are unlikely -- to say the least -- to ever be able to correct that error. You may not have a problem with that, but I do.

I haven't been arguing anything resembling "the death penalty deters homicide", nor have I debated against "it’s enormous cost" (see, I've been and read your link :P) ... what I've stated are the plain facts that IF SOMEONE IS KILLED then THEY ARE UNLIKELY TO KILL ANYONE EVER again. Now _you_ may not think that a bonus, but _I_ do.

If the state kills someone by mistake, then they are unlikely -- to say the least -- to ever be able to correct that error. You may not have a problem with that, but I do.

Hence my comments earlier about 'the perfect system'.

I'm arguing the principle of the death penalty, rather than how it's currently executed (no pun intended).

I haven't been arguing anything resembling "the death penalty deters homicide", nor have I debated against "it’s enormous cost" (see, I've been and read your link :P) ... what I've stated are the plain facts that IF SOMEONE IS KILLED then THEY ARE UNLIKELY TO KILL ANYONE EVER again. Now _you_ may not think that a bonus, but _I_ do.

If the state kills someone by mistake, then they are unlikely -- to say the least -- to ever be able to correct that error. You may not have a problem with that, but I do.

a tragedy pure and simple to take the life of any innocent man, but I've been going over the rap sheets of those on death rows across the country, one can hardly call them innocent

If the state kills someone by mistake, then they are unlikely -- to say the least -- to ever be able to correct that error. You may not have a problem with that, but I do.

a tragedy pure and simple to take the life of any innocent man, but I've been going over the rap sheets of those on death rows across the country, one can hardly call them innocent

Ok, playing devil's advocate here I know... but just because one isn't innocent of crime (generic), does that make them receiving the death penalty 'by accident' any more right{1}? (I'm specifically thinking of the case of Derek Bently here, link available at: http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/bentley.html )

{1} Not the word I wanted, but it'll have to do 'cause my brain's hurting. *wry g*

Hence my comments earlier about 'the perfect system'.

I'm arguing the principle of the death penalty, rather than how it's currently executed (no pun intended).

Point. But now we're talking about the real world. As long as the system is imperfect (as it always will be as long as it is run by humans) there is no place for the death penalty, especially for minors.

Hence my comments earlier about 'the perfect system'.

I'm arguing the principle of the death penalty, rather than how it's currently executed (no pun intended).

Point. But now we're talking about the real world. As long as the system is imperfect (as it always will be as long as it is run by humans) there is no place for the death penalty, especially for minors.

Fairy snuff, I disagree that it'll always be imperfect just because it's run by humans, but I still think there's a long way to go before perfection's achieved too. I also disagree with it being abolished even now... but do think it should be used ONLY on water-tight cases (as in genuinely water-tight, rather than concocted water-tight), AND fairly (i.e. same crime = same punishment, regardless of race/gender). Since that's the limit of my argument however, I'll bow out now.

Nice meeting y'all. :)

The country I ´m coming from in the RW has banned the death penalty many decades ago. However I would see the death penalty justified in extreme cases like mass murder, serial killer, genocide and terrorism (who after all commit mass murder).
This issue should be decided by the individual nations and not the UN whether in wants to use the death penalty or not and it what cases it wants to use it. Most countries of the RW still have the death penalty.
Every nation has the right to decide by itself whether to impose it and execute it. It is a non-UN issue.

If the state kills someone by mistake, then they are unlikely -- to say the least -- to ever be able to correct that error. You may not have a problem with that, but I do.

Hence my comments earlier about 'the perfect system'.

I'm arguing the principle of the death penalty, rather than how it's currently executed (no pun intended).

But since a "perfect system" does not exist, can we assume that you are currently opposed to the death penalty in the here and now?

a tragedy pure and simple to take the life of any innocent man, but I've been going over the rap sheets of those on death rows across the country, one can hardly call them innocent

I'm not pretending that everyone who is wrongly convicted of murder is therefore lilywhite innocent. As of December 2002, over 3,700 men and women are on death row in the USA. A small number are likely to be wholly innocent of anything but the most trivial of offences. Even if 99.9% of those on death row are heinous villains -- an unreasonably high figure, IMO -- that still leaves 3 or 4 who are not; which, you would think, would be reason enough to object to capital punishment in itself. Others will be guilty of numerous crimes of varying degrees of nastiness, from theft to rape and attempted murder. That isn't the point. I'm not prepared to shrug my shoulders and say, "Oh, hell, they probably aren't very nice people anyway." Probably isn't good enough.

Well, it's why we have the legal system, to give the innocent every chance to prove it. It's not perfect, believe me, and it's no fun for an innocent man to spend 12 years in prison appealing his sentence, or waiting for evidence to emerge that clears him. It's happened. It's also happened that innocent men have been executed, but this happens rarely.

I'm not saying that it is better that one innocent man should die that a hundred guilty men should go free, but perhaps we are being naive in our idea that death is an inappropriate punishment.

Some crimes are so extreme in their cruelty that the man (or woman, but this isn't really common) should be removed from society, and I don't feel that keeping them alive and in prison for the remainder of their lives is being fair to them or to the rest of society. We pay to keep them alive. They will never be rehabilitated, and prison is hardly the place to rehabilitate them. They aren't suitable for placement in anything less than a maximum security facility, either.

The system isn't perfect, but if you can think of anything better to both keep our society safe, and that means our children too, let me know.

The only alternative I can think of would be a Devil's Island scenario at the moment.

Now you're just not listening. No death row = more money for prisons = better security = less in-prison violence.

May I just ask... what planet are you living on, 'cause it certainly ain't the same one I'm living on?
Cromatar knows of what he speaks. Perhaps a little research on your part and you may very well learn the same wisdom?

Listen..the idea that more security will somehow stop inmate violence is ludicrous..there are some prisons with extremely good correction officer to inmate ration..yet still there are deaths...there is prostitution..there is drug use..when a man can make a shiv out of a toothbrush, come up behind another in the shower and jam it into his neck....within sight of a CO in some case..you'd think that the presence of a CO would deter their killing an inmate?...These guys are already in prison..why would it deter them?..Do you realize some of the biggest gangs in America are part and parcel of the US Penal system?..The Mexican Mafia..the Aryan Nation, they all have chapters in US prisons..these men will kill each other for smokes..

As for guns..do you think these men got their guns by buying them? They get them by stealing them from the docks where the weapons come in, they get them from stealing from law-abiding citizens who do go thru the system to buy a weapon..they buy them from dealers on the streat.
Well I am uncertain what happens in US jails, and I am not sure if you are referring to those housing death row prisoners, but there is no death penalty in Canada, and we rarely hear of prison violence here.

BTW, our murder rate is approximately 1/3 that of the US, which is another indicator that the death penalty does not act as a deterent to murder?

Well I am uncertain what happens in US jails, and I am not sure if you are referring to those housing death row prisoners, but there is no death penalty in Canada, and we rarely hear of prison violence here.

BTW, our murder rate is approximately 1/3 that of the US, which is another indicator that the death penalty does not act as a deterent to murder?
We fund our schools basically the most in the world and get bad results. Perhaps if we cut funding greatly, our schools would get better scores.

Wait, no they wouldn't.

Its a sign of different cultures and different societies, not the death penalty being a deterrent.

Well, it's why we have the legal system, to give the innocent every chance to prove it. It's not perfect, believe me, and it's no fun for an innocent man to spend 12 years in prison appealing his sentence, or waiting for evidence to emerge that clears him. It's happened. It's also happened that innocent men have been executed, but this happens rarely.

I'm not saying that it is better that one innocent man should die that a hundred guilty men should go free, but perhaps we are being naive in our idea that death is an inappropriate punishment.

Some crimes are so extreme in their cruelty that the man (or woman, but this isn't really common) should be removed from society, and I don't feel that keeping them alive and in prison for the remainder of their lives is being fair to them or to the rest of society. We pay to keep them alive. They will never be rehabilitated, and prison is hardly the place to rehabilitate them. They aren't suitable for placement in anything less than a maximum security facility, either.

The system isn't perfect, but if you can think of anything better to both keep our society safe, and that means our children too, let me know.

The only alternative I can think of would be a Devil's Island scenario at the moment.
Perhaps a little research would dispel so many of the myths that you have presented here. There are MANY innocent people put to death in the US, and many that luckily have been exonerated. Put yourself in the position of the unjustly accused/sentenced prisoner and tell me if it is ok for you to forfeit your life for an "unjust" cause?

Well I am uncertain what happens in US jails, and I am not sure if you are referring to those housing death row prisoners, but there is no death penalty in Canada, and we rarely hear of prison violence here.

BTW, our murder rate is approximately 1/3 that of the US, which is another indicator that the death penalty does not act as a deterent to murder?
We fund our schools basically the most in the world and get bad results. Perhaps if we cut funding greatly, our schools would get better scores.

Wait, no they wouldn't.

Its a sign of different cultures and different societies, not the death penalty being a deterrent.
Well I would greatly disagree with you here and we haved danced to this number before, if you recall. Check out the States that have the death penalty and those that don't and the number of murders in the non death penalty States is lower than those with the death penalty. WHY is that?

Well I would greatly disagree with you here and we haved danced to this number before, if you recall. Check out the States that have the death penalty and those that don't and the number of murders in the non death penalty States is lower than those with the death penalty. WHY is that?
Well, there's lots of reasons.

For one, three states end up putting to death a huge amount of the total.
Virginia, Oklahoma, and Texas. In some states, the death penalty is just the same as life in prison, but with a worse name.

Anyway, by states,

Michigan has a rate of 6.7 per 100,000 people. Thats pretty high compared to other places in the reigion. South Dakota has a (albiet only by a small amount) lesser murder rate than North Dakota, even though North Dakota has outlawed the death penalty.

Take a look at New England :

In New England, the state with the lowest Murder & Non-Negligent Manslaughter rate is Vermont at 1.1 - they outlawed the death penalty. The highest is Rhode Island at 3.7 - they outlawed the death penalty. There is an average of 2.4 in the whole region. The two states above that number are Rhode Island and Connecticut, one of which has and one of which hasn't outlawed the death penalty. Following down the line, you get Massachusettes (outlawed), 2.3, Maine (outlawed), 1.4, New Hampshire (Legal), 1.4, and Vermont (outlawed), 1.1.

There is no direct connection. In Alaska, the rate is basically the same as Texas. It seems to me that, as many people say, the crime rate is more dependent on other factors (Social, poverty, urbanization) than anything else.

From what I've been able to see, the crime rate is connected to the need for territory. People who have very little space, crowding, tend to commit more crimes.

There was a study done with rats, in which they were placed in three cages connected to one another. It was crowded. The two end cages, the ones that could be defended as territory, were more or less crime-free. In the middle cage, the one which could not be defended, the rats killed and raped, (rape does exist in the animal kingdom, although usually under very specific circumstances), and robbed one another of food, etc.

It seems to have something to do with Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

As for me dying for a crime I didn't commit, I'd do my best to stay off death row through appeals, and luckily for me, I live in a state which does not have the death penalty.

I also know that many murderers have confessed in great detail, even leading investigators to the burial sites of their victims, and they have ASKED for the death penalty to be imposed. If someone is so clearly guilty of a crime, the evidence picks them out of millions as the culprit, and they confess, why shouldn't they get the death penalty?