NationStates Jolt Archive

I've always been for the death penalty, but I am seriously re-evaluating that position. There have been several cases in the recent past where DNA has proven some people who were convicted and sentenced to death did not commit the crime. Man, it would be horrible if we found that out after we executed them.

Then it seems when I'm about to change my mind and go against the death penalty, some bastard rapes and kills a child or brutally kills some old lady. I then say, "Man, that bastard deserves the death penalty."

So, help me out here folks. Help me think this through from a rational rather than emotional standpoint.

So, help me out here folks. Help me think this through from a rational rather than emotional standpoint.

Well, there's the point you already stated, about the possibility of mistakes. The other factor is the cost of keeping someone in jail for life compared to death penalty:

1. Death penalty convicts end up spending time on death row anyway.
2. The cost of keeping someone in jail could be paid for by having the prisoners provide some kind of service to the country (nothing that gives them the potential to cause trouble though).

well me being a christian i believe that putting someone to death like that is wrong as it gives the victim no chance to be saved. Although for the serious crimes i think life in jail will do.

The death penalty should be left up to the states to decide.

well me being a christian i believe that putting someone to death like that is wrong as it gives the victim no chance to be saved.

What if that person was Jesus? Was His execution a good or a bad thing?

I support the death penalty only for multiple violent crime recidivists and those who both admit and have irrefutable proof of guilt for heinous crimes (like killing their entire family) and/or request it.

A Violent Recividist is a societal cancer that the Body Politic should excise. Feeding it only leads potential growth.

Nutburgers who want to die should be alowed to do so without resorting to "Suicide by Cop".

Otherwise, no.

What if that person was Jesus? Was His execution a good or a bad thing?

....I never thought about that one....Hmm...

What if that person was Jesus? Was His execution a good or a bad thing?

*raises eyebrow* Good-natured trolling as usual, BWO?

2. The cost of keeping someone in jail could be paid for by having the prisoners provide some kind of service to the country (nothing that gives them the potential to cause trouble though).
So you are advocating prison/slave labor? I thought we were always after China for such abuse...

*raises eyebrow* Good-natured trolling as usual, BWO?

It's a fair cop, guv, I'll come quietly. You got me bang to rights.

"There shall be no capital punishment."

Our constitution says it so well.

Well, there's the point you already stated, about the possibility of mistakes. The other factor is the cost of keeping someone in jail for life compared to death penalty:

1. Death penalty convicts end up spending time on death row anyway.
2. The cost of keeping someone in jail could be paid for by having the prisoners provide some kind of service to the country (nothing that gives them the potential to cause trouble though).

I have heard that it costs more for the prisoner with the death penalty than the prisoner who is given life. I think the reason for that is the cost of the numerous appeals for the person with a death sentance.

Seeing as all human beings, as a function of their humanity, have a right to life, and seeing as a 'right' is inalienable, then the death penalty - even for a crime - is a violation of that right and therefore wrong.

But beyond that there is absolutely zero evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrant in any way. And there are innocent people being executed. As you noted, people on death row have been found innocent of crimes they were sentanced to death for. That makes it quite likely that innocent people have died.

The death penalty is wrong and useless, not to mention uncivilized. It's time for it to go.

So you are advocating prison/slave labor? I thought we were always after China for such abuse...

Is getting something back for giving them a free hotel "abuse"?

It's a fair cop, guv, I'll come quietly. You got me bang to rights.
*Red illumination*

*Bow-chikka groove*

:eek:

I've always been for the death penalty, but I am seriously re-evaluating that position. There have been several cases in the recent past where DNA has proven some people who were convicted and sentenced to death did not commit the crime. Man, it would be horrible if we found that out after we executed them.

Then it seems when I'm about to change my mind and go against the death penalty, some bastard rapes and kills a child or brutally kills some old lady. I then say, "Man, that bastard deserves the death penalty."

So, help me out here folks. Help me think this through from a rational rather than emotional standpoint.

from the standpoint of deterring future violent crime, the death penalty fails:

a)If the murder is a crime of passion, the murderer isn't thinking of anything, much less the DP... he's focused on ending someone's life.

b)If the murder is planned, anyone crazy enough to plan a murder would think to plan not to get caught... and if you throw sociopathy into the mix, he';ll think himself superior to cops -- think that he can't possibly get caught. So even if the DP pops into his head, he won't be deterred by it because his scheme is perfect, he is a genius, and no way is he going to be caught.

c)IF the murderer has a psychosis (EG, a form of schizophrenia), well, he's just nuts.

that, plus killing innocent people...

setting a bad example (you can't kill, but the government can)

and costing way more than life in jail...

is why i'm against the DP.

it serves no rational purpose.

I've always been for the death penalty, but I am seriously re-evaluating that position. There have been several cases in the recent past where DNA has proven some people who were convicted and sentenced to death did not commit the crime. Man, it would be horrible if we found that out after we executed them.

Then it seems when I'm about to change my mind and go against the death penalty, some bastard rapes and kills a child or brutally kills some old lady. I then say, "Man, that bastard deserves the death penalty."

So, help me out here folks. Help me think this through from a rational rather than emotional standpoint.

Actually, that's part of the problem: support for the death penalty really comes from the gut desire to really, really hurt the sunovabitch who hurt you or someone else. No matter how rational you may be, that impulse is always going to be there.

That being said, you still have control over whether you act on that impulse, and truth be told, the evidence I've seen strongly suggests that we as a society shouldn't. There's no particular proof that the death penalty has any advantage of merit. It doesn't deter people from hurting others, as evidence shows first that states with the death penalty have a consistently higher rate of homocide than states that don't. It doesn't fix the problem any more than sticking a guy in a Supermax cell for the rest of his life. It doesn't bring the dead back to life or repair a person's innocence or psyche. All it does is let people indulge in the worst impulses of humanity, and to be honest, I'm not sure the government should endorse those kinds of impulses.

Add in the fact that pragmatically, it's much less costly to simply lock a guy up for life than it is to kill him, and I think it's obvious that however much we might like to string those people up for killing a child or old lady, it's nevertheless not good for us to do so.

well me being a christian i believe that putting someone to death like that is wrong as it gives the victim no chance to be saved. Although for the serious crimes i think life in jail will do.

Don't you mean "as it gives the" criminal "no chance to be saved?" That isn't entirely true though as most people given the death sentance live on death row for many, many years before they are exicuted. They have lots of time to think about what they have done, repent, and become saved.

Is there any evidence that proves that the Death Penalty results in lower crime?


Personally, i'm against it. Not only do you have the possibility that someone innocent could be sentenced to death, it also costs more (in the US at least) than a long prison sentence.

Wouldn't spending the rest of your life in jail be a more serious punishment than death? I mean, in jail you don't really have much of a life, but you plenty of time to think about what you did.

The death penalty is wrong simply because you create the possibility of mistakes which by definition cannot be corrected.

Not that locking up an innocent man or woman for 10 years and telling them that whole time they're scum, can be corrected, but at least if found innocent they will have what's left of their life. Otherwise, you are strapped down and killed by people who have long since stopped asking questions.

Why kill them when we could use them for forced labor? Then, there's no risk of accidental execution, we get a source of cheap manual labor for public-works projects, and the prisoners are being punished quite effectively.

The death penalty should be left up to the states to decide.

Yes, it should be up to the citizens of each state or country to decide. I'm just trying to figure out what my personal stance is so I can let my state legislators know how I feel if they decide they want to change the current law.

I've always been for the death penalty, but I am seriously re-evaluating that position. There have been several cases in the recent past where DNA has proven some people who were convicted and sentenced to death did not commit the crime. Man, it would be horrible if we found that out after we executed them.

Then it seems when I'm about to change my mind and go against the death penalty, some bastard rapes and kills a child or brutally kills some old lady. I then say, "Man, that bastard deserves the death penalty."

So, help me out here folks. Help me think this through from a rational rather than emotional standpoint.

It seems as if your problem is with unjust application (executing innocent people) rather than the actual death penalty itself.

I've always been for the death penalty, but I am seriously re-evaluating that position. There have been several cases in the recent past where DNA has proven some people who were convicted and sentenced to death did not commit the crime. Man, it would be horrible if we found that out after we executed them.

Then it seems when I'm about to change my mind and go against the death penalty, some bastard rapes and kills a child or brutally kills some old lady. I then say, "Man, that bastard deserves the death penalty."

So, help me out here folks. Help me think this through from a rational rather than emotional standpoint.
welp, as I said, I'd be up for this conversation, but you'll have to accept my apologies if responces come slowly. I'm helping my dad hang some drywall in between posts.

Okay. So you want rational arguments, not emotional.

Firstly, there is the point of the chance of innocence. There is no telling how many people have been put to death whom did not do the crime they were convicted of. There are, after all, court biases, bad evidence, good lawyers, and emotional ties in cases. As such, many people may be killed who did nothing to deserve even a prison sentence, let alone execution.

Next, many states to this day allow for the execution of mentally retarded people. In some cases, these are people who do not function above the level of a 7 year old in some cases. We don't put children to death, but we put people functioning on the same (or lower) level to death.

Then, the cost issue. To put someone to death costs the state several million dollars more than keeping them alive for their entire life with adequite medical care. Additionally, the criminals can be used to do work, such as clean highways and such.

Additionally, there is the chance for rehabilitation. While it isn't always the case, I have met a few people on death row who are truly sorry for what they did. They actually are used by the prison system to help rehabilitate other criminals who are not on death row. While some people may be lost causes, not all are.

I support the death penalty only for multiple violent crime recidivists and those who both admit and have irrefutable proof of guilt for heinous crimes (like killing their entire family) and/or request it.

A Violent Recividist is a societal cancer that the Body Politic should excise. Feeding it only leads potential growth.

Nutburgers who want to die should be alowed to do so without resorting to "Suicide by Cop".

Otherwise, no.

Two questions for you. First, what evidence would qualigy as "irrefutable proof of guilt?"

Second, an Oklahoma legislator want's to give the death penalty to any person who is convicted a second time of child molestation. Should repeat offenders who molest children be put to death?

Is getting something back for giving them a free hotel "abuse"?
Ask Amnesty International.

Or Google "Prison Labor" and see that where it is established, somehow more and more prisons are needed and filled...

You think we've got issues now with "outsourcing", just see what happens when we start allowing prison labor start making products at $.10/hr... :headbang:

Re-educate/rehabilitate the 1st-timers. Whack the recividists.

I don't like the death penalty or forced labour they both stop rehabilitation which is much cheaper due to the fact that your converting costly prisoners to tax payers which are unlikely to commit any more crime at all

"There shall be no capital punishment."

Our constitution says it so well.

Ok Fass, but why? Why do you think capital punishment is not an appropriate punishment?

I don't like the death penalty or forced labour they both stop rehabilitation which is much cheaper due to the fact that your converting costly prisoners to tax payers which are unlikely to commit any more crime at all

Why don't we make them pay for their own food with money they earn from their labor? Then, they are forced to work (they have to buy their food, and if they don't work, they don't eat...unless, of course, they are incapable of work) and the prison system can make a profit off of their prisoners' labor.

Ask Amnesty International.

Or Google "Prison Labor" and see that where it is established, somehow more and more prisons are needed and filled...

You think we've got issues now with "outsourcing", just see what happens when we start allowing prison labor start making products at $.10/hr... :headbang:

Re-educate/rehabilitate the 1st-timers. Whack the recividists.

I do actually prefer the idea of rehabilitation, I just wonder about its feasibility. Then again, the potential for corruption does make the use of prisoners as a workforce unappealling. I think the best solution would be to have normal non-death-penalty prisons for the time being, while researching the most effective ideas for rehabilitation.

Two questions for you. First, what evidence would qualigy as "irrefutable proof of guilt?" Blood on hands and a full confession, plus forensic/dna verification.Second, an Oklahoma legislator want's to give the death penalty to any person who is convicted a second time of child molestation. Should repeat offenders who molest children be put to death?You're damn skippy. They have proven that the can never be safe around children, and can not be trusted to stay away fom them.

Though in general, I use the "3rd time dead" rule.

1st time may be a fluke or setup
2nd time, you are either really bad, or someone is REALLY out to get you (setup)
3rd time, you are incorrigable or too stupid to live (assuming you didn't take a hint from the first two setups ang get the hell out of dodge...)

Raping Kids could very well be worthy of lopping off one "strike".

You think we've lot issues now with "outsourcing", just see what happens when we start allowing prison labor start making products at $.10/hr....

We only use them on government public-works projects, not ordinary private-sector work.

I have to agree that I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, but I am generally against it. This is for several reasons 1) I don't want to take the chance of executing an innocent person 2) a lot of crimes that recieve the death penalty seems to result from the person being not quite their in the head, Fragland did a fair job explaining it and 3) in the case of crimes that most would see as deserving the death penalty, refering of course to those that support it, it seems to me that the death penalty is to good for them rapists for example don't deserve to get of as easily as that they deserve to spend the rest of their lives rotting in the solitary confinment of a eight by ten concreate box.

There are however a few cases were I can see the dp being appropriate for example when dealing with people guilty of crimes against humanity or people like major drug lord or people holding a major place in violent organized crime.

Why don't we make them pay for their own food with money they earn from their labor? Then, they are forced to work (they have to buy their food, and if they don't work, they don't eat...unless, of course, they are incapable of work) and the prison system can make a profit off of their prisoners' labor.

okay put yourself in the situation you are forced to work as a coal miner the prison takes all the money earn and in return you get to live behind bars with no hope of escape would this piss you off? if no what about if your not guilty?

the same argument is why we don't have flogging anymore it makes criminals into more dangerous people

It seems as if your problem is with unjust application (executing innocent people) rather than the actual death penalty itself.

That's part of it but I'm not so sure the death penalty itself serves any purpose other than revenge. Also which is worse for the criminal being given a date that he will die, or having to spend the rest of his life locked up with no chance of parole or pardon?

We only use them on government public-works projects, not ordinary private-sector work.
(A) For how long?
(B) I'm sure the AFCME & other Government Workers Unions will LOVE being replaced by prison labor.

But anyway, just to clarify somthing:

All of my "execcution track"/3rd time dead scenerion presuppose conviction of 3 seperate intentional acts of gross violence/sexual assault. Nothing more.

I've always been for the death penalty, but I am seriously re-evaluating that position. There have been several cases in the recent past where DNA has proven some people who were convicted and sentenced to death did not commit the crime. Man, it would be horrible if we found that out after we executed them.

Then it seems when I'm about to change my mind and go against the death penalty, some bastard rapes and kills a child or brutally kills some old lady. I then say, "Man, that bastard deserves the death penalty."

So, help me out here folks. Help me think this through from a rational rather than emotional standpoint.

Well, look at it this way.

An innocent man gets wrongly convicted, and is punished by execution. We don't find out until after he's dead. This is wrong, yes?

on the other hand...

An innocent man gets wrongly convicted, and is punished by life in prison. We don't find out until after he lives and dies in prison. This is wrong too, yes?

So what's the problem, the fact that we're punishing those who are convicted, or the fact that innocent people get wrongly convicted?

I support the death penalty, and I believe the latter is the moral wrong here. NOT the former. You can't just take away a punishment on the theory that SOME who are punished are innocent. Might as well not punish anyone, for anything, ever!

Criticism of this argument usually goes, "But we can reverse the punishment in the case of prison sentences, and not in death sentences."

To which I say: bullshit. You can't take away a man's freedom and then make it not-happen. You can give him money, you can set him free (assuming he hasn't died in prison), but you've still punished the wrong guy.

You can't "reverse" that anymore than you can "reverse" kidnapping a 12 year old girl and raping her for ten years. Sure, you can set him free (again, assuming he's still alive) - and you can make sure the 12 year old girl never gets kidnapped and raped again - but that doesn't make it OK. Period.

And people tend to assume, wrongly, that a death sentence means untimely death, and prison sentences mean a slightly uncomfortable life.

In Australia at least, in prison you have a 66% chance (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi088.html) of dying to unnatural causes.

Another source shows that many deaths in prison (http://inquest.gn.apc.org/data_deaths_in_prison.html) occur because of suicide.

So let's say a guy gets wrongly convicted, and while in prison he commits suicide? Is the prison sentence at fault for putting him in an environment that made him want to die? Or is the system of conviction which wrongfully treated an innocent man as guilty to blame?

Again, I can't see that it's anything but the latter.

The death sentence is a just punishment for those who deserve it. As for those who are innocent but punished anyway, that is unjust - no matter what the punishment.

I think there should be no life imprisonment.
I believe the purpose of jailing someone is supposed to be to "rehabilitate them." If you are putting someone in jail for life, then obviously they are unable to be rehabilitated, and therefore only pose a threat to other, productive and useful citizens.
So, I say, If you do a crime that results in a life w/o possibility of parole sentence, they should execute you. There is no reason to keep you around. This would also reduce the cst of appeals, since most death row inmates are trying to get reduced to life.
You'd never convince me that keeping a guy alive for 40 years is as expensive as keeping him alive for 5 and then terminating his existence.
If you have been convicted you are guilty. You get some chances to try and have the conviction overturned. If after that you are still guilty, bugger it, you are a waste of O2 and food. You are either too stupid to live, or too guilty, either way, you are a burden, and I should not carry you.
The alternative to the death penalty being slave labor, as at least that way you are not a complete waste.
Maybe a system could be set up where you get to choose, a life as a slave labor, or executed? That would be fair.

okay put yourself in the situation you are forced to work as a coal miner the prison takes all the money earn and in return you get to live behind bars with no hope of escape would this piss you off? if no what about if your not guilty?

Don't do the crime if you're not willing to accept the punishment. Forced labor is reserved for the most serious crimes (namely, those that would result in death or life imprisonment) and not those of lesser status. People who commit those crimes deserve to be as miserable as possible in jail as punishment, and honestly I couldn't care less about the feelings of murderers or child molestors.

(A) For how long?
(B) I'm sure the AFCME & other Government Workers Unions will LOVE being replaced by prison labor.

Well, until they are incapable of working anymore. The only people doing forced labor would be those who commit crimes that would have merited death or life imprisonment anyway.

Not to mention the unions aren't as powerful as Congress by a long shot. If it's constitutional, there isn't a thing they could really do about it...and if Congress passes it, it becomes law when the president signs it.

That's part of it but I'm not so sure the death penalty itself serves any purpose other than revenge. Also which is worse for the criminal being given a date that he will die, or having to spend the rest of his life locked up with no chance of parole or pardon?
leaning towards an emotional argument, killing someone because they killed doesn't make you a better person. You killed the bad guy so you're the good guy. Unless you ask his mother. Or his child. It is purely vengeful. In theory, there is very little difference between death and life in prison...both deprive the person of a fulfilled "normal" life. The only reason to put someone to death is so we can sit there and pat ourselves on the back saying "we got rid of another bad guy today. the world is better", when, in reality, they would have been removed from the world anyway.

Next, many states to this day allow for the execution of mentally retarded people. In some cases, these are people who do not function above the level of a 7 year old in some cases. We don't put children to death, but we put people functioning on the same (or lower) level to death.

I thought the Supreme Court ruled that you can not put mentally retarded people to death. I could be wrong but I know a case was before them.

Then, the cost issue. To put someone to death costs the state several million dollars more than keeping them alive for their entire life with adequite medical care. Additionally, the criminals can be used to do work, such as clean highways and such.

The cost of putting someone to death comes from the expense of the appeals. If you limit the number of appeals you can reduce the cost and the time it takes to carry out the sentence.

Additionally, there is the chance for rehabilitation. While it isn't always the case, I have met a few people on death row who are truly sorry for what they did. They actually are used by the prison system to help rehabilitate other criminals who are not on death row. While some people may be lost causes, not all are.

While these people may be truly sorry for what they did, I hope they would not be released from prison. I'll bet a lot of prisoners are sorry and some are even "saved" while they are in jail, but once they are out they go back to their old way of life. Would you ever release a "rehabilitated" murderer?

PS I need some dry wall repaired when you have the time. :D

No death penalty without eitherDNA evidnce or many eyewitnesses.

So, I say, If you do a crime that results in a life w/o possibility of parole sentence, they should execute you. There is no reason to keep you around. This would also reduce the cst of appeals, since most death row inmates are trying to get reduced to life.
You'd never convince me that keeping a guy alive for 40 years is as expensive as keeping him alive for 5 and then terminating his existence.
You think just because it becomes more difficult, people are going to stop fighting for their life? It isn't like they are doing anything else with their time, and personally, if I was going to be killed by the state, I would fuck them out of every last penny I could.

additionally, it is quite convenient that I wouldn't have to convince you that it is cheaper because there are studies that prove it (unfortunatly, all that I have seen are in print, but I'll look for some later if I get the chance)

Well, look at it this way.

An innocent man gets wrongly convicted, and is punished by execution. We don't find out until after he's dead. This is wrong, yes?

on the other hand...

An innocent man gets wrongly convicted, and is punished by life in prison. We don't find out until after he lives and dies in prison. This is wrong too, yes?

So what's the problem, the fact that we're punishing those who are convicted, or the fact that innocent people get wrongly convicted?

I support the death penalty, and I believe the latter is the moral wrong here. NOT the former. You can't just take away a punishment on the theory that SOME who are punished are innocent. Might as well not punish anyone, for anything, ever!

<snip>

The death sentence is a just punishment for those who deserve it. As for those who are innocent but punished anyway, that is unjust - no matter what the punishment.
I essentially agree. "Life in Prison" is absurd. If you are rehabilitatable, then you are rehabilitatable. It should take no more than one or two 5 year sentances (basically the time it takes to attend an educational institution) to prove that.

You don't keep a cancer attached to your body, fed by it but separated from it only by a bit of plasticwrap. You either "fix it" (with radiation/chemo/whatever) and leave it there or cut it out and throw it away. Why should the body politic treat deadly humans any differently?

Why don't we make them pay for their own food with money they earn from their labor? Then, they are forced to work (they have to buy their food, and if they don't work, they don't eat...unless, of course, they are incapable of work) and the prison system can make a profit off of their prisoners' labor.

We used to have prison farms in the US and chain gangs that repaired the roads. If prisoners didn't work, they didn't eat. The courts decided that was "crule and unusual punishment." So, now they get a free ride while we work to support them. :(

Don't do the crime if you're not willing to accept the punishment. Forced labor is reserved for the most serious crimes (namely, those that would result in death or life imprisonment) and not those of lesser status. People who commit those crimes deserve to be as miserable as possible in jail as punishment, and honestly I couldn't care less about the feelings of murderers or child molestors.

unfortunately prisons are a bit vulnerable to riots and the prison guards won't be too happy if every crook wanted to kill them

deterrents have never worked your argument of “Don't do the crime if you're not willing to accept the punishment” never goes through a criminals head when the criminal is doing the crime never mind the fact that to commit brutal murder you would have to be mentally ill

Well, until they are incapable of working anymore. The only people doing forced labor would be those who commit crimes that would have merited death or life imprisonment anyway.
You misunderstand.

How long would it be before it stopped being "WPA" type projects only and became "Widget Manufacture for the Senator's Corporate Buddy"?

I thought the Supreme Court ruled that you can not put mentally retarded people to death. I could be wrong but I know a case was before them.
there was a supreme court case recently...and iirc (I may be wrong on this) it was decided that either states decide or there have to be certain restrictions. I don't remember exactly what was decided, but I do know that very recently (as in the last few months) Texas executed a retarded man.


The cost of putting someone to death comes from the expense of the appeals. If you limit the number of appeals you can reduce the cost and the time it takes to carry out the sentence.
I think most states have the appeal limited to 3...that may just be my state tho. We actually had our first man executed since the 60's...He didn't want the appeal process, but for the execution to proceed, they had to fulfill the 3 appeals. However, by eliminating or reducing the number of appeals, you increase the risk of putting an innocent person to death


While these people may be truly sorry for what they did, I hope they would not be released from prison. I'll bet a lot of prisoners are sorry and some are even "saved" while they are in jail, but once they are out they go back to their old way of life. Would you ever release a "rehabilitated" murderer?I agree that they shouldn't be released...not by a long shot. they still comitted a crime, and do need to be punished. what I do think is that these people who are rehabilitated can still be productive. Perhaps lecturing in schools, or helping those who have shorter sentences. If you kill someone, they will never be beneficial. Keeping them alive, however, will atleast provide a chance for them to be productive. Even if they never become rehabilitated...we need someone to make our liscence plates;)

PS I need some dry wall repaired when you have the time. :Dhaha...send me a ticket and pay me, and I'll do it. Considering I'm re-drywalling my bathroom celing, walls are no problem;)

Wouldn't some forms of prison labor acctually help the rehalpititation process in that threw such work programs they could learn skills that could help them on the outside and possibly develop a work ethic or pride in a job well done.

unfortunately prisons are a bit vulnerable to riots and the prison guards won't be too happy if every crook wanted to kill them

If you design the prison well, the risk of rioting is much less. It doesn't really matter what they do if you have a well designed security system that is not dependent on guards as the main line of defense.

Building the entire prison out of concrete (as most supermax prisons are) pretty much eliminates the biggest risks of rioting. And if you punish rioters severely enough, they aren't going to riot as often.

deterrents have never worked your argument of “Don't do the crime if you're not willing to accept the punishment” never goes through a criminals head when the criminal is doing the crime never mind the fact that to commit brutal murder you would have to be mentally ill

It has nothing to do with the criminals. It has do to with the punishment itself. If they know there is a severe and justified punishment for their crime, then they have no right to complain about the punishment itself.

You misunderstand.
How long would it be before it stopped being "WPA" type projects only and became "Widget Manufacture for the Senator's Corporate Buddy"?

Well, you could always make a Constitutional amendment barring that usage, but the public outcry over prison labor in factories would also reduce that risk.

We used to have prison farms in the US and chain gangs that repaired the roads. If prisoners didn't work, they didn't eat. The courts decided that was "crule and unusual punishment." So, now they get a free ride while we work to support them. :(

I'm sure we could challenge that decision if we wanted it badly enough. I'm sure the more conservative nature of the court might make such a change more likely...

Here's the essential flaw in the "no death penalty, no how" line of reasoning:

If somebody attempts to do me grevious bodily harm, I will shoot them. They will die and I will be innocent of Murder becauseI have only defended myself.

If the Victim was unable (or worse, simply not allowed) the Human Right of Self Defense, then, as it stands the Violent Felon has nothing to fear but imprisonment.

Frankly, if I were 75 and ill, I would find some anti-death penalty person to whack so I could live the rest of my life with better food and health-care than I could otherwise afford... and that's a problem.

A violent criminal, especially one who has been convicted multiple times, would, in saner times, have an increasing chance of dying at the hands of his victim than not. Unfortunately, we live in the Crazy Years where self defense is frowned upon.

If a criminal is both Violent and Recidivist, then they should die - if only to keep them out of the reach of the innocent and to keep the innocent from supporting the extended lifetime and medical support of the guilty.

(Again - applies to violent recidivists only.)

No death penalty without eitherDNA evidnce or many eyewitnesses.

I believe studies have shown that eyewitnesses can be very unreliable. Not everyone sees the same thing and each may refute what another one saw.

Here's the essential flaw in the "no death penalty, no how" line of reasoning:

If somebody attempts to do me grevious bodily harm, I will shoot them. They will die and I will be innocent of Murder becauseI have only defended myself.

If the Victim was unable (or worse, simply not allowed) the Human Right of Self Defense, then, as it stands the Violent Felon has nothing to fear but imprisonment.

Frankly, if I were 75 and ill, I would find some anti-death penalty person to whack so I could live the rest of my life with better food and health-care than I could otherwise afford... and that's a problem.

A violent criminal, especially one who has been convicted multiple times, would, in saner times, have an increasing chance of dying at the hands of his victim than not. Unfortunately, we live in the Crazy Years where self defense is frowned upon.

If a criminal is both Violent and Recidivist, then they should die - if only to keep them out of the reach of the innocent and to keep the innocent from supporting the extended lifetime and medical support of the guilty.

(Again - applies to violent recidivists only.)
there is a big difference between self defence and death penalty.

snip...never mind the fact that to commit brutal murder you would have to be mentally ill

People who are not mentally ill have committed many murders.

People who are not mentally ill have committed many murders.
I think he was saying that anyone who would harm another person in circumstances that would be considered murder has to be screwed up to be capable of doing that.

Wouldn't some forms of prison labor acctually help the rehalpititation process in that threw such work programs they could learn skills that could help them on the outside and possibly develop a work ethic or pride in a job well done.

prisoners can volunteer for classes already if they want to work at McDonalds when they are released they won't need these skills

If you design the prison well, the risk of rioting is much less. It doesn't really matter what they do if you have a well designed security system that is not dependent on guards as the main line of defense.

Building the entire prison out of concrete (as most supermax prisons are) pretty much eliminates the biggest risks of rioting. And if you punish rioters severely enough, they aren't going to riot as often.

won't all of this make prisons unprofitable thus defeating the point?

It has nothing to do with the criminals. It has do to with the punishment itself. If they know there is a severe and justified punishment for their crime, then they have no right to complain about the punishment itself.

so an mad axe murderer who knows of the punishment but does it because there insane cannot complain? you fail to relies that serious crimes are not human behaviour that’s why there serious crimes in the first place you need to have a screw lose to commit them

Seeing as all human beings, as a function of their humanity, have a right to life, and seeing as a 'right' is inalienable, then the death penalty - even for a crime - is a violation of that right and therefore wrong.

But beyond that there is absolutely zero evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrant in any way. And there are innocent people being executed. As you noted, people on death row have been found innocent of crimes they were sentanced to death for. That makes it quite likely that innocent people have died.

The death penalty is wrong and useless, not to mention uncivilized. It's time for it to go.
Hell ya!! Bang on there!! :)

I'm completely for the death penalty. If through DNA testing a man or woman is found to have commited a crime as severe as murder then I don't want to waste my taxes trying rehabilite a man or woman that seemingly doesn't care about the well beings of others.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You kill somebody, the government kills you.

Frankly, if I were 75 and ill, I would find some anti-death penalty person to whack so I could live the rest of my life with better food and health-care than I could otherwise afford... and that's a problem
Yeah, like this happens all the time in non death penalty States. :rolleyes:

prisoners can volunteer for classes already if they want to work at McDonalds when they are released they won't need these skills

Yes they can volunteer to take classes, but what about those unwilling to make the effort how would one go about reforming them into productive members of society. As for their not needing any real skills to work at McDonalds thats true, but I thought that part of the objective of reforming them was that they would be able to have the skills to get somewhere in life, not take a deadend job flipping burgers where they are tempted back to a life of crime since they have no chance of doing anything with their life anyway.

so an mad axe murderer who knows of the punishment but does it because there insane cannot complain? you fail to relies that serious crimes are not human behaviour that’s why there serious crimes in the first place you need to have a screw lose to commit them

Someone who is mentally ill will not be punished by the courts as they are not guilty by reason of insanity. They are sent to an institution where they are treated for their mental illness.

Not all people who commit murder have a "screw loose." Crimes of passion for one happen in an instant, a criminal may hold up a bank with no intention of actually using his gun, but ends up killing the guard who pulls his gun.

Murder Rate (per 100,000) -- *state without the death penalty
-------------------------

Louisiana 12.7
Maryland 9.4
New Mexico 8.9
Mississippi 7.8
Nevada 7.4
Arizona 7.2
Georgia 6.9
South Carolina 6.9
California 6.7
*Michigan 6.4
Arkansas 6.4
Missouri 6.2
North Carolina 6.2
Illinois 6.1
Texas 6.1
Tennessee 5.9
Kentucky 5.7
*Alaska 5.6
Alabama 5.6
Florida 5.4
Oklahoma 5.3
Virginia 5.2
Pennsylvania 5.2
Indiana 5.1
New York 4.6
New Jersey 4.5
Kansas 4.5
Ohio 4.5
Colorado 4.4
*West Virginia 3.7
Montana 3.2
Washington 3.1
*Wisconsin 2.8
*Hawaii 2.6
*Massachusetts 2.6
*Vermont 2.6
Connecticut 2.6
Oregon 2.5
*Rhode Island 2.4
Nebraska 2.3
South Dakota 2.3
*Minnesota 2.2
Wyoming 2.2
Idaho 2.2
Delaware 2.0
Utah 1.9
*Iowa 1.6
*Maine 1.4
*North Dakota 1.4
New Hampshire 1.4

Draw your own conclusions about the death penalty's ability to deter murder.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/

I'm completely for the death penalty. If through DNA testing a man or woman is found to have commited a crime as severe as murder then I don't want to waste my taxes trying rehabilite a man or woman that seemingly doesn't care about the well beings of others.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You kill somebody, the government kills you.
an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Murder Rate (per 100,000) -- *state without the death penalty
-------------------------

Connecticut 2.6

just to modify this, although Connecticut does have the death penalty, only one person has been put to death in the last 40 years.

Murder Rate (per 100,000) -- *state without the death penalty
------------------------

Draw your own conclusions about the death penalty's ability to deter murder.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/

Thank you for that bit of information.

Yes they can volunteer to take classes, but what about those unwilling to make the effort how would one go about reforming them into productive members of society. As for their not needing any real skills to work at McDonalds thats true, but I thought that part of the objective of reforming them was that they would be able to have the skills to get somewhere in life, not take a deadend job flipping burgers where they are tempted back to a life of crime since they have no chance of doing anything with their life anyway.

the idea behind rehabilitation is that you realise what you did was wrong and so tend to not do the crime because you know its wrong as you stated in hardship people commit crimes but that is more to do with wage laws and unions

Not all people who commit murder have a "screw loose." Crimes of passion for one happen in an instant, a criminal may hold up a bank with no intention of actually using his gun, but ends up killing the guard who pulls his gun.

crimes of passion don't end up with life in prison or the death penalty though I would like to see the laws reduced since it is automatic to kill a man sleeping with your wife

the bank robber is acting in self defence and split second reaction so shouldn't be killed

if both these crimes are punishable by death or life in prison in your country I suggest you try to change it

crimes of passion don't end up with life in prison or the death penalty though I would like to see the laws reduced since it is automatic to kill a man sleeping with your wife

the bank robber is acting in self defence and split second reaction so shouldn't be killed

if both these crimes are punishable by death or life in prison in your country I suggest you try to change it
for the man who caught his wife cheating...he has no right, I don't care what the circumstances, to kill either because she banged someone else. His dignity and emotions are hurt. That will never justify taking someone elses life.

The bank robber is ROBBING A BANK!. He is the agressor and is not acting in self defence. He already fucked up.

I agree neither should be killed, but that is because I'm completely against the death penalty in all cases. these men should both still be punished for murder/manslaughter (depending on what is appropriate for the situation)

I've always been for the death penalty, but I am seriously re-evaluating that position. There have been several cases in the recent past where DNA has proven some people who were convicted and sentenced to death did not commit the crime. Man, it would be horrible if we found that out after we executed them.

Then it seems when I'm about to change my mind and go against the death penalty, some bastard rapes and kills a child or brutally kills some old lady. I then say, "Man, that bastard deserves the death penalty."

So, help me out here folks. Help me think this through from a rational rather than emotional standpoint.
Someone else may have stated this position already, so forgive me if it's repetitive.

I can relate to where you are. There are monsters in this world who deserve to be removed from among us because of what they've done--there is no doubting that. Saddam Hussein. Timothy McVeigh. Jeffrey Dahmer.

For me the question is this: which harms society more? The killing of innocents so we can remove the monsters, or letting the monsters so we don't accidentally kill the innocents? For me, the answer is the former--when we kill innocents and call it justice, we make a mockery of our ideals.

The above argument presupposes that the charged get a fair trial and an adequate defense, and anyone who has looked at the justice system in the US knows that if you're poor, you don't get either of those things, most of the time, so that adds another layer of moral questioning to the issue.

I was like you for a long time, Celtlund--I believed in the death penalty. I believed in the idea of vengeance for the taking of a human life. But as I got older (and you're older than me, I know), I realized that if the monsters were kept away, the effect was the same. I and mine are not harmed if Saddam Hussein dies of natural causes in prison as opposed to dying in an electric chair or before a firing squad. But my society is harmed if we execute one of those innocents.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You kill somebody, the government kills you.

The thing is, even if you accept Lex Talonis, you can't really compare state execution to murder.

It would have to be a completely sick and twisted murderer to lock up a person, tell them that they are going to be killed eventually, let them see their family - knowing they would never see them again as a free person, and go through an emotional and traumatic appeal process.

Most murders are no way near as awful of that, so not only is the state just as bad as the murderer for killing people, but it's worse.

to make my argument concise, I believe that killing is wrong. (yes, sometimes nessicary, but still wrong). I was raised to believe that every life is sacred. Just because they killed does not make it okay for me to do the same, or, in the case of the death penalty, pay someone else to do it. A murder is a murder, a killing is a killing today, tomorrow, yesterday. To take a life with never be the "right" course of action (again, I understand that sometimes it is needed, but it is still not "right")

for the man who caught his wife cheating...he has no right, I don't care what the circumstances, to kill either because she banged someone else. His dignity and emotions are hurt. That will never justify taking someone elses life.

its an automatic human reaction unless your very much in control of your mind you are going to act on the set human action in the to kill or at least hurt him in other words you can't help yourself


The bank robber is ROBBING A BANK!. He is the agressor and is not acting in self defence. He already fucked up.

the robber doesn’t want to riddle everyone with bullets all he wants is the money shooting him is very unreasonable not to mention the stated automatic reaction which wouldn't be his fault mind you the law is different in the U.S were the law of using reasonable force is unheard of

its an automatic human reaction unless your very much in control of your mind you are going to act on the set human action in the to kill or at least hurt him in other words you can't help yourself




the robber doesn’t want to riddle everyone with bullets all he wants is the money shooting him is very unreasonable not to mention the stated automatic reaction which wouldn't be his fault mind you the law is different in the U.S were the law of using reasonable force is unheard of

I find your posts to be very difficult to read and comprehend. If you would use some punctuation, or better yet capitalization and punctuation, I would understand much better what you are trying to say.

its an automatic human reaction unless your very much in control of your mind you are going to act on the set human action in the to kill or at least hurt him in other words you can't help yourself




the robber doesn’t want to riddle everyone with bullets all he wants is the money shooting him is very unreasonable not to mention the stated automatic reaction which wouldn't be his fault mind you the law is different in the U.S were the law of using reasonable force is unheard of
while it may be the "natural human reaction", you still have no right to kill someone, regardless of circumstances.

i was hearing on npr the other day about a review of cases going on in ....i think...virginia. a clerk? had kept bits of physical evidence in the case files of every case she had worked on for the 30 years she had worked for the state of virginia.... many of those bits of evidence were suitable for dna testing. they did a test of ....30?... cases to see if what the false conviction rate might be. they found 3 cases out of those 30 that exhonerated the person who had been convicted. they are now going through thousands of cases to free all those who can be shown to be innocent (and to ease the minds of those who worry that the wrong person got convicted by showing that the dna evidence agrees with the verdict)

all those numbers i just used are probably wrong but the point is that there IS a significant rate of erroneous conviction in all types of crime. the death penalty cant be taken back once its carried out.

there is also the problem with the big death penalty states not giving the accused a fair shake. they appoint defence attorneys who dont normal do criminal law. they have overburdened public defenders who dont have time to devote to a deathpenalty case. they appoint drunks and incompetants. its not justice when a person doesnt receive a real defence no matter if they are guilty or innocent.

while it may be the "natural human reaction", you still have no right to kill someone, regardless of circumstances.

under the same logic causing someone to die in an accident would be punishable with the death penalty since both involve you not planning in anyway to commit murder

I find your posts to be very difficult to read and comprehend. If you would use some punctuation, or better yet capitalization and punctuation, I would understand much better what you are trying to say.

I have trouble with grammar and are working on it in my English classes cut me some slack here

Ok Fass, but why? Why do you think capital punishment is not an appropriate punishment?

It's not punishment. It's a betrayal of principle, not to mention a common act of vengeance.

ok now on to the real reason i oppose the death penalty


it is inherently cruel to the family of murder victims.

a few years back the neice of a friend of mine was murdered for the gold rims on her car. naturally the family was devastated. the killer was found. there was no real doubt that he was the actual killer.

the district attorney did not try the case as a death penalty case.

now imagine for a minute finding out that the death of your beloved daughter wasnt important enough for the DA to go for the death penalty. what a freaking slap in the face. its a cruel system that rates victims as worthy of the courts time or not. and it is a blow to find out that your loved one doesnt make the cut.

its cruel

if your loved one is murdered in a nondeathpenalty state you go through the trial hoping for a conviction. when the verdict comes down, you make the plea to the court for the maximum penalty--normally life without possibility of parole-- and its OVER. the killer is put into prison to rot for the rest of his life.
if you are "lucky" he meets his fate in a couple years like jeffery dahmer did and is killed by another inmate. there are no big time professional lawyers going from state to state trying to get the killer of your family member off. there may be some appeals but thats unavoidable in a society that values justice

now consider if your loved one is killed in a death penalty state. after conviction and death sentence, you spend years waiting for that day to come, hoping that it will make you feel better (it cant make you feel better but you hope). every time an appeal comes up its to void that death penalty. you (if you can stand it) have to go back to court over and over and bleed for the judge. you have to relive that devastation for the court over and over. you have to spend 10-30+ years longing for the death of another human being.

its cruel.

now imagine being in one of the big death penalty states and finding out that not only did the wrong person get killed for the murder of your loved one but that the state manufactured the evidence against him and appointed an incompetent lawyer to defend him. and now, perhaps 20 years later, its too late to find out who really mudered your loved one.

its cruel.

I've always been for the death penalty, but I am seriously re-evaluating that position. There have been several cases in the recent past where DNA has proven some people who were convicted and sentenced to death did not commit the crime. Man, it would be horrible if we found that out after we executed them.

Then it seems when I'm about to change my mind and go against the death penalty, some bastard rapes and kills a child or brutally kills some old lady. I then say, "Man, that bastard deserves the death penalty."

So, help me out here folks. Help me think this through from a rational rather than emotional standpoint.
If the second statement is how you've always formed you opinion on the death penalty, then you've always been thinking emotionally and not rationally. The first is rational, but the second is not. This is not to say that the death penalty can never be supported rationally.

I wish voters and governments would stop thinking of crime in terms of "revenge" and start thinking of it in a more rational, utilitarian way. Take it on a case by case basis. Can the criminal be rehabilitated? If yes, then jail time. Is the criminal beyond rehabilitation? Is society ever safe with this individual free? If no, then the death penalty, or life sentence.

Well, there's the point you already stated, about the possibility of mistakes. The other factor is the cost of keeping someone in jail for life compared to death penalty:

1. Death penalty convicts end up spending time on death row anyway.
2. The cost of keeping someone in jail could be paid for by having the prisoners provide some kind of service to the country (nothing that gives them the potential to cause trouble though).
And we have a rational thought!

"There shall be no capital punishment."

Our constitution says it so well.
Why do you think so? This is just as bad as those people who answer philosophical questions by quoting the Bible/Koran at me. Give your own opinion, not someone else's doctrine.

Why do you think so? This is just as bad as those people who answer philosophical questions by quoting the Bible/Koran at me. Give your own opinion, not someone else's doctrine.

Learn to read threads before responding to them.

under the same logic causing someone to die in an accident would be punishable with the death penalty since both involve you not planning in anyway to commit murder

firstly, no one deserves the death penalty. that is the basis of my existance in this thread.

secondly, no, that isn't the same logic. An accident implies just that. it was completely unintentional. That is manslaughter in the...um...shit, I forget what degree. As I said, killing someone is never "right". Be it accident or premeditated, it is still wrong. there are degrees to crimes for a reason. If I ran a child over because the kid jumped infront of my car, that is entirely different from robbing a bank, bringing in a loaded gun (regardless of intent of use) and pulling the trigger. The moment that gun is loaded, brought in, and used, you commit at the very least a high degree of manslaughter.

I do not believe in the death penalty. I firmly believe in sticking the perps in jail with no privilages for the rest of their pitiful lives. The death penalty is just an easy way out. :upyours:

I'm all for replacing the death penalty with personality wipes, myself. Why execute when you can rehabilitate?

I'm all for replacing the death penalty with personality wipes, myself. Why execute when you can rehabilitate?
Once a murderer, always a murderer. Once a rapist... always a rapist. It's common sense.

You need a fourth option

Death penalty in the most serious of cases

Example:
*Suspect admits to raping the little child and murdering her family, and shows no remorse
*DNA, Security camera all proove suspect guilty(for example: robbing a bank and slaughtering all those in the bank)

So Yes to death penalty, No to Texas style of death penalty

Once a murderer, always a murderer. Once a rapist... always a rapist. It's common sense.
Hence, personality wipe. If who they are is dangerous, change who they are. Also common sense.

My opinion is based on the release of women and men who've murdered, claimed insanity and gotten off nearly scott free. I say the death penalty should be favored. If you murder someone, insane or not, you should be killed, not let back in to the world, or placed in a cell. :sniper:

My opinion is based on the release of women and men who've murdered, claimed insanity and gotten off nearly scott free. I say the death penalty should be favored. If you murder someone, insane or not, you should be killed, not let back in to the world, or placed in a cell. :sniper:
so you would execute the mentally ill

interesting

I'm totally opposed to the death penalty. That is not to say I don't believe in stiff penalties.

There is a danger of mistakes. That is unacceptable if the penalty is death. So long as that danger exist (and as far as I can tell, that will always exist) I will be against capital punishment.

The death penalty should be left up to the states to decide.
It is.

BTW - People on death row have been exonerated by DNA or other evidence, but no one that has actually been put to death has ever been exonerated. In fact, just recently, a guy who was put to death several years ago and who claimed his innocence until he died was proven guilty by DNA. This poor priest who spent decades trying to get him released and even after he died tries to prove his innocence was proven wrong. The guy raped and killed his sister in law. His dying words were, "Tonight the state is killing an innocent man." Well, the DNA now says he did it and was guilty all along.

Not saying I'm for the death penalty, I'm confused like you, but its hard to want anything other than death for this guy. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/14/taped.abduction/index.html) She was 11 years old and her last moments were spent getting raped and killed. My emotions say fuck lethal injection. Lets kill this guy witha dull spoon in a way that takes a few hours.

I've always believed in life in prison to replace the death penalty. No parole UNLESS you are later found not guilty, in which case you're set free, of course.


Living your entire life not only with the guilt of murder but just in the bleak and hopeless atmosphere of prison is a bigger punishment than just dying painlessly.

My opinion is based on the release of women and men who've murdered, claimed insanity and gotten off nearly scott free. I say the death penalty should be favored. If you murder someone, insane or not, you should be killed, not let back in to the world, or placed in a cell. :sniper:
a) despite what TV and the movies would have you think, claiming insanity and winning is next to impossible. From what I recall, several psychs have to agree that you are insane AND the jury has to agree that it was directly part of the crime
b)people who are tried in a death penalty case and are not put to death are not released. they are held for life (or several life terms) without parole.

Once a murderer, always a murderer. Once a rapist... always a rapist. It's common sense.
yes, they always will carry that title, but they can also be moved past that stage of their life with help.

I've always believed in life in prison to replace the death penalty. No parole UNLESS you are later found not guilty, in which case you're set free, of course.

Living your entire life not only with the guilt of murder but just in the bleak and hopeless atmosphere of prison is a bigger punishment than just dying painlessly.That's my view as well. I don't think it's a good thing to kill someone, simply because it is an irreversable decision and they might be innocent. The punishment of living in prision forever would be much worse than dying as well..

under the same logic causing someone to die in an accident would be punishable with the death penalty since both involve you not planning in anyway to commit murder



I have trouble with grammar and are working on it in my English classes cut me some slack here

Keep working on it. This is a good place to practice. I'm sure you will do well and keep trying.

Is the criminal beyond rehabilitation? Is society ever safe with this individual free? If no, then the death penalty, or life sentence.

There is the problem. Death penalty or life without parole or pardon? Which is best for society? Which is moraly right?

Learn to read threads before responding to them.

Fass, quit being an ass. :( I have read all the threads and you have not given us your opinion and why you think that way.

This is a statement; "It's not punishment. It's a betrayal of principle, not to mention a common act of vengeance." Please tell us why you feel this way so we can better understand your reasoning.

Thank you.

There is a danger of mistakes. That is unacceptable if the penalty is death. So long as that danger exist (and as far as I can tell, that will always exist) I will be against capital punishment.

Why are mistakes that result in loss of freedom acceptable? And you don't have to receive the death penalty to have the result of dying in prison. Why is any of that acceptable?

I just don't differentiate thusly: "it's wrong to execute an innocent man, but it's OK to have an innocent man live the remainder of his life in prison getting raped up the pooper daily until he dies of accident, suicide, disease or murder."

Convicting innocent people is wrong. Period. It doesn't matter what the punishment is, it doesn't make it any more wrong or right.

I'm all for replacing the death penalty with personality wipes, myself. Why execute when you can rehabilitate?

Can murders be rehabilitated? Do you think Charles Manson can be rehabilitated?

As I've stated before, society has the right to protect itself from predators. I personally don't give a damn WHY they committed an act of murder or child molestation or rape.

Paul Stanley is my favorite member of KISS.

Why are mistakes that result in loss of freedom acceptable? And you don't have to receive the death penalty to have the result of dying in prison. Why is any of that acceptable?

I just don't differentiate thusly: "it's wrong to execute an innocent man, but it's OK to have an innocent man live the remainder of his life in prison getting raped up the pooper daily until he dies of accident, suicide, disease or murder."

Convicting innocent people is wrong. Period. It doesn't matter what the punishment is, it doesn't make it any more wrong or right.

Juries convict criminals based on the evidence. If it is later proven that the evidence was incomplete (such as DNA that could not be tested at the time) or tainted (as in the case of the lab tech in OK that falsified evidence) the person convicted of the crime can be set free as long as the death penalty has not been imposed. Is it right or wrong to convict an innocent person? A jury can only base their decision on the evidence and if that evidence indicates guilty…

As I've stated before, society has the right to protect itself from predators. I personally don't give a damn WHY they committed an act of murder or child molestation or rape.

Eut I agree with you, but is society any more protected by imposing the death penalty than it is by life without parole or pardon?

Eut I agree with you, but is society any more protected by imposing the death penalty than it is by life without parole or pardon?
You've noticed a number of convict escapes lately, yes?

Juries convict criminals based on the evidence. If it is later proven that the evidence was incomplete (such as DNA that could not be tested at the time) or tainted (as in the case of the lab tech in OK that falsified evidence) the person convicted of the crime can be set free as long as the death penalty has not been imposed. Is it right or wrong to convict an innocent person? A jury can only base their decision on the evidence and if that evidence indicates guilty…

It is always wrong to convict an innocent person. So those juries had better be sure in their convictions, and those detectives better not taint evidence.

But I think you're missing a crucial point with your assumption; "the person convicted of the crime can be set free as long as the death penalty has not been imposed." That is not true if the prisoner has already died.

And I'm still looking up the rates... but what if more prisoners are killed by other prisoners, than by execution?

I believe the death penalty should be abolished, but I also think it should be used for people who kill endangered species(plants, animals, fungi, whatever) unless it is something like smallpox or for people who burn down a library, bookstore,... If I were a judge I'd probably always give life.

You've noticed a number of convict escapes lately, yes?

Got it.

I believe the death penalty should be abolished, but I also think it should be used for people who kill endangered species(plants, animals, fungi, whatever) unless it is something like smallpox or for people who burn down a library, bookstore,... If I were a judge I'd probably always give life.

Are you for real or are you just trolling? If you are for real, get help. If you are trolling find another thread please.

From a rational pov, death penalty is pointless. It doesn't reduce crime (all stats show that crime rate is higher in countries having the death penalty, same for US states, and that abolishing the death penalty doesn't increase crime, while reintroducing doesn't lower it - it's usually the opposite). It is always highly dangerous, because you can never be 100% sure that someone is guilty.

It's also highly unfair, because people with good lawyers will very often be able to convince the jury of a lower penalty, while the ones with bad lawyers (lack of luck or of money) will not be able to (sure, it's the same for all other penalty, but here we are speaking of killing the person, not of a lower/higher fine or longer/shorter prison term, it's much worse).

The only thing the death penalty does is lowering the value of human life, and making crime more normal: if even the state can do it, why not me ? Violence leads to violence, that's a fundamental law of human behaviour. People who are raised in a society where killing is not only accepted, but encouraged in some cases will have a lower psychological gap to cross to become themselves killers. While people who are teached that any human life deserve respect and that killing is completly unacceptable will have a stronger inhibition to become killers.

And remember that even the worse criminal can redeem. Remember that guy in California, who once was a remorseless gang leader, but after a while, he converted himself, and spent his latest years writing books to dissuade teens to join gangs... he was executed recently, preventing him from continuing to dissuade teens to join gangs, it's both completly silly and highly immoral: the person which was executed was not the same one who was a gang leader, he changed. Everyone can change.

Why are mistakes that result in loss of freedom acceptable? And you don't have to receive the death penalty to have the result of dying in prison. Why is any of that acceptable?

I just don't differentiate thusly: "it's wrong to execute an innocent man, but it's OK to have an innocent man live the remainder of his life in prison getting raped up the pooper daily until he dies of accident, suicide, disease or murder."

Convicting innocent people is wrong. Period. It doesn't matter what the punishment is, it doesn't make it any more wrong or right.
We've had this discussion before you know, so I know you won't agree with me, but here we go again.

Precautions should be taken to make sure that mistakes aren't made, but since the judicial system isn't and cannot be perfect, mistakes wil happen and innocent people will be convicted. It is wrong, but we have to accept it to have an effective system, and try to minimize the possibilities of mistakes as best we can. (Here comes the famous proverb 'Better that ten guilty men goes free than one innocent convicted' into play) This is a question about convictions.

Now, on the question about punishment, we have prison and executions as two types. If the convicted person is later found to be innocent, he can be released if he is in prison. He will get his freedom and his life back, and he will return to society. If he is executed then he cannot get his life back. So I am opposed to the death penalty because of the truly irreversible and irreparable nature of the punishment, especially since we have a form of punishment that has none of these inherrent flaws (Prison; albeit prison comes with it's own sets of flaws, none of which outweighs the concerns surrounding capital punishment in my opinion)

And I'm still looking up the rates... but what if more prisoners are killed by other prisoners, than by execution?

That is not something inherent to the system. You can put less prisonners per prisons (especially if you don't send people in jail for minor offenses) and have a higher security. You can't bring back someone you killed.

That is not something inherent to the system. You can put less prisonners per prisons (especially if you don't send people in jail for minor offenses) and have a higher security. You can't bring back someone you killed.

I disagree. It IS inherent to the system. A system whereby you put a bunch of violent people in closed confinement. It's nice that you seek to reform it, but as has often been pointed out so far, no system is perfect. So there will ALWAYS be people wrongly killed just by happening to be imprisoned. That's inherent, and just as completely irreversible as execution.

You've noticed a number of convict escapes lately, yes?
thats fairly rare, and they are usually caught within a short amount of time, and without having commited another violent crime (usually, they will have stolen a car or the like to try to escape, which, ironically, makes them easier to find.)

I disagree. It IS inherent to the system. A system whereby you put a bunch of violent people in closed confinement. It's nice that you seek to reform it, but as has often been pointed out so far, no system is perfect. So there will ALWAYS be people wrongly killed just by happening to be imprisoned. That's inherent, and just as completely irreversible as execution.

And there will always be people who are not in prison "who are wrongly killed. What does that tell you about our socitety? Is that inherent in all societies?

I disagree. It IS inherent to the system. A system whereby you put a bunch of violent people in closed confinement. It's nice that you seek to reform it, but as has often been pointed out so far, no system is perfect. So there will ALWAYS be people wrongly killed just by happening to be imprisoned. That's inherent, and just as completely irreversible as execution.
I've always kind of wondered about what people who are for the death penalty would answer to this:

There are three prisoners. Two of them have committed the most atrocious crimes imaginable. Killed their mother, raped their sister, did general nastiness. The third never committed a violent crime but dealed marijuana, maybe a little coke, fibbed when he did his taxes. For some reason, known only to myself and I'm not telling, you cannot tell which man did which crime. Only that two of the three are Mother killers and one is a tax fibbing drug dealer. You can either send all three to the chair or send all three to serve life sentences.

I'm just interested.

I've always kind of wondered about what people who are for the death penalty would answer to this:

There are three prisoners. Two of them have committed the most atrocious crimes imaginable. Killed their mother, raped their sister, did general nastiness. The third never committed a violent crime but dealed marijuana, maybe a little coke, fibbed when he did his taxes. For some reason, known only to myself and I'm not telling, you cannot tell which man did which crime. Only that two of the three are Mother killers and one is a tax fibbing drug dealer. You can either send all three to the chair or send all three to serve life sentences.

I'm just interested.

Bad arguement. Under the laws in the US and all States, two would be identified and tried for murder and rape while one would be tried for dealing drugs. If you can not tell which man commited which crime, none of them could be prosicuted.

Bad arguement. Under the laws in the US and all States, two would be identified and tried for murder and rape while one would be tried for dealing drugs. If you can not tell which man commited which crime, none of them could be prosicuted.
It was supposed to be a question that tested your emotions... there is no reason anything like this would ever happen in a civilized country (at least not like in my example).