I was just wondering what do people who posts here think of death penalty?

I think it's not right to kill anyone for bunishment or for any other reason, so im against it.

I think that death is the easy way out. Real punishment would be to spend the rest of your days getting raped in the ass....

I waffle back and forth on this issue all the time! Although I think it is generally a bad idea to have state sponsored executions. There are some instances that I approve of it:

1) Treason hould be a death penalty offense.
2) Premeditated deliberate murder should be
a death penalty offense.

So I guess I do believe in the death penalty this week. Like I said, I waffle on it a lot.

Close this thread and do this as a poll. Would be interesting to see the outcome.

One proviso, split the voting down by age groups. I have a feeling that those views tend to change over time.

Oh yeah, I'm against the death penalty. The reasons are many, but primarily I do not see it as a relevant part of a justice system in this day and age.

I'm for it. The quicker the murderers/rapists/etc. are eliminated, the better and more effective it will be on detering further crime.

Viking

sorry but, my idea was to start a conversation, and if i make this a poll there won't be the conversation. :almostmad: :)

Against. Killing for punishment serves no purpose. There is no deterrent. Mistakes are made.

As twisted and evil as this may sound, I am against the death penalty!!

:evil: We should reinstate cruel and unusual punishment!! :evil:

I think that that mutilation or amputation are wonderful deterrents. Just don't spend all of my hard earned tax money on nice, expensive equipment - use the five dollar hand axe from Wal-Mart to lop a few fingers off, please!

As a matter of fact, incarceration needs to be revamped too. I mean, how terrible is it to sit in a cell and watch cable all day?? I have a friend who does not have cable at home because he can watch TV down at the county jail, and he certainly spends a lot of time there!!

Let's scratch the cable and crunchy peanut butter and give them some natty horsehair blankets and some dead rats to chew on.

Take a look here for a long debate on the same subject: http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=002051

Totally against. One death is bad enough, two are worse. Nobody should be killed for any reason.

That's odd...I can think of plenty of reasons to kill someone....

If they're trying to kill you.

You just walked in on your wife/husband in bed with someone else. That will end in at least one, possibly two deaths...

Committing terroristic or traitorous acts against my country.

Killing someone to prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents.

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

For having more than 12 items in the express lane at the grocery store.

Driving slow in the passing lane.

Failing to signal while driving.

Being a telemarketer.

*** These last 4 were more of a joke, but the first few I was actually serious about! **

Against, like Jack Funk says, mistakes are made, just 1 is 1 too many.

the problem with deathpenalty is best stated by David Eddings: "when someone is hanged and later on he proves to be innocent it is quite hard to unhang someone" (or something like that).

I once read a couple of sf-books by a dutch writer and she had criminals in her book wear special tattoos that wore off after a couple of years depending on the severity of the crime. Now that seems a good idea to me! no more jails, people will know the criminal and can thus be cautious and if the criminal has been harrasing children, other children will recognize it and thus the criminal can't do it again

BTW harrasing children is one of the few crimes that should have deathpenalty!

I'll try not to get too involved here again since it's all in the link I posted above, but:

1) Fatal mistakes happen all the time.
2) You can't give back the years you've taken from a prisoner either.

BTA, sure mistakes happen, but you can to some degree recompense monitarily for years spent innocently in prison. Miscarriages of justice as you say happen fairly regularly.

You cannot if the person has been killed. What's the verdict? Unlawfull killing by the state? Who's to blame? Someone is in theory guilty of murder.....

I think you misunderstand.

What I mean by "Fatal mistakes happen all the time" is that people die accidentally from drowning, car accidents, electrocution, a whole host of other things. Shall we outlaw cars, pools, swimming, electricity, etc.?

Putting someone to death as a penalty for their crimes is not an accident. It is a very deliberate and intentional action. The fact that the "wrong" person has been killed does not make the act of killing an accident.

Consider this: If I went out to intentionally kill another specific person and succeded, that would be murder. If I killed someone else instead in a case of mistaken identity, does that make it OK? Of course it doesn't. It's still murder, I've just killed the wrong guy.

To compare this with car accidents, accidental drownings in pools etc, just doesn't cut the mustard. I could hit someone in my car on the way home from work tonight, BUT I'm not intending to do so. If I did it would be murder, not an accident.

BTA - If you don't want to get drawn into this one again, I've now read the other thread, where I suppose you've stated your arguments pretty clearly.

Well, I just have to say that it *is* an accident to kill the wrong person in a capital punishment crime, unless you believe the jury convicted them despite believing in their innocence.

Oddly enough, I didn't get involved in the last debate. So here's my thoughts.

First of all, I'm against the death penalty. Besides the ethical implications already mentioned, I'm against it from a Scriptural standpoint. The Bible teaches that all manner of sin can be forgiven a man; if I take his life, I have denied him his opportunity for redemption. However, this is not to say criminals shouldn't be punished.

Why can't we reinstate corporal punishment? Too many of our criminals have it too easy in the prison system. They don't need perks like TV or meals to order. They need hard labor and physical punishment. If someone robs a bank, cut off his hand. If a man rapes a woman, castrate him. All right, so those may be a little too harsh, but you get the idea. I guarantee castration would serve as a remarkable deterrent.

BTA, the argument that killing an innocent is just an accident is ridiculous. Don't you know what happens to a drunk driver when he kills innocent people? Involuntary manslaughter, at the least. When accidents kill people, someone always has to pay -- except, of course, for the jury. Hmm.

Anyway, that's my thoughts for the moment. Fire away, boys.

On the whole, I view life as precious, and not something to deprive people of. But I think some crimes should be considered for the death penalty. For example, if you kill multiple people and/or show no remorse at taking a human life, you should be executed. If you cold bloodedly plan the death of another person, you should be executed. Some extenuating circumstances may exist, and all aspects of a case should be looked at before considering the sentence. For instance, if a woman was physically abused by her husband, and he threatened to kill her if she left or went to the police, I could see he getting a light sentence for murdering him, even if it was planned.

I think in order for someone to be executed, they have to have committed a horrible crime against another person or multiple persons, and have it proven beyond a reasonable doubt (such as DNA evidence) that they did it. Which is basically the way it's supposed to work in the US. But you hear a lot of stories about how people on death row are freed because of new DNA evidence, and it's obvious there are a few flaws in our execution (pardon the pun) of this system.

No, no, see the drunk driver was doing something illegal at the time, that's why he pays.

How about this instead: Your car, having no manufacturing flaws, runs oven an armadillo in the road blowing out a tire and sending you crashing into that cactus, killing you. Who is at fault? The armadillo? It was an accident plain and simple.

The jury, given the information presented to them truly believe this person is guilty of a capital crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The next jury from the automatic mandatory appeal finds the same. The jury for the sentencing finds the same. They all turn out to be wrong. An accident.

I would like to believe everyone is reedeemable.

With that I'm going against the death penalty. Our prison and correction facilities may not be the best, but they are better than nothing. Let's continue to reform those and forget this death penalty business.

I don't believe in death penalty. Only because I think imprisonment for life is a worse punishment.
But what is the purpose of death penalty? Is it for saving money? Or for Showing that this particular crime is beyond redemption? Why can't we just lock up people for life? Why the easy way out with death?

On a sidenote to those who don't believe in death penalty or imprisonment for life( not implying any of the previous posters has this attitude):

Raise your hands if you think the terrorist Who rammed the WTC, given he survived, could become mayor of New York. To follow that logic look at the following. Anything could be redeemed. So This person could better himself. Not *If* but *when* he did so, he actually turned out quite clever. So clever that he for some reason ran for mayor of New York. And since he was such a nice and redeemed person people would vote for him.

Give me a break.

[ November 07, 2002, 20:41: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

I think the death punishment should apply if the person has done more than one crimes, such as murder or rape, some criminals such as ones going round commiting crimes for the sheer pointless sport of it might apply for the penalty. I think that some people with life sentences should get the punishment too, it's a life sentence should you pay it with your life, 25 years in jail can't do much really, you will either die there or come out with nothing for you.

What BTA says, is that an accident is when no one deliberately breaks the law and still death occur. Drowning, elektrochock, caraccidents. Though it isn't illegal to swim or drive you risk to die or drown. Same thing with death senetence. The jury and judge don't break the law. Unless they of course acts deliberately against the evidence brought before them.

In short;
A jury and judge act according to law. Someone dies. A swimmer swims according to law and drowns. Someone dies, Same reasoning. Something different is when a drunk driver **breaks** the law. someone dies. *Not* same reasoning.

There is a fundamental flaw of logic in denying death sentence solely due to the risk of deadly accidents. Or a fundamemtal disbelief in other people's strenght of judgement. (here the legal system)

[ November 07, 2002, 21:54: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

I think the death penalty is not the solution. Just lock somebody up and throw away the key. However, there should be a choice for the person who is send to prison, that instead of a life time in prison, that he may request death instead. I do think however that people should spend a longer time in prison for some crimes, especially here in Holland.

To comment on what Nobleman said. There should not be a jury system. The jury doesn't act according to the law. They act according to their own feelings. The vote for which lawyer does the best dance. What would you expect from some people that were asked from the street. Shouldn't someone with knowledge of the law, judge a criminal.

[ November 07, 2002, 21:12: Message edited by: Silverblade ]

I'm sorry, but I simply detest the judgemental, supremely arrogant attitude that allows a man (or woman) to be killed by the state. Not only is it just another life wasted, but it just trasfers the sin of murder to someone else. Who are we to decide whether a being entirely independant of us is destroyed? - it is not our decision to make.

[ November 07, 2002, 21:45: Message edited by: Sir Yerril of Morningmist ]

Yerril;
what do you propose instead? Or would you rather not comment further? Just curious :)

Silverblade;
Isn't it better that we strive for a jury who consist of people from all parts of society instead of lawyers? people who only come to court with commen sense, not common laws? Do you have a more efficient proposal for a legal system witout lawyers?

What, does nobody have a comment on the institution of corporal vs capital punishment?

Nobleman, the desire to see people more justly punished is a good one, but I cannot agree with life sentences being the worst sentence given.

Here's why:

1) People can get used to anything. A couple of posts mention the part of prison's punishment is being sodomized by your fellow inmates. This seems to be the reverse of the 'it will never happen to me' syndrome; you do realize that for each inmate being anally raped, another is happily (or angrily or whatever) doing the raping?

2) Life in prison is still life. A prisoner can always hope that today will be the day they are set free, be it by escaping or a pardon or overturned case. Those guilty of the most monstrous of crimes do not deserve such hope.

3) My most practical reason: it costs us money to keep prisoners alive and in humane conditions. Each year prisoners around the nation join the Million Dollar Club: taxpayers have spent one million dollars on that individuals stay in prison. A life sentence means that the prisoner is fed, housed, and clothed with public funds for the rest of his or her life. I don't want to pay for the cheeseburger of a serial rapist.

Now, don't think I'm a cold-hearted fiend who wants everyone in prison dead. I realize that there are flaws in the system; I agree with the moratoriums imposed by my home state of Illinois and several others. As it stands, innocent men and women are being sentenced to death. Until this can be corrected, the death penalty should not be imposed. Many mitigating factors should be taken into consideration before the decision to end someone's life is final. Sir Belisarius's list show several (however I cannot agree that marital infidelity is a capital offense). A better system of sentencing is needed.

As for torture as a punishment, I agree with the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Similar to prison rape scenario, I think that many people don't realize that such torture would have to be carried out by people. For each rapist castrated, there is a human being whose job it is to carry out that castration. The sudden creation of a job force numbering in the thousands whose sole responsibility is the performance of acts of perverse brutality is an idea that frightens me. I cannot imagine the twisted effect that years of such work would leave on those who perform it. Nowadays we make jokes about the violent mental breakdowns that seems to pop up every so often in the Postal Service. Just think about such problems in the Department of Unusual Punishment.

I understand the strong emotions that are conjured by the lowest elements of society, but such feelings must be suppressed and a calculating stance taken up on the issues plaguing the penal system.

Excellent post. You comment on how to carry out torture, humans would have to do it. It reminded me of an account of a victim of amputation (right hand, left foot) in Afghanistan. The man gave his account from his hospital. He described being brought into the stadium and having his limbs removed. One of the doctors doing the amputation was crying while doing it. Some of the guards who transported him to the hospital afterwards apologized.
Is this what people want? I don't.

That is a good point, and something I hadn't given thought to. Still, I don't see a problem with hard labor. Surely we can find something useful for these guys to do other than sit around and watch TV.

First move before I even touched the death penality issue.

I'd have chain gangs of 12 mandantory for all federal inmates.

And I've have them hot-racking 12-hour shifts. For those of you who don't know what I mean, that's where there is exactly 1/2 the number of sleeping racks as there are inmates.

So one shift is in a cell for 12-hours, then out laying asphalt and picking up litter for another 12. I tell you right now, you'd solve about 50 problems right off the top of the entire list.

Sure, sure, sure. You'd have inmates feeling like Prisoners of War. Pull a couple of 200 miles hikes in the dead heat of August, in Arizona, and you'd rapidly see the difference between inhumane treatment and keeping-them-inline.

That is all.

Good Points Deviant mage.

On your 1)
I am asuming that prison is supposed to be an unpleasant experience. Not because of raping, torture and what ever we have mentioned above but because of Either as Capstone puts it. Hard labour. Or else I would vote for the direct opposite. Absolutely nothing to do.

2)
By imprisonment for life I mean imprisonment for life. Again I would rather see a prison as an uninviting place, not as a kindergarden vacation for life. If there is hope. Let it be a pathetic and not an inspiring one. High security prisons for life time prisoners with lifestyle from number "1". Freedom should be a dream, not a hope.

3) Yep we agree. This is my only cynical drawback of imprisonment for life. They cost money.

I have nothing but hatred against rapists, massmurderers and the like. Let hem rot in spelhold for all I care. If there is redemption, let them ponder on that for the rest of their lives in a miserable insignificant cell, where the highligt of the day is creating bricks for buildings, to keep the prison a non taxpayer burden.

[ November 08, 2002, 03:08: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

I am pro and con for the death penalty. Some people deserve it so much - but they don't get it. Others, IMO, don't deserve it - but are given it. It just depends on the situation.

I'm going to give tiny things of my imagination as to why I DON'T think the death penalty law should be ALWAYS used, rather weighed at the head of the judge. (I've never studied law, especially the American laws, so correct me if I'm wrong.)

CON - A man's wife has been cheating on him for 2 years, and one day he comes home early and sees his best friend in bed with his wife. He gets in rage and gets a bit violent. The (ex-)wife and friend barely escape and the man is left with nothing but betrayal. 6 months after the incident, he is still really depressed and has already attempted suicided several times. One night he's walking down his street, depressed, when a couple of girls (minors) walk up to him, and start leading him on, teasing him, etc., so he gets really agitated and pissed off, and rapes them. When they try to run away, his rage gets the better of him and he beats them. Realizing what he has done when they escape, he runs back to his house and stays there for a week when the police come.

PRO - A couple of thugs sneak along the streets at night, pulling men and women alike into dark alleys and making them "disappear". Nobody's caught them, and it's been a week. 15 people are missing already. Finally, a group of people walk by the same alley, and the thugs are on them. 1 person escapes and rushes to the police immediately. The police come and find the thugs' hideout. The 15 are dead, overloaded with fatal drugs and/or killed from fast drinking (alcohol). After a few hours the thugs themselves are found trying to kill the group members in the same member. They are taken in front of the judge, and their identities are found. They've owned illegal possession of drugs, guns, and alcohol and have already killed 4 people before the "incidents".

I think this is something I'm not really going to speak on, because it's like the abortion issue (which I don't want to get into!) I see too many shades of gray. But I do want to say that we can argue about something like this until we're absolutely blue in the face, but we'll never truly know how we feel about it unless we're one of the ones on that jury...or a family member of that person..or that person. It's just to emotional of a subject.

I made a few comments, interesting ones I think, on my opinion on death penalty on page 2 of this thread. (http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=002446)

I see a lot of tree-huggers in this thread. And like all the rest, they focus on just one aspect, totally neglecting the entire rest of the world and subsequent equation.

Look. When you change one varible in a equation, this has an effect on the result. The result is directly affected by that one variable.

Some variables are much larger than other, and some smaller.

That's where the debate is. And DEATH just so happens to be one of the larger variables (rating just under SEXUAL INTERCOURSE). Evolutionary Psychology rules even over Death.

There's only so many people in a Nation. There's only so many guards, and so many prisons. More prisoners means more resources.

I'm not sure what the exact number is right now, but last time I looked we had something like 10,000 inmates on death row in our entire country. Jesus H. Christ knows how many total inmates we have. Obviously, only Federal inmates would be tallied against the number of Death Rowers, as those are the only ones that the Death Penality can even be levied against.

Something has to give. You have to start offering more money to the guards, so more people are inclined to become a guard. You have to build larger prisons, and more often than not, a larger number of prisons.

Or, you have to start letting the army or the National Guard take care of prisoners, which is DIRECTLY against their sole purpose of even being. Army ain't supposed to run domestic disputes until there's a martial law, and the National Guard is there for emergencies and to engage the Federal Armed Forces in case we need another Revolution. 1776 and that whole "2nd Amendment" thing still pisses us all off over here on this side of the Lake.

Soooooooo. Can't pawn the job off. It costs cash. Where do we get the cash?

To many senior citizens don't want us touching Social Security. The whole "vote" thing doesn't work on that one, ever. It gets shot down over enemy territory every single time it's come up for anything near a vote. Can't cut education any more than it already has been; we've been doing that for 20 years now, and we're starting to see the effects of that =).

We're leery of cutting the CIA/NSA/FBI's budget, now that we've all seen just what the **** can happen when you sit in your little room all day, and never look out the window.

So where the heck does the cash come from?

Trim back on the Military. I'm like, all for that. I'd like to see it cut down to 250,000 members. 2 Fleets, a couple of Wings, and some tanks.

The problem with American Society today is we've never been invaded. Not once. Mexicans got pushed back by that Rough Riding fool. Candians haven't liked us since that whole French-Indian thing. Britts tried to again, but Andrew Jackson shot that one down in New Orleans =). Japs didn't get enough firepower to do any good; one sub and one plane just doesn't cut it. Von Schlieger (whatever) came over, but didn't get off the boat (errrr. U-boat). Hitler came over too, but again didn't get off the boat.

We totally need to get seriously owned one good time. And when I'm talking serious, I don't mean one city and one state. I mean 50 cities, and 50 states. You'd have not one, but two, generations scarred for an entire lifetime. They'd know just how bad it REALLY can get.

And, with a bit of luck, there'd be plenty of pock marked areas where cities USED to be, so that everyone can look out there and think to themselves "WHOA! Dude. We, like, totally got owned on that one. I don't think I really care for that to ever happen again. What can we do to stop this from ever occuring ever again for the next 4.6billion years?"

I'm result oriented. It's time to stop playing Mickey Mouse games, and get some results. Personally, I like how the Jews are result oriented too...

@ejsmith

I'm not sure if I find your desire for massive destruction on a scale not seen since the Second World War more disturbing, or the flippant racial stereotyping of the Jews you ended with. What's even more disgusting is that I have the eerie feeling you were suggesting this was because they had been through something terrible, like you want all of us to go through.

The slightest suggestion that the Holocaust was, in any way, shape, or form a good thing sickens me. As for the idea that as a nation, the US should have to go through a similar experience so we stop playing 'Mickey Mouse games' is one of the most grotesque and simply awful things I've ever had the misfortune of running across. The idea that someone could actually think that is a sincerely depressing one.

It costs more money to execute someone than keep them in prison for life. I've seen it said a few times that the cost of keeping someone in prison is more and this weighs in favor of the death penalty. That isn't true. It costs more to execute a man. May seem crazy but it's true.

As for me, rights are something you can usually either voluntarily give up or forfeit. Some dispute you can forfeit the right to life. I take the cheap and easy way out, agreeing with the idea that the justice system is there to protect both the public and the individual. Since the death penalty is the most severe punishment, it should require the highest degree of certainty. Given that we know men are executed at a higher rate than women, that blacks and hispanics are executed at a much higher rate than whites, and that we now know of a appreciable number of cases of an innocent man being convicted and sentenced to death -- I think there is sufficient evidence to believe that the system is currently not responsible enough to justly administer the death penalty.

[ November 08, 2002, 23:31: Message edited by: Laches ]

Laches, why do you think it costs more money to execute a prisoner than to jail him? The only way I could see this is if you factored in the cost of an appeal and the defendant's lawyer was appointed by the government (I believe cases are automatically appealed when the death penalty is involved).

I saw a study that gave the cost to keep a person incarcerated, fed, clothed, and in health, cost $40,000 to $50,000 a year. I believe I could find a way to execute someone for far less than $50,000, even including cleanup!

I've seen studies that have concluded this, in some of my old criminal law books. They're in storage in another state so I can't dig them out and tell you who did the studies. I suspect there are more floating about the web.

Yes, the increased cost is related to the increased legal costs associated with executing a man.

Here is what a quick search produced:

David Erickson’s study of Los Angeles County breaks down the cost of a capital trial and compares it with the costs of a murder trial where the death penalty is not sought. The following schedule is a summary of Erickson’s cost study of a death penalty trial in Los Angeles County only........

Total cost to L.A. for life in prison: $627,322
Total cost to L.A. for death penalty: $1,898,323

This table does not take into consideration the cost of incarceration which, for a death row defendant, would average $189,603. The incarceration of an inmate sentenced to life imprisonment generally costs about $821,613.

In Los Angeles County, the total cost of capital punishment is $2,087,926.
In Los Angeles County, the total cost of life imprisonment without possibility of parole is $1,448,935.
General Studies

A study done by the Sacramento Bee argued that California would save $90 million per year if it were to abolish the death penalty.

The average cost of a capital trial in Texas is $2.3 million--three times the cost to incarcerate an individual for 40 years.

The average cost of a capital trial in Florida is $3.2 million.

Note, the above was altered by me because there was a table which did not transfer well when cut and pasted, therefore there is a small section that isn't a direct quote. Here is the link (didn't do any research into the site, just found it real quick like): http://www.worldpolicy.org/americas/dp/dp-cost.html

This is all interesting but in my opinion largely irrelevant. I personally don't think cost should be the issue. There is an abundance of evidence that if you are a male you are far more likely to be executed than if you are a female. If you are black or hispanic you are far more likely to be executed than if you are white. That added to the now well known cases where some inmates have been sentenced to death for crimes they have not committed makes me think that our system is not reliable enough to continue the use of the death penalty.

Note that this isn't saying that the death penalty is wrong or immoral. I'm not saying it is right either. I don't think you need to go that far because even assuming that the death penalty an appropriate punishment in some cases I think there is enough evidence to believe we aren't competent enough yet to use it. Get rid of racism and I'll reevaluate.

@Deviant Mage

"The slightest suggestion that the Holocaust was, in any way, shape, or form a good thing sickens me. As for the idea that as a nation, the US should have to go through a similar experience so we stop playing 'Mickey Mouse games' is one of the most grotesque and simply awful things I've ever had the misfortune of running across. The idea that someone could actually think that is a sincerely depressing one."

My point, exactly. I thank you kindly for that, good sir.

@Nutrimat
"I saw a study that gave the cost to keep a person incarcerated, fed, clothed, and in health, cost $40,000 to $50,000 a year. I believe I could find a way to execute someone for far less than $50,000, even including cleanup!"

That would hardly sway me towards capital punishment. If that figure is even accurate (which I highly doubt it is), all it would suggest is that the Department of Corrections is in a state of total ineptitude to rival that of the INS. Then again, considering the current levels of recidivism my argument might be completely meaningless.

@Deviant Mage
I believe ejsmith's point was that the lack of ever having our asses handed to us in any conflict has made us arrogant to such a point that a dose of humility is in order. Which I must agree with somewhat. However I'm certain there has to be a way other than the apocalypse to accomplish that. :)

"The slightest suggestion that the Holocaust was, in any way, shape, or form a good thing sickens me."
It was in one regard. The generally anti-semetic world (US included, as we were particularly bad) did an almost complete about face in that respect. Sort of a horrific wake up call; and a rather effective one at that. Too damn bad it took 6 million of them for us and the rest of the world to get the idea.

[ November 09, 2002, 03:19: Message edited by: Alex ]

I agree with Firestorm. I've never liked violence, let alone killing someone. It's revenge, plain and simple. When people die naturally, they don't kill anybody. Why the hell should it be different for murder? I look at it this way. Death = nothing. They might not even have time to feel guilty. life = guilt. They'll have to live with the fact that they screwed up about as far as it's possible too for the rest of their life. I live in Canada, and we (more or less) believe in peace. I, personally, think the rest of the world is insane. Why do people even continue to make handguns? The only purpose for handguns is to shoot people. Rifles can be used in hunting, but honestly, when was the last time you saw a guy shoot a deer with a pistol?

The death penalty is obviously the easy route out. Here in New Zealand we don't have it, hell we don't even have a decent judicial system. I mean, if someone gets life for murdering someone then it should be life. Not 6 or 9 years, then back on the streets to do it all again!
I would rather someone be given the death penalty (as long as they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) than give them the opportunity to kill, maim or rape someone as soon as they get out. :mad:

You know, all this got me thinking.

We could do like Mexico does. On their largest prison, they have a wall that looks exactly like the Berlin wall. It's like 20 feet high, razor wire, steel stakes; the whole works.

And it's completely open population. There's no doors, there's just niches where everyone can sleep. And there's usually about 1000 people in there at any one time. There's about 50 guards around the perimeter at any one time, all armed with automatic rifles. About every 6 months there's a major riot, and about 100 prisoners die, before the guards start launching tear gas and mace cannisters into the area.

Technically speaking, there's no death penalty. You're just in there for life...

Excellent idea, ejsmith - incarceration in the US is just too soft, unless you are in a military prison. Prison should not be a time of vacation from the hardships of life - it should be a time of hardship.

You are 100% right. Prison should be the worst place imaginably on earth, not a holiday camp. Who knows, if people were crammed into cells and shared a bit of concrete for a bed like you suggested then prison may be a bit off putting for those blasted criminals.
Either way, we have to keep them off the streets, and not let them back into society.
They should also cut visitation rights down - isn't that how they still manage to conduct business with the outside world?
Have them stand behind a glass wall and use sign language instead of verbally communicating.

Worst place on earth, a bit like hell only hotter.

I've only been to a prison a couple of times in my life. You all must have been to some radically different prisons than the one I've been to because the last word I would use to describe it is soft. I wonder if this isn't an idea that has taken off in popular culture due to the "tough on crime" rhetoric? I'd like to ask why people think prisons are too soft and if they do I would like to know your personal experiences with easy prisons or some sort of justification for thinking so. It may well be that there are some soft prisons out there, I'm genuinely curious. Even if there are though I am very doubtful that they represent anything other than the smallest minority.

Here is a survival guide written by an ex-con apparently. It shows a bit what prison is like, caution though, it is blunt and written by a guy who is anything but nice:

http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm ?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2FCapitolHill %2FCongress%2F6425%2Fsurvival.html (http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2F CapitolHill%2FCongress%2F6425%2Fsurvival.html)

[ November 10, 2002, 00:22: Message edited by: Laches ]

To wrongs doesnt make a right.

Yerril;
what do you propose instead? Or would you rather not comment further? Just curious I dunno, instead of killing them, you could just...knock them out?

Then, when they wake up, knock them out again. Keep going for a whole year, then let them go. :p

$40-50k a year on clothing! Now we know why those figures for life imprisonment are so blasted high! I can go through a full year spending only a few hundred dollars on clothing. All of my clothes are in near-perfect condition, never patched or such, and are made of high end material.

Those figures are of course figured out on 40 years in prison, and most people that get life imprisonment will be in jail for more than forty years. Most people convicted of capital crimes are in their 20s. That means that they will be in prison for 60-70 years. That will change the numbers the other way.

I've already made my arguments on the other thread, and I'm still in favor of instituting Hammurabi's Code of Laws, but would you rather see people like the ones who killed 15(?) people in Virginia and Maryland simply get into jail and get off on parole in a few years?

Where the heck are you guys getting all this "innocent people being killed" information? The way forensic science and such are today, the odds that an innocent person will be convicted are practically nonexistant. Sure, 20 years it was different, and then the death penalty may not have been feasible. It is now.

We're still pretty strict on who we give it to. There are (free) countries in the world that will kill you for shoplifting a needle from a store or for driving drunk. While I don't propose doing that, I still think that the concept of abolishing the death penalty is not viable. The prisons are already overcrowded as is. Imagine how much more crowded they'd get if we abolished capital punishment.

[ November 11, 2002, 03:01: Message edited by: Rastor ]

"Crowded prisons" seems to be a major factor driving arguments for killing criminals. But you know, there are other ways to streamline the number of people in the prisons without making anyone kill anyone else. My first question would be, well, why are the prisons so crowded in the first place? "Not enough capital punishment" seems an unlikely answer. Maybe "too many things are criminalised" would be a better one. Prison should be an oubliette for the violent so that they don't harm the innocent. But you can go to prison without being violent. You can go to prison for: growing certain plants in your herb garden or in a flowerpot in your own home, for giving a blow job in exchange for money, for not paying parking tickets, for offering someone a medicine a doctor didn't give them written permission to take, for keeping a gun in the privacy of your own home and not registering it with the authorities, for painting a customer's toenails without cosmetician certification, etc etc etc. Instead of being outraged at all the prisoners eating and wearing clothes at your expense, I think it's time to get outraged at governments that make "crimes" out of things that are none of their goddamn business.

The violent should be locked up and the key thrown away- no question. I'd include in this category people who had committed any senseless acts of violence (i.e. various forms of self-defence would be exempt), as well as stalkers that have shown an intent to kill. Although I do believe some people forfeit their right to life by behaving monstrously, I am opposed to capital punishment for the same reason Jack Funk is opposed to corporal punishment- because I think it is a terrible thing for anyone to have to carry out. I don't care what the conditions in prison are like- good or bad- so long as it doesn't cost me too much and the truly violent won't ever get out to prey on the innocent again.

What about all those stupid "crimes" like growing a certain type of poppy or herb in your own back yard? Well, why should the taxpayers waste money hunting these people down, putting them through the court system, and then supporting them at great expense in prison? What a phenomenal waste of money, energy, lives! Dedicate the criminal justice system, including prisons, for murderers, thieves, and committers of aggravated assault.

I'd say that thieves don't belong in prisons either. If they're not violent, there are other ways to punish them that don't cost as much. For example: eliminate access to unemployment insurance, welfare, old-age pensions, and government-paid health care. You don't want to be a responsible member of society, you don't deserve the benefits. Increase tax rates in proportion to the cost of the thefts (they can't get welfare so they'll have to work if they want to eat) and donate the difference to charities. I'd even say- eliminate access to the services of the police and fire department for repeat offenders. Your house is burning down? So sad. We'd help, but you're a jerk. Get out of our way while we protect your neighbours' houses. I think this type of punishment- withdrawing the privileges of citizenship from those who don't earn them- would be a far better deterrent than putting them in prison and paying for their food, clothes, and university degree. It would definitely be cheaper.

I really like your take on thiefs Sprite, you really make it easy for them not to steal. First they have a record, really really hard to get a job, absolutely not right away. Second they dont get any unemployment, wellfare plus they have to pay higher taxes? What do you think a thief would do in that situation if he wanted to eat? I can tell it to you, steal.

Rastor,

I think that you were indicating that the numbers would change so that life in prison is more expensive than the death penalty if the prisoner is around for more than 40 years. I don't believe this to be the case. Only one figure I listed above was for someone in prison for 40 years and the death penalty was 3 times more expensive than it. Even if a prisoner survived another 20 years there, the death penalty would still be 2 1/2 times less expensive. Also, I'm not really sure that the average life in prison is more than 40 years. Something tells me life expectancy in the prison population is less than in the rest of society and if your put in life in prison in the mid 20's to mid 30's 40 years puts you at 65-75 years of age.

As far as innocent men on death row, in Arpil of 2002 Ray Krone was exonerated and released from death row to become the 100th innocent person exonerated while on death row. He was convicted a decade ago. Also, the problem is that forensic evidence is not always conclusive. Ray Krone was convicted on the belief that a bite mark matched with him. There isn't always DNA evidence available but that doesn't stop the application of the death penalty. Take the case of Anthony Graves who was executed on the basis of the testimony of Robert Carter. Carter testified that it was Graves who set fire to a house killing one woman and four children. Initially Carter had pointed the finger at Graves knowing that he'd lost out on a promotion recently and hoping the police would blame him instead of Carter for the crime (Carter was found guilty as well.) In exchange for his testimony, the prosecution agreed not to charge Carter's wife with the crime. After trial, Carter recanted 7 times saying he'd lied about Graves. Graves was executed. There was no forensic evidence linking Graves to the murders. Carter was executed as well, here are his final written words:


Date of Execution: May 31, 2000 Offender: Carter, Robert #999091

Last Statement:

To the Davis family, I am sorry for all of the pain that I caused your family. It was me and me alone. Anthony Graves had nothing to do with it. I lied on him in court. My wife had nothing to do with it. Anthony Graves don't even know anything about it. My wife don't know anything about it. But, I hope that you can find your peace and comfort in strength in Christ Jesus alone. Like I said, I am sorry for hurting your family. And it is a shame that it had to come to this. So I hope that you don't find peace, not in my death, but in Christ. Cause He is the only one that can give you the strength that you need.

And to my family, I love you. Ah, you have been a blessing to me and I love you all and one day I will see y'all, so I hope y'all find y'all peace, comfort, and strength in Christ Jesus alone, because that's where it's at. Abul, behold your son, and Anitra, behold your mother. I love you.

I am ready to go home and be with my Lord.

I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest the odds of an innocent man being convicted and sentenced to death is too high to risk the death penalty in my opinion.

Again though, that doesn't even begin to touch on the apparent racism in the process. Take the state of Maryland where 70% of death row was black while on 28% of the population was. Worse though is that 80% of the states murder victims were black and yet of the 13 men on death row as of Nov 11, 2002 12 of them had been convicted of killing white people. Texas is where the death penalty is most common. As of 1998, despite the fact that Texas had executed more men than anyone else, they had never executed anyone for killing a black person (can't verify if this has changed.)

A 1990 U.S. General Accounting Office report revealed "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in charging, sentencing and imposition of the death penalty." In its 1997 call for a moratorium on executions, the American Bar Association concluded that "racial discrimination remain[s] in courts across the country...."

On the federal level, the pattern of racial bias in capital prosecutions is striking. A recent Justice Department study of federal capital cases from 1995 to 2000 found that 74% of the defendants were people of color. Upon release of the study, Attorney General Janet Reno said she was "sorely troubled" by such stark racial disparities.

The race of the victim and the defendant inevitably influences the decision to seek a death sentence. University of Iowa law professor David Baldus conducted an exhaustive criminal sentencing study in Georgia in the 1980s. He found that prosecutors sought the death penalty for 70% of black defendants with white victims, but only 15% of black defendants with black victims. Similar patterns of racial bias are found across the country.

Racism also infects jury selection. In March 1997, Philadelphia's D.A. released a 1986 training video in which D.A. candidate Jack McMahon instructs Philadelphia prosecutors to exclude blacks from juries to increase the chances of a conviction. Although outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 in Batson v. Kentucky, such exclusion remains commonplace throughout the U.S.

I think racism and the odds of an innocent being convicted are each sufficient on their own to preclude the death penalty. Cost isn't that important to me but it is more expensive to execute than it is to keep in prison for life. Together, they become that much stronger.

A couple of things.

First, most of the things you mention Sprite, would send someone to jail, not prison. Jail is a short term incarceration, prisons are for long term incarcerations for more serious offences.

Second, it's not more expensive to execute someone than to put them in prison for life. The process in place because of capital punishment is what may be (and there is coniderable controversy over whether it is more expensive or not) more expensive than if there was no possibility of capital punishment.

Let me explain what I mean. The reason it may be more expensive is because of the extra legalities (mandatory automatic appeal, extra jury sentencing etc.), but those legalities are present in any capital crime whether the criminal actually got the death penalty or was sentenced to life in prison.

So that guy who was accused of a capital crime but got sentenced to life in prison is more expensive than if he'd been sentenced to death and the sentence was carried out immediately.

So, to reiterate, if we got rid of the possibility of the death penalty and were then able to be rid of the extra legalities, then some money would indeed be saved. But as it stands we have those extra legalities for any capital crime whether the criminal gets the death penalty or not.

I read a short story once that was basically about a former Nazi; just a soldier, really, someone who had dug trenches for bodies and things like that-who was condemned to be killed...and then brought back to life...and then killed...and on and on like that until he had died the same number of times as there were people who were killed by the Nazis'. He wasn't a leader, or anything like that, but he had been the last remaining former Nazi, and he was being punished for even participating in those atrocities. The story was told in his point of view, as he was coming back to life, and then killed again. It was definitly an *interesting* idea.

A typical First Degree Felony Murder statute and Capital Murder statute are very similar. Why charge one rather than the other? You are seeking the death penalty. Juries pass death sentences in about 80% of all capital cases. There are extra costs associated with attempting to achieve the death penalty even when you fail.

Let us then use the cost figures for Texas provided by Dan Cutrer, who quoted estimates made by two Texas counties. These counties estimated the cost of a capital trial at between $400,000 and $600,000. If we subtract the cost of a non-capital murder trial ($75,000) from the median of these estimates, we get about $425,000 to try each capital defendant.

If we assume that juries will pass a death sentence in 80% of all capital trials, and that the appeal courts will continue to invalidate about 30% of all death sentences, we can assume that about 50% of all capital trials will result in an actual execution; so the actual cost of each execution (counting only the initial trial costs) comes in at $850,000.

Invested productively, at a conservative 5% rate of return, that sum would yield $45,000 per year; more than enough to support a "lifer" in jail indefinitely, with enough money left over to go some distance toward hiring an additional jail guard or police officer.

No estimate I know of that allows for the cost of spending a large sum of money in a single lump arrives at any conclusion but this; indeed, a Florida study arrived at a total cost (for each execution) of over two million dollars. Capital punishment does cost more than any other penalty exacted by the criminal justice system; even my estimates (which reflect only the cost of the original trials, and not appeals, death row housing, or execution infrastructure costs) come to this conclusion.

I do not feel like the numbers people stated above about the cost to keep someone in prison are anywhere near correct. Even in an expensive prison system, you are looking at about $21,000 a year a few years ago:
http://www.cdc.state.ca.us/inmtcst.htm

The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life (Duke University, May 1993.) On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion dollars spent since 1976 on the death penalty. The study,"The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina."

Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above and beyond what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post. Based on the 44 executions Florida has carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000)

The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total in incurred at the trial level (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).

Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution. (Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).

In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs2.html

$ "Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis." --Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, Sept. 9, 1999 (The Catalyst, 2/22/00)


[ November 11, 2002, 22:08: Message edited by: Laches ]

The cost-argument as a measure to justify death penalty is just plain sick and pervert. Criminal or not - how much is the value of a human life? To repeat myself: I have heared the cost-argument several times here: Criminals and antisocials in jail cost the tax payer money - for heating, food, clothing and health care. That is correct. However, this kind of calculation reminds me on Nazi math tasks like: "A criminal/ jew/ nigger eats 1kg potatoes a day - how much food do 20 of them waste over a year?" And besides, the exponents of that position use this argument inconsequently - since the same could be said about insitutionalized lunatics and old people in public senior residences ... they sit around all day, do nothing and society pays for them. Till now only the nazis have been that "consequent" - and fortunately their killing of handicapped and lunatics ended becaue of massive protest of the public and the catholic church in germany - on of our brighter days in WW-II (and the reason for the Nazis to be more secretive about their later murders).

Yeah, just how much is that criminal's life worth? What is that criminal contributing to his society, especially if he's locked up in prison for the rest of his life?

If life is so precious that it must be preserved at any cost, then why are people allowed to do risky activities? We should outlaw skydiving, bungie jumping, car driving, electricity and even fire.

I'd say that thieves don't belong in prisons either. If they're not violent, there are other ways to punish them that don't cost as much. For example: eliminate access to unemployment insurance, welfare, old-age pensions, and government-paid health care. You don't want to be a responsible member of society, you don't deserve the benefits. Increase tax rates in proportion to the cost of the thefts (they can't get welfare so they'll have to work if they want to eat) and donate the difference to charities. I'd even say- eliminate access to the services of the police and fire department for repeat offenders. Your house is burning down? So sad. We'd help, but you're a jerk. Get out of our way while we protect your neighbours' houses. I think this type of punishment- withdrawing the privileges of citizenship from those who don't earn them- would be a far better deterrent than putting them in prison and paying for their food, clothes, and university degree. It would definitely be cheaper. Oh yes, this is definitely a deterrent for a thief!! Wow!!

Hmmm - as much as I usually enjoy playing the devil's advocate (as some of my earlier posts in this little forum of happiness will show you!) I am going to have to come clean: There are those criminals who can be rehabilitated, and there are those who cannot - our prison system is not perfect, but it does work for many of the criminals incarcerated.

The death penalty is essentially a legalized form of good, old-fashioned, lynch-mob vigilante justice - completely inappropriate in a "civilized" national or world community. It has never stopped criminals from being criminals before (except in extreme conditions) and it probably never will.

For those of us living in "Christian" nations (that question is still up in the air for those of us in the US!) the debate over the death penalty should not even be an existant question. For those nations that do not subscribe to the Judeo-Christian justice ideals, well, let them deal with it in their own way. God will sort it all out in the end, anyways.

(If you believe that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, then add your own semi-apocalyptic proverb here - thank you and have a nice day!)

[ November 12, 2002, 01:00: Message edited by: Falstaff ]

I agree with Sprite, if we tell them not to do something, and they do, why let them benefit? If they kill someone, why put them in the slammer for a few years, and then let them bask in the goodness of our society!

The death penalty is essentially a legalized form of good, old-fashioned, lynch-mob vigilante justice - completely inappropriate in a "civilized" national or world community. It has never stopped criminals from being criminals before (except in extreme conditions) and it probably never will. Bah. Actions have consequences. It doesn't matter if the punishment deters the criminal; by his own actions he has dictated his fate.

Besides, capital punishment is the one certain way to stop a criminal from being a criminal.

[ November 12, 2002, 01:20: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

I prefer to approach the death penalty argument in a different manner. Arguing over whether it can be ethical to put someone to death, whether it is civilized, whether an eye for an eye is justice etc. tends to deginerate. It's kind of like abortion that way, usually one side says:"yes it is" and the other retorts:"no it's not." Then, to counter the other says "yes it is" etc.

You can still argue against the death penalty even if you wish to concede for the sake of argument that it isn't necessarily unethical (just like Judith Jarvis Thompson concedes a fetus has a right to life and then provides an argument for abortion rights.)

In order for a system of justice to be just, it must be just. In order for it to be just, there must be equal application of the laws. The empirical evidence certainly implies in my opinion that there is racial inequality with the application of the death penalty. Until we can rectify the racial problems in the U.S. so that we can have a much greater degree of certainty that racism does not play a factor in determining who is sentenced to death, to continue using the death penalty is unjust. Note, the death penalty isn't inherently unjust with this argument, but its application here is.

A similar argument can be made regarding men and women. Studies have shown a man who commits the same crime as a woman is far more likely to receive the death penalty than a woman (haven't heard NOW complaining about this particular sort of paternalism.) This seems to indicate to me that sexism may play a role in deciding who is sentenced to death, thus, the application of the death penalty in the U.S. is unjust.

The death penalty is the most severe penalty in the U.S. Thus, it should demand the greatest degree of certainty. The empirical evidence above shows that at least 100 men have been vindicated while on death row. Want to know the only thing worse than having a loved one murdered? How about having a loved one convicted of a crime he didn't commit and sentenced to death and dealing not only with his loss but the stigma attached? In my opinion, and with all due respect, you are naive to believe that if 100 men have been proven innocent with enough certainty to be released (very difficult)that there are no other innocent men on death row. It is naive to believe with what history has shown that we won't screw up again, it happens. Sometimes bad breaks happen and it looks like someone has done something they haven't. I think give our history of failure the continued application of the death penalty is unjust.

From a simple, brutal, utilitarian standpoint: it's cheaper to imprison someone for life.

And I've repeated myself again. Sorry. Nowhere there did I say the penalty is inherently unjust. I do think that to advocate the death penalty with good conscious though you need to explain how it is that we now have a sufficient degree of certainty to apply the penalty (remember, you can receive the death penalty based only on circumstantial evidence.) I also think you have to explain how you are now certain that race no longer plays a factor in the death penalty. Now I'll shut up.

Ah, I love it when the forums just keep going around and around and around...

In my opinion, there is a sufficient degree of certainty, but certainly everyone will have a different definition of what sufficient is.

In my opinion, race/sex bias is immaterial. The guilty parties that are executed are getting what they deserve. Those that aren't are getting a lucky break.

Also, I don't know that there is race/sex bias (unless you mean whites are discriminated against). There are more white death row inmates than other races (individually), and more whites have been executed than other races (combined). And there may be more men then women because more men commit capital crimes than women; I don't know.

Finally, I disagree with the statement ...we know... that blacks and hispanics are executed at a much higher rate than whitesThe percent of death row inmates that are white is just slightly larger than black (45% vs 43%), yet 57% of those executed were white and only 35% were black.

Oh, the above numbers are since 1976, and last updated in 2002 (July for inmates and October for executed).

[ November 12, 2002, 06:35: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Wouldn't there be the silly little bit that even a jury isn't free of prejudice, that lawyers are brillinatly manipulating them and that their decisions are not as rational and neutral as they should be. IIRC psychological studies have shown that black juries have soaked up white prejudices about black criminals: To distinguish themselves from that black criminal (who, of course, has been in jail before) they, law abiding as they are, were more willing to plede for guilty. The same applied to the other races too iirc. Interesting aspect of the glorious, yet a little obsolete, jury system. Once invented to control the justice of the king it no longer really serves a function. It is easier for a lawyer or a prosecutor to fool a jury than a judge.

Another silly aspect is the instrumentation of death penalty for political reasons, to to gain a staright and hard crimefighter profile - warmly welcomed for the next elections ...

Additionally, the lower income criminals often suffer the gruesome fate of beeing dumb/ having an incompetent attorney - a safe way to death row.

The deaths of hundrets of innocent in death row and in recent and less recent dictatorships (as well "legal killings" - according to local law) should have teached that restriction makes sense here:
It is hard to assume a right of the country to deny people their ultimate and most fundamental human right - the right to live. You can take away personal freedom, property, equality - but once you lost your life the game is over - death penalty is irreversible.

The right to live is the only right that only the individual himself can give up. It is not up to the country to do that.

That shall signify that death penalty has a totally different "quality" of rights restriction compared to jail. Too many innocent died on that basis to still see death penalty as a legitime punishment - and therefor: Never relesase them again. Fortunately most european countries share this point of view.
The deciding factor, considering the not too infrequent mishaps, is the risk of frying an innocent - and that is a price a country mustn't be willing to pay for *justice* or *retribution* - and still insist in calling itself civilized.

[ November 12, 2002, 08:36: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

The right to life is not taken away, it is forfeited by their criminal actions. If you want to keep your right to life, don't murder anyone.

The right to live is the only right that only the individual himself can give up.That is exactly what they are doing by committing murder.

[ November 12, 2002, 16:39: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Do any of you actually think either prison *or* the death penalty is an effective deterrent? :confused: If that were true, countries with the death penalty would have a lower crime rate and that sure isn't the case. And I fail to see how prison is a deterrent: you can get a university education at public expense, you can watch tv, or you can work out in the gym, or pretty much do all kinds of things the working poor don't have time to do. That's not just a matter of personal opinion either- the fact that the same people do things that send them back to prison, time and time again, instead of saying "whoa, THAT was a bad experience, I'll avoid that in the future!" says it all.

Sure, withdrawing the hundreds of thousands of dollars the government spends on an individual in his or her life and putting social workers on their tails to make sure they're earning and declaring their living honestly isn't much of a deterrent either. But at least, in some small way, they're less of a problem for society than they were before, which is NOT true for people in prison- or jail. And anyway, they'll have the full attention of the tax man once per year, possibly for the first time in their lives, which as far as I'm concerned is the ultimate punishment. :)

As far as race and the death penalty are concerned, the real interesting statistic is the race of the victims. Over half of all murder victims are from minority groups. See the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm

Yet, when a death sentence is handed down 81% of the time the victim was white. These numbers are through Jan 2002. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/dpicrace.html#inmaterace


"In 82% of the studies reviewed, race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."
U.S. General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing Study.
But, I think I'm about discussed out here. BTA, while I disagree with you I enjoyed a debate where the arguments were reasoned as opposed to name calling. You murdering neanderthal. :D


Perhaps the bleakest fact of all is that the death penalty is imposed not only in a freakish and discriminatory manner, but also in some cases upon defendants who are actually innocent. -Justice William J. Brennan, 1994


[ November 12, 2002, 18:34: Message edited by: Laches ]

Again, I think the race of the victim is immaterial for the same reason stated above.

Hehe. Likewise Laches, you murderer-loving whacko ;)

Yeah, I'm going to agree.

If you're emptying the clip into a herd of Gazelle, the chances you'll hit one of the 20 Llama interspersed is small.

Probability sucks. So do statistics, if you only compare them to one other statistic.

Perhaps the bleakest fact of all is that the death penalty is imposed not only in a freakish and discriminatory manner, but also in some cases upon defendants who are actually innocent. -Justice William J. Brennan, 1994 as opposed to getting a life sentence for a crime you didn't commit? Want to bet that more innocents have served life sentences than been executed? Does this mean we should abandon life sentences? No.

To everyone who proclaims that execution is uncivilized/revenge/vengeance/viigilantism:why is it that locking someone in a steel cage for 50-70 years is NOT considered all those things? Any opinions? I'd say that the only thing seperating revenge and justice is legal sanction--and execution has that.

[ November 13, 2002, 07:41: Message edited by: AMaster ]

Has anyone ever thought how much it costs to keep a person in prison?

In New Zealand it costs the tax payer $50000 per year, which is a little over $100,000 US dollars. And we pay for it. :flaming:

We don't have the death penalty here in NZ, but if we did I'd back it.

I'm pretty certain that an execution is cheaper than keeping a murderous b****** alive in prison (unless I added up wrong?).

I have had the fortune? of working in a prison as part of being in the military. And from what I saw, they get more luxuries than you or I. :bang:

I must reiterate - death penalty only if guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Castration (spelling?) for rapists should also be a certainty - no exceptions. :thumb:

As for the cost-argument:
As I said before and above, criminals and antisocials in jail do indeed cost the tax payer money - for heating, food, clothing and health care. However, you use this argument inconsequently: The same could be said about insitutionalized lunatics and old people in public senior residences ... they sit around all day, do nothing and society pays for them ... :rolleyes: ...

Eventually you overlook the most important thing: Processual rights, as well as human rights once in jail, are not there because we all are liberal softies. It's more to ensure that, just in case we find an innocent guilty, he survives and can defend himself or - if sentenced - get some compensation and rehabilitation after jail. Once killed rehabilitation will not help him much.

And as for killing only when there is no reasonable doubt: **** happens, you cannot eliminate the risk to kill an innocent when introducing death penalty - face it.

The final question you have to ask yourself when promoting death penalty is if you are willing to pay for your satisfaction to kill a criminal with the possibility to kill an innocent.

Interesting post this one, probably the most debated issue as of late.

I for one am still in between yes and no,

For one, why should anyone who takes a life as if he were god, have any right to live anymore.
But then on the other hand, who will play god when he takes the life of the prisoner.

I am leaning more to the first one though, but still I am glad I don't have to take that call.

On the subject innocent or guilty I have this to say: I read earlier in the thread that forensics is getting better and better, and I must agree although I should say that all we see on TV are the victories of the forensics appartment and probably not the cases where they are wrong or they don't solve, but still technology is getting better.

Money shouldn't be an issue in the case of putting a man/woman to death, In my view it is again simple: how much could it cost to kill a man?
Why does deathrow take that long?
I mean if the offendant is guilty (and they should be a 100% sure of that otherwise just put him in prison until it has been proven he is not) and he is sentenced to death, why wait months if you could do it the next morning. Sounds hard?, but did the mass murderers and rapist gave any mercy to their victems, think not!

American law system? IMO if a lawyer can talk good and convince the jury :rolleyes: the killer/rapist is innocent he goes free. And don't get me started about a jury (bribes say anything to you)

I'm not saying anywhere else it is better, for example in my country holland, killers and the like go to prison for a max of 20 years (wich is highly exceptionel) and go free doing it again.

Solution?
Probably none! although I came up with a few.

one: the romans had a fairly good way although with huge flaws --> Put the killers/rapists in one big arena with enough weapons to kill each other off. In this way no one has to kill them except for them selves. Oh and no audiance like in the arena (or the running man movie with aaahnold)

two: psychological prison: a small room, one chair, walls covered with non sharp spikes or triangular objects, and like one of those clicking devices (you know with the metal balls ticking together.
Just put them in there for like a month and all they need is a chair, rope and something to hang the rope one.
Again no one kills them but themselves.

Seems brutal? it is, but again and I can't say this enough, did they show mercy to their victems.

BTW all these things should also be done with 100% certainty. (which probably can't be done)

That's it I guess except for this

I want them to say this line before they kill themselves (psychological prison only):

GET ME OUT OF THIS HELLHOLE (bg1 reference)

Splendid suggestion. Im medieval Cologne we had a prison tower named "Wegschnapp". It was a room with a hole in the ground where they put the convict and didn't give him any food for a week - then they hanged a fresh white bread under the roof - over the hole - just out of reach. In the attempt to get the food the convict unavoidably fell down deep and the Rhine did the rest. Doh. A little cruel? But wasn't he criminal?

You're making a serious logical, hypocritical error when you think that driving people into suicide is not killing them. You overlook that that suicide is not at all a free decision. Is a man who drives his wife to suicide innocent of murder? Of course not! Indeed, she killed herself then - but why? But the murderer instrumantalized his victim in an exceptionally cruel, perfide way.

If you want to torture the criminals so that they will eventually prefer suicide to agony, you're in good company. Join the club of Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, Bokassa, Pol Pot and others. How about employing a couple of crack vietnamese (your POW's still curse their skill - and what's good enough for *our boys* is good enough for criminals anyway ... :) ) / iraqi (good ol' no frills cruelty, yay!) / CIA (from the bad old days) / chilean/ KGB/ PLO/ Mossad torturers - or maybe some classic SS concentration camp crews? That would be a punishment! :) :roll: Why not turn prisons into concentration camps? - the criminals have a life way too nice there! :spin: And I'm sure, some patriotic and law abiding company will supply the thumbscrews needed - even produce an ingeniously improved all-american model within a years time. :roll: Or how about public executions like in china - in football stadiums - all inclusive with popcorn, donuts and hot dogs? :)

That way you become an inhuman monster yourself ...

[ November 13, 2002, 21:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

i think that we would do like they do in china... shoot that ******* and send the wage for the bullet to his family... but that would make my family have a bill over 1000$ due to i wont die in the first time... everyone comes back, remember, its a toast, not a promise...

See Ya

Just out of curiosity: What has the family to do with the crime of a descendant of it? I doubt they are responsible for the deed of the criminal ... so why bill them?

but most of the family raised the child(suprise) and that is a small wage when someone elses life have been destroyed... but i think that childrapers and "normal" rapers should die on the spot but not all murderers...

See Ya

Assuming a responsibility of the parents for their grown-up children's deeds is ridiculous - eventually most criminals are *adult* and, at least theoretically, able to decide what's allowed and not.

Irrelevant is the acusation that the parents raised him wrong. They don't have anything to do with the deed.
It is irrelevant too that the criminal actually did the deed, indicating that he had either problems to recognise that difference or simply didn't care - but who cares? - it's sufficient that he must have known.

You reach that point of "must-have-known" with 18 years. Every adult is fully responsible for what he does and when an adult eventually kills someone, you cannot bill the parents too.

Control thought:
-When you're speeding - should the police give you and your driving teacher a ticket?

[ November 14, 2002, 09:22: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ragusa, most of your posts make sense but that last comment is really quite a bad example.

Consider this:

Six men gang rape a six month old infant. As a trend and as initiation to some gangs, it happens more and more frequently. The children mostly survive, scarred as infants, their internal organs severely damaged for life, and not able to live a normal life ever.

The rapists get caught, witnesses testify, but the law will not hold them for longer than a few years when they do it again. In and out of prison they are protected as part of a gang. When they get out its just a matter of upping the score again.

These cases have taken a higher priority than murder many times, since the victim has to live scarred for life. Our constitution is against the death sentence though.

What do you think the solution should be?

[ November 14, 2002, 11:22: Message edited by: Astin X ]

Lock'em away. Forever. Fullstop.

Btw, would there be a difference if they rape a just as defenceless 90 year old granny? I mean, she would just have much less years to live, scarred ... The age of the victim shouldn't make the difference - it's a terrible crime anyway.

Most notably the majority of child abuse cases are *family interna* and do not end up with a killing but sadly continue over a long time. These are the cases you usually don't hear from. The ones you do hear from are the ones with outsiders - they are most atractive to the media.

The loud cry for revenge is to a good point media made - and well understandeable. Abusing a child is sick. People nowadays have seen about anything on the media - various wars, cathastrophies, atrocities - you name it, directly transmitted into their comfy living room. There isn't much that can lure them out of their comfortable slumber - except the fear for their own children.

Of course child abuse is a terrible crime, committed by sicko criminals who are too dangerous to be allowed to ever be released again. But interestingly the number of the cases of child abuse-killings is sinking (in Germany at least), yet they are about the most strongly perceived crimes comitted.

[ November 14, 2002, 11:50: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Off Topic

@ Ragusa,

In South Africa we have one of the highest rape rates in the world. All ages, and its not exactly something that gets broadcasted. The prisons are always very full, and Cape Town has even been given the title by media as the "Cape of rape".

I do believe that raping or killing anyone is a horrific deed, but there is no one more innocent than a child. That is all they have. There is nothing else you can take from them.

There is no other reason (theft etc) but having a completely sick individual who will rape a defenceless infant. Six months is sadly not the youngest case. It has happened to babies of three months and younger.

Send them away for death or life, but something that works.

[ November 14, 2002, 13:41: Message edited by: Astin X ]

yes Ragusa but when they are in prison nothing can happen to them couse we say it like this:
ten other men in the same jail have been wrongely punished to jail... all of them would like to kick the arse af those f*ckers but nooo... the law stoppes this and if they do... ITS SHOCKING TIME... this even happens in sweden becouse one of my uncles was in a fight in a jail and got shocked 12 times after that... so i just say... KILL ÈM ALL...
Slowly

See Ya

Astin X,

We're getting a little off topic here but alas:

iirc the high rape rate in south africa, rape of youngest children especially, is a cultural/ educational problem to some point, strongly related with the problem of AIDS in south africa - I remember that I read about the widespread fairy tale that some people down there seem to believe in getting rid of AIDS by having sex with a virgin .... since nothing is more virginal than a young child .... Of course that is insane, irrational and sick.

There was some harsh international critic about the pretty insane perception of AIDS, in that it is not a infectious desease but something else, by the head of the actual south african government, namely by US foreign minister Colin Powell ....

I found this, searching Google, on BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1350631.stm) Controversial debate

Mr Mbeki caused a storm last May by convening a panel of scientists to determine whether the HIV virus causes the fatal disease, long accepted as fact by most Aids experts.

Under fire, Mr Mbeki later withdrew from the debate, but just last month he questioned the need for people to be tested for HIV because he said scientists disagreed on what was being tested. If I understand this particular issue rightly death penalty wouldn't be a solution here, since it wouldn't adress the actual problem.

@ Ragusa, Off topic again.

I was not arguing with you.
It seems that your reply was off topic to my off topic post. I do not agree however with some of the details you have, but I won't rant about it. You have pretty much hit the nail on the head with some of the info. Well researched.

Lets get... On Topic

All I am saying regardless of the sentence, it has to be something effective, which as discussed all through this thread seems to put both life and death sentences on equal footing as not an effective deterrent.

I will agree that with the death sentence, there can be no margin of error as exists today in all countries.
In my opinion only however, I do still believe that in an open and shut case of the greatest severity, and where evidence is absolutely concrete, the death sentence will be effective as it removes a sick person like that from existence rather than allow him to continue behind bars or influence others as well. - Just my personal non political opinion.

*sigh*

The argument that pops up on this board all the time is that an execution costs more than imprisonment for life.

But I know from years ago (figure, around 1993), this number was reached by looking at the cost of ONLY the inmate's physical needs.

It did not take into account prison maintenance. Or water purification. Or sewage, or prison guard salaries, pay raises due to inflation and strikes, or weapon replacement, or electrical plant failures (and the need to build a new power planet).

There's a whole SLEW of things that didn't come into play. Because the numbers involved would push the "logical" argument right out the door, and the anti-captial punishment people wanted numbers they could use.

I'm not trying to bust anyone's little fantasy world here, I'm just throwing my $.02 out.

And I'll say just this, and then I'll be quiet, because there's nothing else for me to say.

All this stuff with imprisonment is fun to talk about. But people (I'm talking about Joe Schmoe living in Metropolis, and working from 9-to-5, not Jack Funk politician that sits in the capital behind a considerable number of armed policemen and federal agents) just don't consider the few times when there's a catastrophe. Like an earthquake or a flood, or a power outage due to ice. Whatever.

And just a few prisoners escape.

And they break into YOUR home in the middle of the night, duct tape you, and rape your 4 year old daughter and 32 year old wife. Then let them bleed to death right in front of you.

And then people say "that doesn't happen", or "that happens once every 10,000 years".

And then the whole issue changes when it happens to YOU.

While the situation you describe is cause for rage, I have a hard time seeing it as a rationale for the death penalty.

What does it cost to send up a space shuttle? Come on. Discussing prisoner costs is like discussing where to put the fork. On the left or the right side of the table. irrelevant

What else?
We don't have the right to live. We have the responsibility to prove that we don't deserve death. Repeat that last phrase to yourself.

[ November 14, 2002, 23:51: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

"While the situation you describe is cause for rage, I have a hard time seeing it as a rationale for the death penalty."

My God.

This was my point, exactly. Thank you, Shralp.

<removed link to brutal execution of russian soldier by chechen rebels>

yeah ok it has nothing to do with the death penalty, we kill our humans humanely

[ November 17, 2002, 00:27: Message edited by: Riddley Walker ]

That is pretty bloody (no pun intended) sick. Not perhaps a link for your average punter on these boards!

Also totally irrelevant.

"this is ded oh yeadflfsdjfgjl "

I'm not sure about all that.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. Pretty gruesome. Ogrish has some very non-politically correct stuff.

Good call.

Well, I said I wasn't going to post again here, but I just want to chime in to concur with Viking, that was a totally irrelevant link. I'd advocate that in the future irrelevant links take you to a supermodels homepage. Can I get a second?

I also liked how post 90 or so in the thread asks if anyone has ever thought about the cost of keeping someone in prison? I'm surprised that people hadn't thought about that earlier in the thread and come up with some real data comparing the costs.

I'm all for it. You take a life, you pay with your own. It's simple, an eye for an eye.

Riddley,

Thank you for removing the link.

If you want to debate how people are killed if that's fair enough, just not relevant to the death penalty debate?

Also keep in mind that this is not an over 18's show. It was grotesque.

Either way, thanks.

[ November 17, 2002, 02:41: Message edited by: Viking ]

Some of you are speaking of the disportionate amount of males and minorities on death row as opposed to others. While I will not argue this fact, consider which demographic tends to commit the most violent crimes. I don't remember the exact numbers, but IIRC, nearly 75-80% of serial rapists and murderers were black or hispanic males. So you're complaining that they make up the same percentage of the people on death row.

I'd be more apt to scream "racism" if the numbers were grossly out of proportion to the demographics of these criminals. They are not, and I will not.

Rastor, like I said in my post at the top of this page, the real interesting statistic regarding race is the greater likelihood you will be killed for killing a white than a minority (81%). The implication is.....

And that, I vow, is my final final post on the subject (fingers crossed.)

Everyone else is posting here so I may has well post too:
I support the death penalty, why? simple answer: I want those people off the streets permenantly. Yes, they're locked away in supposedly secure facilities but they aren't as secure as people believe. There has been a few escapes from prisons holding inmates on Death Row in the past. So, my views on executing the bad guys don't stem from revenge or anything like that. Kill them to protect the rest of society from truly evil people who would kill for the mere sport of killing!

Nah, I think there's a little good in everyone. Hard to see sometimes, though. If you kill a murderer I think you have done the same thing to him as he has done to his victim. Wich, of course, makes you a murderer too. Or did you had the right to do it, since he killed first?

That's why we made laws, and if someone kills another person, he/she broke them... big time. Only question is.... do you keep him/her locked up for the rest of his life, or do you sentence him/her to death ?

To sentence someone to death is a kind of murder and just because the law says it's right it doesn't justify it. So I think it's wrong.

Does locking people away for extended periods of time solve anything? not really. Leaving murderers aside when people go to prison over here in the United States (I don't know how it works in other countrys therefore I won't say anything about them) they're worse when they come out, often much worse. Prisons have their own societies inside and in order to survive in a prison one has to be as hard or harder than one's inmates (or so I've heard.) So, send in a guy convicted of something minor and you may get something else entirely when he's released.
As I said in my earlier post it's not about revenge or "justice" when it comes to the death penalty and me supporting it: it's my own safety and the safety of society that is an issue with me.
OK, end of my rant now.

I wouldn't worry too much about that, they never place thieves among killers and rapists. At least not where i live. The killers are seperated from the other criminals.

[ November 17, 2002, 23:34: Message edited by: Pac man ]