I've yet to see this topic posted, and I'm pretty sure why, but curiosity has finally gotten the best of me...

So, what are YOUR opinions on the death penalty?

Why can't they have it in England. I've never been able to see any bad points about the death penalty. I'm sure there would be much less crime if we had the death penalty for just about every crime. Initially a few people might get executed for silly things but later on people would be too scared and we would have zero crime and no need for prisons... the more I think about it the better it sounds...

I am against it. We have it in parts of the US and it does nothing to deter crime. Most people committing capital crimes are not thinking about the penalty they may pay if caught.

I always thought two wrongs don't make a right... Oh well.

[edit: this is Serena Lynx I'm on Baldak's computer]

[This message has been edited by Baldak Oakfist (edited July 09, 2002).]

It might not deter those committing the worst crimes but bring it in for things like armed robbery and then you are gonna see improvements. Perhaps this is a bit harsh but these people see that the penalty isn't that big and don't care too much about going to prison but the death penalty would scare them.

Well, Serena, aren't you assuming that the execution of a convicted criminal is "wrong"?
---

I am opposed to the death penalty not because of morals, but because there have been cases where innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit.

With a prison sentence, after learning of this mistake, we can release the innocent person. But with the death penalty, there is nothing we can do.

If guilt was somehow absolutely certain, then I would support the death penalty. But, this is not the case.

[This message has been edited by A_Seal_Clubber (edited July 09, 2002).]

For one thing, to be on Death Row, you ahve to be judged Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Yes mistakes are made, the Jury is human, and is not omniscient, but the clues present concivinced them that the person charged was guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

Jack Funk(also A_Seal_Clubber), the reason the Death Penalty doesnt deter crime like it should, is because people who are on death row, sit in a cell for 5-10+ years. Why?!? So it can be assured that the person is guilty? That kind of negates the original reason they are on Death Row. That generally means that they are unsure if the person is guilty or not, and if they arent sure about guilt, the Person should not be on Death Row.

Actually DeBhaal, for any crime, the jury has to believe the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a reasonable doubt, they are "required" to bring a verdict of not guilty.

That the jury is human and capable of error is the very reason I think a permanent, "irreversible" punishment should not be allowed. Even with a life sentence, an innocent person can be freed.

And, yes, there have been cases where a person is found to be innocent after being convicted.

[This message has been edited by A_Seal_Clubber (edited July 09, 2002).]

I did not say that there was less believeablity in any other crime, but I am talking about the Death Sentence.

There is a more serious issue with the Death Sentence.

"That the jury is human and capable of error is the very reason I think a permanent, "irreversible" punishment should not be allowed. Even with a life sentence, an innocent person can be freed."
You think a computer should do it then? Computers fail more than people do, and current Technology such as Forensics and other sciences, there are less chances for error, but no matter what system is used, there are ways around it, if you have the money, or knowledge of the inner workings.
Death Penalty would work as a deterent, if it were used the way it should be. I.e. You are convicted for Murder1 on three accounts, and various other crimes, you are Sentenced to Death Row, and you are then killed(by whatever way is used). That is how it should be done, and that is how crime would begin to drop. Not by sentencing someone to Death Row and leaving them sit for 5+ years.

Even with lighter sentenses, there should be absolutely no Parol, if you are sentenced to a crime, you should serve the time you are given, to the last day. Not get out for being good, in a couple years. The reason they were placed in jail wasnt good, or they wouldnt be there.

"You think a computer should do it then? Computers fail more than people do, and current Technology such as Forensics and other sciences, there are less chances for error, but no matter what system is used, there are ways around it, if you have the money, or knowledge of the inner workings."

You missed my point. My point was that there IS error when humans decide guilt (which is the current system), so the death penalty should not be used. I did not mean that humans should not decide, but that anything that is capable of error should not decide.

That the jury is human and capable of error is the very reason I think a permanent, "irreversible" punishment should not be allowed. Even with a life sentence, an innocent person can be freed.
-A_Seal_Clubber

Ah yes, so leaving someone in jail for 60 years and pulling them out after it's found out that they're innocent is NOT an irreversible punishment, good point...

EDIT: (in response to A_Seal_Clubber's post below)
You missed my point, a life sentence is no more reversible than death. The person may not die, but they have lost their life.

[This message has been edited by Faerus Stoneslammer (edited July 09, 2002).]

That's why I used quotes.

In the last few years, now that PCR-based DNA analysis has become a standard crime investigation technique, more than one hundred people have been discovered innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted -- and executed. Oops!

The death penalty has never been seen to have any value as a deterrent to would-be criminals. Life, or even twenty years in prison are bad enough that armed robbery doesn't strike the average person as a good idea; but of course armed robbers are not average people.

They are poor -- the single greatest predictor of criminality is poverty (surprise!). They are retarded -- one estimate puts 30% of death row inmates at IQ 80 or less. They also don't look much like the judges who sentence them -- Hispanic and Black people fill our prisons far out of proportion to their numbers in society. Study after study has shown -- not even conservatives pretend to doubt it now -- that Black and brown people are more likely to live in poverty, more likely to receive a substandard education, and receive harsher sentences on average than a white person committing the same crime, and (ta-da!) represent 80% of death row inmates nationwide.

Why is that? Well, since no one here is idiot enough to propose that genetic inferiority is at work -- we have to conclude that our justice system is flawed. Poor people in general, despite our best intentions, and people of color in particular, feel the long arm of the law more heavily than rich and white people. And women, interestingly enough -- women are far less likely to be sentenced to death than men who commit the same crime.

Leaving aside the question whether it is right to take lives in the name of justice (or vengeance), surely common sense demands that if we exact the ultimate punishment, we must be dead solid certain it is correctly applied.

We're not.

Sure, mistakes will be made, but that is true with the death penalty or without, and the punishment is never reversible, though without the death penalty it can be shortened.

When a mistake is made without the death penalty, you are still taking years away from someone that you cannot give back.

People are killed accidentally all the time. Shall we end car driving because so many thousands die in car accidents? How about shutting down commercial airlines because they can't guarantee you'll arrive safely? Shall we prevent people from swimming or owning pools because someone might drown? Maybe we should ban electricity because innocent people might be electrocuted.

We have a system of justice that is not perfect by any means, but fatal accidents happen all the time.

I am not interested in providing for convicted criminals whose crimes were heinous enough to call for the death penalty because of the chance of mistakes being made, just as I am not interested in banning freeway driving because deaths occur every day on them.

Methyl,
The first instinct of a low-intilect individual such as you described, is to save his own ass, so to speak..
If the laws were enforced better, then yes, Crime would be alot lower, I do not speak of just the Death Penalty.

In the last few years, now that PCR-based DNA analysis has become a standard crime investigation technique, more than one hundred people have been discovered innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted -- and executed. Oops!
Yeah, Oops! but as BTA said in the post above, accidents happen all the time, and the Death Penalty has put more Guilty people under than Innocent people.

[This message has been edited by DeBhaal Stasion (edited July 09, 2002).]

Bosh! Shame on you, Blackthorne!

We are not talking about fatal accidents, but fatal *on-purposes*. We are not talking about not letting people sit on the electric chair because -- every so often, randomly -- it fries someone! No, Blackthorne, unlike cars, airplanes and swimming pools, capital punishment is purposeful and directed killing.

We also cannot claim that our justice system is as fair as human frailty can make it. We know it is not. We know what is broken, and we know who suffers because of it. Whether we know how to fix it is a question for another day.

Until we know that our justice system is as fair as we can make it, capital punishment can only be unjust.

(Edit)I am the world's slowest typist.

Can you possibly believe, DeBhaal, that killing even one innocent person is justified if a hundred guilty people bite it too?

[This message has been edited by Methylviolet (edited July 09, 2002).]

No, we are talking about killing someone accidentally. Or do you think jurors try to convict people they believe to be innocent, and that the next set who decide the sentencing also believe they are killing an innocent?

Whether you lost control of your vehicle and caused someone to die, or presented with the evidence you mistakenly believed someone to be guilty who was innocent, you have killed someone just the same, and just as accidentally.

Methyl, yes I do believe that the death of even one innocent person is something that I would trade for the deaths of 100 guilty people, especially if the deaths of all one hunderd and one people would make people stop and think before doing something that would harm another person.

Do I think it is justified, no, I dont. Would I allow them to die if I thought they were innocent, no I wouldnt, I would do everything in my power to prove their innocence. But, to protect the greater majority, yes I do think that one innocent death and one hundred guilty deaths, sounds better than one hundred innocent deaths, and the person that killed them just sitting in a jail burning our money.

[This message has been edited by DeBhaal Stasion (edited July 09, 2002).]

Blackthorne, safety locks are required on all handguns in the United States. Why is this so? To help prevent accidental deaths.

Why must cars pass certain safety requirements in order to be driven? To help prevent accidental deaths.

Clearly, eliminating driving or electricity is absurd, and would have huge repercussions on daily life (in the United States). They have become considered "necessities". Even then, there are many safety standards that must be met, showing that the government does care about its people.

Now, I don't see how the death penalty is as important as driving or electricity. It can always be replaced by a life sentence.

"Shall we end car driving because so many thousands die in car accidents? How about shutting down commercial airlines because they can't guarantee you'll arrive safely? Shall we prevent people from swimming or owning pools because someone might drown? Maybe we should ban electricity because innocent people might be electrocuted."

Obviously, your answer to these questions is "no". Why do you think that way? (Note that I do not necessarily agree/disagree with your answer of "no".)

You argue well, Blackthorne, but how I am to equate an accident with a misdirected, but purposeful, act -- I am sure I don't know. It is more than mere semantics, I believe. It in fact goes to the heart of my problem with the death penalty.

A better analogy, I think -- if I sell you a car with defective tires that I know are, say, 50% more likely to have a blowout -- and you have a blow-out, and die -- am I allowed to say that it was only an accident? No! Though I did not intend to cause the accident that killed you, I knew the car was flawed. I knew accidents were liable to happen in that car. So when my car kills someone, I am at fault -- accident schmaccident. Mrs. Blackthorne and all the little Blackthornes sue me for my last nickel.

I sit on a sentencing jury. I know the system is flawed, and likely to convict innocents who meet certain demographic criteria. I sentence such a one to death -- who later is revealed to have been innocent. Am I blameless? No, I'm not, nor is the state who sanctioned my act.

It's wrong to kill an innocent -- most religions agree on that much. To kill the guilty with malice aforethought, we must at least be sure of their guilt. We cannot be sure -- we cannot be sure that we are not killing an innocent, which is wrong. No pragmatic argument about taxpayer's money can outweigh this for me.

Replacing the Death Penalty with a Life Penalty, wouldnt work either, because it doesnt have the suddenness that would make people stop and think.

What are you going to tell someone when they are sentenced to jsut Life in prision, "Oh you commited 27 acts of homocide and various other heinous crimes agaisnt humanity, so you get to sit here on this comfortable matress, and watch T.V and read books about how to be a better criminal.. etc. etc. ..while the people who work hard, and obey the law and everything has to pay for you to stay alive"

Sure, sounds like a great thing to trade.

I'm absolutely against the death penaly; murder is murder is murder... no matter who does it for what reason.

Besides... if I had to choose I'd much rather take the lethal injection than rot in prison for the next 50+ years...

[Edit]
What are you going to tell someone when they are sentenced to jsut Life in prision, "Oh you commited 27 acts of homocide and various other heinous crimes agaisnt humanity, so you get to sit here on this comfortable matress, and watch T.V and read books about how to be a better criminal.. etc. etc. ..while the people who work hard, and obey the law and everything has to pay for you to stay alive"
'so you get to sit here on this comfortable matress' - Yes... I'm sure they're quite comfortable... that'll make your prison stay much better.
'and watch TV' - Since when?
'read books about how to be a better criminal' - What the hell are you talking about? Libraries, ect are provided because perhaps, just perhaps, some criminals might just want to make something of themselves once they leave! <GASP!>

Now add in the gang hierarchy, insessant violence, and daily anal rapes... yes that all sounds rather plesant to me.

"while the people who work hard, and obey the law and everything has to pay for you to stay alive" - If you really want to ***** about saving every last tax dollar, I'd recommend crying about the greater ammount paid out each year in corporate welfare. At least by funding the prisons we're keeping criminals off the streets, instead of bathing them in luxury.


[This message has been edited by Alex (edited July 09, 2002).]

Actually, I would like to see the study that says that non-whites are sentenced to the death penalty more frequently for the same crime. There is no doubt that some minorities are over-represented on death rows, but I always attributed that to the first two factors you cited: that those same minorities are also more likely to be poor and uneducated.

The death penalty does, in fact, serve as a deterrence in certain societies. Think of the Old West when they started hanging horse thieves.

I doubt it does in modern America, however; people think they can get off on a technicality or they won't get caught or they flat-out don't worry about it. And there is no other rationale for the death penalty. You can argue that what needs to happen is to make it harder to get off on a technicality and/or raise the conviction rate of those tried for capital offenses.

But my argument against the death penalty in modern America is just this: the power over life and death should be reserved for God if at all possible. Death is, obviously, final. You can set a captive free, give him reparations, and apologize. You can't really exhume and kick-start him. And, as Violet pointed out, there are a lot of people who've been executed who shouldn't have been. When we support the current system, we're partly guilty for their wrongful deaths.

As for the arguments of those who whine that their tax dollars go to clothe and feed criminals: Get some f$#@! morals. Since when do we assign a dollar amount to life?

This is always a tough debate...and it *should* be. I am mostly against the death penalty, for a few reasons.

Despite the argument that the death penalty (in modern society) is an effective deterent to would-be criminals, it in fact does not. It has absolutely no effect at all on whether someone is going to commit a capital crime or not. And there are actual reasons for this. First though, lets break down the criminal element.

There are 1) the 'monsters'; psycho-paths and socio-paths that constitute serial killers, mass-murderers and serial rapists. There are 2) the 'impoverished' criminal. And 3) there are those criminals who do it for 'kicks', the 'excitement' or 'getting caught in the wrong crowd'.

For the monsters in group 1, there is no hope, nor was there ever any hope, of deterring them from their actions. And there is no hope of rehabilitating them. These are the Ted Bundy's and the Charles Manson's of the world. They are also predominantly white, middle-class males that you could very well have gone to school. For these, I don't have a problem of using the death penalty - they're not human. And they make up a very, very small portion of convicts on death row.

As to group 2, please note that I am *not* justifying their actions, but laying the grounds for why and how they often turn down this path. These are the people I grew up with - extremely poor (some living in 3rd world conditions in a developed nation), socially disadvantaged, and with little hope of attaining a normal life. From birth, they are surrounded by crime, drugs, and alcohol.

Even when raised in a good, caring family, it is everywhere they look: their neighbourhood, their school, their streets. At school (yes, this happened to me), they are treated like trash, spoken to like trash and thought of like trash by *their teachers*.

Imagine being an 8-year old kid and having your teacher tell you that you're never going to amount to anything. Imagine teachers telling you not to bother taking certain courses (math, science, etc), not because of your mental capacity, but because they simply won't give you the chance. This happens, and it is common. From a very young age, they are told that they do not belong in society - are not welcome in society. These people quickly shut-out so-called 'normal' society, and turn to 'their own kind' - mainly gangs - in order to 'belong' to something.

Now add in the fact that just walking down the street is an act of survival: you're a young kid, and you carry a chain, a knife, or even a gun so you can get home safely. Your next door neighbour is a drug dealer. Your best friend's mother is a hooker two streets over. There's a crack house across the street. Every other corner has a liquor store, and every third or fourth is a gun store. By the time these kids hit 14 or 15, they no longer believe that they have a place 'outside' in 'normal' society. Their every day life, since they were young enough to cross the street, is a struggle for survival.

But, they belong to their gang. Their gang looks out for them, sticks up for them, and makes them feel 'important'. Being denied everything already, it's not a hard logical step to say, 'well, why not take it.' They become part of the criminal element that raised them.

Is the death penalty a deterrent for these people? Generally, no it's not. Walking down the street becomes as much a risk as getting caught for armed robbery, car jacking, etc. Are they 'evil'? Most of the people I grew up with are not evil. They're misguided, ignorant, and sometimes stupid, but not usually evil. Rehabilitation rarely works, since once released, they return to the same neighbourhood they were raised in, with the same friends, the same options, the same surroundings, etc. Getting 'out' is very, very hard to do.

Does it make their crimes 'okay'? No, of course not. But the Death Penalty isn't the answer - it doesn't mean anything to most of them. The answer is to reach them *before* the whole problem sets in, and this is not easy to do. It means cleaning up the slums, especially public housing projects, and changing people's attitudes (like their teachers, and the shop owners that always wanted to check their bags before leaving the store).

For group number 3), well, I don't know. Most of these people are just too stupid and or lazy. They don't think ahead, and so the death penalty, again, is no deterrent. I'm at a loss with this group.

There are two main reasons usually sited for supporting the death penalty: first, as a deterrent and second, to reduce the cost of housing prisoners. Well, it is a generally accepted that it's not a deterrent. As to reducing the cost of housing prisoners, my personal belief is that if you can prevent those people in group 2 above from becoming criminals, you've significantly reduced the number of prisoners you have to house.

I have other reasons, but I think I've gone on long enough for this post :p Thanks for your patience!



[This message has been edited by Gnolyn Lochbreaker (edited July 09, 2002).]

Methylviolet - I am not attempting to change anyone's mind here about how they feel about the death penalty, I am simply giving my take on it.

You feel that sentencing someone to death when the best information you have tells you they should be according to the current laws is wrong because it's possible to be mistaken. That's fine, but I disagree your analogy is better.

Once again, you are implying that the jury has some knowledge that the one before them is innocent. To the best of their knowledge the person is guilty, and there were 12 men and women who all had to come to the same conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. If you had 12 people to look over the data on the tires of the car you sold me, and they all came to the conclusion they were fine, I would hold you blameless if they blew out.

A_Seal_Clubber - The 12 men and women of the jury, and the fact that they all must agree the person is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict is the safety lock you're talking about.

I think the UK should bring back Capital punishment AND Corpral punishment for lesser crimes. If you were going to get beaten everyday your in prison or killed for things like rape and murder youy'd certainly think twice about what your about to do

I there was capital punishment for lesser crimes I think it would be much more of a deterrant. The worst criminals would still be around but the police would have more time to deal with them as there would be no repeat offenders to waste their time over. I don't care about innocent people being executed, I'm sure they've done something wrong at some point in their life and it would be start on solving the world over-population problem.

I have always been in favour of the death penalty, however lately an idea came to me which could, potentially, resolve the whole neverending for/against debate elegantly. Some people/families can forgive murderers for killing their loved ones, for example. Most cannot. So why not make a system that would have the death penalty as default, BUT, would have an alternative of life sentence IF the closest members of the murdered's family would agree to it. More complicated than a simple state-wide for/against law, but about the only good alternative solution.

Still, let me use the argument I always give to the advocates of life sentence over the death penalty. If someone murdered your mother or father (or spouse), would you rather see them sent to their final judgment quickly, or let them continue with their life in jail? This usually makes a lot of them think; they tend to generalize but aren't so sure anymore when you put a direct question like that to them. In the end, how you would feel if someone killed your loved ones is all that matters.

I am strongly against the death penalty, I don't see the point.

1) What if you get the person wrong, it would be a waste of life and the family may hold a grudge against the law system.
2) they victim(s) would learn nothing from it
3) Others will think I don't want to be caught - I'll be more careful it isn't likely to deter crime

I think the question at hand is not what punishment for the guilty is suitable, but if death penalty should be a punishment at all since, as mentioned earlier, how can one be sure you really got the right one.

I would say that lifetime in prison would be a better option, since, if a mistake is discovered, the one put to death would still be alive.

Tal - I have thought about that also, but then you have the problem of the convicted's friends/family not to mention every right-to-lifer coming out of the woodwork threatening/coercing the victim's family members to agree to the life sentence.

Lokken - You would still be taking years of a person's life that you can't give back. I would also venture to say (though I don't really have proof) that fewer mistakes would be found because there's not as much incentive for an investigation to continue. There are many people who disagree with corporal punishment and are willing to put in the effort to show as many mistakes as possible have been made so that the law is changed.

BTA, good point, that was one of my main concerns as well... Though I supposed it could be avoided if the decision had to be done immediately. Those who are against the death penalty wouldn't change their mind - or so they say now - and could tell this on the spot. Those who agree with the death penalty shouldn't have to do anything at all, because in a day (if a plea for life sentence had not been filed), the default death penalty would become irreversible. How does this sound?

Well, I don't think it would make much difference; the pressure would simply begin before the trial is over, and you'd still have the problem of people blaming the family members of the victim for letting the convicted be put to death. And who knows how far some people will go when they believe you to be the cause of their loved-one's death instead of life in prison.

Far better IMO to have the state blamed for allowing the death penalty than specific individuals.

In response to Tal's comments about victims families. My brother, Brian, was murdered on August 26, 2000. His murderer killed two other people before shooting himself (fatally). We were spared the difficulty of a trial (in which I would probably have been called as a material witness).
We discussed what we would have wanted done with Mark if he had not killed himself. I am against the death penalty. I would rather have seen him spend the rest of his life in prison, thinking about the 3 people that he killed. My brother and father both would have stuck the needle in his arm themselves. I did not discuss it with my mother and sister. So we could not agree and I believe that most families would not reach a consensus. The only result would be tearing already wounded families apart.

I'm sorry to hear about your loss. And yes you're probably right.

[This message has been edited by Taluntain (edited July 09, 2002).]

I didnt read this whole topic today but I have had this discussion many times before.
There is only one reason to have the death penalty, a primal need for vengeance, revenge to make that bastard pay for his crimes. Is that something that we really want our goverment doing in our society? Sure it would be good to see that bastard that killed and raped those ten little children fry, but what would it gain us? We would lower us to his level. We should be better than them, not cry for vengeance like a maffia organisation.

that depends how you look at it, Joacqin. Many follows the belief of, basicly, eye for an eye. Or if one takes a life, he forfeits the right to his own (can't remember the quote, but I think it's english philosopher, might be american, can't remember).

BTA, yes you're right it wouldn't give you lost years back, but it would give the remaining years that you might have lost as well when thinking of death penalty. Not saying it's a good solution, but IMO, a better one.


[This message has been edited by Lokken (edited July 10, 2002).]

I am seriously impressed, Jack. Even the bastard who killed your brother could not shake your ideals. That is strength.

But enough about the damn car -- Blackthorne and Taluntain drop all pretence of a desire for justice in seeking to provide victims' families with the power to decide the life or death of the convicted man -- the most direct vengeance possible. And would they be allowed to give the lethal injection? Or -- if the family's feelings demanded it -- be allowed 15 minutes with the convict and a lead pipe?

That is what I would want -- you betcha. If someone harmed one of my children, I'd want to rip their throat out with my teeth. Frying would be too good for them -- *I'd* want them to die slowly.

But guess what? The feelings of crime victims are exactly what should *not* determine sentences. These feelings, however natural, are not our better selves. They pass, and then our consciences reassert themselves. In the meantime, the State, dispassionate and impartial, punishes the person justly and in measure to the crime.

Indulging the bloodlust of the grieving families of murder victims is... not a good reason to put a person to death.

You got that backwards. Taluntain's idea was to have the state set the default punishment as death and give the family of the victim the option to spare the convicted's life.

In that scenario, the state decided that justice would be served by death; the family is allowed to be merciful if they so choose.

Here is an argument that I said in chat yesterday. It is illegal to take another humans life practically anywhere on our globe. As the US are one of the most developed nations that still uses the death penalty I will use it as an example. Killing a person is illegal in all the states. Everyone agrees? Ok then, how can it be that in some states quite a few of LEGAL killings occur every year? A goverment cannot say to its citizens that it is wrong and illegal to kill and then do it themselves, it is a paradox. You cannot justify that to anybody. This is my main objective against the death penalty, it is morally wrong no matter how you twist and turn it. It cannot be justified. Murder is illegal. If that is the case how can the goverment then kill its own citizens?
Killing is not only wrong in a legal sense (it can be argued that locking people away for several years is illegal to but atleast they can be let out), it is wrong in religious, human and every other aspect too. For once I agree with Shralp, let whatever being/entity/deity/whatever take the descisons as to who should live and who should die. It is not for the governemt to do. The goverment are none of Gnolyn's three kinds of people that murder so they have 'reason' to be on the murderers low level.
End rant.

You're forgetting something; those who get the death sentence are not normal people, they have broken the most important rule of all; not to take another's life. To me, they don't fall in the group with all other people (or any people at all, for that matter), they are a separate group who deserve the ultimate penalty we can give them - death. They have failed humanity and wiping them off the face of the Earth is the biggest favour we can do to ourselves. I can very easily justify that. It was morally wrong to kill in the first place, and though killing the murderer will not bring back those that they killed, it will at least give the satisfaction to the victim's family because they will know that the murderer got the same justice he/she executed over someone else. If you simply lock them up in a prison somewhere this will benefit no one else but the murderer. If you are 100% sure that there is a higher being that will judge them when they die, that's great, you can forgive and forget. But as I said, the vast majority of people can't.

Giving the argument that in time you could forgive is untrue in most instances. In time you might partly forget and give in to knowing that you cannot do anything about it - but this is NOT forgiving. This is simply prolonging the grief of the family who has already suffered grievously, and giving in to resignation. Would any of them shed a tear if the murderer was executed instead? Very, very few. And they could move on with their lives much more quickly if it was done.

As I wrote earlier Tal, simple primitive revenge. Is what you want. Very easy to do so but that doesnt make it right. Quite few of the ones sentenced to death in most nations are really those evil murdering bastards but 'normal' weak people that have had a rough life, wrong buddies and took the wrong descision at the wrong time.

I says that wee shud shock dem ray-pists all the wai too hail. Gad blez de NRA!

"Normal" weak people do not murder another human being.

Also, the death penalty is not applied to every murderer, there has to be special circumstances. For example, an especially brutal murder, and/or showing no remorse for what they did.

And capital punishment is justice, not murder; the law is there for everyone to see, if you choose to ignore the law, you suffer the consequences of your actions.

Just because something is law doesnt make it right in my eyes. All nations have their fair share of strange and/or unjust laws.

So a law against murder is strange and/or unjust is it? Interesting.

Or are you referring to the penalty for breaking the law? If you want to avoid the penalty, the solution is simple: Don't break the law.

But I might actually be on your side Blackthorne, if all one had to do to avoid capital punishment was... to be innocent.

One has to be white, and intelligent, and wealthy enough to afford private representation. Oh yes and female. So, here I am, at liberty to annoy you all. Cool for me. But some people find the above requirements kind of hard to swing.

And in America -- being male, Black, stupid, and poor are capital offences.

Deja vu.

And there is no moral difference between causing and knowingly failing to prevent a death, so Taluntain is right there in the vengeance camp, as he confirms is his design. Oy. We just disagree.

You must be referring to some statistics you've seen to make these statements, but I think Mark Twain summed up how I feel about statistics.

And I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Are you saying more poor black men than other demographics are arrested for capital crimes, more poor black men than other demographics are convicted of capital crimes, more innocent poor black men than innocent other demographics are arrested for capital crimes, more innocent poor black men than innocent other demographics are convicted of capital crimes, or something else?

And what is the meaning behind such statistics? Is it that poor black men are discriminated against, or is it that they commit more capital crimes? I certainly don't know...

As far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant for the reasons I stated in my previous posts.

Your chances of getting the death penalty have more to do with being poor, male, Black, and stupid that with any objective notion of justice for your crimes -- if you in fact committed them. That is what I am saying. But don't take my word for it.

"A 1990 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report summarizing several capital punishment studies confirmed "a consistent pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in charging, sentencing and the imposition of the death penalty...." Eightytwo percent of the studies the GAO reviewed revealed that "those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks." In addition, the GAO uncovered evidence (though less consistent) that a convict's race, as well as the race of the victim, also influences imposition of the death penalty."

"Two of the country's foremost researchers on race and capital punishment, law professor David Baldus and statistician George Woodworth, along with colleagues in Philadelphia, have conducted a careful analysis of race and the death penalty in Philadelphia which reveals that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times (3.9) higher if the defendant is black. These results were obtained after analyzing and controlling for case differences such as the severity of the crime and the background of the defendant. The data were subjected to various forms of analysis, but the conclusion was clear: blacks were being sentenced to death far in excess of other defendants for similar crimes."

For documentation on the poor, stupid and male claims, see...
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/racerpt.html http://www.rightsforall-usa.org/what/appeals/deathpen.htm http://www.aclu-mass.org/issuebriefs/deathpenalty.html

AND finally...

"When in Gregg v. Georgia [the 1972 decision reversing a previous one in 1967 which had declared capital punishment unconstitutional--MeV] the Supreme Court gave its seal of approval to capital punishment,this endorsement was premised on the promise that capital punishment would be administered with fairness and justice. Instead, the promise has become a cruel and empty mockery. If not remedied, the scandalous state of our present system of capital punishment will cast a pall of shame over our society for years to come. We cannot let it continue."
-[U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1990
------------------------------------

No, it's not irrelevant, if your argument still contains anything about justice.

If you have dropped that pretence for a good ole honest stoning and damn-the-facts-as-long-as-it-makes-the-victims-feel-better, then more power to you. We certainly have enough male, Black, poor, and stupid people to feed the god of Vengeance for a long time.

As I alluded to above, what statistics indicate is a function of the agenda the one performing the studies has.

I become extremely skeptical when I read such things as "...evidence (though less consistent)...", "...analyzing and controlling for case differences..." and "...data were subjected to various forms of analysis..." when I have no idea of what agenda the author is working towards.

Besides, your argument above just leads me to believe that death penalty sentencing needs to be strengthened because too many who deserve it are getting lesser sentences that they don't deserve.

So, yes it is irrelevant to whether I believe the death penalty is warranted or not, because I still believe they are getting what they deserve; it's just that some who deserve it are getting a lucky break.

Your arguments are more for improving the state of the justice system than against the death penalty; they apply to all forms of punishment, not just capital punishment.

Hmmm...The DP is always a tough subject. I waffle on it constantly. In general, I believe if you have such low regard for the lives and rights of others, then your life is forfeit when you take the life of someone else. At the same time though, it brings the state down to the level of the murderer...A moral dilemma.

at the same time, I'm not all that crazy about spending my tax money for having some murdering bastard sit in a cell, have cable, 3 squares a day, clothing, and all those other perks! Another point for execution.

But then the appeals process probably costs more than it would cost to keep a prisoner incarcerated. A point for life imprisonment. So then, what's the solution?

Well - I guess I'm leaning toward life imprisonment. But with a twist...Criminals should be caged like veal. Barely enough room to move around, no weightlifting, nothing...Except maybe some kind of beneficial labor that helps society...Who knows, I definitely don't have the answer.

Always go with the death penalty. After they are found guilty, put them on death row for a couple of years(2-3), kill them, and then put them on ice. I don't know what the cost of keeping a body frozen is but it maybe better than keeping them alive in prison. I have the belief that we will be able to raise the dead before we will be able to go back in time.

Methylviolet, uh, so in your opinion the families of the killed don't have any right at all to justice? Because, seriously, the only real justice for a murderer is death. As I stated before, anything short of that only benefits the murderer and no one else. The whole point of justice is for someone to pay for their crimes. You can qualify life in prison (with all the extra perks) as living in a really bad hotel with really bad people around you. If you call that punishment you have a really perverted view of what a murderer deserves for his crime.

Murder is defined as "the unlawful or unjustified taking of another human life." Are you suggesting that a soldier in a war who defends his country and risks his own life is a murderer?

I see nothing but justice being done with the death penalty. As was said earlier, an eye for an eye. This dates back to Hammurabi's Code of Laws with the ancient Babylonians. Under this dynasty, crime drastically decreased. Perhaps the reason that the death penalty does little to deter crime in the United States is because of the 10-15 years required for appeals and the easiness of a reduced sentence due to a technicality.

I can think of a few countries that throw you in front of a firing squad for drunk driving. In these countries, nobody does it. Does that show that the death penalty will deter crime if properly implemented? Yes. America fails to implement the death penalty properly, and this is it's failing. If the day after conviction, you were killed, I think that would serve to reduce crime.

Part of me agrees with Taluntain's idea to allow the victim's family to let off the criminal, but they can easily be threatened well before the guilty verdict in the trial.

Yes, Hammurabi's Code of Laws was a great read. If that was in use today, crime would definitely be reduced to a minimum. Who'd steal when they'd risk having their palm chopped off? Let alone any more serious offences...

I guess after reading all the opinions on the boards, I also have to think things through. Admittedly I haven't really spent time to think about the death penalty, but I will share some of my thoughts and opinions so far:

I feel that the punishment should fit the crime. With that said, the premise of Capital Punishments is that there are certain acts which justly warrants the taking of a life. Those who do not believe in the death penalty will have to admit that there are NO acts heinous or brutal enough to deserve capital punishment. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Those of you who have stated that the Death Penalty is unjust, should have the conviction to say that if Osama Bin Laden is caught, he does not deserve the Death Penalty for September 11, and the loss of lives and property his act has caused.

For me, the best argument against the death penalty is not the punishment itself. The problem I have is really with how justice is served. Violet and the others made very good points. Yes, it can (and should) be argued that those innocents put to death by mistake is a failure of the system of justice, and that the punishment (whatever it is) has no bearing on it. It can be further argued that the issues raised regarding race, income, education, poverty, etc., are sociologial arguments, not legal ones, and should be reserved for other fora. It is not the death penalty's fault that there is injustice. The death penalty is there merely to allow justice to manifest. The law has neither passion or prejudice.

Problem is we don't live inside a courtroom, and passion and prejudice do exist within and around us. The law is there also to protect the weakest of society's members, and when they are affected, the conscientious argument can and will definitely see the penalty (whatever it is) unjust as long as the implementation remains unjust. Simply, the death penalty is made an unjust thing, not really because it is wrong in itself, but because it may be, can be, will be and has been sentenced on innocents.

Then again, just because we do not live in a courtroom and are subject to subjectivity is no not excuse to detach ourselves from our emotions. Isn't that an aspect of justice too, seeing things with objectivity? So yes, these passionless courtrooms and legal arenas were created to further fairness and equitability.

I figure it is up to the society in question, with its assortment of belief and value systems, to determine whether DP is unjust or not. Short of a straight up election (referendum?) of the people voting "yes" or "no", I can't see how this can be argued any easier...

... and the majority isn't always right, it just means its popular. :)

:hmm: Tough... isn't it?

[This message has been edited by eveningdrive (edited July 11, 2002).]

Ah, well, Blackthorne -- you and I just disagree, and this legalistic tit-for-tat we have going would never end, unless I were willing to give you the last word. Which I am.

For the rest of you -- Really there are two issues:
1. The idealized death penalty, or
Is death a just punishment for heinous crimes?
2. The death penalty as practised, or
Can the state be trusted to exercise the death penalty justly?

For me, the second question trumps the first. For me, loss of innocent life is much worse than non-punishment of the guilty. I had thought that this was a cornerstone of ethical jurisprudence -- and indeed it is, at least on paper, in the United States -- but I see that many of you feel the reverse is true. That the execution of the innocent may be a necessary evil if we are to be sure the guilty are executed.

I reject that utterly. I cannot even consider whether execution of the guilty would be a good thing as long as I know that execution of the innocent is part and parcel of the death penalty as practised in the United States.

"If you call [life imprisonment] punishment you have a really perverted view of what a murderer deserves for his crime."
"Because, seriously, the only real justice for a murderer is death."
Maybe I do, Tal. Maybe it is -- what murderers deserve for their crimes I couldn't really say. But I can say that I don't deserve to be both an accomplice and an accessory to the murder of innocents, as I am by paying California taxes. I also don't think *you* deserve to lessen your own humanity, as you invariably do when you consider any human being to be not a human being. Whatever he might do.

All human life has value.

I guess Human life means less to me than to most people. It's a pretty easy thing to make a Human, and there certainly is no shortage of them on this planet that every one of them needs to be protected at any cost. Indeed, many thousands die every day in accidents that are preventable if people cared more about life than convenience, fun and/or excitement.

Do we want to run around willy nilly killing eachother? Of course not; most people make wonderful contributions to their society.

In the case of convicted criminals whose crimes merited the death penalty, I feel they are just a detriment to society and we are better off without them.

And I agree Methylviolet, we simply have a differing viewpoint about the world we live in.

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited July 12, 2002).]

inhumane and primitive, don't like the idéa, though i do not beleave in pure evil, there is people that is totaly screwed, and killing them is a choice, but somewhat i dont like it.

I still fail to understand... if it's the suffering of the criminal you all want for such heinous crimes, how could you possibly go for the DP... it's just a quick way out. Let them rot in prison for the rest of thier lives.

Well, maybe if our prisons were dank, dark, vermin and disease infested dungeons, and all the prisoner's got was slime coated water and stale, moldy, bug-ridden bread, I'd have second thoughts about the death penalty ;)

See, that's the problem - too much money put in prisons (we don't make that mistake here I can tell you - but that's OK since most of our criminals are out on the streets. Or to be more precise in limos on streets. Anyway endrant.)

I am sure there are crimes that deserve the death penalty (genocide springs to mind - but for some reason the death penalty doesn't seem to apply there, at least since the war).

I am sure there are people that deserve the death penalty. Oh god yes.

I would support the death penalty if I was convinced of the infallibilty of the justice (or rather legal) system. I am not. Twelve people are deciding whether somebody is guilty or inncoent? And they do this objectvely? Based on facts?

Aha. Human predjudice, fears, complexes, likes, dislikes and even honest errors all come into play. Can anyone deny this?

I just don't want to give too much power to those predjudices that they can decide whether someone lives or dies.

There are people wrongly convicted. There are people wrongly sentenced to the death penalty. What justice can you find for them? Or their families?


Death penalty in theory? - Yes.

Death penalty in practice? - Not unless we find a better system of determining guilt than the one we have now.

One good argument here is to try to imagine someone in my family being killed. Would I not want justice, and the bastard who did it to die?
I would. I would probably want to kill them myself, or at least to see them executed.

But I can also imagine the opposite - someone in my family being innocent and accused of murder nonetheless. And I can imagine the death penalty hanging over their heads.

First off, I am strongly for the death penalty. always have been, always will.

On the issue of reliability, you can complain about it until the end of time. And apply the exact same arguement to any other issue. The problem is that people are not perfect. They allow the issue, any preconceptions, and generally their entire left to color any decisions they make, regardless of any evidence given. I believe that the system that the United States uses, of given other citizens the ability to decide their fate is as close to perfect as we could get without a total overhaul of the entire system. One little way to make sure that the jurors will take a little time to ensure that their decision is the correct one. Make them watch the execution. A lot of time, a jury will just make a decision quickly because all the evidence seems concrete and they wish to get back to their own lives. If they have to see the results of their decision firsthand, don't you think that they would consider far more carefully because they decide to kill someone? Many people can easily say, "kill the bastards" and them walk away. Pardon my language. It's a lot harder to watch someone die. trust me. And harder still to watch them die when you know that it was your decision that put them their. I ask you, anyone, would you like to be there, sitting outside a room, watching a person about to die, and be able to think to yourself that you could have just killed someone by not considering the evidence carefully enough? An experience that I for one, would choose to pass on.

Another issue brought up was that of demographics. Sure, certain groups commit crimes more. Certain groups are pardoned more. One could claim that it's merely a statistical anomaly. However, that would be false. Different social groups interact different in reality, because those different groups raise their children to value different things. In the poor, gang-ridden area mentioned earlier, the law takes second place to immediate desires and the need to feel like you are a part of something. And consequently, your life, as well of the lives of other people, mean less to you. One group of I know of, highly values success, and drive their children mercilessly to succeed academically, to the point that some of the children need therapy to deal with the pressure. So, unless someone discovers a magic way to make everything think the same way, and value the same things, and look forward to the same type of future, different groups will act differently. And on an off note, I certainlly would not approve of such an action even if it were possible. 1984, anyone?

Interestingly, there is another aspect to this debate which was only briefly mentioned, but was missed in all subsequent posts. Cost was debated. Morally as well. People have mentioned the permanency of the decision, and possible reasons behind it. These are the basis for discovering the reason behind implementing capital punishment. But what about the safety of those innocents still alive? Someone who brutally murder large amounts of people is not likely to be one who will be rehabilitated by gentle care and thoughfullness. By instituting capital punishment, you are able to remove people who have proved themselves to be vast threats to innocent people as a whole. Permanently. Life imprisonment could be argued to be another option. But there are far too many problems. The earlier mentioned cost is ridiculous. But more importantly, how many people sentenced to life imprisonment actually stay in prison for life? Relatively few. Life no longer means life. These people, once free, will likely return to their old ways and once again threaten the lives of countless innocents. Something I would not want to risk for the people whom I care about, based purely upon the right to live of someone who, in my opinion, has long ago forfeited that right.

The quote mentioned earlier, "an eye for an eye," quite simply sums up the moral issues. You take a life, you lose a life. You rape someone, you destroy their life. Therefore, you lose yours. However, this does not only apply to vicious crimes. We should be able to apply it in all places. An eye for an eye, paraphrased, is "You get what you deserve." And what is more fair and moral than that? Stealing breaks this tenant. You don't deserve what you stole merely because it is now in your possession. True in dealing with people, buying things, and in justice. Morally and legally, the people who commit such violent crimes do have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" under American law, but so did the people that whose lives they took. Why should the rights of a murderer take precidence over those of the victim? You can forfeit your rights, and by committing a violent crime, you do so. You no longer have a right to travel freely. You no longer have a right to say whatever you wish. You no longer have a right to cable tv, (which I don't have), or a library to read from, or a well stocked weight room, or anything like that. You no longer have a right to life.

Sorry for the length, but this is an issue I feel very strongly about.

Have to comment on that one, Tenshi:

"You rape someone, you destroy their life. Therefore, you lose yours."

I appreciate that you are trying to be sensitive to women's feelings, but being raped hardly destroys any woman's life. It is awful and humiliating and certainly affects her life -- but she survives. If he doesn't kill her, too.

And to discourage rapists from killing their victims, rape is not a capital crime, that is, the death penalty *cannot* be sought for rape.

And at last, Vulkodlak -- excellent points well made (and I am not completely alone.)

I fail to see how being raped doesnt ruin a persons life(note I didnt limit it to women, its not just women who are raped, males have been as well). How do you explain someone who was raped, and is now to afraid to leave their house by themselves, because they are afriad it will happen again, yes that might be a little extreme, but it is something that has happened in the case of rape victums. How do you explain that, if it is not ruining someones life?

[edit]
The way you put it Methyl, if you survive something, your life isnt ruined, so the paraplegic's life isnt ruined by the drunk driver who put him/her in a wheelchair for the rest of thier lives? So the person who is put in a permenant coma, and lives the rest of their life as a vegetable, that persons life isnt ruined? Just because you live through something, doesnt mean you arent ruined by that same thing you survived.

[This message has been edited by DeBhaal Stasion (edited July 13, 2002).]

Well, I don't know, DeBhaal. Maybe the rape survivors I hang out with are unusually tough. I know two women who were violently raped by strangers, one woman who was date-raped, and one man who was molested as a child. I myself foiled an attempted rape, if that counts.

None of these people, all of whom I know well, are ruined. I imagine you are trying to draw an emotional parallel to a physically diabling accident? Well, none of these people are emotional paraplegics let alone emotionally comatose. Give me a break.

What's your point, anyway? That you're *against* rape?

Shouldn't that be a separate topic: "Rape: pro or con?"

I am with you here Violet but I have said my things and the bloodthirsty 'prodeathers' are just repeating their argument over and over again, revenge, revenge, revenge. They may put it differently but its all about vengeance, not justice, not moral and most certainly not fairness.

Now who's repeating themselves? :rolleyes:

I just wanted to show the fair lady that she wasnt alone. Been keeping silent due to not wanting to repeat oneself :p

I have said my things and the toothless 'prolifers' are just repeating their argument over and over again, leniency, leniency, leniency. They may put it differently but its all about clemency, not justice, not moral and most certainly not fairness. :p

Yes, right, Blackthorne, thank you for that distillation of every thing joacquin (thanks for your voice, joacquin, I was forgetting you), Vukodlak, and I have argued throughout this long acrimonious post.

However many times things are repeated, they cannot penetrate the arcane lock on your mind regarding this subject. Or maybe you just didn't like me knocking San Pedro.

Ye gads can anything be worse than having a *moderator* against one? One dares to open one's mouth and "no, WRONG!" comes thundering down like the voice of God.

I sure hope you are on the correct side of the next issue we argue, Blackthorne, because you are so articulate and so omnipresent that I shudder to think of opposing you again.

Methylviolet, I don't think being a moderator has anything to do with the exchanging of ideas on this topic.

:)



[This message has been edited by eveningdrive (edited July 14, 2002).]

Methylviolet - I couldn't tell from your above post if you noticed, but I simply took joacqin's post and turned it around to make a point. :)

I find it funny when people accuse others of doing just what they themselves are doing.

For example : "However many times things are repeated, they cannot penetrate the arcane lock on your mind regarding this subject." I can say the same for you. :)

There is no reason to think of me as a moderator when I debate, only when you do something wrong. :)

And about being on the "correct" side of a future issue. I am always on the correct side (I am "Master in My Own Mind" am I not? :) ). Perhaps we should just say the same side and leave it at that...

Oh, and just to be clear, I have absolutely nothing against you or any others who do not agree with me. I believe everyone has the right to their own opinion; it matters little to me if they differ from my own.

From reading the posts from the last several days, I've been seeing suggestions that twelve people should not decide the fate of an individual. Yet, in that case, how do you propose we remedy that? Let a judge decide? Twelve is more likely to be correct than one. Otherwise, what you're proposing is a complete revamp of the legal system, not nessessarily the morality of the death penalty. I still fail to see the point of letting the murderer go to jail, get pardoned in five years, and go back onto the street where he (yes, most murderers are men, that has been established) goes out and kills many more innocents. I fail to see how this is any more moral and costs more lives than simply his.

By the way, the cost of keeping the average prisoner in jail (in America) for one year is about TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS more than the average salary of an American...now THERE'S some food for thought.

I still fail to see the point of letting the murderer go to jail, get pardoned in five years, and go back onto the street where he (yes, most murderers are men, that has been established) goes out and kills many more innocents.

Well, yes I agree that's not very good. However, I think it more of a problem that they get pardoned rather that they are still alive. Anyway isn't there something along the lines of: life sentence without the possibility of parole? I mean I know it exists but does anyone here know whether it actually works out that way in practice?

Also I'd like to point something out here, because of constant prodding that keeping people in jail is expensive. Well yes, I agree, it is. However, I'm not sure how many people are actually sentenced to death in various countries around the world, but I reckon (well I hope) that they are a minute percentage of the total number of people in prisons. Now, I would have thought that large majority of cost for prisons is spent on people committing various crimes that do not warant the death penalty or life sentence. In point of fact I AGREE that the current system of prisons is not great (masterpiece of an understatement) and I am convinced that pretty soon it will become impossible. An alternative needs to be found - preferably not an increase in the number of death penalties.

Anyway isn't there something along the lines of: life sentence without the possibility of parole?

Yes, unfortunately, pardons aren't considered parole and therefore can still be passed off to the guilty party.

The cost issue should also be considered. Considering that prisons are funded with the taxes paid by us, law-abiding citizens, we could save a large sum of money simply by proceeding on the eye-for-an-eye concept illustrated earlier. The fact that it costs more than the average salary to support these people, and the penalty is much cheaper than this, we could all save a lot of money by following through on the penalty that they justly deserve.

No, the cost issue should not be considered.

Because we're dealing with morals here, you can never really reach a point at which you say, "Oh, I think he should live. Unless it's too expensive. Then kill him."

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited July 15, 2002).]

But the cost has to be considered. I don't mean when deciding on whether to convict someone to death or not, I mean with the whole system. It is already too expensive to keep people in prisons - and hence (at least partly) paroles, pardons etc. - even when they are not pertinent.

Oh. Actually this post was a bit :yot:, sorry. But it is still connected - if the alternative to prisons needs to be found (and I think that it will soon become necessary) - so can then, perhaps, the alternative to the death penalty?

When I mentioned the cost of imprisoning someone for a year, it was not to say that it should hold weight when deciding on a sentence but that we already imprison the wrong people for the wrong "crimes" at a high price to us, the taxpayers.

When I made my last post, it was 10pm and I was quite tired so may not have explained my point well. Allow me to clarify:

I agree that the cost issue should not be a deciding factor in what punishment the criminal deserves. However, by merely doing the life imprisonment, we are essentially victimizing the innocent family twice. Once for the loss of their loved one(s), and then we charge them thousands of dollars to keep alive the criminal who sacrificed his right to live. As far as morals go, which is more right: Victimizing an innocent family twice, or doing to the criminal what he did to another person, the oldest reliable punishment on record.