The Death Penalty

[tha Guardians]

Re: The Death Penalty

Killing criminals actually costs more money then putting them in jail which in my opinion is reason enough to not have the death penalty. Plus, I think nobody should have the right to decide whether someon dies.

And to tehddrkid, criminals generally don't escape from prison. Actually, make that almost never escape from prison.

My incredibly retarded, meth-addicted aunt escaped from Texas State Pen not once, but twice.

[hoochan]

Re: The Death Penalty

Killing criminals actually costs more money then putting them in jail which in my opinion is reason enough to not have the death penalty. Plus, I think nobody should have the right to decide whether someon dies.

And to tehddrkid, criminals generally don't escape from prison. Actually, make that almost never escape from prison.

Do you even know what you're talking about? A simple injection would cost $1000 tops. Keeping a person in jail for life costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do you know where that money comes from? Us, the taxpayers. Sorry, but I don't want my hard earned money to go to some ****bag who killed someone and possible many more people.

[hoochan]

Re: The Death Penalty

And having 10 guilty people go freely is better than having 1 innocent person be convicted?

First off, most criminals do not change their ways after jail. Most of them go back to the streets and recommit crimes. So you're saying you'd rather let 10 people go to continue their offenses than let 1 person who didn't do anything die.

I'm sorry, but as cruel as that sounds, it's the reality of it. If we can sacrifice the life of an innocent fetus, then I don't see why we can't do the same for an innocent adult.

[devonin]

Re: The Death Penalty

What if 100 guilty men are given life sentences in jail, while 1 innocent man was executed for a murder he did not commit? One of the guilty men escapes and kills one person. Thus, killing all 101 men would have been an equally good option. Had the escaped guilty man killed two people, killing all 101 men would have been the better option.

We aren't talking about numbers, and I think it's pretty horrible to try and reduce justice purely to a mathematical 'death count' and say which is the better option. I deny that you can take "101 people accused of murder" and tell me that all 101 have little enough evidence to support a clear conviction that all 101 should go free just in case one is innocent. I address this below, but I'm not sure where everyone gets the idea that every single court case is somehow a bare borderline conviction.

And having 10 guilty people go freely is better than having 1 innocent person be convicted?

First off, most criminals do not change their ways after jail. Most of them go back to the streets and recommit crimes. So you're saying you'd rather let 10 people go to continue their offenses than let 1 person who didn't do anything die.

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. Ensuring that innocent people are not punished wrongly is more important.

However, you're somehow taking this statement to mean that we should never punish anybody "just in case", but the foundation of the statement "I would rather 100 men go free than 1 innocent person suffer wrongly" is what created the "reasonable doubt" clause in trial law. It doesn't say you should let everybody go, it says "If you have -any- doubts as to their guilt, you ought not to find them guilty"

Legal dramas on TV love to suggest that there are only two kinds of criminal: The ones who are wholly and completely guilty, and the ones that are going to get off on a stupid technicality despite being obviously and wholly guilty, so I can see why you'd look at a statement like the one I made and somehow conclude that I'm advocating letting obviously guilty criminals onto the streets to re-offend, but that is clearly not what I'm saying. I think you'll find that -most- people who actually make it to trial have a more than large enough body of evidence to convict them "beyond a reasonable doubt" but it's the cases where there isn't quite enough solid evidence to reach that "reasonable doubt" stage where we have to be incredibly careful.

[hoochan]

Re: The Death Penalty

Well, should we put a criminal who has more than enough evidence that makes him guilty on death row; or do you want to completely remove capital punishment as a whole because I thought this thread was asking "should we should completely remove it or keep it", and not "should we wrongly convict someone and kill them or let 10 guilty people go".

[devonin]

Re: The Death Penalty

I oppose the death penalty because even if we think we have enough evidence to support a conviction, we've clearly executed people wrongly before. At least if we fail in our duty and convict an innocent person to life in prison, if we can eventually prove they were in fact innocent, we can still give reparations and let the person live out the rest of their life.

Once you kill someone, there isn't really any going back from that, so given how fallible the justice system seems to be, I can't support the death penalty even in cases where we are "positive" the person is guilty.

[RB_IcePh0enix]

Re: The Death Penalty

Do you even know what you're talking about? A simple injection would cost $1000 tops. Keeping a person in jail for life costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do you know where that money comes from? Us, the taxpayers. Sorry, but I don't want my hard earned money to go to some ****bag who killed someone and possible many more people.

No seriously, with all the paperwork and legal stuff they have to do, it does cost more money then keeping somone in jail for their lives. And if we spend less time being so thorough on the legal stuff then more innocent people will be killed. What we need to do is bulk up our security in prison and stop the death penalty, that will save more money.

[1961casey]

Re: The Death Penalty

I think that the biggest frustration with the justice system is it's seemingly inability to mete out a measure of justice equivaltent to the crime. A case in point would be that of Charles Eng and Donald Lake in California. These two, depraved men, decided to kidnap women for the purpose of rape and murder. Further, they were so arrogant, that they decided to videotape their crimes. To say that there was a possiblility of innocence in their case would be the height of naivete and foolishness. If ever there was a case for the death penalty it would be there. Would you not agree, Devonin?

[devonin]

Re: The Death Penalty

I don't believe we have the right to kill someone else no matter what they did. Lock them up forever, in a small empty room with just enough bread and water to keep them alive, and nothing else. Minimize their quality of life as much as you want, in fact, do so in direct relation to how bad their crime was. I can't support killing them.

[OMG its HIM]

Re: The Death Penalty

I don't believe we have the right to kill someone else no matter what they did. Lock them up forever, in a small empty room with just enough bread and water to keep them alive, and nothing else. Minimize their quality of life as much as you want, in fact, do so in direct relation to how bad their crime was. I can't support killing them.

i think we should kill them, so we can save water and bread for us non-criminals

[1961casey]

First of all, here is a brief summation of the Charles Ng case: http://crime.about.com/od/murder/p/ng2.htm

Secondly, it is not a case of 'we' having to right to kill someone. It is a case of a justice 'system' carrying out the appropriate sentence. Our responsiblity, not right, is to support the system and not take the law into own hands. If we let the system do its job, we can concentrate on what we can do for the persons involved, including the convict and the victim. The very statement, "I don't believe we have the right to kill someone" is circumventing justice for our own ends. Depersonalize the statement and justice can prevail.

Another point: the initial question should properly read "Do you support the death penalty in cases where it is warranted."
The threads in this forum are more along the lines of "Do you support the death penalty even if there may be a mistake?" The two questions would obviously evoke two different responses which is quite evident in this forum.
With that in mind I would like to answer that, Yes I would support the death penalty in cases where it is warranted but not if there is a possibility of a mistake.
Kind of takes the argument out of it, doesn't it.

[Coolgamer]

Re: The Death Penalty

The death penalty is biased towards poverty level people who cannot afford good lawyers, and towards African-Americans in particular, although the number are even more alarming when you look at the ratio of ethnic to Caucasian death penalty cases. Oh, and the juries convicting people to death are often all white.

No, I'm not black, I'm just disgusted with our so-called "legal system", which is basically a system that benefits whoever is wealthy, has the best social connections, etc. Killing people doesn't act as a deterrent. Crime rates stay at fairly the same range over a period of years.

You want to solve the problem of prison overcrowding and the money spent on them? Why not free the marijuana users and end that pointless section of the war on drugs, and use that money to actually crack down on crimes that hurt other people? That money could do wonders for treating other drug addicts with detox programs to actually help them deal with the problem instead of treating them like common criminals.

The death penalty at this point is more of a political tool then anything else, one which deserves to be scrapped as soon as possible.

[hoochan]

No seriously, with all the paperwork and legal stuff they have to do, it does cost more money then keeping somone in jail for their lives. And if we spend less time being so thorough on the legal stuff then more innocent people will be killed. What we need to do is bulk up our security in prison and stop the death penalty, that will save more money.

You think that the amount of money spent on paperwork would surpass that of the food, shelter, and clothing for a person for many years? Think again because that's nowhere even close to being right.

Also, if you value human life so much, then why don't you think ahead and predict that these criminals will probably go out and recommit these same crimes. Why aren't you thinking about the people that these criminals will hurt in the future? I think that the lives of innocent people matter more than those of a criminal. Now, I realize that there's a possibility that they have changed, but the statistics say otherwise.

And I also believe that we should get rid of laws and free the "criminals" that have committed an offense that doesn't really affect anyone but themselves (ie. marijuana users). Taxpayer dollars that are being spent on these futile programs are a waste of our money and so are life-sentenced convicts.

[devonin]

Re: The Death Penalty

The very statement, "I don't believe we have the right to kill someone" is circumventing justice for our own ends. Depersonalize the statement and justice can prevail.

I don't believe any person, state, organization, group, nation, or arbitrary collection of squid has the right to kill someone for any reason. That clear enough for you? "Result of death = Not justified ever"

Another point: the initial question should properly read "Do you support the death penalty in cases where it is warranted."

That statement is guilty of begging the question because it necessarily assumes that there must be cases where it is warranted. If I deny that the death penalty is -ever- warranted, then your question becomes meaningless because it references a non-thing.

then why don't you think ahead and predict that these criminals will probably go out and recommit these same crimes.

You -might- kill someone in the future, I should kill you now just to be sure you can't murder later. It doesn't matter after the fact what the statistics show about reoffense. You cannot punish someone for crimes they haven't committed yet. "But we're pretty sure you will!" is not remotely close to justification.

[1961casey]

Re: The Death Penalty

If the death penalty is a just form of punishment then executing the sentence becomes a responsibility of society towards the individual. Just as justice is reserved to the courts and the society it represents then executing just and proper sentences also becomes its responsibility.
To issue an absolute statement that the death penalty is never justified is in itself a false statement. However, to issue it as a statement of belief is to go outside the parameters of critical thinking and to close off avenues of discussion.
The problem with the justice system as we now have it, is that is flawed to the point that we cannot always carry out sentences with absolute confidence. However, that does not preclude the possibility of an absolutely confident sentence. It is in those circumstances, which do exist, that the death penalty must be available in order to execute justice.