The Death Penalty

[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]

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]

Originally Posted by RB_IcePh0enix

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]

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]

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.

[T3hDDRKid]

Originally Posted by RB_IcePh0enix

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

Good point, but also realize that murderers often are not sentenced to life in prison.

Icepheonix, could you please find a citation for your claim that the death sentence is less cost-effective than life in prison?

[hoochan]

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

Good point, but also realize that murderers often are not sentenced to life in prison.

Icepheonix, could you please find a citation for your claim that the death sentence is less cost-effective than life in prison?

He won't find one because I'm 99.9% sure that he completely bull****ted that claim.

[rzr]

Devonin, you are completely right. I have no ideo what math I was doing in my head.

[devonin]

Um...rzr...at 5 bucks a day, 50 years is $91,250.00 There are 365 of those days in each year.

If the death penalty is a just form of punishment

I deny that it is a just form of punishment.

[1961casey]

Devonin,

You have stated several times that you do not believe that the death penalty is not a just form of punishment. Other than expressing the fear that there might be a mistake made in executing the death penalty on an innocent man, you have not explained why it is not just. Can you explain how a murderer can compensate someone for the loss of their family member? Can you make a killer feel sorry for his actions? Is there anyway that a prison sentence will ease the pain of a missing friend? For that matter, can even a death sentence bring back a brother, father, uncle, or son? Perhaps a killer can be made to see the error of his ways, but wouldn't that make it easier for him to face his execution as a matter of bare minimum justice?

You may claim that a murderer could be rehabilitated and that he could be reintegrated into society as a fully contributing member. But that doesn't extend the same privelege to his victim. Perhaps, the murderer could have a major portion of his wages and possessions given to the victim's family, but that would only be a cold comfort; it still wouldn't bring the victim back. If the friends and family members of the victim can recieve any solace it is that time can heal all wounds, except when they have to face that murderer, again and again; whether at his parole hearings or even out on the street as a free man. Is that justice? Granted, you could put the murderer in jail for the rest of his life, but he still would have priveleges, no matter how small, that his victim can never receive.

I am in favour of the death penalty because sometimes, even that is not good enough.

[XxXSkYbEaMXxX]

wow you are soooo ****ing dumb

seriously think about it

yeah the guy killed someone but killing him won't really make the family feel better, it's just one more dead man (this is considering he IS guilty, where as about 1 percent of prison population is actually innocent, and that is a BIG number). also, the murder's family would have to suffer, so you'd be punishing a large amount of people for one crime. Also, what if someone kills in defense of someone they love, as in the person they killed was about to kill someone else that was defenseless and there was no proof of this?

in conclusion, ya dumb, shut up

[devonin]

You have stated several times that you do not believe that the death penalty is not a just form of punishment. Other than expressing the fear that there might be a mistake made in executing the death penalty on an innocent man, you have not explained why it is not just.

the fear that there might be a mistake made in executing the death penalty on an innocent man

That's more than enough reason for me to not support the death penalty.

[tha Guardians]

Originally Posted by XxXSkYbEaMXxX

wow you are soooo ****ing dumb

seriously think about it

yeah the guy killed someone but killing him won't really make the family feel better, it's just one more dead man (this is considering he IS guilty, where as about 1 percent of prison population is actually innocent, and that is a BIG number). also, the murder's family would have to suffer, so you'd be punishing a large amount of people for one crime. Also, what if someone kills in defense of someone they love, as in the person they killed was about to kill someone else that was defenseless and there was no proof of this?

in conclusion, ya dumb, shut up

You can't be dumb for having an opinion. You can however be misinformed or ignorant.

Please be tolerant of others' opinions, and use your big-boy words.

[xsarahxsx]

yes I do. I personally think it should be aloud in the Uk, it would cut down crime and murder in my opinion. Even though there is the factor of someone being innocent it should only be aloud if there is 100% proof of evidence to support the death sentence to go ahead.

[insanefreddy926]

I strongly oppose the death penalty. If regular people don't "have the right" to kill people, why should the government or justice system? It's just an endless cycle of killing and pretty stupid in my opinion. It's really not helping anybody.

[1961casey]

Okay ????Skybeam????,

The death penalty should be about justice not revenge. Hopefully, the 'one more dead' man would be punished for his crime not killed to satisfy someone's thirst for revenge. If you have read my previous posts you will notice that I stated that the death penalty should be reserved to the justice system which, hopefully, will hand down its sentences based on the facts of the case not on the feelings of the victims.

As for the murderer's family having to suffer the loss of a loved one, that would be under the control of the murderer: all he has to do is not kill anyone and everyone would keep the members of their respective families.

Finally, you throw in a 'what if' scenario. 'what if someone kills in defense of someone they love, as in the person they killed was about to kill someone else that was defenseless and there was no proof of this?' I would like to think that the person who was being defended would at least be grateful enough to testify at the trial. Don't you think? Maybe you should reread your own posts before submitting them to make sure your logic holds up.

Here is another, 'what if' scenario to consider. What if a convicted serial killer, justly convicted, and sentenced to multiple life sentences, manages to escape? Granted, there will probably be a massive manhunt for him, but let's say he evades capture. Now he can go about living the rest of his life in freedom, something his victims cannot enjoy. Furthermore, what if he goes on another killing spree? Now, he not only has his freedom but more people are made to suffer because he was left alive. Would this not justify a death penalty sentence?

[Necros140606]

i just think people who commit crimes shouldn't be executed. death is merely another comfort. if you broke the law in something serious like sexual harassment, you killed someone, you tricked people, you witnessed useless conflicts around the world, you damaged people around ou for futile reasons, etc; you should work your way out. as i think it's right, who is in jail should be forced to work, thus helping the country's economy and paying his/her debt towards society. jail shouldn't be a holyday residence. not to mention criminals cost a lot of money, because of prisons manteinance, personnel, food. why would people pay taxes to mantain criminals? makes no sense.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by xsarahxsx

yes I do. I personally think it should be aloud in the Uk, it would cut down crime and murder in my opinion. Even though there is the factor of someone being innocent it should only be aloud if there is 100% proof of evidence to support the death sentence to go ahead.

States in the US with the Death penalty have as high or higher rates of crimes that can recieve the death penalty. For whatever reason, it appears to be pretty much no deterrant at all.

I would like to think that the person who was being defended would at least be grateful enough to testify at the trial. Don't you think? Maybe you should reread your own posts before submitting them to make sure your logic holds up.

If there is no proof, as in their stated scenario, that these were the circumstances around the killing, do you really think that having the defendant's best friend testify to events that have no evidence supporting them, but that would almost completely exculpate the guilt of the defendant would be remotely allowed to stand up in court?

Now, he not only has his freedom but more people are made to suffer because he was left alive. Would this not justify a death penalty sentence?

Some exceptions prove the rule, they don't disprove it. What if, having been arrested for shoplifting, you decide that you hate law and order, and go murder some cops? Better execute you for shoplifting just in case. The fact that someone might escape prison has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the death penalty. That someone might escape from a prison is a failing of the prison to be properly secure. We're supposedly going to be assuming a reasonably efficient and effective justice system here.

If we're assuming a system where everyone can just escape whenever they fele like it, we're talking about a substantially different set of issues. Given a justice system that works the way America says its justice system works, the mere chance that someone (who would be in a maximum security prison also) would just "escape" and not be caught again is so miniscule as to make it irellevant to the discussion at hand. "Oh no, 1 in 500,000 convicted murderers might escape and keep killing! Better Execute every murderer!" is not a valid conclusion from those premises.

[lord_carbo]

Guys, it's well proven that the death penalty acts horribly as a deterrent. Often people willing to kill others when there's the possibility of life in prison aren't exactly thinking about the repercussions. They don't think, "oh, well life in prison away from everything I once knew and loved, well I could go for that, but damn it man I don't want to be executed!"



Now for a musing (I'm hoping dev will respond): The lack of a proper form of execution may in some cases undermine the value of the victim's life, just as the lack of a proper trial and execution made without clear evidence undermines the value of the defendant's life.

[1961casey]

Pardon me, let me clarify my response to 'skybeam'. What I meant was: "I would like to think that the person whose life was being defended would at least be grateful enough to testify at the trial of their defender." And yes, maybe I should reread my own posts to make sure that they are clear.

Also, this whole discussion is based on 'what if' scenarios. As such, all scenarios should be considered, even if the possibilities may be small. Therefore, the possibility that any convicted serial killer may escape, is one that can and should be considered. Especially in the case, however small, of a repeat serial killer. Therefore, I ask that such a situation be considered as a justifiable death penalty case.

I have already raised the case of Charles Ng as one such example. Richard Speck, a video of whom is on youtube, is another. John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy are further examples. I am sure that you can add to this list a whole host of others. Should not the death penalty at least be considered in their cases? (And yes, I know, Ted Bundy has already been executed for his crimes.) The guilt of these criminals has been well established beyond any and all reasonable doubt, not once but several times over. Note that I am not talking about the possibility of any mistake. So remove that possbility from any response. I am not talking about some vague, circumstantial case, or corrupt police investigation, or media frenzy inspired hyperbole. I am talking about a case where, after a thorough and proper investigation and trial, and after a carefully considered jury conviction with plenty of corroboration, witnesses, videotape and DNA evidence, a man is convicted of several first degree murders. At what point do you say 'Justice must prevail. The death penalty must be executed'?