The Death Penalty

[kmay]

The death penalty is only used when the person is found guilty with specific proof that links the murderer, or what ever charge they had, exactly. The death penalty is a way to scare some people from doing and also a way to get rid of some of the repeat offenders killing someone, in my eyes, should be life in jail. Killing more then once or more then one person on a charge should lead to the death penalty.

Originally Posted by devonin

This is an easy question with an easy answer: There is no 100% absolutely objectively correct way to prove someone's guilt short of a direct and explicit confession. Unless offered, there should never be even the consideration of the death penalty.

There are plenty of ways to prove someone it 100% guilty. Its called evidence. If theres matching finger prints on the body, fibers from either clothes or hair found on the victim, and witnesses. Those are just a few examples.

We all know jails are being filled to there limit and the only way to empty them, other then letting criminals free, is by sentencing them to the death penalty. The death penalty is an important part of our legal system.

[gnr61]

i think the fact that people on death row (including many who have already been executed) are after the fact found out to be innocent, despite having been convicted by "100% proof" attests to the flaw in saying you can find someone 100% guilty objectively.

and here again we see a convenience argument. our prisons apparently can't fit criminals, thus fundamentally the death penalty is a just and legitimate form of punishment. it is justifiable to kill someone if your institution does not have room for them. again, perhaps you should be looking at the source of the problem rather than an absurd, easy way out.

[devonin]

There are plenty of ways to prove someone it 100% guilty. Its called evidence. If theres matching finger prints on the body, fibers from either clothes or hair found on the victim, and witnesses. Those are just a few examples.

I met a girl at a bar, we had a few drinks, danced, went back to my place, had perfectly consensual sex, she left, and on the way home was mugged, raped and murdered by someone careful enough to be wearing gloves and a condom. Pretty sure your whole list of things would point me to the rape and murder, including lots of witnesses at the bar who saw us leave together.

Good thing you have 100% proof I was guilty eh?

[Sullyman2007]

I know this is a bit off topic, but it's an interjection I feel I need to make.

We all know jails are being filled to there limit and the only way to empty them, other then letting criminals free, is by sentencing them to the death penalty. The death penalty is an important part of our legal system.

This should be a sign. Not to start killing people off just because we don't know how else to control a booming prison population, but investing in other methods. They say prison actually makes people worse. Why not invest in, say, drug intervention programs to start helping people. Seems to me the main reason we send people off to prison in the first place is to get them away from the general population.

[rzr]

Originally Posted by devonin

I met a girl at a bar, we had a few drinks, danced, went back to my place, had perfectly consensual sex, she left, and on the way home was mugged, raped and murdered by someone careful enough to be wearing gloves and a condom. Pretty sure your whole list of things would point me to the rape and murder, including lots of witnesses at the bar who saw us leave together.

Good thing you have 100% proof I was guilty eh?

If it really came down to it and you saw it happen, would you use the death penalty? Here's evidence. Fool proof. And you know this (hypothetically). And don't counter it with "but there's no such thing as 100% evidence," because I'm speaking hypothetically.

[Cavernio]

If you're speaking hypothetically, all the discussion would have to necessarily be centered around the ethics of being able to kill someone ethically, if they themselves have killed people.

[GG_Guru]

Do I believe in the Death Penalty?

Absolutely NOT.

No matter how you put it, no one can ever be able to decide if one should live or die.

Even if that person is a serial killer, it would only stoop us down to their level.

Murderers. No one should take away another's life.

[devonin]

Here's evidence. Fool proof. And you know this (hypothetically). And don't counter it with "but there's no such thing as 100% evidence," because I'm speaking hypothetically.

If you can only speak in a non-existant hypothetical to support your view, then your view has no worthwhile support and should be discarded.

If I am required to assume something to be the case that is not actually possible in order for you to be correct, then you aren't. Simple as that.

I'm the richest man in the world, provided you assume I have 500 quadrillion dollars.

[Coolgamer]

Originally Posted by rzr

Just a shot in the dark here, but maybe because it's a debate and everyone's opinion matters?

That's all fine and dandy, but have you analyzed the fact that we don't know it's the wrong person and we're letting the criminal go? If we did, Einstein, we wouldn't have an innocent person walking the green mile.

Reread the post, "Einstein". I was responding to someone's direct statement that they felt innocent people should be happy to die on death row rather then spend time in jail. Next time, analyze the context before you attack someone.

The problem is the fact that the death penalty mainly targets minority groups, and often the evidence is far from "fool-proof". Witnesses and line-up selections mean ****. Eyewitnesses can and HAVE been wrong. Just check the testimony from the JFK shooting. One woman visible right by the street during the headshot in the Zapruder film claimed their was a dog in the limo. After the event, media exposure and other sources can change and influence memories.

Line-ups are nonsense because people can and often do look similar. There have been many innocent people who had more then three people swear they saw them commit the crime, only it turns out the real criminal looked similar.

Now, if you truly have an airtight case, like Joseph Paul Franklin... an admitted killer, with more then enough evidence to convict, and who brags about his or her crimes... then go ahead.

But that's not how it's mainly used, and too many innocent people are dying because of it.

[rzr]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

If you're speaking hypothetically, all the discussion would have to necessarily be centered around the ethics of being able to kill someone ethically, if they themselves have killed people.

Which certain people can't seem to grasp. So, Devonin, why is it that you can't simply answer the question? If there's 100% evidence, a confession, eye witnesses, video footage, prints, etc, would you allow the death penalty to be a suitable punishment?

[Vendetta21]

I support that with every life sentence without parole that is given, a person has the legal option of committing suicide at any point during their sentence, because I think if they think their sentence is worth than death, than it is cruel and inhumane not to allow them respite. Otherwise just forget about it because it's just too damn expensive to try to enforce it (appellation costs) and it really doesn't have any statistically provable purpose that I've ever heard of (though it does have philosophical justification, don't confuse the distinction here.)

Now as for the original anecdote: we shouldn't base criminal policy around institutional incompetency. If the argument is based on the institutions incompetency then there is a latent submission that we can't trust the institution to do its job as it is supposed to. The two have nothing to do with each other, and that isolated example lends no weight to the wide-spread solution suggested.

[TrueBOSS]

The Death Penalty is suppost to be scary. It was originally meant to scare the crap out of you so you wouldn't think of killing others, commiting treason, or anything else considered hainus to the local culture. The original death penalties achieved this by killing you in the most brutal way IN PUBLIC so everyone see's what happens to you if you commit the crimes. The best one, in my opinion, that achieved this was the English Quartering (I won't say what they did in this because it may be to gory for some people to read). I believe that you should suffer if you get the death penalty not be put to sleep in the most humane way possible. Today's death penalty is worthless because of how humane it is. What's so scary about going to sleep and not waking up again (Leathal Injection)? If there is going to be a death penalty it should be done right or not at all. Do it to scare potential commiters of the same crime from doing it and not to just remove the person from our presence. Jail does that just fine.

[devonin]

What's so scary about going to sleep and not waking up again

Clearly you haven't put enough thought into the second portion of that statement. I'm also pretty sure that punishment has shown to be not much by means of a deterrant to any crime regardless of punishment. I think you'll find that most people committing crimes of the sort that might get you executed aren't doing it for the fun of it, or because they don't think they'll get caught.

In most cases, I'd instead suggest that these people would be moved to commit that crime regardless of the consequences. Most of the murders in my country are gang related. And the nature of that sort of arrangement tends towards people desperate enough to do whatever they felt they needed to regardless of the consequences.

Bringing back some horrible method of execution woudln't be a deterrant at all. And giving such executions publically, as youtube has already shown us, barely shocks anybody anyway.

[TrueBOSS]

Yeah, I wouldn't be suprised to find that a more horrible execution has no effect on todays people. It might if everyone was physically present first hand to the gore and blood. Even today seeing that kind of stuff can completely change someone. Your right though because most people would only see it on TV where they are used to seeing that sort of thing thus having no effect. History does show though that countries with morbid death penalties that are executed to anyone deserving of it had very little crime and it's from there that I spoke. Your right though, public death penalties wouldn't work nowadays. As I said, the death penalty was initialized long ago as a way of scaring the public from doing crime. I still believe that that should be the ONLY reason for using it. If it stops being a deterint, it should be removed. So, in a lot of ways, I guess you could say we've developed beyond the use of the death penalty being any good. At least for in the U.S.

[devonin]

History does show though that countries with morbid death penalties that are executed to anyone deserving of it had very little crime and it's from there that I spoke.

History shows that to be true in places where the government had the full power of fiat to simply order people executed. Where guilt was often determined well before a trial assuming there even was a trial, and the people had very little access to what we now take for granted as human rights.

In a place where the local magistrate can just -kill you- with no repercussions at all to themselves, yes, the prospect of the death penalty acts as a strong deterrant against criminal behavior.

I don't think that suggesting the government start ruling through fear is the right way to go.

[TrueBOSS]

nope, me either. The government should never have that sort of power.

[Clarissa_Rainbow]

Honestly, the death penalty doesn't make sense to me. We're teaching people it's bad to kill other people by killing them??? Does that make any sense at all to you...

[TrueBOSS]

nope, not really.

[1961casey]

Devonin,

You have been asked directly to answer the question: 'If there is no doubt as to the murderer's guilt, would you accept that the death penalty is a suitable punishment for the crime."

Do not deflect the question by not accepting the premise of 100% guilty. You have already stated many times that you do not support the death penalty because you have no confidence in the judicial system. Granted that you may be justified in your concern, you still have not answered the question put to you.

I now charge you to answer the question directly, without rationalizing or evading: 'Do you accept that the death penalty may be used as a suitable punishment for the crime of murder?' If you do not, then please explain why it would not be suitable.


Okay, I went back and reread this thread. Devonin has answered this question in post #188.

Sorry.

[TD_Project]

Keeping in mind I have not read the other 14 pages of this thread, I may accidentally recap what someone has said, in which case I apologize.

I am somewhat debated on the topic however.

Pro?
- IF the sentenced is 100% guilty, keeping him in an institution such as jail for like until death, would waste tax dollars. It is unreasonable to inevitably kill someone slowly like that, when you can end it fast and save the tax money for those who can get a second chance to enter the workforce, therefore economy.

Con?
- The judicial system of the United States isn't very trustworthy, and with the corruption that some places have, to kill an innocent man is not acceptable. Also, the morals of the death penalty are pretty obvious.

I guess the con's outweigh the pro's, which sucks because I voted Pro in the poll. Sorry.