Death Penalty (effective Punishment or Cruel and Unusual)?

Again- offering DNA re-testing for those on death row is a good thing- BUT if no DNA samples are available for retesting or the DNA samples which are available are too degraded to offer reliable results- what would be the solution?

Aren't these people still entitled to a defense/appeal without sufficient (or lack of) DNA evidence? Yes.

A conviction beyond a resonable doubt based on solid proof? Yes.

So no, I wouldn't have people put to death based on that nor did my previous post state that. The death penalty needs reform.

www.innocenceproject.org...



Unrehabilitatables: Prior history. The majority of repeat offender's crimes gradually increase in violence over time. For those, the death penalty should be implemented.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by mako0956]

I have to ask if all the PRO-death people are GOD fearing people? for the one that are, What happen to thou shall not kill?

It doesnt say Thou shall not kill, unless someone kills alot of people, or what ever you get death for.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I have to ask if all the PRO-death people are GOD fearing people?

Nope. Just an honest belief that a rabid dog (ie Bundy, Westerfield) needs to be put down. But like I posted earlier, Barry Scheck's project has definitely convinced me that reform is needed.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I have to ask if all the PRO-death people are GOD fearing people? for the one that are, What happen to thou shall not kill?

Even the devil can quote scripture to his own end: But the bible is full of death penalties and even some methods of execution:

Hanging
Deuteronomy 21
Various Laws
22 If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree,


Fire:
Genesis 38
24 About three months later Judah was told, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant."
Judah said, "Bring her out and have her burned to death

Leviticus 20
14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

Stoning (not the good kind)
Leviticus 20
2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives [1] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him.

Off with the head:
Matthew 14
10and had John beheaded in the prison.

Hang em out to dry:
Matthew 27
35When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.[1]


I could go on and on

Just because it happen it dosent make it right. I didnt say it never happen, I said it is against what "GOD" said.

Originally posted by mako0956
Again- offering DNA re-testing for those on death row is a good thing- BUT if no DNA samples are available for retesting or the DNA samples which are available are too degraded to offer reliable results- what would be the solution?

Aren't these people still entitled to a defense/appeal without sufficient (or lack of) DNA evidence? Yes.

A conviction beyond a resonable doubt based on solid proof? Yes.

So no, I wouldn't have people put to death based on that nor did my previous post state that. The death penalty needs reform.

Glad to hear I misread you there.

Originally posted by mako0956
Unrehabilitatables: Prior history. The majority of repeat offender's crimes gradually increase in violence over time. For those, the death penalty should be implemented.

This question, in my view is not that simple. It's not uncommon that repeat offenders has had poor treatment or none at all. Far too many fall trough the cracks here. And I guess for many on the outside looking in, it's a whole lot easier to demand the death penalty as compared to proper treatment of the offender.

When it comes to behavioral studies we're constantly learning. It would be ignorant and dangerous to think we already know all there is to know about who and what can or can't be treated.

No, it doesn't.

However, it does state to give Cesar his due and if you want to get technical, the Bible gives us a chain of command:

God
Jesus
Man

Man has to follow the established laws of the land, by the government or civil rulers, weither or not man agree's with it. See Matthew 22:21

Also, read Act 25. When a Roman citizen under trial decided to appeal to the Emperor, the case immediately passed out of the jurisdiction of all other Magistrates.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by mako0956]

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Just because it happen it dosent make it right. I didnt say it never happen, I said it is against what "GOD" said.

But the bible is kind of a guide book of Gods teachings told in narritive forme no? There are at least 20+ mentions of the death penalty with no corresponding mention of a panalty for putting someone to death. Perhaps the Thou shall not kill is ment to be applied to innocents? Clearly in all of the above passages someone committed a wrong (not by our standards maybe, but by the accepted standards of the time). If the bible is the teachings of God, then why even mention the death penalty?

My philosophy is..you kill more than 3 people...YOU get killed. lol

Originally posted by AD5673
My philosophy is..you kill more than 3 people...YOU get killed. lol

Nah according to the bible its one strike and you are out!

Exodus 21
12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 24
17 " 'If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by FredT]

I love it, can we get an midi file of dueling Banjos as we quote scripture back and forth

"This question, in my view is not that simple. It's not uncommon that repeat offenders has had poor treatment or none at all. Far too many fall trough the cracks here. And I guess for many on the outside looking in, it's a whole lot easier to demand the death penalty as compared to proper treatment of the offender.

When it comes to behavioral studies we're constantly learning. It would be ignorant and dangerous to think we already know all there is to know about who and what can or can't be treated".


The danger is in allowing these violent perp's on loose so they can victimize again.

It's easy to be on the outside looking in- however, I'm in Law Enforcement and seeing the victims everyday- people who didn't deserve to be stalked, strangled to death with an extension cord, raped post mortum, and cut up by some POS who just got out of prison for committing a felony with a firearm a month prior. DNA a match.

These are the one's I'm talking about. Violent Criminals. Sitting on death row for 11.5 years is a piece of cake compared to what this woman had to endure in the last few hours of her life. Why should her attacker be allowed any freedoms?

He forfieted that right. Lethal injectioon is too good. Take him out back and beat him with a shovel for that matter.

(Do you honestly think someone who committs a rape post-mortum can be rehabilitated?)

I think the argument of the death penalty being 'cruel and usual punishment' has as much to do with prisoners being kept on death row for years with no execution date as it has with the actual killing.

I personally see the abolution of the death penalty as a step on the road to greater civilisation for a country, a milestone that is passed in the growth of thinking and collective views of morality.

There are currently 83 countries that retain and use the death penalty. Of those China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the United States and Iran are the most prolific executors. Only six countries, including the United States, execute juveniles (18 or under at the time the crime was committed). The others are Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Keeping some good company there...

The main argument for the death penalty is as a deterrent. This year the U.S hit a record peak of 2million+ prisoners and took pole position in the world for the amount of incarcerations. Doesn't seem to be working does it?


[edit on 12-7-2004 by kegs]

As long as there are violent criminals out there preying on the innocent, you need to have a system in place to protect society.

As I stated in an earlier post, begining in the year 2005, the US will have more males between the ages of 16-25, the crime prone years.

The justice system isn't prepared for this.


Perhaps they should begin by televising these executions.

By mako0956
As long as there are violent criminals out there preying on the innocent, you need to have a system in place to protect society.

I agree, but I don't agree that the death penalty should be part of that system. It simply doesn't work as a deterrent. If it doesn't work as a deterrent what other reason is there to have it?

You quote a changing age demographic to account for a rise in crime that hasn't happened yet. What about the rise in crime up till now in all the time you've had the death penalty?

Originally posted by kegs
I agree, but I don't agree that the death penalty should be part of that system. It simply doesn't work as a deterrent. If it doesn't work as a deterrent what other reason is there to have it?

Most criminals are repaeat offenders. So jail does not seem to be a deterent either. So should we just let people go? The debate wheather the death penalty is a deterent IMHO is not relevant. Most people who murder others obviosly are not concerened with the consequences no matter what they are. I for one have never felt that that should be a reason pro or con. The american public (myself included) like the death penalty because it suites my sence of justice. The anti- group always seems to lose sight of the fact that the murderer never cared about the rights of the victem or what was right or wrong.

I can't resist: What would you do if Kitty Dukakis was raped and murdered?

prodeathpenalty.com...



Are the innocent sent to death row and released somehow more important than the innocent being slaughtered on the streets? Of course not. Then why aren't these same groups working even harder against those criminal justice practices which actually do destroy many innocent lives? Because it is not the concern for innocents which drives them, but the simple fact that they oppose the death penalty.

Furthermore, any assertion that the death penalty is not a deterrent is simply false. First, no one has proven the death penalty is not a deterrent. Secondly, in reviewing 30 years of deterrent studies, the strongest statement one may make against deterrence is that there is conflicting data. Third, the current state of the debate is that there is no evidence that execution deters more than incarceration. Finally, there are numerous studies which find that deterrence does deter more than incarceration.

And, as virtually everyone agrees that all punishments deter some, are we to conclude that, somehow, the most severe sanction deters none? Of course not.

While a solid case for deterrence does exist, if unsure, we should heed the words of Marquette University Professor John McAdams, who concludes, "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

Finally, executed murderers cannot harm again. Living murderers do harm again, quite often, in prison, after escape and after release. Based upon reason and the facts, a concern for the innocent will, necessarily, result in more support for executions.

- Dudley Sharp, Justice For All, Director of Death Penalty Resources

i know this may be slightly OT, but whether or not you are for or against the death penalty, is it really the issue to be looked at for reducing crime? i'm just thinking that many other countries which don't have the death penalty also don't have such high crime rates as the US (eg, England, Japan, France), and i'm sure some countries with the death penalty may also have lower crime rates than the US (eg, Singapore)...

if it were up to me i'd get rid of it because a.) it seems to have little bearing on actual crime rates, to the best of my knowledge, and b.) it interferes with our relationships with the countries which don't have the death penalty, which makes up practically the rest of the developed world.

-koji K.

mako0956, this is from the (logically opposing ) site with many studies on deterrence including:

FBI Report Reveals Murder Rate Rise in the South
According to the FBI's Preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 2002, the murder rate in the South increased by 2.1% while the murder rate in the Northeast decreased by almost 5%. The South accounts for 82% of all executions since 1976; the Northeast accounts for less than 1%.

Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas. Authors John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart examined executions in Texas between 1984 and 1997. They speculated that if a deterrent effect were to exist, it would be found in Texas because of the high number of death sentences and executions within the state. Using patterns in executions across the study period and the relatively steady rate of murders in Texas, the authors found no evidence of a deterrent effect. The study concluded that the number of executions was unrelated to murder rates in general, and that the number of executions was unrelated to felony rates.

Deterrence: U.S. Murder Rate Greatly Exceeds European Non-Death Penalty Nations
Data released by the British Home Office reveals that the United States, which retains the death penalty, has a murder rate that is more than three times that of many of its European allies that have banned capital punishment.

Homicide Rates Fall in Canada After Abolition of Death Penalty
The abolition of the death penalty in Canada in 1976 has not led to increased homicide rates. Statistics Canada reports that the number of homicides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished. In addition, homicide rates in Canada are generally three times lower than homicide rates in the U.S


And many more. We could throw around links all day but the most convincing stat to me is what I said earlier, the U.S has reached a record peak of over 2million prisoners, the most in the world.

FredT, the deterrence issue might not be the most relevant issue to you, but it's certainly relevant to the reason for its existance and presumably it's legality. BTW who the hell is Kitty Dukakis?!? (I'm not American!)

Originally posted by kegs
FredT, the deterrence issue might not be the most relevant issue to you, but it's certainly relevant to the reason for its existance and presumably it's legality. BTW who the hell is Kitty Dukakis?!?

(I'm not American!)

I don't thyink the law is based on the whole deternece issue. It really seems to have its roots in the eye for an eye concept.
Kitty Dukakis was the wife of Micheal Dukakis who ran aginst Bush Sr. During a country wilde TV debate, Bernanrd Shaw of CNN ambushed Michael Dukakis (who was anti-death penalty) with that question. He really came off poorly with his defence of not believeing that he could just put the guy way for life.