Death Penalty (effective Punishment or Cruel and Unusual)?

Originally posted by Fitzpatrick

If i was murdered then i wouldent want the person who did it to die, Why should they die, because the stopped the physical body carrying on its reactions.

But how about your kid? your mother?

Would you want the man who raped and tortured your 5 yearold to death to spend 6 years behind bars and be released to do it again?

That IS what happens without the death penality

But how about your kid? your mother?

Would you want the man who raped and tortured your 5 yearold to death to spend 6 years behind bars and be released to do it again?

That IS what happens without the death penality

Ive thought about this a great many times, and im in the stage of my opinions maybe changing , so sometimes they dont make sense lol. I used to belive in the death penalty 100%, i thought why should we be burdened with em .

Anyways............

Would i wont him to get out to do it again no definatly not. I would want him to stay in as long as it takes to reabiliate him and do community service to pay for his time there., wether that be 6 years or 60 years no time scale should be put on it all. But until i experienced a situation like that i dont know what i would do, losing a child like that might make me lose control and just want pure revenge so i cannot say what i would do im afraid.

If you don't believe in the death penalty, regardless of your reasoning, just say so- you don't owe anyone an explaination on why you feel this way.

Now, as far as your statement of "Why should they die, because they stopped the body functions?" (or something similar), most people value life more than "mere body functions".

In the context of death penalty candidates, we are talking more like someone who has viciously, maliciously taken the life of another (or several) with total disregard for life and it's consequences.

People like this destroy lives and leave a trail of victims in their wake.

I believe these people should be given the opportunity to present DNA evidence, if it's available, to dispute the prosecution, but if those tests reveal otherwise, they need to be held accountable and accept their punishment even if that means the ultimate punishment, death.

People on death row, with the support of those opposed to the death penalty, have for years claimed "cruel and unusual punishment" in addressing issues with the death penalty.

Unfortunately, the victim's rights continue to be side-stepped to address this issue. The victim had rights too, which the perp decided to take those rights away when (s)he committed their crime.



[edit on 24-8-2004 by mako0956]

Originally posted by Fitzpatrick
Would i wont him to get out to do it again no definatly not. I would want him to stay in as long as it takes to reabiliate him and do community service to pay for his time there., wether that be 6 years or 60 years no time scale should be put on it all. But until i experienced a situation like that i dont know what i would do, losing a child like that might make me lose control and just want pure revenge so i cannot say what i would do im afraid.

Can you say for sure that Rehab works? Are you wiling to bet your or your families life on the concept?

Can you say for sure that Rehab works? Are you wiling to bet your or your families life on the concept?

well id have a system where if rehab dident work they couldent get out of prison atall, no matter how long of a time it was. You make it sound like id be playing cards with them.

But the freedom and liberty of people should not be taken, just so you can feel safer.

The death penalty is set in place to protect the society. When you murder someone you have proved that you are an immediate and continous threat so the system removes that negative factor in order to protect the society. Now I am not refering to crimes of passion or car accidents or the like, but rather premeditated cold-blooded murder.

In most cases, you are not rehibilitating the individual through punishment because once that line (act of intentionally killing someone) is crossed you go from theory to application and you become. In theory, we could all commit the act of murder, but to actually become a murderer is a huge leap that changes infinite possibilities into solidified finales.

If the purpose of the death penalty is to protect the society from an individual who have proven him/herself to be harmful to that society, then it is logically justified. This is of course assuming that the government's primary concern is the safety of said society.

Intersting that you think people should be put to death before they even are convicted I mean one of those words written down on paper is guilty untill proven innocent right ? ... NO it says INNOCENT UNTILL PROVEN GUILTY.... YOU ARE A RETARD IF YOU CAN NOT GET THAT THE EASIEST OF EASIEST LAWS TO GET. but anyhow kill all of them ... I mean if they are innocent you are just helping them out t eternity with whatever you beileive happens after you die.

Originally posted by bet555
Intersting that you think people should be put to death before they even are convicted .

I hope you were not refering to my post as I said no such thing. If you look carefully I said PROVEN to have commited premeditated cool-blooded murder.

Originally posted by Fitzpatrick
well id have a system where if rehab dident work they couldent get out of prison atall, no matter how long of a time it was.

So you are saying that proven murders should live off the dime of the very people that they would harm? How can you prove if they have been rehabilitated and are not just faking it in order to get out of jail?

So you are saying that proven murders should live off the dime of the very people that they would harm? How can you prove if they have been rehabilitated and are not just faking it in order to get out of jail?

Oh i would have it so they worked for a living doing manual labour and had no luxeries ( sorry dont know how to spell lol)

And that is a very good point and one that i have thought of as well, but i guess you would use the same methods as used today to find out if reabilitation is working and go on from there.

Originally posted by Fitzpatrick
well id have a system where if rehab dident work they couldent get out of prison atall, no matter how long of a time it was. You make it sound like id be playing cards with them

.But the freedom and liberty of people should not be taken, just so you can feel safer.

Freedom and liberty.... What about the freedom and liberty of the victems of the crime? They are the ones most left out of the debate. Nor is the death penalty persued to make me feel safer. The death penalty is a form of punishment reserved for those commiting atrocities upon innocent members of the society. At that point they loose thier right to life, liberty and freedom. The one statistic we never see is how many murders are prevented becuase people think about the ultimate penalty. Knowbody knows for sure do they?

Some people deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Some crimes are so disgusting that death the only reasonable punishment for it.

However, the evidence must be more than convincing.
The chances that someone innocent might be executed makes me say "No".
Or at least there must be no doubt whatsoever that this person really did commit the crime. Like 300% evidence...
And the crime must be something very extreme also.
Like raping, torturing and killing a child or something like that.
It�s disgusting when some childkillers get new identities and stuff (to protect THEM) and then set free.

The Death penalty could be misused to put away someone innocent.
Someone could get framed for something they didn�t do.
Got a problem with someone?
Just frame them and get them executed...
See what I mean?
Difficult for most people to do, but easier for those with power and money.

Originally posted by Hellmutt
However, the evidence must be more than convincing.
The chances that someone innocent might be executed makes me say "No".
Or at least there must be no doubt whatsoever that this person really did commit the crime. Like 300% evidence...

I have no problem with this point. For me if there is no resonable doubt, then off to the gallows. Thats why I feel the state should automatically as part of any appeals on a capital case, test DNA if releavent or avalible.

One of the primary arguments in favor of the death penalty is based on the notion that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime. While it is true that we cannot know how many people decided not to commit murder, because they feared being put to death, we do have statistics showing the increase/decrease of violent crimes in non-death penalty states vs. death penalty states:

As executions rose, states without the death penalty fared much better than states with the death penalty in reducing their murder rates. The gap between the murder rate in death penalty states and the non-death penalty states grew larger (as shown in Chart II). In 1990, the murder rates in these two groups were 4% apart. By 2000, the murder rate in the death penalty states was 35% higher than the rate in states without the death penalty. In 2001, the gap between non-death penalty states and states with the death penalty again grew, reaching 37%. For 2002, the number stands at 36%. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

If you look at the graphs on the above link, is should be fairly obvious that the crime deterrent argument doesn't really hold much water.

Next, put yourself into the shoes of one of the 113 former death row inmates who have been exonerated since 1973. You can read a brief explanation of each of their stories here
How many more innocent people do you think have been killed by the state because of corruption, dishonesty, apathy or predjudice? Who should pay the price for the wrongful taking of an innocent life at the hands of the state? Doesn't the family of such a person deserve the same chance at revenge for the murder of their loved one as anyone else? How can there be any exuse or justification for the taking of an innocent human being's life? You can't give back someone's life, once you have chosen to play God, and taken it.

As of February 2004, 113 inmates had been found innocent and released from death row. More than half of these have been released in the last 10 years. That means one person has been exonerated for every eight people executed.

A study by Columbia University professor James Liebman examined thousands of capital sentences that had been reviewed by courts in 34 states from 1973 to 1995. �An astonishing 82 percent of death row inmates did not deserve to receive the death penalty,� he said in his conclusion. �One in twenty death row inmates is later found not guilty.�

In many other cases, it was good fortune rather than the criminal justice system that established innocence. In several cases, college or law school students investigated cases and unearthed essential evidence. For example, students in an investigative journalism class at Webster University uncovered evidence of misconduct by prosecutors, who talked a witness into giving false testimony and withheld crucial trial evidence, and helped get a new trial for Louisiana death row inmate Richard Clay.

Although there has been much attention surrounding the use of DNA testing, only 13 death row inmates of 113 have been exonerated by use of DNA. www.aclu.org...

It is a given that our current penetentiaries are a joke. Prisoners are treated to luxuries, such as cable tv, while law-abiding citizens must pay for it. There is no question, that we are in serious need of a prison overhaul. If it were up to me, prisons would be self-sufficient, i.e., grow their own food, generate their own electricity, etc., and non-violent non-lifers would be given mandatory counseling and education. Violent prisoners, sentenced to life, should be thrown on an uninhabited and remotely guarded island in the middle of nowhere, and alllowed to fend for themselves. Taxpayers should not be expected to pay for the maintenance of those who have committed wrongs against them.

That being said, the fact that our prisons and criminal justice systems need to be overhauled, isn't a valid justification for the state-santioned killing of our fellow humans. How can we expect to be taken seriously when we say, "Thou shalt not kill" if we follow up by saying "unless the government wants you to"?

To take another man's life is not a trivial thing, even when the condemned has done something horrific.
Has anyone ever stopped and thought about what the psychological effects might be on those who are responsible for actually taking the prisoner's life? What type of person could remain unaffected by such duties? How much value do you think they place on human life? If a man in charge of executing prisoners, were to secretly enjoy the taking of another man's life, wouldn't he just be a glorified serial killer, operating with the government's blessings? Does the fact that he is provided with his victims, rather than having to select his own, make this ok?

I have several other reasons why capital punishment is wrong, but this is all I will write for now.

Well in 1973 it was awkward for blacks and whites to talk together, unless they were dying together in Viet Nam. The point is, we have much better diagnostics today that would take doubt out of the picture. To link the way it was 30 years ago to the DNA testing we have today is ridiculous.

Great idea's, but that's just it, this is based on an ideal scenario with alot of variables. It's not that cut and dry, there are alot of gray area's.

The death penalty issue is an issue which will continue to generate opinions either for it or against it for many years to come.

I agree, the current prison/jail is in need of reform. However, how many islands do we load up with these people, how many islands are available?

(Why should the "normal" working people have to give up islands they could otherwise vacation on to house inmates?)

The point of being incarcerated is they need to be held to prevent further offenses to society, punishment for crimes committed. They have no self control, therefore, they need to be "cared for". Sending these people to a deserted island to care for themselves would be a "cruel and unusual punishment".

I would really like someone who is against the death penalty to
elaborate on thier opinion of the rights of surviving relatives and
friends.

Also, if someone has been proved guilty of murder, I would
like to see them explain to the survivors why the murderer does
not deserve to die.

I would like to address the pro crowd in asking this question. What do you feel is the most important reason for having laws and subsequently punishment for perpetrators of breaking those laws in a civilized society?

Originally posted by jdster
I would really like someone who is against the death penalty to
elaborate on thier opinion of the rights of surviving relatives and
friends.

They have the same rights as anyone else who has been the victim of a crime:
1. participate in the criminal justice system;
2. obtain benefits from a fund established by the state to compensate crime victims;
3. receive restitution ordered by the criminal court;
4. recover a judgment for damages in a civil action against the criminal, accessories, or negligent third-party defendants;
5. be free of intimidation;
6. share in profits from exploitation of the criminal's version of the crime;
7. seek alternative dispute resolution
They also have the right to grieve, be angry, hate the responsible party, and, hopefully, heal over time.
If you are implying that they have the right to exact revenge against the person who caused the death of their loved one, no, according to the law they don't. They are not legally allowed to hunt down and kill the person they think is responsible for their loved one's death, even if they know for a fact who the guilty party is.

Also, if someone has been proved guilty of murder, I would
like to see them explain to the survivors why the murderer does
not deserve to die.

The murderer may very well deserve to die, but that doesn't mean that we are justified in carrying out that sentence.
What reason would you give to someone who's wife and child was killed by a drunk driver, when they want him to pay for the lives he took with his own, but instead he gets 3-5 years for manslaughter? Shouldn't the death penalty be applied to anyone who takes the life of another, whether it was intentional or not?
Who should be held accountable for the wrongful death of an inmate, when he is executed but later it's proven that he was innocent? What do you tell his family? "Oops, sorry! I guess we goofed." If he was executed for taking the life of an innocent person, but he wasn't guilty, shouldn't someone else be executed for taking his innocent life? What about the doctor who, due to negligence, causes the death of his/her patient? If the victim's family wants him to pay for his negligence with his life, shouldn't he be given the death penalty? Where do you draw the line and who should make that decision? Should it be made based on an emotional reaction to a traumatic experience, or should it be based on rationality and objectivity by someone who is not consumed with the desire for revenge?

Originally posted by Durden
I would like to address the pro crowd in asking this question. What do you feel is the most important reason for having laws and subsequently punishment for perpetrators of breaking those laws in a civilized society?

Maintain order. Without rules society breaks down and we revert to anarchy.