Death Penalty (effective Punishment or Cruel and Unusual)?

Originally posted by Fitzpatrick
Suggections of things that should happen drug users instantly rehibalitation camp.

There is one problem with this. Many drug users can�t get into rehab even if they want to. Many desperate people might then commit serious crimes in order to get into a rehab-program "in prison". Actually the same applies to people starving. What do they have to loose? Starve to death or commit a crime to get fed in prison. The prisons are already fully occupied as well. Might be an idea to keep some of those who really don�t belong there out of the prisons. This is another point to legalize certain less harmful "drugs". Why turn so many people into "criminals" when there�s so many other more serious crimes? I just realized that this is a bit off topic, sorry about that. To get it back on track, is death penalty a way to make more room in the overloaded prisons? I like the other solution better...

Originally posted by Hellmutt
To get it back on track, is death penalty a way to make more room in the overloaded prisons? I like the other solution better...

Odd as it seems, I'm sure there are some who would like to use such an argument. However, according to Uniform Crime Reports, since 1980, death sentences in the US have increased to ca 250/year, which still is only 1 per cent of the total amount of known homicides. Of all those convicted, no more than 2 percent eventually recieves the death penalty. Hardly enough to take care of the problem with overstuffed prisons.

Unless there would be an attempt to drastically increase the amount of executions resulting in a violation of the constitution* and would subsequently also considerably increase the amount of innocents being put to death.

*Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280


[edit on 15-12-2004 by Durden]

quote: Originally posted by instar
Can you explain why you think thats the case? folk think , if i kill someone, ill die, so i might aswell kill someone? I cant agree with that. folk dont kill folk because the punishment is the same as the crime.
You want an explanation for my reasoning? I'm going to have to rehash what's been thoroughly covered earlier in this thread here...

Actually evidence supports my argument:

Statistics do not explain WHY the death penalty increases murder crime, only that ,apparently it does.

quote: Again, if you dont beleive thats the way to go, then whats your idea for improvement ? how can you possibly deter crime without harsh punishment?
See above.

Nothing but rehashed statistic above. How will you deter crime?

Coretta Scott King:
..............bla bla bla

Very compassionate woman, ONE very compassionate woman, not a majority!

Also don't make the mistake of believing capital punishment can be used as support and/or treatment of surviving victims. That is a completely different issue.

Care to explain why victims go to watch executions then? no phsycological healing?

quote: Until such time as a utopia without such crimes exist, we need the death penalty to prevent re-offence. too many get parole from bleeding heart authorities and go out and rape and kill again.

Again. Life without possibility of parole would solve this problem - without the negative aspects of capital punishment.

Do you think the relatives of a criminal serving life should have to pay for them then? Why should the taxpayer foot the bill?

And giving something 'tangible' back would be to have them murdered right back?

No, giving back something tangible would be providing resource for research, indirectly benifitting society, or barring that, death and donating organs to give life to others in return for the life they stole. Dont twist things to suit yourself.

What you should be asking is if capital punishment shows to not deter but actually increase the murder rate where it is retained as opposed to where it's abolished - should it still be kept as a practice?

on the contrary, ive already stated i think it should be retained for reasons above. You still are avoiding making even a single suggestion as to how to deter crime or rehabilitate crims, or why society should pay to keep these scum alive. Your deliberate circular reasoning is p*ssing me off now. If you can do no more than spout statistics as an argument then why bother.

there are currently around 650 in the state of california who are on death row. that's not including other states. in 2005 an estimated 4 will be put to death. so some of these 650 may not even get the death penalty, they're most likely going to die of old age before they get the lethal injection. why not put all 650 in an enclosed room and gas them to death? oh no that would be too in-humane, it would be too in-humane like the crimes they all commited. if you have the death penalty legalised in your country, use it, put them in a gas chamber and kill all 650. but what if some were innocent? well if you are not prepared to kill all 650 then you should not be prepared to kill 1 of them, and they should live out their lives in a maximum security prison. or stick them in 1 of the 600 concentration type camps the u.s has. if you are sentenced to death in eastern countries then you are most likely hung or put infront of a firing squad the next day.

Originally posted by instar
Statistics do not explain WHY the death penalty increases murder crime, only that ,apparently it does.

Yes. Apparently. But it seems you'd accept such a consequence (i.e. sacrificing an even larger number of innocent victims) to satisfy blood thirst and a need for violent retaliation. Amazing. I don't know, maybe you simply live in the wrong century...

Nothing but rehashed statistic above. How will you deter crime?

Rehashed, absolutely. But still no less of a reality as to the effects of capital punishment. Looking at punishments available to the justice system; it is obvious that capital punishment fails miserably as a deterrent - even resulting in a larger number of homicides in societies where it's practiced as compared to life imprisonment which is also why this is a clear example of where the lesser severe punishment should be used. Personally, I also think a lot more can be done preemptively, through working with troubled youths and their environment so as to reduce crime and violent behavior before it becomes an actual threat to society and/or themselves.

Very compassionate woman, ONE very compassionate woman, not a majority!

As to whether a majority supports capital punishment, well maybe you should educate yourself as to the attitudes towards capital punishment in the free countries/democracies of the world and which ones are still actually practicing this barbaric and very much dated form of punishment. (1)

Even in the US (which if you look at the OECD countries is the only country together with Japan still practicing this manner of punishment), there is a shift in the majority opinion. According to the most recent poll presented by Gallup, when posed with life imprisonment without parole as an alternative to capital punishment as the penalty for murder, the current margin is 50% to 46% in favor of the death penalty over life imprisonment, whereas last years (2003) numbers were 53% vs 43%.

And what exactly is it you're suggesting here? Are we to completely dismiss the fact that capital punishment fails as a practice - causing an even larger number of victims - to satisfy bloodlust? Bring on the dark ages!

Do you think the relatives of a criminal serving life should have to pay for them then? Why should the taxpayer foot the bill?

Again. Read my posts and educate yourself on this issue before blurting out such nonsense. Capital punishment isn't nor has it ever been a less costly alternative to life imprisonment - very much the contrary.

Furthermore I absolutely do agree that convicted criminals should pay their own dues to society as much as possible. However obvious violations of basic human rights should never be accepted as punishment in a civilized society.

No, giving back something tangible would be providing resource for research, indirectly benifitting society, or barring that, death and donating organs to give life to others in return for the life they stole. Dont twist things to suit yourself.

Again, I can hardly take this 'suggestion' of yours seriously as it would essentially mean a reintroduction of yet another barbaric practice of the dark ages which would be offensive to any proponent of human rights and would definitely qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. If you really want to be taken seriously, you'd better sit back and actually consider the consequences of what you're suggesting.

on the contrary, ive already stated i think it should be retained for reasons above. You still are avoiding making even a single suggestion as to how to deter crime or rehabilitate crims, or why society should pay to keep these scum alive.

Again. Educate yourself as to the issues of cost and deterrence.

Your deliberate circular reasoning is p*ssing me off now. If you can do no more than spout statistics as an argument then why bother.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. But I guess it's gotta suck trying argue such an irrational viewpoint as the one you claim to support. Aside from the seriously negative moral aspects of retaining such a heinous penalty, if you think it's acceptable to completely ignore such damning statistics as the ones I've presented. Well, then again I think you should take a deep breath and think about this instead of writing posts while your mind is clouded by anger and frustration.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) web.amnesty.org...


[edit on 15-12-2004 by Durden]

LMAO I think its your mind thats clouded, with anti death penalty zeal!
You have consistantly and deliberatly failed to address my questions directly, instead choosing to quote me out of context and do you best to paint me as delusional and yourself the wise expert. You even go so far as to deliberatly and childishly insult me because you cannot directly answer questions put to you, this just shows your frustration. I have asked you numerous times the same question and you are still refusing to answer directly . you prefer to simply rehash the same statements you have already made while avoiding any input of your own outside what you have already said.
You dont like the death penalty
you prefer incarceration
you agree incarceration does not deter
you state the reason for incarceration as deterance and protection of society at its own expense
you consider anything outside of incarceration as cruel and unusual
you dont consider incarceration itself cruel and unusual, even on death row
you agree the death penalty is too expensive because of the fact it takes so long under your system
you beleive in rehabilitation for scum

BUT
you refuse to suggest any alternative to the current system which you acknowledge as failing.

you refuse to suggest any idea of your own regards what "will" deter crime

you refuse to elaborate on any idea you may have about how to rehabilitate said scum

you claim moral objection to the death penalty yet offer no suggestion of how society might prevent these scum from existing in the first place

you offer no opinion of why these scum commit crime nor insight into their mentality, which you must understand since you beleive they can be rehabilitated, that might lead to a way to rehabilitate them.

You selectivly choose to ignore certain text within replys for which you seem unable to formulate response.

As I stated several post back, you simply shout "nay" from the window of your ivory tower, and when when asked to give ideas you cite again and again the same statistics, nothing new, no constructive input to the issue, yet you attemp to paint an image of your dissenters as uninformed idiots, and of their suggestions as "nonsense".

You and I can go no further with this issue under these circumstances Durden, So I'll leave it at that while we remain relativly civil. cheers

Originally posted by instar
LMAO I think its your mind thats clouded, with anti death penalty zeal!

Is that so? Well then by all means, offer a valid argument as to why you think so.

You have consistantly and deliberatly failed to address my questions directly, instead choosing to quote me out of context and do you best to paint me as delusional and yourself the wise expert.

Please present me with what you're referring to here.

You even go so far as to deliberatly and childishly insult me because you cannot directly answer questions put to you, this just shows your frustration.

Really? Please provide an explanation of this claim.

I have asked you numerous times the same question and you are still refusing to answer directly.

What's the question again? How to improve the system? Well I've repeatedly told you that I don't claim to have all the answers, so why should I blurt out uninformed suggestions? I have also thouroghly argued as to why when posed whith the choises of capital punishment and life imprisonment as a manner of punishment the former simply doesn't make any sense and the arguments used by the pro death penalty crowd are quite often based on pure ignorance of this issue.

Furthermore - and now I'm seriously starting to doubt that you're actually reading my posts - I've stated the following:

Originally posted by Durden
Personally, I also think a lot more can be done preemptively, through working with troubled youths and their environment so as to reduce crime and violent behavior before it becomes an actual threat to society and/or themselves.

Originally posted by instar
you prefer to simply rehash the same statements you have already made while avoiding any input of your own outside what you have already said.

What exactly is it you feel I'm avoiding?

You dont like the death penalty

True. I don't. And if you've actually read my posts you should realize the reasons for this position.

you prefer incarceration

Correct. Considering the facts on this issue, incarceration is definitely to be preferred over capital punishment.

you agree incarceration does not deter

That is false. I've never said to agree that incarceration doesn't at all deter. What I have agreed on is that despite such punishments we still have problems with crimes. So admittedly, it doesn't deter in all cases. It is however clearly more effective than capital punishment. And without the obvious risk of executing innocents.

The ultimate goal of criminal justice is clearly to make sure crime rate is kept as low as possible. Evidence show that the effects of capital punishment provides the opposite when compared to life imprisonment. When this fact is considered then by any rational logic, capital punishment simply can't in any way be justified.

you state the reason for incarceration as deterance and protection of society at its own expense

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Please elaborate.

you consider anything outside of incarceration as cruel and unusual

Did I say so? I think not.

you dont consider incarceration itself cruel and unusual, even on death row

If you don't realize how ridiculous and quite frankly false this claim is then all I have to say is: calm down and carefully read my posts.

you agree the death penalty is too expensive because of the fact it takes so long under your system

Under my system? Are you being serious now? Please educate yourself as to why the system is shaped the way it is...k? You can read about it briefly in my posts.

you beleive in rehabilitation for scum

Yes. And in cases where these dangerous individuals doesn't respond to the treatment available to date, we should no doubt keep them confined and off the streets. We should however absolutely not attempt to solve such problems by legalized murder.

you refuse to suggest any alternative to the current system which you acknowledge as failing.

Again. Carefully read my posts.

you refuse to suggest any idea of your own regards what "will" deter crime

See above.

you refuse to elaborate on any idea you may have about how to rehabilitate said scum

Again. Why would I make uninformed suggestions as to the actual manner of preferred treatment of said individuals? Treatment of dangerous individuals is not my area of expertice, so what is the point of me making such suggestions? That just doesn't make any sense.

you claim moral objection to the death penalty yet offer no suggestion of how society might prevent these scum from existing in the first place

Yet again. Read my posts.

you offer no opinion of why these scum commit crime nor insight into their mentality, which you must understand since you beleive they can be rehabilitated, that might lead to a way to rehabilitate them.

This is really getting tedious. Why do you feel the need to resort to complete nonsense? Nowhere have I stated to have the knowledge that all individuals can be treated based on what can be done to date, actually I've stated the contrary. And yet again, I've also said that in cases where said individuals doesn't respond to treatment, we should definitely keep them confined and off the streets.

You selectivly choose to ignore certain text within replys for which you seem unable to formulate response.

Elaborate, please.

As I stated several post back, you simply shout "nay" from the window of your ivory tower, and when when asked to give ideas you cite again and again the same statistics, nothing new, no constructive input to the issue, yet you attemp to paint an image of your dissenters as uninformed idiots, and of their suggestions as "nonsense".

Again, read my replies. Also, like I've previously stated, the topic of this thread is whether capital punishment should be considered cruel and unusual. My opinion is that it is. If you're interested in my reasoning, simply read my posts in this thread. It's right there.

If there is anything in particular about my argument that you feel you disagree with, then by all means state why you feel this way and provide an argument explaining your reasoning.

You and I can go no further with this issue under these circumstances Durden, So I'll leave it at that while we remain relativly civil. cheers

Under what circumstances? What exactly is the problem here? Please dispute my arguments if you feel they lack logic or sound reasoning. Also, I have no reason to feel this discussion should have to be anything less than civil. This is a discussion on opinions; nothing else. I have no quarrel with you - I merely disagree with you on this issue.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Durden]

Howdy folks...

JMO...

I am a proponet of the death penalty, only if they can be 100% proven guilty, beyond a shadow of doubt...

However...I do realise that there are some cases where an inocent has been put to death for the crime of another, but...I do think we have come a long way from what it was in the old west, where if you were convicted, you were either hung the next day, or the day after ( depending on if they had the gallows built yet ), with no reprive...

What I would like to see in our Justice System, is maybe a mandatory polygraph test set up over a period of time, to set up a base line of the persons psycology profile. Then pop the question on if they did it...

Also maybe incorperate the MRI testing I've been reading about...

I was in the military and the doctrine was we are above the enemey ie take care of wounded combatents don't torture ( yes I realize it has not always been practiced) but I believe that we should not kill, yes the bad guy killed someone but we are above him. yes he should not be able to do it again ie (prison) but we must maintain the moral high ground. I don't think the death penalty is a deterant although I have not researched it. If i'm wrong about the following statement please let me know and i will realuate my opionion
sorry i'm a bad speller