Should The U.S. Abolish the Death Penalty ?

There is going to be an HBO special on the West Memphis Three and I truly believe they are innocent. I still think it's too bad they had to plead guilty to the crime. I don't understand why yet, but I think this case is a good reason to not have the death penalty.

www.npr.org...

Originally posted by circuitsports
no they should ramp it up

if you murder someone there is no way to "repay society"

And if you want to call it "cruel and unusual"

try being a member of the murdered persons family after that

This post tends to sum up one of the most profound problems in the United States. Whether the death penalty is accepted and in place or not, this notion that it, or any other form of conviction and sentence, the ultimate sentence should always be about remedy, and a remedy paid to the aggrieved party. "Society" can never, at any point, be an aggrieved party. Society cannot function as an accuser, and since the accused have the fundamental right to face their accusers in a court of law, society cannot testify as that accuser, certainly not under oath and penalty of perjury. Society is not who government serves. Government serves We the People, and does this best on an individual basis. Individuals can seek remedy, not society.

It is the family members of a murdered person who are the aggrieved, and if they can find remedy through civil suit - as Ron Goldman attempted to do with O.J. Simpson, then this is their right to do so. If they can be satisfied with imprisonment for a certain period of time as remedy, then fine, but to demand the entire state take on the crime of revenge killing on their behalf, and call this remedy is beyond the pale. One of the many reasons we have government is to establish justice and temper the revenge killings and blood feuds that would be common place without a system of justice in place. If that justice system is in place to keep family members from seeking revenge in the form of murder, it makes no sense at all to turn that justice system into state sanctioned murder.

It is barbaric and outdated. Murdering people makes you no better than them.............

reply to post by LrBc1275

Death penalty is FINE just the way it is! Instead of people boo-hooing over an "innocent" person getting executed, how about this: when INNOCENT people stop getting murdered by sociopathic scum, then maybe there will be be no dirtbags to execute anyway! When men, women and children keep getting slain by these bottomfeeders, I have no problem hearing about someone riding the lightning. And if we get the "wrong guy" every now and then, then so be it (IMO).

This statement makes no sense....how could you say someone who murders an INNOCENT person deserves death and is sociopathic bottom feeding scum and then, in the same breath, say when the system murders an INNOCENT person "so be it"??.......a tad bid hypocritical(IMO)........I doubt youd feel this way if you were the wrongly accused

Originally posted by LrBc1275
Death penalty is FINE just the way it is! Instead of people boo-hooing over an "innocent" person getting executed, how about this: when INNOCENT people stop getting murdered by sociopathic scum, then maybe there will be be no dirtbags to execute anyway!
When men, women and children keep getting slain by these bottomfeeders, I have no problem hearing about someone riding the lightning. And if we get the "wrong guy" every now and then, then so be it (IMO).
One example, a Connecticut man raped, beat, murdered, and chooped up a 15 year old girl and waived extradition back to CT (Which has the death penalty) because he was caught in Rhode Island (which has no death penalty). So now this scumbag gets to serve the rest of his life in jail rather than getting fried like he should. And contrary to belief of let him rot in his cell forever....he loves the company he keeps. the meals, the recreation and the "soda" during his visits. If RI had the death penalty, I would be the one jamming the needle into this animals arm!!!!

You're completely missing the very crux of the debate and speaking from an emotional response.

Numerous people have been executed on nothing but their appearance, their location, their mental state... Damian Echols was sentenced to death with no DNA evidence, no witnesses, no motive. His dress sense, taste in music and book collection was used as evidence!

Would you SERIOUSLY say that he should have been murdered by the state, even though he is clearly innocent?

Just because there are genuinely dangerous psychopaths out there you cannot suggest that the collateral damage of innocent people being put to death is acceptable. Why is it okay that the occasional innocent person might be executed? What makes their innocence less important than the innocence of a genuine victim for whom you have sympathy?

Personally, I think it should be abolished for a number of reasons.

1. of course, noone has a right to take away a life, noone has a right to play God, to do unto them what murderers done to others would make them no different than the murderers themselves. No matter which way you put it taking a life is murder.
2. By granting that person death, you will be granting that person an easy way out instead of having him incarcerated. Believe me, I would prefer death over prison any day. From what my father tells me (he is a prison guard and a retired U.S army) prison = hell. He has even heard prisoners asking for death.

3. Everyone is a victim to the system, had you been born in that persons shoes you would have probably done the same acts as him had you experienced the same things the person that committed the crime did. The only things that separates us as individuals is education and experience. This whole thing about murderers being born that way is nothing more than an illusion told to us so we would judge others and not ourselves.


I could go on and on, but those are the primary reasons.

Put me in the No column. Ther have been two guys sitting here on death row since the late 80"s.
Caught on camera in a bank and randomly killed the tellers. Look up Martin and Apple. They should have been executed years ago.
I do agree with iffy cases should be scrutinize, but never abolished, enforced even more! There needs to be a deterrent to all wrong actions. My daughter acts up, she gets a verbal reprimand.. second comes a crack on the arse, or At the least a handful of her neck hair, accompanied with an apology.

I say keep the death penalty, but only for the most hardened criminals. People that hurt children are an absolute shoe in, so are serial killers, mass murderers, and terrorists (domestic and foreign)..that means you Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell..etc

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG

Originally posted by roughycannon

Again not answering my question i'll put it in capitols for you...

WHAT ABOUT THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING EXECUTED?

Oh...sorry...they don't take up any of my tax money either.

So all those US soldiers, and the administrations who sent them to killing innocent persons overseas should get the death penalty too right?

"An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind".
-Ghandi

Think about it. You're ending someone's existence.. simply as retribution? Killing another human is wrong, no way around it.. it just boggles my mind.. to think any crime can be justification to remove a man or woman from existence.. kaput.. like that.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


It's part of the English language that I speak as an english person. I say amongst aswell is it making your blood boil. Anyway don't dodge the issue.

every country should but only for those who murder others and for rapist, or atleast rapist should have what they had done to their victims done to them "the offender", the victims have to live with the horror,humiliation and pain of it for the rest of their lives, and then theirs the victims who have "rape babies" imagin living your life looking at your child and thinking "i never planned ou,you where concieved in a way no woman would ever want", in Australia there was a mother of three who was raped, i feel sorry for her, but also i am a rape victim, and someone close to me was sexualy assulted, i want blood for the one who sexualy assulted her, so i think death penalty for those sort of offences and anything else occasioning death intetionally.

Originally posted by yourignoranceisbliss
You're sitting in the chair.

They're dabbing a briny sponge over your head.

Any last words?

You scream "I didn't do it! For God's Sake I'M INNOCENT!"

I come from a faith that's end-game scenario is already decided. You often submit, even to death. If I can submit, for something so small as what I merely believe in, so can a killer, for what they do.

Originally posted by Se7enex
Bottom line is, killing someone who kills another makes the killer just as bad.

The problem is that THE DEFINITION of murder is unsanctioned or hidden killing. By the definition of Murder, the government has the RIGHT to define what is a lawful kill and what is not. Right or wrong, government sanctioned killing of any killer is NOT murder, no matter how bad and upset it makes any of us feel.

Sucks, doesn't it?

Originally posted by yourignoranceisbliss
I personally do not understand why the insane are given immunity from execution. Would not common sense deem them a perfect fit for execution? They (the insane) are beyond help, whereas we are currently executing intelligent, remorseful, SANE people, who could spend their lives trying to make up for their mistake.

I will personally *facepalm* the day that that Euthanasia, specifically Doctors legally being allowed to ignore their oath, becomes legal, and yet we still let the insanity plea still stand. I don't think the *facepalm* will change anything.

Originally posted by Freeborn Would just like to say that I am enjoying your contributions to what is a refreshingly civil discussion on a very emotive subject.

Belated thanks for this, and I'm enjoying most the comments myself. Where was my head that I skipped this?

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by CynicalDrivel

 

In a secular nation like the USA religious doctrine should have minimal influence at most on law making.

But in a secular nation, where individuals are allowed to vote their beliefs, religious doctrine will never have minimal influence as long as a large group of people are followers of that faith. So, while we may or may not like it, religion will occasionally have to be addressed. no ammount of browbeating will change that.

Obviously individuals should be free to believe what they want, without imposing their beliefs and values on those of a different viewpoint or belief.

As long as the religious are allowed to vote, this "ideal" will never be met. And it's an old concept to try to keep faith out of the voting booth. Protestants tried to do it with Catholics from nearly the beginning of our nation. They failed then. *shrugs*

I have no desire to derail this thread and turn it into a discussion on the validity or accuracy of The Bible or any other religious or holy book.

That was my point.

Originally posted by redoubt
Not because there aren't people so evil that really do deserve that ending... but because our system is as imperfect as those who contrived it and because it takes a high ground that humanity desperately needs to finally evolve beyond where it is at.

People have tried to direct that force before, and still do to this day. i haven't seen it working.

Originally posted by Onboard2
She would have had only 15 minutes to kill her father and step-mother and clean up the bloody mess on herself, while the maid was in the other room. A doctor did examine her dress for blood spots, but found none.

I heard about that from my dad only a couple months ago. I think he was talking about smear campaigns.

Originally posted by eyesdown
reply to post by CynicalDrivel

 

It's part of the English language that I speak as an english person. I say amongst aswell is it making your blood boil. Anyway don't dodge the issue.

You either missed my point or dodged the issue by your resposne to me. All my other posts make my stance pretty clear, and occasionally I've reiterated my point for those who insist on saying the same things over and over. Reread, please, then get more specific if you have a grievance towards me posting something.

Oh, and BIG assumption to assume that archaic words that are mostly used in romance novels is going to do anything for my emotions.

i couldnt agree more elevatedone

to believe in the death penalty is to completly trust/believe the government.

yes the death penalty should be abolished. to believe otherwise is to believe i/we are perfect and inacapable of making a mistake. police/judges/witnesses/attornies(defense and prosecution) are humans they make mistakes, they lie, they steal, they knowingly convict innocent people for political reasons(or money etc), they can tricked. those that are young havent seen an endless parade of police/judges/d.a.s being convicted or fired for all of the above. what about a cop working as a hitman framing innocent people for the crime? you think its never happened? since the system probably catches less than 20% of the drug dealers can you imagine how many cops/judges/d.a.s are getting away it?

how about taking a human life is illegal and should be prosecuted? you know practice what we preach not say one thing and do another.

because a life in prison is a much harsher punishment than being put to sleep. which would you choose?

because i dont want to live in a society that pays people to kill defenseless people posing no threat.

because people who perform enough executions will kill an innocent person. its simple math the systems what 98% perfect????(sarcasm intended im guessing much lower)

because tptbs thruout history have used executions to control/distract the masses. and its incredibly stupid/naive to trust any human much less our government with the power to kill. imagine how hard it would be to predict/guide(nudge if you will) the average fox or msnbc viewer with a good ole hanging? i know that would require control of the media were totaly safe.

because we as inviduals/ a society/ a species have proven time and time again we are not that smart/wise/uncorruptable/honest.

to those who want remove the appeals process you people are insane to trust this government with that much power.

reply to post by brilab45


That depends on what brand of christianity you subscribe to. Most christians do believe in the death penalty because they misinterpret scripture. Personally, I have mixed feelings about it. I do believe, however, that if the death penalty is the sentence, the person should be found guilty beyond ALL DOUBT, not just reasonable doubt. I will reflect on what God did with Cain. He didn't execute him, he banded him from society, hence, prison.

reply to post by mugger

Originally posted by mugger
or At the least a handful of her neck hair

I don't know how you mean it, but that sounds a little brutal guy.

As I have said before.. of course it should be abolished. Anyone that doesn't agree as Perry would say (lolol) is heartless. Too often people that are innocent are executed and anyone that can't wrap there head around why that is enough to abolish the death sentence is an ignorant, over emotional, unthinking waste of a human being. They should spend all of their time trying to get in touch with the human condition.

Wayne Felker, a convicted rapist, is also claimed by some observers to have been an innocent victim of execution. Felker was a suspect in the disappearance of a Georgia (US) woman in 1981 and was under police surveillance for two weeks prior to the woman's body being found. The autopsy was conducted by an unqualified technician, and the results were changed to show the death occurring before the surveillance had begun. After Felker's conviction, his lawyers presented testimony by forensics experts that the body could not have been dead more than three days when found; a stack of evidence was found hidden by the prosecution that hadn't been presented in court, including DNA evidence that might have exonerated Felker or cast doubt on his guilt. There was also a signed confession by another suspect in the paperwork, but despite all this, Felker was executed in 1996. In 2000, his case was reopened in an attempt to make him the first executed person in the US to have DNA testing used to prove his innocence after his execution. [8]

They need to keep in mind also that prosecutors love convictions even when they mess with the evidence and hide it or put forth false evidence. Just like the Casey Anthony case. They put forth false evidence to try and convict that woman and most people are blissfully unaware screaming for her death and parroting what that sh*tstack of a person Nancy Grace presents.

Originally posted by aero56
That depends on what brand of christianity you subscribe to. Most christians do believe in the death penalty because they misinterpret scripture.

I spend as much time as is practical grounding myself in what the scripture actually says. I'm known for deliberately avoiding misinterpretation, and I still come to the conclusion that there is a time to kill. What reluctance I have towards a Death Penalty has to do with the inefficient way our government works, not because the Bible says so. Yet I can honestly agree with your conclusion. A lot of Christians come up with erroneous conclusions from a lack of study or severely taking things out of context.

I will reflect on what God did with Cain. He didn't execute him, he banded him from society, hence, prison.

Yet Ananias and Sapphira died for lying--dropped dead, cold, without a chance to plead for their lives. Plus, Cain probably committed manslaughter; the Bible doesn't differentiate between Premeditated Murder and Manslaughter like we do.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
They need to keep in mind also that prosecutors love convictions even when they mess with the evidence and hide it or put forth false evidence.

As long as prosecutors benefit from convictions, which they do, we have room for errors we don't want in the system. It's kind of a "don't waste taxpayer money on taking innocent people to court!" type thing.