Death Penalty Poll

[Burrito]

Frankly, I am for the death penalty.
1. You say that is inhumane. I know that this is an opinion, but death would be much preferable to life in a cell. There is also my belief that anyone who has been proved to to have committed a crime serious enough to get them the death penalty, they don't deserve humane treatment.
2.It is entirely possible to kill innocents when there is an established death penalty, but it up to the court systems to prevent that, not the prison system. That's something like removing vaccinations because someone might die, while it should be the doctors determining whether or not a person should get the vaccinations. (I know that is a poor analogy, hopefully you get the idea)
3. This is similar to #2, saying it is possible to give someone the death penalty when they don't deserve it. See argument for #2. It is possible for current execution methods to kill painfully, but that is fairly rare (at least for lethal injection). However, there are cheaper, quicker, painless, better ways to execute a convict i.e. one bullet to the head, decapitation, etc.
4. I have no facts on this, so I will keep my mouth shut.
5. There is no possible way that a properly done execution would be cheaper than paying for food, clothing, medical, etc. for the rest of a convicts life.

[Phatscotty]

Fry Him

[Army of GOD]

I say we just Chinese Water Torture everybody.

[notyou2]

i agree with the death penalty however your statement it is cheeper to kill some. is wrong because of all the appleas people on the death row get it is more expansive.

You may be right, but it the fact is it shouldn't cost that much. People are given a trial which is where the decisions should be made.

There's no reason why the appeal process should cost more than supporting a person for life and there's no reason that the appeal process should ever take more than 2 months. Once again, the trial verdict should be the most important consideration and only if there is cause to believe that there was faulty evidence presented or that the defendant was unfairly discriminated against, should the verdict be overridden.

In most cases, it should take much less than 2 months to come to a conclusion.

yes you are right however. in our country you automatically get an appeals right after you are sentenced to the death penalty. the reason they are in place is because we do not want to kill incant people. however our court systems are created by humans and anything humans have created will not always work.

What if we had chimpanzees create a system. Huh? Huh?

[jonesthecurl]

i agree with the death penalty however your statement it is cheeper to kill some. is wrong because of all the appleas people on the death row get it is more expansive.

You may be right, but it the fact is it shouldn't cost that much. People are given a trial which is where the decisions should be made.

There's no reason why the appeal process should cost more than supporting a person for life and there's no reason that the appeal process should ever take more than 2 months. Once again, the trial verdict should be the most important consideration and only if there is cause to believe that there was faulty evidence presented or that the defendant was unfairly discriminated against, should the verdict be overridden.

In most cases, it should take much less than 2 months to come to a conclusion.

yes you are right however. in our country you automatically get an appeals right after you are sentenced to the death penalty. the reason they are in place is because we do not want to kill incant people. however our court systems are created by humans and anything humans have created will not always work.

What if we had chimpanzees create a system. Huh? Huh?

They'd probably permaban murderers.

[targetman377]

i agree with the death penalty however your statement it is cheeper to kill some. is wrong because of all the appleas people on the death row get it is more expansive.

You may be right, but it the fact is it shouldn't cost that much. People are given a trial which is where the decisions should be made.

There's no reason why the appeal process should cost more than supporting a person for life and there's no reason that the appeal process should ever take more than 2 months. Once again, the trial verdict should be the most important consideration and only if there is cause to believe that there was faulty evidence presented or that the defendant was unfairly discriminated against, should the verdict be overridden.

In most cases, it should take much less than 2 months to come to a conclusion.

yes you are right however. in our country you automatically get an appeals right after you are sentenced to the death penalty. the reason they are in place is because we do not want to kill incant people. however our court systems are created by humans and anything humans have created will not always work.

What if we had chimpanzees create a system. Huh? Huh?

They'd probably permaban murderers.

no i think there system would work

[Titanic]

I am against it for pretty much the reasons already stated.

[grandin]

Alright, trying to get your point through in a language your not really comfortable with is hard, but here it goes:

Some crimes are horrific, detestable, mindblowingly evil and and not even remotely understandable. Serial killers, rapists, child molesters, animal torturers and some others. My gut feeling here is: "Kill them bastards!"
I truly feel that many of the lunatics comitting these crimes have surely lost their right to live, and the world would be far better off without them. I do.

There is, however, more to consider than my gut feeling.

One very strong argument against the death penalty is this: Definition.
Who has the right to define what crime constitutes such an evil that an execution is justifiable, and who has the right to alter the definition? Laws are written by people, and are therefore affected by the worldview of those in power to write them or affect those who do.

Let's say the lawmakers decide a serial rapist should be sentenced to death. You might agree, and the rest of society too. The law is in effect for some time (1 year, 50 years, 500, take your pick), and people are ok with it's application - but after a while they want more. They want one-time rapists to be included if the crime is "violent enough" (or some such) - and the law is changed. You might still agree, i might too. Society moves along, killing of more perpetrators, and soon advocates for even stronger punishment gains momentum and the law is changed so that it doesn't have to be very violent (a rape is sort of violent by definition, but i think you get my point) or well proved (rape crimes stirs up alot of emotion and laws against it tend to be in constant debate over what constitutes a well proved rape) to be punishable by death. And moving on, the next logical step may very well be executing minors. "Whats the difference between a 16 year old rapist and a 18 year old? None!", the argument goes. And who are you to say they're wrong? It's a logical step that might very well happen. You possibly agree with it, too.
But when it evolves into executing 10-12 year olds? Do you still agree? It has been done in the past, it can be done again. It's not an illogical development and it can't really be condemned since it's the will of society at large - at least it can't if you support the death penalty.

This does apply to every crime or made up crime you can think of - not only to obvious atrocities like rape. Who has the right to define what act causes someone to lose his/her right to live? Who has the right to redefine?
Did Mao Zedong have that right?
Did George W Bush?
Stalin?
Society?
The Quran? [Let us starve women guilty of lewdness to death!]
The Bible? [Let us stone the unholy who gathers wood on a sunday!]
You?

Another big problem with the death penalty is: Innocence.

There is always - always - a risk that someone isn't guilty of what they're being accused of, however microscopically small. There is also a risk that they are found guilty and punished accordingly even when in fact innocent. It has happened numerous times, it will continue to happen numerous times. There are close to no cases that has not even a shred of doubt about guilt.

Just take a look at this list. De facto cases where people sentenced to death has later been acquitted. Now, do you truly believe that those actually killed of during the history of capital punishment has all been guilty? Even if only considering such crimes that you find death to be a reasonably punishment for? I don't - neither should you.

No system is infallable. Every system does therefore have an obligation to be able to revoke what it has done, to the best of it's ability. Death cannot be revoked, or alleviated.

No system that kills innocent people is just. And every system with capital punishment will. I cannot defend that. Even if the ratio is 99 dead rapists to 1 dead innocent, i cannot. Not only does it say that it's ok for society to kill innocent people, but it does also say that the lives of 99 rapists are more important than the life of 1 innocent citizen - which i most definately do not agree with.

People are given a trial which is where the decisions should be made.

No system is infallable. What you are saying here is that everyone should agree with everything the justice system is doing, simply because it should be infallable.

One of the big problems with the death sentence is that it often follows a period of public outrage over a crime.

This is a very good point. This is exactly what happened during the madness of the witch trials in the 17th century. Someones cow dried up [the crime] and accused a neighbour of witchcraft. Soon another also testified to a cow drying up. O, the outrage! More and more people came forward, and soon the poor woman accused had overwhelming "evidence" against her. A priest or somesuch held interrogations - using torture, of course - and forced confession as well as names of more "witches" out of her [whoever she could remember and/or disliked, of course]. "It's a plauge! There's witches everywhere! O good Lord, help us poor souls! Satan is trying to off us all!". Madness ensued.

[that there has not been, in the modern judicial system: ] “a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit."

This is backwards logic. "It is unfortunately not entirely certain that you are innocent, so you need to be executed as a precautionary measure". This is not how things should work.

[notyou2]

We should tie them to a rock and throw them in deep water. If they live, then they are guilty, so kill them,if they die, then they were innocent and we give them a proper burial. That system seemed to work when it was used. Why not go back to it?

[Titanic]

We should tie them to a rock and throw them in deep water. If they live, then they are guilty, so kill them,if they die, then they were innocent and we give them a proper burial. That system seemed to work when it was used. Why not go back to it?

Lol yer, one of the better ways to see if Satan is helping them.

[mpjh]

The death penalty is too often used to kill innocent people. Since 1973, the Innocence Project has used DNA evidence to prove 135 people on death row are innocent, thus getting them released. See http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty.

Also, many on death row were put there on the basis of eyewitness testimony that we now know is one of the most unreliable forms of evidence. See http://www.slate.com/id/2213579/.

[notyou2]

Excellent post mpjh, and the most convincing argument to remove it in my opinion. Besides, who in the judicial system has the right to decide if another lives or dies? Two wrongs don't make a right. What happened to the Christian values western society is founded upon?

[xelabale]

Excellent post mpjh, and the most convincing argument to remove it in my opinion. Besides, who in the judicial system has the right to decide if another lives or dies? Two wrongs don't make a right. What happened to the Christian values western society is founded upon?

Hold on, I've got em somewhere, I put em down for a bit when I went to Gitmo, but they should be here
/checks pockets/
Bugger, they were right here, I swear, come on where are you.... bloody values.....
Well, do we really need them right now? I'll find em in a sec, honestly.....

[Snorri1234]

5. There is no possible way that a properly done execution would be cheaper than paying for food, clothing, medical, etc. for the rest of a convicts life.

Except that there is. It is the case right now!

[Burrito]

5. There is no possible way that a properly done execution would be cheaper than paying for food, clothing, medical, etc. for the rest of a convicts life.

Except that there is. It is the case right now!

If you thoroughly read my post, you would see that I meant that the current way executions are carried out are not the most efficient way to do things. the key word in that sentence is properly.

*edit for spelling and to say-
It is not the actual execution that is so expensive, but the appeal process.

[spurgistan]

5. There is no possible way that a properly done execution would be cheaper than paying for food, clothing, medical, etc. for the rest of a convicts life.

Except that there is. It is the case right now!

If you thoroughly read my post, you would see that I meant that the current way executions are carried out are not the most efficient way to do things. the key word in that sentence is properly.

*edit for spelling and to say-
It is not the actual execution that is so expensive, but the appeal process.

Until we get rid of habeus corpus (again) expensive and lengthy appeals are going to be the rule for death-penalty cases. Anyways, don't you want to be extra-extra sure before you kill somebody?

[Burrito]

5. There is no possible way that a properly done execution would be cheaper than paying for food, clothing, medical, etc. for the rest of a convicts life.

Except that there is. It is the case right now!

If you thoroughly read my post, you would see that I meant that the current way executions are carried out are not the most efficient way to do things. the key word in that sentence is properly.

*edit for spelling and to say-
It is not the actual execution that is so expensive, but the appeal process.

Until we get rid of Habeas corpus (again) expensive and lengthy appeals are going to be the rule for death-penalty cases. Anyways, don't you want to be extra-extra sure before you kill somebody?

The idea of multiple trials to convict a criminal is ridiculous. There should be only one trial to determine guilt or innocence. the right of Habeas corpus should be to secure another trial when the first is obviously and seriously biased i.e. a black man in the early 20th century South, or if advances in forensic science i.e. DNA matching brings the original evidence into question.

I agree, a few innocent people might die if the death penalty is continued. However, in the face of the massive amount of money that is spent caring for prison inmates for life, is the minuscule chance that someone innocent might die to much of a price to pay?

[Symmetry]

5. There is no possible way that a properly done execution would be cheaper than paying for food, clothing, medical, etc. for the rest of a convicts life.

Except that there is. It is the case right now!

If you thoroughly read my post, you would see that I meant that the current way executions are carried out are not the most efficient way to do things. the key word in that sentence is properly.

*edit for spelling and to say-
It is not the actual execution that is so expensive, but the appeal process.

Until we get rid of Habeas corpus (again) expensive and lengthy appeals are going to be the rule for death-penalty cases. Anyways, don't you want to be extra-extra sure before you kill somebody?

The idea of multiple trials to convict a criminal is ridiculous. There should be only one trial to determine guilt or innocence. the right of Habeas corpus should be to secure another trial when the first is obviously and seriously biased i.e. a black man in the early 20th century South, or if advances in forensic science i.e. DNA matching brings the original evidence into question.

I agree, a few innocent people might die if the death penalty is continued. However, in the face of the massive amount of money that is spent caring for prison inmates for life, is the minuscule chance that someone innocent might die to much of a price to pay?

Yes

[Burrito]

I wonder, if you liberals had your way, if you managed to stop all "unnatural" forms of death i.e. war, crime, punishment, etc., what kind of world would we face? A planet where the population grows explosively, as it has done in recent history? We would end up with a planet in which there is a serious overpopulation of humans because we have overcome many of the natural ways to keep a population in check i,e, the food cycle, competition, etc. it would bring far more misery to far more people, the poor all over the world who would be like the population in Africa, dying from lack of basic care because frankly, there would be far to many people to take care of and not enough resources to go around. the simple fact is that humans as a species need death to continue on living in some modicum of peace and comfort.

[xelabale]

Yes but that doesn't mean we should impose it on people. Noone's saying that dying is wrong, only killing others.

[Burrito]

Yes but that doesn't mean we should impose it on people. Noone's saying that dying is wrong, only killing others.

That's exactly my point ( although it is off topic) Without people killing people, there will be a massive overpopulation of humans. If there is an opportunity to kill some people, especially heinous criminals who in all probability did do something terrible, and that death can serve a purpose ( allowing our precious taxpayer money to go to better use then to babysit someone who made a terrible choice) then so much the better.

[Symmetry]

So, wait, you're arguing that we need the death penalty in order to control population growth? How many people do you believe we need to cull to maintain our standard of living?

[Burrito]

So, wait, you're arguing that we need the death penalty in order to control population growth? How many people do you believe we need to cull to maintain our standard of living?

I'm not saying that is is necessary, only that some good can come from the death of a person who is draining money from the government, as a partial reason for the fact that a couple of innocents might die. This whole overpopulation idea is off topic for this thread anyway.

[jay_a2j]

So, wait, you're arguing that we need the death penalty in order to control population growth? How many people do you believe we need to cull to maintain our standard of living?

Did you know that if all the aborted babies of the 1980's had lived, they would be working now..... social security secure..... their taxes could almost pay for the ginormous bailouts of the last two administrations? (Don't know if this is actually true but it's something to think about)

[Symmetry]

So, wait, you're arguing that we need the death penalty in order to control population growth? How many people do you believe we need to cull to maintain our standard of living?

I'm not saying that is is necessary, only that some good can come from the death of a person who is draining money from the government, as a partial reason for the fact that a couple of innocents might die. This whole overpopulation idea is off topic for this thread anyway.

That it is, feel free to start a new thread on the need to massacre people in order to maintain your current use of food and resources.

Still, I don't believe that people should be executed because it's the cheap option.