The death penalty: are you for or against?

Agreed.

 

I don't support the death penalty. The thing is, you will always kill someone who is innocent eventually. What are you going to do in 20 years when you find out that this mean and nasty criminal who you thought had killed X number of people is actually innocent and had never harmed a flea?

Say sorry??? That doesn't really cut it, and it doesn't really bring someone back from the dead either.

Australia has abolished the death penalty and rightly so. Recently they found out that one of the last men to be hung was actually innocent. They apologised, but it was too little too late.

The only time I would *ever* support the death penalty was if the police could provide overwhelming evidence that *that* person, and only that person could have commited the crime. This evidence would have to be backed up by a confession from the accused party. A confession that wasn't given under duress. Only when that happened and the crime was absolutely henious, then I would support the death penalty.

Kithera

 

I totally agree with your first point, Kit'. Just one individual who is unjustly or wrongly executed is a price too high to justify the continuance of this judicial practice.

 

But now with DNA evidence linking a culprit to the crime, such accidents should be done away with.

In Texas (Death Penalty Capital), we have instituted a mandatory DNA test for all criminals on death row to prevent that from happening.

 

An interesting point, Maveric. Unfortuately, DNA evidence does not always indicate that a person committed a crime. It only indicates that some of their biological material (E.g.: blood, hair, etc.) was at the scene of a crime; this may indicate that the accused was at the scene of the crime but it is not outside the realm of reason that such material could have been planted.

Also, sociopaths who commit premeditated murders have been known to take precautions that ensure that they don?t leave such biological evidence at the scene of a crime; thus, DNA evidence, in some cases, may be non-existent and unable to buttress a conviction or execution.

 

I'm for the penalty, sure. I'm not very happy about the extreme buildup and long wait however. Timothy McVeigh for example should have been executed minutes after his trial, but instead he was forced to leech off the system in a maximum security prison.

I'm also not very happy about the method used... first of all, why do they feel that a mass murd3rer should die humanely? Secondly, why should it take so long? I don't think they are trying to the victims and prolong their pain... so if you ask me, chop off their head! Sure it's not exactly "humane" but you need to think of what they've done.

 

Why does it seem that most discussions end up being about money? In my experience, it is usually republicans who bring it up.

 

Well, realistically, money is always an issue.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

so if you ask me, chop off their head! Sure it's not exactly "humane" but you need to think of what they've done.

I think cutting off someone's head is a lot more humane than the electric chair. It's over in a split second, and the beheaded doesn't feel any pain(Probably)

 

The whole "DNA is exonerating millions of convicts" idea is way overblown. USA Today (not today) ran a story about how programs across the country which offer prisoners the chance to have a DNA test are failing. Why? Because a very small percentage of convicts want to participate.

Which makes you wonder - why not participate? What is there to lose? Well, if you're actually guilty, a DNA test might prove it beyond doubt, thus harming your chances for parole. Also it could link you to other crimes for which you haven't been caught.

There aren't as many innocents behind bars as some would have you believe.

 

Hey, MASTER_OBI-DAN, thanks for answering my questions, and I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply.

SF: Rehabilitating in what sense? For reintroduction into society, or for another reason?

MOD: Possibly, it is not outside the realm of reason. I am an eternal optimist. I think ?some? individuals can be rehabilitated and become productive members of society, who have much to teach younger generations about the mistakes they made.

On the one hand, we shouldn't execute those who could be rehabilitated. On the other hand, what about the guy who kidnapped and raped four children? He turns into a blubbering mess and says he's sorry, he knows what he did was wrong, and he'll never do it again. He could be lying, or he could be telling the truth.
But when it comes to the death penalty, you're taking a very clear and irrevocable stance against the crime that has been committed. Yes, execute the remorseless serial killers. But save a spot for the guy who's committed a crime so heinous that, no matter how much he wishes when he's in front of the judge that he hadn't done it, it can be answered with no other penalty than death.

Ahh, but that was then. We're in a different world now. Unless you have a reason to believe that the same flagrant biases are still present . . .

Sadly, I believe ?flagrant biases are still present.? Some are hidden. Others can be quickly whipped by savvy governments or lobby groups with agendas to promote within fearful populaces through the use of propaganda, etc.

I'm sure that some biases still exist, but I have faith in people, and I have faith in our system of justice. I believe that technology has advanced to a point that there's not a whole lot more we can do to discover pertinent evidence that isn't already being done. As long as no one is sentenced without due process and as long as their innocence has been ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt, then what more can we do?

 

Why does it seem that most discussions end up being about money? In my experience, it is usually republicans who bring it up.

This is probably because democrats have no problem with taking more money from those who work hard. Why not let those who earned their money keep it, instead of creating federal programs "To rehabilitate" someone for a crime.


Rehabilitation agent: "Lorena Bobbit, are you sorry you whacked off your husband's manhood?"

Lorena: "Sure am!"

Rehab: "OK, your rehabilitated!"

It wasn't quite like that, but she only got 6 months in a rehab center for her crime.

 

This is probably because democrats have no problem with taking more money from those who work hard.

Because, in many cases, being a Democrat is tantamount to being a socialist. Democrats think that the solution to all the US' problems can be solved by the government.

Can't get a job?

The government'll give you cash!

Don't like the smoker next to you?

The government'll get rid of all the nasty smokers!

Think that more white people are getting into college than other races?

The government'll force everyone to love and respect each other!

<pant> Now that that's out of my system.

 

Think that more white people are getting into college than other races?

The government'll force everyone to love and respect each other!

Could you clarify this statement, JediStryker. I'm not sure I follow.

 

Government-forced affirmative action.

 

Ah, thank you.

 

for

 

Do yourself a favor: Don't speak as if all Democrats are the same. You MIGHT end up looking smarter.

ANd if being a Democrat is the same as a socialist, than being a Republican is the same as being a Nazi.

 

Ouch! [face_shocked]

 

Heil.

 

I am actually in favor of the death penalty for crimes of first degree murder or any premeditated murder.

Government uses punishment as a form of protecting society by incarcerating the defendant. One of government's many responsibilities is to protect its citizens and this includes prison inmates. Government uses punishment as a form of deterrent and there are various scopes of consideration in how this deterrence operates.

One such scope is by detention in which the defendant cannot commit the crime against society for the specified amount of time they are in prison. So one purpose of detention is to preclude them from doing the criminal act again on society.

Now the reason I like the death penalty is because it is proven to be an absolute deterrent in the fact the defendant cannot commit the crime again.

Those who are given life in prison sentences have on occasion killed other prison inmates and have murdered prison guards. When this occurs the government has not adequately fulfilled its obligation to protect these lives.

Life in prison sentences then have proven they do not deter the behavior from being perpetrated again on other inmates or prison guards and hence government is not protecting society properly when this happens. Adding on another 100 hundreds to which they will never serve is not likely to deter them since the first 100 hundred years did not preclude them from killing an inmate or a guard.

So if the defendant is dead who can he kill? Well it is apparent his ability to kill again has been greatly abated if he or she is dead. Hence, the death penalty does operate as an absolute deterrent because the individual cannot harm anyone again.

Now of course none of this leads to the conclusion the death penalty should be embraced. There are other methods. Such as chaining the life in prison defendant to the wall but allowing him enough slack to sleep on a mattress, use the bathroom, and eat. They never leave their cell and he his shaved by prison guards and may bathe in shackels chained again to a shower wall.

This, in all likelihood, would work as well as a deterrent as the death penalty.

As for the evidence to prove the death penalty deters others from murdering people. One possible explanation for the lack of evidence could tenably be due to the fact the death penalty is not used with enough consistency.

Since an individual who does murder is not guaranteed to receive the death penalty future potential criminals may calculate this into their decision whether or murder or not. If the imposition of the death penalty was imminent for all of those receiving a murder conviction, then this may deter future potential criminals from murdering. Since criminals likely do not want to die themselves, there is always the risk they will be apprehended and with it the possibility the jury will convict and they themselves will die and this may deter them.

So while there is little to no evidence of the death penalty detering others from committing future acts of murder, while it should be noted no form of punishment will absolutely deter individuals from committing criminal acts in the future, the lack of not rendering the death penalty applicable in all capital murder cases may account for this phenomenon.

 

Do yourself a favor: Don't speak as if all Democrats are the same. You MIGHT end up looking smarter.

ANd if being a Democrat is the same as a socialist, than being a Republican is the same as being a Nazi.


Just saying that I'm not a Democrat makes me look smarter.

Don't get your underwear in a bunch, everything I said is true of the Democratic party's goals. If you're a Democrat and disagree with those particular goals, just say so.

Besides, I think my Democrat=Socialist comparison is pretty well demonstrated; why do you think Republicans are Nazis? Actually, nevermind, I don't want this thread getting to far off-track.

 

AGAINST

Why? you ask...


Because the death penalty is too easy on some of these criminals.

That guy who raped and murdered the 5 year old girl should have a world of hurt coming to him...not the "sleepy time" execution he will probably get.

 

Republicans....democrats.....bleh! Hell we need a new party, D's and R's are all so self absorbed in their own agenda that they don't know what's good for our country.

 

I'm not really sure.

Sometimes I think you need death penalty so that people who practically prey off the society won't get to escape from prison and murder a dozen more people.

Then, again, sometimes innocent people get death penalty for crimes they didn't do, and that's no good.

::SIGHS...::

Aunecah_Skywalker