Your View: Death Penalty

1. phunniemee - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm

My answer is NO–forget rehabilitation. Let them rot in jail for the rest of their miserable lives, and throw away the key. But killing someone, or allowing the government/judicial system to kill someone, even if the person “deserves” it, makes us all killers and solves nothing.

Most importantly, the death penalty is NOT an effective deterrent. The only functional use it has is to give closure for the family of the wronged.

2. Riddle - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm

I think murderers and rapists and others like that deserve the Death Penalty. It is retribution for the crime they purposely committed. However, I would exclude people if there is no defining proof that shows that that person did it.

3. Dan - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm

I have a strange view on this….normally I don’t think it should be used but if I hear a story about, say, a parent killing their child or some other person that makes the story heartbreaking, I think it should be considered. Normally I think that no one has the right to decide whether a man should or should not die by exeuction — no matter how serious or disgusting his crime is. The more someone that is against it (like me) gets into it, the more he realizes that there are certain exceptions that everyone would agree upon. People have a similar view on abortion. But hey, I guess that’s another “Your View:”

4. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm

I say no; As long as human beings administer our justice system, mistakes will be made….I can’t remember who said it but it goes something like this “better to let 10 murderers go free than to condemn an innocent man”….
The arguments I’ve heard for the death penalty always include deterrence, this is bullshit, well covered on Jamie’s last list; same principal as the CCTV cameras…
In Canada I know of two or three people who would be dead now if we had the death penalty, and they didn’t do it….(god forbid I should live in Texas; I wouldn’t sleep at night)
On a personal note I believe that as a society it is our responsibility to tend to our failures, (how many serial killers come about because of child abuse for example), that said I do believe in punishment and our namby-pamby court system sucks the big one,,,,

5. jfrater - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm

phunniemee: don’t forget that killing a person is not the same as murdering - justice allows killing - but not murder - murder is unjust killing. The point of the death penalty is not to rehabilitate - it is to punish justly.

6. shamzahm - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:23 pm

I think that the death penalty is a fair punishment only if it is carried out in a humain way. This is a big topic in the US, some people believe it is cruel to use lethal injection (most common way of execution). There is another way of thinking about it, who are we to decide when some one dies? Why should the goverment repeat the crime which a murdered just commited? Isn’t that just as bad as murder? But then again, why pay for a criminal to stay alive if we can kill them for much less? I am sorry if i conterdict myself but this is a very complex issue.

7. phunniemee - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm

jfrater: The point of contention, then, is IS there such a thing as a “just killing.”

8. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm

jfrater; you just made my point - Justly - there is no guarantee that the punishment will be just, again we are human, we make mistakes.
With the death penalty as I’ve seen it administered, it begins by only executing serial killers with iron-clad evidence, then they add cop-killers, then they add etc, etc, etc,,,,,

9. NestorV - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm

If you support the death penalty,
and only one single innocent person is killed,
and killing an innocent person is murder,
then you become murderers,
So, you also derserve to be killed.
Death penalty paradox.

10. phunniemee - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Speaking to Mom424’s point about such mistakes made, I urge people to watch Errol Morris’ The Thin Blue Line for an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....mentary%29

(It’s also a fantastic film.)

11. Juggz - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm

If you kill you should be killed, whether it be a crime of passion premeditated or not. You do it once then you are likely to do it again. People who are capable of it should not have the right to go on living.

12. toolnut - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I totally agree with Jamie. Why should the taxpayers pay for food and shelter for criminals? Sitting in jail for the rest of their lives doesn’t help any body. They aren’t being rehabilitated they’re networking with other, more dangerous criminals. They’re learning how to do things they may not have had knowledge of before they went to prison. And some of the most deadliest gangs and gang leaders are incarcerated, but have access to the outside through others. Just because they are in jail doesn’t mean they can’t pull off hits on people. Once you have killed someone I think you have lost the right to live yourself. Furthermore, if there is undeniable proof that a murderer/rapist committed a crime, I think they should be put to death faster. Get ‘em outta there.

13. phunniemee - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm

toolnut (et al.): Using the financial/burden on taxpayers argument is unfair and short-sighted. As long as our court system is tied up with non-violent drug offenders and other people who don’t need to be put in jail, we have no business killing people to reduce prison costs.

14. dreamcatcher - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Over 200 people a year who sit on death row are acquitted after evidence is reexamined and proves their innocence. It makes me wonder how man innocent people we’ve condemned.

15. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm

dreamcatcher; tons,,,,

16. jfried620 - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm

To me there isn’t even two sides to this argument; those naysayers must think about how they would feel if someone very close to them was egregiously murdered; would want their death to be in vain? Absolutely not! Why should someone who values life as little as a murderer be allowed to live himself? If life is so unimportant that it can be taken away so brutally and abruptly, then why not return the favor? In jail murderers receive 3 full meals per day as well as shelter and a place to sleep; they may be in jail, get some enemies, fight some battles, but most likely they will be alive, snickering inside about how they took a life away and still get to live theirs.

phunniemee: I agree with you; and in fact, the financial burden to kill someone is much more than it is to keep them locked up for life. That being said, I believe this is the ONLY argument that people against it can use that has merit.

17. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm

jfrater; I agree there are just killings. They happen all the time, the sniper in the school, shot dead to prevent other deaths, the armed bank robber etc. Now if they hadn’t had to kill him and he was caught instead, I would argue against execution for the reasons I’ve already stated….

18. Russ - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm

I have no problem with death as a punishment but I think capitol punishment shouldn’t be used for the following reasons. 1. Money! Millions are spent in the required appeals, and this means the offender ends up costing the rest of us more than just locking him up for life. 2. I think death is the easy way out for the offender, I think making them live the rest of their life in a cell without parole ends up being ‘more punishment’. Lock yourself in the bathroom for a week and see how much you like it then try to imagine it for month or 12 or life. 3. DNA is proving we still don’t know how to reliably determine who is guilty or not all the time so not using the death penalty at least allows a partial correction for the person wrongly convicted.

19. vesselman - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm

My views on this issue were drastically changed about 10 years ago when my mother was raped and stabbed to death. They caught the guy through DNA evidence (it wasn’t the first time had had done something like this). The crime occurred in a state without the death penalty, so as far as I know, this guy is still alive. Prior to this event, I was anti death penalty and used many of the same facile, naive arguments made by other posters. Now, I feel like any piece of shit who victimizes a weaker, innocent person should die a slow painful death. Don’t underestimate the importance of closure.

20. phunniemee - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 pm

jfried620: That’s the reason we have a court system and a judicial branch of the government. One person, or even one family, ESPECIALLY when they are in an unstable emotional state from the egregious loss of a loved one, should not be relied upon to make decisions regarding the life (or death) of any other person. We (as a country, as a group of responsible citizens) relinquish that decision to the hands of (what we hope to be) competent court officials, knowing that we (in an emotional state) cannot make such decisions without bias.

If we ignored that and let the families who have had havoc wreaked on them make all those tough decisions, we’d have a system of vigilante justice, which would be bad for society as a whole.

21. Sephiral - February 23rd, 2008 at 12:59 pm

The argument that once you kill someone, you lose your right to live is a very simplistic one. What then of other state sponsored killers in military areas? Or in self defence? Or while under the influence of drink or drugs, perhaps even ones you have not taken voluntarily? Even limiting it to those murders one ‘in cold blood’ is problematic. Surely someone who kills in completely cold blood should be in a mental institution in the first place?

The reducing costs argument is utterly irrelevant. Either permitting a state(I mean nation, I’m Irish not American) to kill it’s prisoners is morally justifiable and permittable or not. The financial burden of keeping a prisoner is not a justification morally, even if it does have practical benefit to the state in terms of additional funds being available.

There is also the possibility of people being wrongfully convicted of a crime, what moral status does this hold? Surely if someone claimed to have shot a completely innocent person in good faith then they would be tried for manslaughter? This alone is a reason almost powerful enough to condemn the death penalty.

Whether or not a killing is painless or humane seems a bit of a side issue to me. There seems of a paradox between saying ‘we will end this person’s existence’ and saying ‘but we will not hurt you in doing it’. There is little worse than death, pretending otherwise actively undermines the value that should be placed in life.

There are innumerable arguments on both sides of the debate and ultimately it will boil down to whether someone is comfortable with living in a nation which permits the killing of unarmed prisoners. Given that I live in a safe, well off country I would say no. If I lived in a different less stable country my feelings may change.

The whole issue raises further issues on the nature of personal identity, accountability, whether a state takes precedent over certain individual rights in certain situations and many others.

Also, just as a little aside, it is strange how many Americans oppose state and federal interventions in economic areas but are perfectly willing to have their state murder (yes, execution is murder, pretending otherwise is just not having the stomach to admit that you are seeking to justify murder, and yes I can think of situations where I would justify it easily) prisoners.

Basically it would need to be proven to me how you can justify a state killing an unarmed prisoner in cold blood while simultaneously condemning it in wider society.

22. jfrater - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm

vesselman: thank you for sharing that with us - it sums things up perfectly I think.

23. vesselman - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Thanks jfrater. This is not an abstract issue for many of us.

24. Sephiral - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Vesselman, I am horrified to hear what happened to your mother and I feel terrible that I have to disagree with you.

But surely you can see that there is a completely valid question to be raised regarding whether it is alright to kill someone in any situation where is there is a strong legal framework? How do we square our abhorrence of any killing with permitting our state to kill it’s prisoners.

I respect your honesty in talking about this, I can have no idea what it must be like to have that happen. Please appreciate that I would be disrespecting you not to voice my disagreement.

25. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm

vesselman;leaving the whole death penalty debate aside there is a great documentary that may help you
“Forgiveness: Stories For Our Times” produced by CTV and no it is not a lecture, just stories of hope…..i couldn’t find a link directly to it, just the Canada AM interview and blurb
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti...../20070525/

26. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm

vesselman; I too would want to kill/have killed anyone that killed or harmed my family…that is a personal feeling and you should not feel guilt because of it…that’s why society as a whole administers justice and not the individual…

27. hg8057 - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm

People, for the past 17+ years I’ve worked in a maximum security state prison. I’ve walked among our monsters. They talk about things so vile in a way like you and I would talk about the weather. I would say a majority of the “lifers” would actually prefer the death penalty. Despite all of the talk about the “three hots and a cot”, prison is definitely not a pleasant place. To them, death would be a release. A lifetime in prison is serious punishment.

I started my career as a seriously pro death penalty person. Now, I’ve completely changed my position on the subject. I do believe in justifiable homicide though. Shooting someone who is a immediate danger to society is absolutely justified: the sniper, school gunman, hostage taker…. BUT, state sanctioned executions do NOT fall in that category. The person is in custody and is no longer a threat to society. If the police have someone in custody and beat the hell out of them, wouldn’t that be an outrage? It’s the same thing if the state has someone locked up and executes them.

Lock ‘em up and throw away the key.

28. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Well, as far as I’m concerned, there are just some people that cannot be rehabilitated. They have spent their whole lives living in a certain mindset that causes them to manipulate and hurt others, and this mindset can’t simply be undone. Many of these people are harmful to society; they rape, they murder, they steal…putting them in jail for the rest of their lives is causing more harm to the society, financially. The cost of life imprisonment without the posibility of parole is estimated to be about 3.01 million dollars over the course of 50 years for a single individual. ($34,200/year for 50 years, at a 2% annual cost increase, plus $75,000 for trial & appeals)So even imprisoned, these people are still a drain on society. Now, once it’s realized that these individuals 1) can never be allowed to exist in society because of the danger they pose to others, 2) can never be rehabilitated, and 3) can never contribute anything of value to the society from inside the prison system, I think letting moralistic values of life and death trump the greater moral responsibility to the society is irresponsible.

The cost of executing a individual is estimated to be about 1.9 millions dollars ($60,000/year for 6 years, at
a 2% annual cost increase, plus $1.5 million for trial & appeals). Society will take a hit either way, but for every person given the death penalty instead of life without parole, the taxpayers are saving over 1 million dollars over the course of 50 years, which is money that could be used to fix and improve any number of government programs that people depend on, like the education system, or health care, or could be used to stimulate the economy. It may sound cold blooded, but the needs and rights of the many outweigh the needs and the rights of the few, so long as the few owe a debt to the many. That’s my take on it.

29. goof_ball - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm

If the person was in jail for life, let them go crazy and they die from being crazy. They kill themselves!!!

30. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Oh, my source on the above statistics: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

31. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm

for murderers the victims of those familys want them dead but cant legally kill them. thats where the state comes in, in the name of justice of the tax paying citizens that pay for the courts systems, and the execution itself. rapists and child molesters deserve the same fate, as does treason offenders, and dessertion in certain cases. although rotting in jail would be horrible, the wait for your inevitable death must be the most psychologically traumatic pain you can infict on a person. in jail you have your entire life to not know when your gonna go. deadlines are always scarier.

32. Sephiral - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm

SlickWilly:

Your thinking on the issue is a strange synthesis of Capitalist placing of monetary profit (in this case to the state) as that of the highest value with an extreme left view that what is good for that state is more important than the rights conferred on an individual by that state. Surely the reason we value a state is the benefit it permits individual citizens to enjoy? We can argue that when people violate the laws and customs of that state they throw away their right to these rights but then we allow the possibility that the state can violate the rights of individuals in the right situation. Then it becomes a very gray and messy area trying to determine when and where it is permissible…

Not sure I have given a good exposition to my argument above there but I am sure you get the gist of it at least.

33. hg8057 - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm

SlickWilly: “I think letting moralistic values of life and death trump the greater moral responsibility to the society is irresponsible.”

I imagine the Nazis thought that they had a moral responsibility to society that trumped ‘moralistic’ values of life and death.

When reason trumps morality hell follows.

34. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm

SlickWilly; I don’t believe that rehabilitation works very often either. Dollars don’t count, sorry that there is a cost to maintaining society, jail is just one of many,,,
Moral responsibility to society? Locking them in jail protects society the same way killing em does….again just because I do not believe in the death penalty does not mean that I do not believe in punishment or that I believe the current justice system is good, c’mon 10 years for violent rape/murder?
moralist values of life trump moral responsibility….? moralistic values of life are what prevent me from being one of those guys in jail, and what our society is based on…..that and money….lol

35. Nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm

I think what most people don’t realize is this -
a recent study concluded that it is MORE expensive to put someone to death than it is to keep them in prison for life. The resources spent on lawyers and appeals go way up for prisoners on death row, and many people spend years and years on death row.
In addition, it is also true that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent.
Another recent study found that around 80% of people on death row never finished high school. This was often due to social problems, drugs, and severe learning disabilities. There are many people on death row who have unusually low IQs, but since they did not qualify for the insanity defense and/or are not legally retarded, they are sentenced to death. There are also many repeat offenders on death row who spent time in prison, where they were exposed to dangerous drugs rather than weaned off them. When an 18 year old goes to prison for selling marijuana, there is a good chance he will come out of prison addicted to heroin.
As for the moral issues - I haven’t even really worked out my own feelings about the death penalty. I believe that if someone I loved was murdered, I’d want revenge. I’d want to shoot that person in the face myself… but the government should be about justice, not revenge. And I can’t really see the justice in the death penalty. There is no reason to implement it, logically, BUT revenge.
I am deeply disturbed by the fact that innocent people have died due to the death penalty. As far as I am concerned, until it is a PERFECT science, it should not be allowed.
I am also very troubled by the amount of learning disabled people who were addicted to drugs at the time of their crime. No, drugs are not an excuse, but it would be ridiculous to say that they do not alter your brain chemistry and cause one to do things they would never do in an unaltered state. Sure, as a white kid growing up in a nice neighborhood it was easy for me to avoid hard drugs. Would you really say that the young kids who live in terrible neighborhoods, join gangs to protect themselves, and endure abuse in their homes and on the streets are entirely at fault when they fall to crime and drugs? Not everyone has the brains and drive to make something of themselves out of that situation, and many of them don’t even realize it is a possibility. I know I am sounding totally soft hearted and naive to some of you, but it is more naive to assume that there isn’t a reason that drugs and crime are so much more of a problem in poor neighborhoods.
We read about horrific things that people do to each other all the time, but the court rarely takes a close enough look at those reasons.
Personally, cost doesn’t come into it for me, but I did want to mention that it is often more expensive to sentence someone to death. Is it seriously important to save money when we are talking about killing someone?

36. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm

I hate to disagree with some people on this topic, but the death penalty is *not* considered murder. By the strict definition, murder is an unlawful killing, distinguished by two criteria: 1) the element of “malice aforethought” (an intention to cause death, or to cause serious injury knowing that death will probably result, to which the laws of our country [the U.S.] adds: (a) Intention to cause grievous injury and death resulted; (b) Conduct with a “depraved heart” showing lack of care for human life; (c) Intent to commit any felony whatsoever [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought]), and 2) the lack of lawful justification.

Gov’t sanctioned executions are not considered murder because they fail to meet condition #2. Most people try to spin the death penalty into equating with murder because of the negative connotations that the colloquial meaning of the word implies, rather similar to the way creationists justify question evolution because, in lay terms, it is “just a theory.” The death penalty is not considered murder under any informed circumstances.

37. vesselman - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm

I think that bringing in arguments about the cost of of execution vs. jail are bogus. You are missing the point-this is not an issue that can be debated rationally. People who commit these crimes are predators. They are beyond redemption. Most people who commit these crimes eventually get out of jail. Do you want someone who did this and is “rehabilitated” to live in your neighborhood? Maybe get a job at your kids’ school? Carry the wife’s groceries out to the car?

38. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm

SlickWilly; I know that, I do not consider the death penalty murder or even in most cases undeserved. I just don’t believe that as a civilized society, that execution is the way to go….

39. Nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Slickwilly - I suggest that you find some statistics somewhere other than a pro death penalty site. I am not accusing them of lying to prove their point, but they are certainly ignoring the most recent studies on this. Many prisoners on death row are there longer than lifers live. Perhaps society is becoming more reluctant to put people to death, thus leaving them on death row longer.
My information comes from a state prosecutor in my family. She gets these studies for obvious reasons. As a prosecutor in a death penalty state, she has to keep up on the latest information on the death penalty, or risk misusing it.

40. phunniemee - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm

SlickWilly: The death penalty might not be considered murder by definition, but would you say that even the CHANCE of putting an innocent person to death constitutes something that doesn’t fall under the heading of a “lack of care for human life?”

41. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm

even retards and schizos should be put to death if the punishment fits the crime, if you are unfit for society then you get no sympathy. fuck that. drug addicts deserve the same shit, your are willingly changing your brain chemistry, deal with your actions, and if you are mentally unable too, oh well then they should not be in any part of our society

42. Nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm

rational, are you seriously suggesting we should kill mentally disabled people because they are unfit for society?
Wow.

43. Miss Destiny - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm

I used to believe in the whole “an eye for an eye” thing, but I’ve since changed my views. I don’t think I or anyone else has the authority to determine that someone deserves to die. Murder sucks, for sure, but killing the murderer (assuming you can prove beyond doubt that they are indeed guilty) isn’t going to bring back the victim. It’s harsh but it’s the truth.

Killing people to show people that killing people is wrong? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

44. phunniemee - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm

vesselman: I completely agree. There needs to be legislation put in place to ensure that rapists and murderers NEVER see the light of day again. But this doesn’t mean that they should be killed. They need to spend the rest of their tortured, miserable existence behind bars with no hope of release.

45. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm

rational; retards and schizos? Geez aren’t you a smart fella? We’ll be sure to give your argument the thoughtful consideration it deserves….
whooosh,,,whoosh (sound of toilet flushing)

46. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm

mom424 there has to be reprecussions even in a civilized society, and please tell me you feel the same way when a tragedy happened to your family, if it were up to me id say the family get the gun to pull the trigger on the son of a bitch. were still human, and only animals people, were not above that.

47. Lex - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm

my answer is yes! I don’t know if any of you have been in a prison or even seen any shows. These fuckers are playing pool, watching tv, and eating a full meal while some family is grieving and crying their father, mother, son, daughter, friend. Prisons are overwhelmed with murderers, and because there’s no space we let repeat offenders like rapists go free. Let the killers die and put more of these disgusting human beings in prison. To the person that hurt me, I would be so much more happier if he didn’t go free just living life, while I stay locked in my room and I’m afraid. Put the felons and prison, and execute the murderers - once you rape, torture, and kill a child - you have officially stopped being a human being or even an animal. Let’s get rid of these ‘things’ that hurt so many around us.

48. Ravyn - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm

touchy subject. I say yes to the death penalty but with a different speculation to reasons. Kind of alot for me to go into right now and I am a bit stressed out as it is so I will leave it at that for now.

49. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm

mom424 how are you going to insult my intelligence when you know nothing about me? if you have something constructive to say then say it, insults are the lowest form of argument. and just for a quick example on dateline the other night a retard killed and raped a little girl… hmm lets let him walk because hes not mentally there, your right

50. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm

rational; see post #26, #4, In fact read all the comments before you spout,,,I believe in punishment…

51. Sephiral - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm

SlickWilly:

When debating the moral nature of the Death Penalty, we are also debating whether or not it is legally justifiable. It is logically prior to the legal definition you offered. We are actually debating whether or not it is justifiable in the first place. Offering a legal definition of murder which permits executions is hopelessly circular. Lawful justification exists no doubt, we are debating whether it should exist in the first place.

Also your second point about the rhetorical nature of the terms execution/murder is valid, but unfortunately it is the reverse of your explanation in many ways. It is just as reasonable to point out that pro-death penalty exponents seek to create a rhetorical and logical gap between the two terms to lend credence to their opinions.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever read Unspeak by Steven Poole? It is an excellent book on just these issues of language in public discourse.

52. phunniemee - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm

rational: 12 thousand+ years years of human civilization begs to differ.

53. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm

i dont feel like reading 51 comments im sorry, i rather just start off reading the last 5, or 10…. im not a housewife who can spend all day reading every comment on every forum on this website, pardon me i actually have to work 12 hour days, pay my own rent and all other living expenses

54. Sephiral - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm

rational

‘Retards’ ought to be in care if they are dangerous. They lack the intellectual faculties to acknowledge what they have done is wrong in many cases. Your style of posting and seeming lack of thoughtful arguments are what invite personal insults.

55. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Rational;
because calling people retards and schizo’s is offensive and unnecessary,,,and if you’re willing to execute someone with the mentality of a 6 year old then you know not of what you speak

56. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm

12 thousand years my man will all be crumbled in the next few hundred, so are we really that smart? i mean psychologically speaking we still all have primal urges were not super-beings if we were then there would be no murderers, or any of the other ills plauging our societies in this world

57. Sephiral - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Also, Rational

I read all these comments and it took around half an hour with half my attention on a football match at the same time… umm, really, grow up.

58. Nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Rational - no one is suggesting we let him “walk.” As for insults being the lowest form of argument… Well if you sound like an immature kid, you will be treated like one. Just a life lesson for you.

59. vesselman - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Lex- Agreed! Many violent criminals prefer to be “inside”, it’s easier than trying to make it in the real world. I say again, if you hurt an innocent, you’ve crossed a line and you give up your place in society forever. If a dog bites a child, it is usually destroyed. Why not apply the same logic?

60. phunniemee - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm

To everyone else: There was a really interesting discussion going on here. Can we all just agree to ignore rational, as he most certainly isn’t?

I’m more interested in what people have to say about the argument at hand.

61. billy - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm

I’ve worked in and around law enforcement for over 15 years and 100% agree with hg8057. I believe most “lifers” would rather be put to death, rather than live out their horrid existences for 20,30 or more years.

I used to consider myself pro-death penalty too. Always thought “an eye for an eye” and all that. Then I had kids and experienced ultimate and truly unconditional love. I understand that anyone could take a few wrong turns in life and end up somewhere they never meant to go. And we all are somebody’s children, no matter how bad our lives turn out.

If you’ve ever held your own newborn child and feared for their future, I don’t understand how you could want to see someone put to death. That person, no matter how horrible the crime, is someone’s child. I give compassion as I hope someone would if it was my child that made a horrible mistake/action/choice that landed them in jail on a capital offense.

62. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm

sometimes they are not in care however, society is not perfect, and yes they are thoughtful, i am a realist. I have lived a life where ive had to deal with the real world at a very young age, and shit im still pretty young. ive seen alot and ive been through alot… so i beg to differ on how much thought i put into things, and another thing if my writing styles arent perfect in a frigen forum pardon me, but im not trying to be fuckin Chauncer over a god damned internet forum, my understanding is that it calls for quick conversation and is acceptable to be written in poor writing style, maybe im wrong since i usually just read the news on the internet…

63. phunniemee - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm

The responses here from the two people in law enforcement are both unexpected and reassuring. I’m glad we’ve got the opportunity to hear from all sides.

64. Miss Destiny - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Rational, more like Irrational.

Killing schizophrenics and retards? A little too Hitler-esque for my taste. I’m not saying they shouldn’t receive punishment for their crimes, but I think killing them is a bit unfair.

65. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm

for whoever tells me about life lessons, and growing up and shit please bite your tounges. im not about to go into my life history but bite your damn tounges before you pass judgement on someone you do not know. i could say alot of things about pretentious internet-goers who think they are more intelligent because they talk big game, but talking gets you nowhere. i hope telling me to grow up makes you feel superior because its my real-life experiences that has shaped me into who i am, not projecting my own insecurites on people over the damned internet

66. Sephiral - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Lex- Agreed! Many violent criminals prefer to be “inside”, it’s easier than trying to make it in the real world. I say again, if you hurt an innocent, you’ve crossed a line and you give up your place in society forever. If a dog bites a child, it is usually destroyed. Why not apply the same logic?

Quite simply, because a dog is not equivilant to a human life. The reason why murder and rape are so hateful to us are because we hold that a human being has a special dignity and life all of their own. It is for these same reasons that I am against the death penalty. No matter what someone does, the instant we fail to treat them as human is the instant we stop being the humane beings we eash like to think of ourselves as.

67. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm

miss destiny im not saying killing them for no reason! hell no thats wrong im saying if you do the crime no matter who you are, you do the time. that is it. if my daughter was killed by a mentally challenged person of any caliber i would see to it that they burn in the chair

68. Nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Billy - interesting perspective. I think my feelings on people with psychological issues is probably due to a cousin of mine. He is severely disabled, but physically just as strong as any 26 year old man of a certain size is liable to be. Now imagine the strength of a 26 year old in an angry toddler. He now has a personal “bodyguard” if you will, but instead of protecting him, this man prevents him from injuring others. His parents did not want to put him in care, and they are fortunate because they are able to provide long term, 24 hour personal care.
He is not a bad person, he simply reacts like a toddler would. If someone tries to take something he is playing with, he might throw it at them or take a swing. He is an incredibly sweet man with the short temper of a small child, and he has no concept of his own strength.

69. Sephiral - February 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Rational

I meant an intellectual and moral growing up. You are spouting childish opinions in childish posts full of childish grammar and syntax. What else do I know of you than what you have posted here? That is what I was commenting on. Several others have already mentioned this so please stop acting like a perpetual child when it is pointed out that you are talking nonsense.

70. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm

i do not feel i am talking nonsense, it is all a matter of opinion. when everyone is right, where can you find the truth? you cant and stop telling me about my syntax and this and that, i am not writing a research paper i am merely typing my thoughts quickly and not proof reading, so again stop occupying on my syntax because you cannot give a compelling counter-argument

71. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm

and also i do not care if others think i am talking nonsense, i have never cared about what other people think of me my life, if i did then i would not be the person i am. and second i care even less then what anonymous people think of me over the world wide web. im sorry i do not become influenced by social hierarchies as easily as say you do

72. Sephiral - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Rational

You have not offered any argument yet that is worthy of rebuttal. But check above in the post that you RESPONDED to and see that I already did it anyway. And I was merely telling you why I told you to grow up because you took it personally.

73. Rodders - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm

I disagree with capital punishment, mainly because it is too simplistic to group all criminals in one bunch and say that they are not human. Without justifying serious criminal behaviour, the point that personal circumstances have a huge effect on a person’s liklihood to offend is a very valid one. The majority of us are born and raised into situations where it is relatively easy to avoid falling into a life of gang and crime culture, but the same cannot be said for others. The law is meanth to be just, and justice must look at each case for its own merits rather than make sweeping judgements.

As for the argument that prison is a cushy place, it is simply not accurate. My father is a prison warder here in England, and if anything, conditions for prisoners are becoming harsher due to public opinion turning against rehabilitation. Much of the media coverage over here is sensationalist, mainly asking for criminals heads and calling out for draconian sentences, and I believe that this sort of coverage is far too one-sided and false.

I do believe in punishment, but what purpose does it serve if the person being punished is not also being shaped to re-enter society. By focusing on the problems within society, we can work to eliminate the need for the death penalty. Obviously, there will never be a crime-free state, but statistics show that Norway (a country with no death penalty and relatively low sentencing guidlines) has over 200X less murders per capita than the United States.

There is the option of going back to the dark ages and re-introducing capital punishment for all manner of crimes, and yes, this would make people fear the law. But, as a civilised society, I would hope that we could recognise that as it stands, the death penalty accomplishes nothing, and that other options must at least be considered.

74. Nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Seph - he isn’t going to go away if you keep replying to him
Vesselmen - I think that the idea that some people prefer to be inside is just more evidence of them being psychologically different than the rest of us. Who on this board would choose prison over freedom because it is easier?
My aunt, the prosecutor, also complains about people who commit crimes simply because they prefer prison. That said, those people are usually committing small crimes. No one murders someone because they don’t feel like dealing with real life. These guys hold up a store, or sell some drugs to get back in.
And the view that prison is some paradise where prisoners get to enjoy life without responsibility? Not so. Prison is rife with drugs and violence, people are murdered in prison often. People who go into prison for petty crimes can come out more psychologically scarred than when they went in.
It really does depend on the prison, but most of the time prisoners who are fit are required to have jobs in prison. Maybe our guards could give us more insight on day to day life?

75. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Sephiral: Upon what grounds then, do you intend to prove that the death penalty is unjust? Perhaps you seek to change the legal definition? Because “murder” is a legal term as much as it a colloquial one, and if you are looking at the issue via reform in the justice system, then you must believe that the legal justification for the death penalty is wrong. The death penalty is capital punishment; that is, it is delivered by the government for a debt owed to society. The issue is a legal one entirely, so if you don’t intend to follow the legal definition of murder when you describe capital punishment thusly, what then do you use as the definition of murder? The colloquial one? Because I’ve already stated how silly that game of semantics is. *Some* definition has to be used. Which one do you suscribe to?

And precisely how does my argument about the meaning of murder vs. the meaning of execution also offer for the reverse? The definition I gave is consistent with the laws of the state. The state decides what is murder and what is not, according to the laws it set forth for itself. An execution is murder if it is not government sanctioned. It’s a callous definition, yes, and it opens itself up to the corruption of the justice system, but then your issue is not with execution/murder, it’s with the corruption of the definition by oppressive, agenda-driven national leadership.

Mom424: Sorry, but dollars *do* count. The strength of a society on the global scale is determined by how much money the society has and how it chooses to use that money. When the integrity, strength, and security of the society is at stake (society is equal to the entire population of *individuals* in a nation) it does become an issue of moral responsibility. If you choose to live in a society, you are bound by your duty to help preserve that society. It seems a lot of people don’t see it that way, and that is a shame, but the fact of the matter is, when you are forgoing the rights of the society to preserve itself and keep itself strong and safe for the rights of an individual who has repeatedly violated the rules of the society in which he lives, that is morally irresponsible.

76. Scar.. - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Justifying murder with murder makes no sense, so no.

And if someone commits a crime they are likely to feel remorse (unless they’re phsycotic, which a lot of killers are, but that’s not the point.) They’d rather die than live with the guilt. It’s like puting a dog to sleep to end it’s misery. It’s a bigger punishement to let someone sit in a jail cell there whole life.

And I honestly hate to think how anyone could kill another person, even if they killed. They have a family to, that will never see them again.
I’m totally agains’t it.

77. Miss Destiny - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm

You seem to have no understanding of the fact that schizophrenics and mentally retarded people don’t think the same way we do. They often have no understanding of the concept of right or wrong. Their perception of reality isn’t normal, and if they don’t have the mental capacity to make proper judgments they should be killed? That’s sick and twisted.

78. Sephiral - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Nelia - Yeah I realised that now…

Personally, this debate is veering off into other areas just as I thought (maybe I mentioned it in my first post)it would. You can not treat this issue in isolation, it requires discussion of many other facets of society, human life and as many other things as you can shake a (big) stick at.

79. Nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Slickwilly - How then do we deal with innocent people who have been executed? It has happened, and it has been proven. That certainly doesn’t fit neatly into the legal definition. Who is punished for that? The death penalty has been the vehicle of unintentional murder, isn’t that enough reason to eliminate it? I go back to a previous point I made - even if I did believe that cost and revenge should come into it, until our criminal justice system can tell me with 100% certainty that everyone who is executed is guilty, the death penalty should be shelved.

80. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm

hg8057: The issue I had with the Nazi’s was not on there committment to following through on the principles they set out for themselves, but for the principles themselves. I don’t argue the letter of their law, I argue their spirit. Yes, they didn’t consider it murder; that is true. But, based on the nature of Holocaust in retrospect, it is largely considered unjust and unlawful on a global scale, which by our standards makes it murder. I liked how you tried to compare me to Nazis, though. That was cute.

Nelia: I would love to see your statistics, then. I’ll agree mine were outdated, based on information from over 10 years ago. If I see any new studies that say that the cost of the death penalty outweighs the cost of life imprisonment, I would consider changing my reasoning. However, I doubt that most people under life imprisonment die less than 6 years after they are incarcerated, which is the average wait for the person on death row.

phunnieme: I didn’t say that our definition of execution didn’t fail to satisfy the first of the two criteria for murder. I said it failed to satisfy the second. I also think some people are under the impression that I’m all gung-ho, let’s kill people, pro-death penalty. That is not true; I stated before that the individuals who should qualify for the death pentalty are those are an imminent danger to all those around them (and which has been conclusively shown in court), who have no hope of being rehabilitated, and who fail to produce any sort of benefit for the society which they wronged from behind bars. If there is a shred of doubt that a person is guilty, they should not qualify for the death penalty.

81. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm

I definately think the death penalty should be used.

I dont think our taxes should pay to give prisoners comfortble lives in reward for murder and rape. i think the death penalty should expand to cover more crimes. And if the criminals dont know whats right or wrong that shouldn’t save them. they should be killed. its not safe to keep them alive so they can keep thinking there actions are ok and have another chance to accidently kill someone. thats torture.

and the death penalty is alot less cruel and unusual than life inprisonment, with no chance to do anything or be anyone. kill everone for all rape and murder crimes.

i agree with rational.

82. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm

bring back the firing squad and hanging. it will cut down on these types of crimes being commited i think. we have gone soft.

83. Borg - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm

If I had to pick, I would say ‘no’. I simply do not believe that the government has the right to kill people. We enter society and create governments to protect ourselves and our property. Our right to life is not something we negotiate away by choosing to live in society. Society is constructed to preserve our life. Other arguments against capital punishment have been made here that I agree with, but this is one is pretty fundamental and central to my opinion.

84. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:27 pm

borg… the government does not kill people. it is a trial by peers. all 12 jury members must find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and all twelve must agree to the death penalty. the government provides the means, not the decision.

85. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm

a forum is a place for intellectual discussion even if you disagree with what other have to say. it is a place for free discussion on however you feel, and i am merely taking advantage of that, whoever said i am acting hitlereseque it is you who is acting that way for trying to sway how i say things. if you cannot grasp this concept that you are the ones who are too immature to be using a forum and in my opinion lack the responsibiity to be on here. i am not being rude to anyone on here, just voicing how i feel. deal with the first amendment people not everyone has to phrase there opinions to your parameters.

86. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm

actually, we provide the means, by taxes. if you do not want the death penalty, stop paying taxes. simple.

87. nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Slickwilly - My information comes from my aunt, a prosecutor, as I mentioned before. As a prosecutor in a death penalty state(and former staunch believer in the death penalty) she keeps up with all the most recent information on the death penalty. We’ve had many conversations about it, as she is one of the few people I know who has very different politics than I do, but is capable of debating me without turning it into a yelling match. She no longer supports the death penalty because she firmly believes that if it is not saving the state money, or deterring crime, there is no reason for it. The state is not a tool of revenge. To be honest, I don’t trust the internet enough to give you links to things I have found. It is often hard to tell how accurate they really are.
Another thing to think about is that the cost probably varies greatly by state. In the state where my aunt works, death row is most costly that normal prisoners as of 3 months ago, when I last spoke to her about it. (at my toddler cousin’s birthday party of all places, haha).

88. Siobhan - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:32 pm

I do not believe the death penalty should exist.

As it is, the death penalty costs taxpayers large sums of money just as jailing prisoners does. Instead of debating whether it is moral to take the lives of criminals, I would like to ask, is there a way to lessen their burden on society?

I believe prisoners should work to pay for their stay in prison. I do not believe prisons should be turned into a for-profit industry, but prisoners should cover the costs of their own food, utilities and any other costs to keep them alive. Their earnings towards their keep should be nearly equal to the pay that the cheapest outsourced factory workers earn and any extra earnings may go towards privileges, such as books or newspapers. I believe this could be a solution to many problems if it were allowed and put into practice.

89. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Nelia: Please ask your aunt where those statistics can be found. I’m sure accurate numbers exist online somewhere.

90. jfrater - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm

40 years (or more) of housing and feeding costs the same as the drugs used once to execute a person? Can we see some verified numbers for that? Frankly, I do not believe it - I think it is anti-death penalty propaganda.

91. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm

and acquitted doens’t mean innocent. it means the state failed to present a perfect case. i would bet most of them are still guilty, they just had good lawyers.

92. nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Siobhan - I totally agree. Many prisons do require prisoners to work. It should be a universal practice, if it isn’t already. The fact that prisoners cost the country so much money means they are not being asked to work hard enough. I think asking prisoners to work is an excellent way to offset some of the costs. Rather than killing them… Allowing prisoners to actually make money might also be valuable, as it will forcibly get them into better habits, making rehabilitation more likely.

93. jfrater - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:36 pm

nelia: the death penalty is not about revenge - it is about justice - they are two different things. When a person murders another person, the just penalty is death.

94. Sephiral - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm

SlickWilly: I accept your argument about the differences between murder and execution but perhaps I can suggest that if we replace the word killing for murder in both situations it clarifies matters. Killing is a word bare of moral implications. This is precisely what I am trying to suggest that the differing definitions, whether legal or colloquial implicitly smuggle in an argument. What I reject is that the death penalty is actually morally justifiable. I have offered reasons for this throughout this debate.

However, for me it is up to the pro death penalty camp to justify their position. Most people will agree that the default position is that the sanctity of a human life should be defended without good reasons not to.

You are right in saying that dollars matter, but this raises the absurd issue of deciding how much is a life worth? Putting dollars ahead of moral issues such as a human life is a dangerous game when we are talking about particulars. We are not talking about people ding due to lack of funding in hospitals, we are talking of a man found guilty of a crime dying because his state has taken the decision that killing him his acceptable for financial reasons.

95. nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Jfrater - why would you simplify the years a death row prisoner spends on death row, as well as the significant legal costs, down to “the drugs used once to execute a person”?
Not to mention the money currently being used for studies being done on whether or not lethal injection is cruel and unusual. The government is being forced (fairly, I think) to spend money on this due to recent allegations that the prisoners suffer terribly during a lethal injection.
I’m sort of surprised at your comment, which seems to ignore the entire discussion in favor of an inaccurate depiction of the facts.

96. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm

cost of 5.56 ball amunnition (same ammo used by our military) $0.36 per round.

very cheap. easy answer.

sources:
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/d.....t-11-1.htm

97. schiesl - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm

The argument about it not detering crime has always struck me as a weird argument cause it cant be proven. Its like “Does eating healthy help you lose weight”. Yes it does, but sometimes it doesnt work. Nothing will completely prevent anything. Im sure someone out there would have killed someone, but didnt cause they didnt want to get the death penelty. It could have saved your life and you didnt know. Have crime rates gone down because of the death penelty?? who knows because the US has had it instituted (minus the morotorium on it) since the beggining of the country. The world has had it since the beggining of the world. It was much more barbaric then than now. But it deters crime, end of story. And saying that it may condemn an innocent person. You have about 10-20 years before the penelty gets through because you have appeal after appeal after appeal you can go through. The odds that information 15 years later will set you free is VERY slim. The people being let go now is mostly because of DNA evidence that we now have the technology to identify. So in conclusion does it deter crime, YES! does it stop it completely, of course not. Could we kill an innocent man, maybe but very very low chance now days. And if we decide to end it, that same man will probobly end up in prison for life anyway sad to say.I am mostly liberal, but im sorry. i support the death penelty.

98. pete - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm

All I’m going to say is that in an economic point of view, it actually costs more to facilitate the death penalty. On top of that, in many areas where the death penalty is practiced, the crime rate does not reduce to the desired standard. However, a growing number of criminals in prison does not help the society as well. My point of view is that prevention is more important than punishment. I know I’m not directly answering the question, but I think that programs and facilities that assist with the mentoring of youth and adults are key to preventing further crime than simply the death penalty. On top of that, it’s pretty ridiculous how the death penalty is committed on Black Americans more than any other race. Let’s face it, the reality is that if a Black American and a White American were charged with the same crime, the White American would go home that night. If justice is what you are concerned about, think about how many innocent Black Americans died simply due to their race and not actually their crime.

99. Yogi Barrister - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm

No to the death penalty. As another commneter noted, it’s cheaper to give them life and eliminate the expensive appeals process. Oh yeah, there is that thing about the occasional innocent person getting convicted for a capital offense.

100. nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Jfrater - As far as I can see, you are using “justice” the way I would use the word “revenge.” My argument remains the same, if there was another reason to put someone to death other than “they killed someone so we are going to teach them a lesson by killing them,” I might be willing to talk it into account. That, to me, isn’t justice.

101. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm

whoa there pete…are you implying that racism is a factor in punishments?

102. Borg - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Longball: The government kills people. Part of that process includes a trial by jury.

103. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm

and how is it cheaper to retain a criminal fro life than to kill them????

104. rational - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm

longball-love the answer haha…. nelia what is appropriate justice for a murderer then? the sickest indivduals in society? we should just give them a cozy cot to sit back and reminisce on life till they die of natural causes?

105. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Nelia: It isn’t about “teaching them a lesson.” Your view seems to hinge on this. Tell me, how is the death penalty teaching someone a lesson when they won’t be alive afterwards to learn it? It’s not about teaching the criminal what he did was bad, it is about alleviating the burden that person is placing on society by continuing to live a harmful and meaningless existence. You excise a cancerous tumor if you want to improve a person’s health, you don’t confine it. That only prolongs the problem.

106. nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Pete - While I agree that more black people than white are given the death penalty, I think that has more to do with economic status that race. The issues of race in economic status then come in… but that is a different argument. Either way, the death penalty’s statistics concerning race are very upsetting.

107. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm

borg - the jury is twelve random people. Not the government. and how they get punished is actually left up to the state depending on their own laws on which punishments can be used. and we pay for the all the punishments, life and death, with tax dollars.

108. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm

nelia - it isn’t about you did so we are going to do it to you. its about punishment and getting those types of “animals” off our streets and away from our children so someone you hold dear doesn’t become a statistic the next time a ted bundy want go go have fun.

109. nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm

If people want more info, I found this site. I honestly can’t tell if it is pro, against, or neutral, as I just found it and have only been reading parts of the site. But it has a lot of statistics and articles, since a lot of people have been asking for links and stats, I thought you all might find it interesting.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

110. Ben - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm

I say yes to the death penalty. Some people just need killin. Seriously though, I think there are crimes where life in prison doesn’t make up for what the criminal did. I also don’t think that thousands of dollars need to be spent on a murderer or rapist so that they can live to a ripe old age. Sometimes when I hear about a really horrible murder I think that neither the death penalty or life in prison is enough, they criminal should have done to them what they did to their victim, but I know that would make us no better than them.

111. nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Longball - Ted Bundy was likely the result of incest, which is illegal for a reason and may explain why he was so psychologically unsound.
Get them off the streets? yes. Punish them? yes. Use death as a punishment? no.

112. Cedestra - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm

I’m so torn on this. I’m sure most people are. I think YES for now, and hopefully some day NO.
If YES, it would have to be HEAVILY monitored. Humans are social creatures and if they can’t behave in society, they don’t belong here. That being said, if someone HABITUALLY murders or rapes, and there is NO chance for rehabilitation, then why should they be alive? Charles Manson will kill again if he is ever paroled, I’m sure of it. He has no remorse and is so far gone, he couldn’t be released.
Of course our judicial system is shaky anyway. Take Leonard Peltier. I would think that only the Supreme Court should hear death penalty cases and make the final decision.
My hopes, one day, would be for a happy little utopia where we would have found a better way to deal with murderers, or, even better, get rid of it all together. A girl can dream, can’t she?

113. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Pete: I’d have to agree with Nelia on this. Corrolation does not equal causation. Just because (allegedly) more blacks are executed in whites does not mean that the justice system is inherently racist (I’m not discounting the proven existence of racist judges and juries). The statistics show that the people lower on the socio-economic scale tend to commit more violent crimes than those on the higher end of the scale. It’s sad to note that, unfortunately, a majority of the people at the low end of the SE scale are black. Whites on the lower end of the SE scale commit violent felonies about as often as their black counterparts; there are just more blacks at the bottom of the scale than whites.

114. vesselman - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Nelia- As you point out, violent offender are “different” than the rest of us. People who can commit such evil just can’t co-exist with the rest of us. Call it justice, revenge, call it what you will, but, from a pragmatic stand point, we can’t have these people in society. I think it is an irresponsible cop-out to say that we can just warehouse these people and forget about them.

115. Borg - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm

longball: My point is that jury involvement and government responsibility are not mutually exclusive. Your third sentence seems to agree with me, so cool. And our decision to pay our taxes does not coincide with an agreement of the policies carried out by the government. People paying their taxes is not a decision to kill people.

116. Dave - February 23rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm

I am totally opposed to the death penalty across the board. There is no deterrent effect from it, but even if there were, I would still oppose it. A government should not kill its own people. If every murderer on death row were killed tomorrow the U.S. would not suddenly be a more “just” place, nor would we necessarily even be safer. Society shapes people and their environment and sometimes horrible inputs create horrible outputs. Far too often the retributive element - itself a questionable goal - devolves right down into government-sanctioned sadism.

I disagree with the idea that “They should not be placed in to a prison at the expense of the people they have endangered” because I do not think that so many or most murderers necessarily endanger the general public. Most often, murders occur between people who know each other in some way. True, locking someone up for life might safeguard the remaining people who know the murderer (or would someday cross his/her path), but it is also mistaken to think that execution and the necessary processes that proceed it are free, they aren’t. Even with the various protections built into laws to help ensure that only the most clearly guilty are sent to their deaths, there have been numerous examples of persons on death row who have been clearly and absolutely exonerated. The processes that allowed them to prove their innocence (of the particular crime) should not be restricted in the least. Even then, it seems far-fetched to assert that the government has not executed any innocent people. Those who were wrongly executed were themselves victims of a death-and-vengeance culture often tainted with, yes, outright sadism.

I’m happy to pay my share for roads I will never drive on and the imprisonment of murderers who would almost certainly never endanger me personally. I think rehabilitation is a worthwhile goal, but imprisonment for protective and punitive purposes is clearly the highest priority. And I’m generally in favor of life imprisonment for most types of murder (perhaps all, I’m not intimately familiar with the various designations between “manslaughter,” “murder 1″ “murder 2″ etc.). I think prison should be a spartan and very basic place without luxuries. Though it should also NOT be a place that tolerates or allows lawlessness within, either between prisoners or between prisoners and guards. For many of the worst kinds of murders I am solidly in favor of life sentences without the chance of parole.

117. Rodders - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm

longball - I understand that in some cases there are monsters that are dangerous to the general public, but surely by killing them we are not accomplishing anything that we could not accomplish with a lifetime in prison.

118. jfrater - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Dave: you and many others are missing the point - the death penalty is not about deterring crime - it is about justly punishing a person for an evil crime. It is 100% justice - if it did deter that would be a bonus - but it is not relevant.

119. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm

vesselman - i agree completely.

nelia - ted bundy was an example. there are thousands of murderers/rapists/whatever who are not the result of incest or any genetic disorder. they just like to kill/rape/whatever

borg - i still dont think the governemt should be held totally (note: a little bit, yes, but completely, no) responsible when we the people decide who is elected to office by voting and when we pay taxes to cover the costs of our country, cost everyone is responsible for.

120. Rodders - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:06 pm

jfrater, just out of interest, by that philosophy, do you believe that someone guilty of assault or grievious bodily harm should be subjected to the same violence that they dished out to their victim? It seems to be edging dangerously close to sharia law, and I would like to know where you draw the line.

121. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm

rodders - by killing them we are saving $ and keeping prison guard safer, eh?

jfrater - i agree. it is a punishment, not ment to do anything else. eye for an eye and all that. amen.

122. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm

I should make it clear that life without possibility of parole is an acceptable alternative in some situations, and we should not overlook it for the death penalty in every situation. There are just cetain situations that I feel can only be justly balanced by the option of the death penalty. Alot of people oppose the death penalty from this heuristic in them that says “Ohhh…..killing BAD!” While it is distasteful, in situations where there is more of a benefit from disposing of a career miscreant than keeping him around and confined, it should not be discounted on such simplistic, infantile grounds.

123. Dee - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm

In my view the death penalty is deserved for rapists, and murderers, but it should all be looked at individually.

If a wife murders her husband who has beaten her and/or raped her.. teh ciscumstances are understandable.. isn’t that a crime of passion, I’m not really sure sorry.

For people who intentionally kidnap, rape and torture and them kill children for example.. well I’d kill them myself if i could.

Why have them locked up, released in 5-15 years to carry on their lives. Prison is a free bed, free food and in some cases even free education? IS that justice?

124. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm

rodders - by killing them we are setting a standard and boldly stating we will not tolerate it at all.

i dont think that any homeless guy who want a clean room, hot shower, and three meals a day should be able to think, hey, all i have to do is rape someone ( insert kill, child molest, ect.) and i get to be protected, fed, clothed, bathed, and kept alive!!! sweet….

125. RXL - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm

only if the punishment is immediate.when sentenced to death the offender should be dragged out back and shot in the head and a bill for the bullet mailed to his or her family.

126. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm

maybe the death penalty isn’t for every situation. thats why there is a twelve person jury who all have to agree.

127. nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm

I guess what it comes down to, for some of the people posting, is that they believe the “eye for an eye” urge is a reason to be pro death penalty.
I absolutely believe that “eye for an eye” is a natural human response, I would not condemn a parent for murdering someone who murdered their child, but I would prefer that people place more value on making an effort to forgive. I am not religious, but I think Jesus had it right when he encouraged turning the other cheek.
I do not think that an “eye for an eye” mentality belongs in our government. You killed someone, so we will equally punish you by killing you is exactly that. Justice is when a soldier goes to war because Hitler is killing Jews (just an example, all historical questions of how much the average soldier knew, etc aside). Eye for an eye is the USA going into Iraq, and just as the occasional innocent person is executed under the death penalty, we know that Iraq was in no way responsible for 9/11, and the american people were duped because they were angry. Perhaps this is a convoluted example, but I’m just trying to express the danger of a government seeing “eye for an eye” as a way to conduct itself.

128. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm

RXL - yes yes yes. maybe not the bill part but other than that i am totaly on the same page. it should be instant.

and for all the “what about if they are innocent” nay-sayers.
they were proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and 12 random people agreed that they should die using all of todays technology and equipment. case closed.

129. stevenh - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Punishment equals Justice equals Revenge.

I’m not even sure that it is the place of our _government_ to do any of these things.

It is the place of government to protect the citizens. As hg8057 said way back: …the person is in custody and is no longer a threat to society.
The cost of prison is a cost of society. Dirt roads may be cheaper than highways, but not what we want from gov’t.

But to address the views of Jamie and others who want justice and closure: Let the wronged party be the one to pull the switch or drop the knife of the guillotine. Taking a life is traumatic, be it a warrior or an unlucky driver. A wronged person should not farm out revenge to the state.

Personally, I think that I would forgo killing for revenge and hopefully would find another way to deal with the grief and anger.

Thoughts?

130. Rodders - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm

longball - In terms of safety, I agree it is an issue. For example, there was a case in Israel where police caught a suicide bomber before he blew himself up, and faced with the option of taking him into custody of killing him, they chose the second option. In this case, and others like it, I agree death is the only reasonable alternative. However, for criminals already in custody, let’s say vicious child-killers, I still don’t see the point in killing them. Yes, it seems to balance the equation, but in such extreme circumstances surely a life in solitary is worse for them. Also, for most criminals, even relatively serious ones, there is mitigating circumstances and hope. Surely you do not believe that we should write off all those who commit crimes as lost causes?

131. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Deuteronomy 19:21- Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

nelia - the war in iraq isnt just about 9/11 retribution. there are alot of other factors involved, it isn’t eye for eye. it may not be justice either but thats not my call. that an opinion.

what is just? webster says

1. Honorable and fair in one’s dealings and actions: a just ruler.
2. Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
3. Properly due or merited: just deserts.
4. Law Valid within the law; lawful: just claims.
5. Suitable or proper in nature; fitting: a just touch of solemnity.

who can decide any of these. all opinionated i believe( except #4 which laws are chosen by us)

132. nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm

RXL - lol.
longball - i don’t think your average homeless person is going to rape someone because they want a hot meal. they might steal, but unless someone is predisposed to find rape and murder acceptable, they are not going to do it for a bed. You will also find that it is nearly impossible to find a serial killer who had a happy childhood. Sure, more people who have unhappy childhoods do not go out and murder people. This is why I find the idea that someone can be sane by the definition of the legal system, and still go out and do these things ridiculous. Their brain is damaged in some way. Even if they are intellectually aware that what they are doing is wrong, they don’t have the capacity to care enough to resist their urges. This is off topic, as I’m not using it as reasoning against the death penalty, but I find it interesting in general.

133. vesselman - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm

I think that only the victims of a crime have the right to “turn the other cheek”. The survivors of a violent crime can’t usurp that right. Who speaks for the dead? Would you forgive your own murder?

134. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Now, Now Slick; Did I ever say killing was bad? and no-one has satisfactorily answered my concerns about human error, even 12 guys together make mistakes now and then. Also punishment based on vengeance instead of justice is a scary thing, ends up as frontier justice, yep we’ll just lynch em all. I still contend that we as a society are responsible for the monsters we create.

135. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm

rodders - yes. i do think they are all lost causes and i would gladdly pull the trigger.

nelia - then we are all insane. i agree with you but i dont think it should save them, it should just be added in to the package.

136. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm

stevenh: To quantify justice as revenge is oversimplifying the situation. The state acts on behalf of the society which it governs. Whether or not someone believes the person should die for his crimes, it is an objective issue. If the state determines that the person has violated the rules of the society in which they live, and metes out punishment equal in severity to the crime, that is justice. Is it revenge to put a child molester in jail for 15 years? Your semantics says yes, but the truth is, no, it is not revenge, it is justice. If said child molester gets out 15 years later, rapes a few more children and then murders them, and he then gets the death penalty, is that revenge for the crimes committed after the first incarceration or is that justice for all the crimes committed when taken in context of each other?

137. Nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Longball - Suggesting our legal system is infallible is very dangerous. If people, and our government, truly believed that, there would be no appeals process.
I think to a certain extent, the government should be able to protect us from our base impulses. I imagine if someone murdered my sister, I would flip to pro death penalty in a second. That said, I don’t think I would be in a position to look at it objectively anymore. There is a reason vigilante justice is not the way we do things in civilized society. The wronged person can’t be the one making the decisions about the punishment, because they can’t look at it in an objective way.

138. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Mom424: I wasn’t talking to you specifically. But it is scary that a lot of people believe what they do based on these flawed emotions they have and their unreliable intuition rather than objectively examining the situation. There are certain values that society has that people cling to in their effort to understand. Certain people take specific values and ignore other ones because it conforms to their little simplistic view of the world. Instead of objectifying their inherently subjective values, it would do some people good to realize that the situation is far more complex and encompassing than they realize.

139. Nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Slick - I don’t think us anti death penalty people are in anyway suggesting that a child molester or murderer should get out after 15 years… the fact that some sentences are not tough enough is a totally different issue. That is the court failing to protect the people. There are ways to do that without killing, however.
vesselmen - killing the person usurps the right of the victim as well, it assumes that they would not forgive. It is possible that I would forgive my own murderer, there is no way to know. I forgave my rapist, however, because of the circumstances.

140. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm

As far as human error goes, it does happen, and should be taken into account. I’m not saying the justice system is perfect; far from it. The way the death penalty is meted out in this country is flawed, and I oppose it. But the concept of the death penalty is a logical one and is productive so long as measures are taken to maximize its efficiency.

141. Rodders - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Final question longball, as I can see you’re sticking by your convictions. If, in a scenario where you were found guilty of a crime, say - causing the death of a child by dangerous driving (or vehicular homicide) due to a momentary lapse in concentration, are you a lost cause?

142. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Nelia: You are misrepresenting my argument. And yes, I agree, there are ways to fulfill justice without killing, but there are certain cases where the death penalty is the only just punishment.

143. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm

rodders. i dont know. honestly. but how many people get the death penalty because of vehicular manslaughter? i did intentionally and it was proven, then yea. i’m a lost cause, by all means, please kill me. and i would prefer a quick death.

144. Nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Slick - You brought up an argument used for the death penalty. Whether you meant it or not, the argument that violent criminals get out of prison to early and commit more crimes, and therefore they should be put to death, IS often used by death penalty proponents. I was simply addressing an issue I saw in your post, I’m sorry for my implication that you were using that argument to further your point. What I saw was not necessarily what you meant. I did not mean to “misrepresent” YOU and make assumptions about what you believe, I was just making a point. My apologies. As for post 140, am I right in believing you are against the death penalty in the way it is used now, but believe in the theory and would support it if it was 100% accurate?

145. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm

slickwilly - i will agree to that statement. our system may be flawed. and if it is it should be fixed. but fixing it isn’t necessarily removing the death penalty (not for you , for everyone). the death penalty is and has been a just punishment for as long as there have been crimes

146. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm

My last observation on this subject(unless provoked of course).
My sister and I have been having this same argument for twenty plus years. My sister lives a much more black and white existence than myself, I see shades of grey…
I also can separate what I feel from what I think, just because I would personally want an offender dead does not mean that I believe in the death penalty….
When we were younger we almost came to blows; there is no winning this argument….
By the way, we no longer discuss this particular topic

147. dastex - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm

It is not for the state to engage in the business of killing its citizens. Gvernment is there to protect the borders, protect the citizenry and foster an environment where rule of law is sacred.
Punishment of the public is of course but terminating a citizens right to live is barbaric.

148. stevenh - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Slick:
Nelia is correct. If the molester is released and then commits a crime it is a failing of the system that released someone who is a danger to society.

I view prison not as punishment, but as a way to ‘isolate the bad guys’, and protect society. It is up the the laws and the courts to make that protection As Long As Necessary.

By the way, I do not think that prison should be a comfortable place. Perhaps not the basement of the Bastille, but also not what I’ve seen in some new reports (Though I do realise that conditions vary very widely in the countries of LV readers.)

149. dad242 - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm

if you cant come to an agreement run away, a apt defence.

150. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm

dad242; It is not a defence, but a fact..I could argue all day about it, again separation of feeling and thought…some people cannot
ps; you provoked me

151. longball - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:50 pm

dastex - the state doent chose to kill its citizens. that is left to the people, specifically the 12 jury members

stevenh - so we should pay to keep these criminals alive just in case they make a recovery, to isolate them. what happens when we run out of room? no way. impose the death penalty swiflty in all capital punishment cases, if found guilty and that what is decided to do by the jury

152. dad242 - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm

mom424 - the provokation was intentional. i like what you have to say.

153. Mom424 - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm

thanks dad…..

154. Chris - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm

I think that this is a pretty easy choice. No one should have the ability to choose who lives and who dies. If someone kills a person, and then is sentenced to death, isn’t the person who administers the poison, or whatever method is being used, killing someone also? It seems to me like they should be charged with the same crime. Some people have said that if one of my family was killed, my viewpoint would change. However I really do not think that it would. If the murderer in this example was killed, then it would tear that family apart as well, and it just becomes a vicious cycle. In other words, let them die in jail. It seems to me that spending the rest of one’s life in jail(maybe 50 years) is a lot worse than just being killed. Say NO to the death penalty!

155. stevenh - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm

longball:
The reason we’re running out of room (if true) is a more fundimental problem of the society in which we live.

Visit http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html
The USA - that bastion of justice is in great company:
… During 2006 25 countries, 91% in China, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, and the United States alone, executed 1,591 people…

WOW - stats that make me proud to be an Americian.

156. Philip - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm

The death penalty should be eliminated only because by doing so we would free up thousands of hours and millions of dollars of various federal courts considering the details of hundreds of death-penalty convictions. Did you know that the Us Supreme Court alone regularly consumes up to twenty percent of its time considering the merits of various d-p cases? It’s apalling! We should eliminate the death penalty and allow the courts to focus on cases that have more merit.

157. Nelia - February 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Like Mom - I have to abandon this board. At this point, I think I’ve covered all my bases, and anything more would be repeating myself. I don’t think, at this point, there is any changing each others’ minds, but I hope I’ve given people valid points to think about. I’ve certainly gotten some. I’ve also forgotten to eat today, so I think I need to take 5 from intense debate I enjoyed discussing this with people who are able to talk about it in a reasonable manner, and major kudos to listversers for not descending into squabbles (or most of you anyway).
I’ve emailed my aunt, and if she has useful info that is accessible to the public and on the internet, I’ll post it here. I hope the link I posted earlier is helpful.

158. stevenh - February 23rd, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Nelia:
You should check out this list: http://listverse.com/entertain.....s-or-less/

Bon Appetit

159. SlickWilly - February 23rd, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Sephiral: In assessing your arguments against the death penalty, I have come up with 4 main arguments you make.

1) Use of the death penalty opens up the justice system to human rights violations.

2) Use of the death penalty opens up the justice system to executing innocent persons.

3) Use of the death penalty raises to light the difficulties in assessing motivation in an individual for their crime.

4) There is nothing worse than death and society in general has an abhorrance to “killing.”

The first three are valid concerns. It is not an issue of one’s base ideas about how “abhorrant” killing is, because this issue is and should be irrelevent to determining whether or not to administer the death penalty; it is not a moral issue about killing versus not killing, it is an issue of providing justice and security for the individuals in society. As I said, the death penalty is a serious punishment, and it should be strictly regulated. One should only qualify for the death penalty if there is no doubt that the person committed the crime. If a criminal violates another person’s right to life, it should be considered that he lose his right to life as well, not in an eye-for-an-eye, vengeful way, but by the standard of our society meeting out punishment that is proportionally severe to the crime. Those people who are most in danger of violating others rights should lose their own so they can be kept from harming harmless individuals.

To believe that acting humanely in all situations is the ideal, I’m of the opinion that this is a naive viewpoint. Certain situations are just inhumane, no matter which way you look at them. It is important to take into account mitigating circumstances and determine whether it is more inhumane to the majority by allowing the person to live than it is to the guilty individual by removing him permanently from that society.

Looking at the financial argument in terms of placing a monetary value on human life is also an agenda-driven, biased way of looking at it. You are trying to argue against me by saying that I’m trying to place a finite value on something you consider has infinite value. I think, firstly, that is incredibly arrogant way to look at it, because this idea is symptomatic of the belief that human beings are the most precious creatures on the planet simply because we’re the most advanced. Secondly, I’m not in anyway putting a value on the life of a person, I’m saying that according to the statistics I have at hand, it just costs less money to execute a person than confine them for life, money that could be used to help those people that deserve to be - and will benefit from being - helped. I don’t think human life has any extra intrinsic value because it’s human.

160. phunniemee - February 23rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm

SlickWilly: If you want to use the tumor metaphor, here we go. Leaving a tumor in a person can prolong the problem. Leaving a violent offender in society can prolong the problem. Excising (that is, removing) the tumor from the person can solve the problem. Excising the violent offender from society (that is…removing the violent offender from society by putting him/her in prison) should also then solve the problem. Using your own terms, death is not a necessary part of this argument.

As far as the discussion about the death penalty being a deterrent goes, it is not. People murderously kill for three reasons: profit, compulsion, and passion. If anyone can offer an example of a murder that falls outside of those three types, I would like to hear it. People who murder for profit are not going to be deterred by the death penalty, because people who murder for profit do it based on the assumption that they will not get caught. People who murder in a crime of passion aren’t thinking rationally, and aren’t going to be deterred from killing someone because they aren’t processing rational thoughts. People who murder because of a compulsion (these would be serial killers, sexual offenders, etc) aren’t going to be deterred by the death penalty because they are mentally unbalanced. If look at people like Jeffrey Dahmer, he obviously knew what he was doing was wrong (he tried to cover up his numerous murders), but still did not stop. The argument that the death penalt