• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Death Penalty Poll

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Condor
Nothing wrong with the death penalty. Lots of problems with lawyers, judges, and AG's. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt would prevent this. Circumstantial evidence that was made up just before the court date produces this. The produce a guilty verdict instead of punish the guilty.

Huh? If there are "lots of problems with lawyers, judges, and AGs", then ipso facto, there is a LOT wrong with any death penalty that is the product of the actions of those problematic lawyers, judges, and AGs (and, you forgot to mention, police departments).

You argument is totally circular. You state, "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt would prevent this,", yet it's the completely flawed system - flawed by virtue of those "problems" - that's determining proof beyond reasonable doubt. How do you magicallly get a reliable determination of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" from an unreliable system? It's like saying that it's not a problem to use an unreliable repair shop for your car if your car is reliable.

I guess the odd mistake that kills one innocent is preferable than the odd release that kills a family or a string of innocents. Life is not perfect. Physical evidence as a bottom line or confession would improve the odds a lot. If you think a killer is guilty, kill him/her. If not, release him/her. If the system can't be made to work, just issue everyone a knife and let nature take its course.

 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: TGS
Originally posted by: RichardE
Im for it, think it should encompass more things besides murder, including rape, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, DUI to name a few.

So crimes that concern neither extreme personal violations or death of another human should constitute the loss of life on the offenders part? 😕

I would see the merit with sexual abuse crimes, but the others don't seem to have validity based on the nature of the crimes.

What are people such as that going to really contribute to society? You do not think being muged with a deadly weapon (just under attempted murder) or having a gun pointed in your face as you are robed would not be personal violations? I cannot really see what these people would add to society and honestly think that society would be better off without them

George W. Bush would not exist according to your beliefs! (DUI)

I'm sure thats not what you want!
 
Originally posted by: CSMR
Originally posted by: Martin
anybody that supports the death penalty also supports the murder of innocent poeple. The system isn't perfect and innocent people DO get convicted of crimes they didn't commit.
If you support railroads do you also support the murder of innocent people in crashes? One should use the word murder more accurately.

Hopefully you understand the difference between accidents happening and failure in a legal system causing innocents to be killed.
 
My personal beliefs, as a Christian, is that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and that upon our deaths, we are forgiven all of our sins and go to heaven. I do not subscribe to dispensationalist theology--the belief that only a select few are saved--nor do I believe that a single, or even multiple, sins are enough to damn people to hell for all eternity. Such would be unfitting for a God who "so loved the world that he gave his one and only son." (John 3:16 NIV). I also believe that people of all faiths are called to act with love and kindness towards each other, and while that does preclude murder, that also precludes the murder of the murderer (or, if you prefer, the killing of the killer). After all, that is what it boils down to... we condemn people to spend years in prison, simply waiting for it to be their turn to die. People seem to have this misconception that life in prison is some sort of a vacation. I believe that they are confusing prison with Holiday Inn. Watch Shawshank Redemption, and pay attention to the first half, before Andy makes friends with Morgan Freeman's character... prison is hell. Even after he makes friends, he is still miserable and unhappy. I think that life in prison, where you will have to think about what you did, and do so for a very long time, is a far worse punishment than death.

As for the argument of vengeance, "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." (Romans 12:19 NIV) So... don't take revenge. Let God do that when/if He decides to.

Lastly, I think that capital punishment speaks to a larger problem in modern America, that of hopelessness. I think that, with regards to our criminal justice system, there is a great deal of hopelessness and despair regarding convicted felons. There is this belief that criminals are, somehow, intrinsically, internally bad, and therefore, irredeemable. The death penalty is the ultimate example of this. It is a statement, in effect, that "we think this person is so bad, so evil and twisted, that we don't think we should invest any time, effort or money in working with him to redeem him." I very carefully left out the words "without parole" in my statement above. The very existence of the concept is another example of this hopelessness, albeit a less severe and more reasonable one. I am not denying that there are people who will not repent for what they did, and who do pose a danger to society and will do so for the rest of their days. However, we need to have a justice system that makes allowances for people redeeming themselves and repenting for their crimes. Tookie Williams is the most prominent example I can think of in recent times, although I'm sure if I thought and researched some more, I could come up with many more. In reading about him and his work, I personally think he had reformed and should have been spared, but I know there are others who would disagree. It is also debatable if he would have reformed so drastically if he had not been sentenced to die, and that is a question I have no good answer to.

In case it matters, I would class myself as slightly Socialist, but mostly Democrat, and I am a practicing Episcopalian.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont particularily dislike the practice, but the method of getting to it is not reliable enough for me.

Thus I voted only if the guy admits it. Somebody like BTK I dont have a problem putting into the chair. But our system it not perfect enough for me to support the death penalty as a whole.

This is exactly how I feel. The system has too many possibilities of error. I even have a problem with confessons as we've seen them coerced and then later proved false.
 
Back
Top