Death Penalty

[jackstar7]

Does it have any value? Does it serve to deter any crimes? Are there alternatives that might yield better results?

Does it reflect our values as a society/culture (in America and humanity more generally)?

I obviously do not see its continued use as of value, but I believe I could be persuaded on this one (which is why I wanted to start a thread about it here).

Opinions? Evidence?

 

[highland145]

It's not a deterrent but some have given up all their rights to live based on their own actions.


Many more have but they're still alive.....unfortunately.

 

[Codewiz]

I am opposed to the death penalty on the grounds that it costs too much money.

Why does it cost so much? Because we have the best judicial system in the world but the cost is that we allow people to appeal. We allow people to fix wrong convictions.

Additionally, it isn't perfect but our system gets it right most of the time. And with a system like that, it just costs way too much money to put someone on death row. Let them live their life without parole.

Not to mention, we have put innocent people to death.

 

[highland145]

I am opposed to the death penalty on the grounds that it costs too much money.

Why does it cost so much? Because we have the best judicial system in the world but the cost is that we allow people to appeal. We allow people to fix wrong convictions.

Additionally, it isn't perfect but our system gets it right most of the time. And with a system like that, it just costs way too much money to put someone on death row. Let them live their life without parole.

Not to mention, we have put innocent people to death.

If cost weren't an issue?

 

[manimal]

I have always been split in half when it comes to the death penalty. My better half wants the world to progress to where capital punishment is remembered as an archaic punctuation of our old less evolved selves.


The rest of me knows were it my family I would want my pound of flesh. I and most of us would like to answer that question differently.

 

[Codewiz]

If cost weren't an issue?

If cost were not an issue (impossible) AND we maintain the same system we currently have, I would not be opposed to the death penalty for heinous (mass murder) crimes.

 

[highland145]

If cost were not an issue AND we maintain the same system we currently have, I would not be opposed to the death penalty for heinous(mass murder) crimes.

Would single 1st degree murder get a pass then? If you kill one or 20, intentionally with malice aforethought, I'm not seeing a difference.


Yes, the same legal system.

 

[zinfamous]

If cost weren't an issue?

Then we wouldn't have justice.

 

[highland145]

Then we wouldn't have justice.

Off topic but we may not have it now if you're rich enough or connected enough.

 

[zinfamous]

Off topic but we may not have it now if you're rich enough or connected enough.

:hmm:

 

[Doppel]

Against it for multiple reasons.

Practical:
- is expensive
- not great a deterring crime

Principle:
- don't believe any government (or individual) should ever take life except in protection of another
- certainly reasonable to think innocents have been killed

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

My own feeling is that it doesn't really serve a useful purpose, and exists more or less solely to provide a mechanism for revenge. I have deep reservations about it mostly because it's clear that innocent people are wrongfully convicted from time to time, and thus where we have a death penalty it is pretty much inevitable that innocents will be executed. I am also concerned about the arbitrariness with which it is sometimes applied, or not.

 

[Craig234]

I oppose it even for the correctly convicted because I value their lives.

For those who have different values, there are two other reasons to oppose it.

1. The 'an innocent might be executed' issue. In fact, it's pretty clean innocents have been executed. Many people feel 'if one innocent is executed, it's not worth it'.

Not that life in prison for an innocent person is not a horrible thing.

2. The cost. The figures I have are that it's about three times the cost on average to execute someone as to put them in prison for life.

This is basically because of legally required additional legal proceedings.

Now, some ignorant people like to respond to that with cowboy arguments - 'I'll do it for free' and 'we need to cut back on those riduclous protections for criminals'.

While I'm not going to get into the reasons those protections are needed here, the relevant issue to cost is that these are fundamental Supreme-Court mandated protections. They can't be 'just removed' because the tea party elects some nuts who want to take away rights from the criminals (read, you wrongfully convicted).

So, the people who would still support capital punishment are those who want to execute people who don't value human life as much, who value the revenge more than they are concerned about executig innocent people making themselves murderers in effect, and who are happy to spend large amounts of tax dollars for that revenge.

That would be if they understood the issue - I don't think many of them do, thinking execution is cheaper and just deciding on the emotion of hating the criminals.

 

[D1gger]

I have always been in favour of the death penalty, but only for extreme cases, such as serial murderers. I also believe that to sentence someone to death should require a hire level of evidence necessary, such as direct DNA evidence or multiple independent eye witnesses. It serves no deterrent, but some people just are too dangerous to have on this earth.

 

[Craig234]

I have always been in favour of the death penalty, but only for extreme cases, such as serial murderers. I also believe that to sentence someone to death should require a hire level of evidence necessary, such as direct DNA evidence or multiple independent eye witnesses. It serves no deterrent, but some people just are too dangerous to have on this earth.

On a side note, eyewitnesses are greatly overrated as 'reliable' by the public.

People in the system - some of whom will admit it more than others - know that they're about the least reliable form of admissible evidence.

I can point you to trials with several eyewitness making claims - all of whome were wrong.

But to your last point, someone who is in a maximum security prison for life is not 'too dangerous to have on this earth'.

If there IS some risk of their committing more violence even in prison, that's because we've chosen to make compromises on security - they could be 'fully secured' if we wanted.

 

[highland145]

:hmm:

Explain.

Does it have any value? Does it serve to deter any crimes? Are there alternatives that might yield better results?

Answered except for the "better results" but life without may not be better for society.

 

[highland145]

I have always been in favour of the death penalty, but only for extreme cases, such as serial murderers. I also believe that to sentence someone to death should require a hire level of evidence necessary, such as direct DNA evidence or multiple independent eye witnesses. It serves no deterrent, but some people just are too dangerous to have on this earth.

This but not for extreme cases or eye witnesses(unreliable). You did it, you pay.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I am opposed on practical grounds. Too many cases of innocent people being executed (or nearly so) and too much money spent on years of legal nonsense.

I would support allowing someone (if judged legally sane) to choose death over life in prison.

 

[highland145]

I am opposed on practical grounds. Too many cases of innocent people being executed (or nearly so) and too much money spent on years of legal nonsense.

I would support allowing someone (if judged legally sane) to choose death over life in prison.

Any stats? FBI?

 

[Codewiz]

I oppose it even for the correctly convicted because I value their lives.

For those who have different values, there are two other reasons to oppose it.

1. The 'an innocent might be executed' issue. In fact, it's pretty clean innocents have been executed. Many people feel 'if one innocent is executed, it's not worth it'.

Not that life in prison for an innocent person is not a horrible thing.

2. The cost. The figures I have are that it's about three times the cost on average to execute someone as to put them in prison for life.

This is basically because of legally required additional legal proceedings.

Now, some ignorant people like to respond to that with cowboy arguments - 'I'll do it for free' and 'we need to cut back on those riduclous protections for criminals'.

While I'm not going to get into the reasons those protections are needed here, the relevant issue to cost is that these are fundamental Supreme-Court mandated protections. They can't be 'just removed' because the tea party elects some nuts who want to take away rights from the criminals (read, you wrongfully convicted).

So, the people who would still support capital punishment are those who want to execute people who don't value human life as much, who value the revenge more than they are concerned about executig innocent people making themselves murderers in effect, and who are happy to spend large amounts of tax dollars for that revenge.

That would be if they understood the issue - I don't think many of them do, thinking execution is cheaper and just deciding on the emotion of hating the criminals.

If I am honest, I don't value the lives of mass murders. People like James Holmes, if convicted, deserves death in my opinion.

I think there are some acts where the killer is clear cut AND there is no doubt. Add in the heinous nature of the crime, I really don't value their life at all. They deserve to die.

However, as I mention earlier, I support that person having every avenue our court system provides. With all those avenues, it just costs too much to put someone to death.

I would rather save the money and sentence the person to life without parole. Maybe I am just not as evolved but I don't value the life of James Holmes. Pragmatism just rules the day for me.....

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Any stats? FBI?

Admittedly the number of actually executed people that have later been found to be innocent isn't that high. It would make sense -- there would be less reason to keep pursuing the issue, and it's more difficult exonerate someone after they're gone.

But the list of people who have been on death row and later exonerated is staggering.

 

[waggy]

Admittedly the number of actually executed people that have later been found to be innocent isn't that high. It would make sense -- there would be less reason to keep pursuing the issue, and it's more difficult exonerate someone after they're gone.

But the list of people who have been on death row and later exonerated is staggering.

I am pro death penalty. but the fact is i don't trust the judicial system so i don't think teh death penalty should be used.

IF they ever can get around that. then there are some cases where it would/should be used.

 

[Doppel]

Admittedly the number of actually executed people that have later been found to be innocent isn't that high. It would make sense -- there would be less reason to keep pursuing the issue, and it's more difficult exonerate someone after they're gone.

But the list of people who have been on death row and later exonerated is staggering.

Careful with that one. I've used it before and the retort by some may be "The fact they were exonerated is proof the system works." I think it's a woefully optimistic way to interpret the numbers.

Death penalty is institutionalized revenge. I'd concede it serves a useful purpose if escapes from maximum security prisons were a regular thing. In practice it appears that decades separate occurrences, and those are state prisons. Although they serve more people than federal supermax, nobody has ever escaped from the latter (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...correct-no-inmate-has-ever-escaped-supermax-/).

I am pro death penalty. but the fact is i don't trust the judicial system so i don't think teh death penalty should be used.

IF they ever can get around that. then there are some cases where it would/should be used.

Until humans evolve into some other being the judicial system will always be flawed. I just don't think it can be reasonably trusted except where it has to be, and for it to claim it is so infallible that it can make the most important of decisions--to take one's life--is too presumptuous.

 

[Whiskey16]

This appears to be a thread just concerning the USA.

With that in perspective, in most developed and more civilised countries, the killing of a controlled individual in your care is a crime of murder or at least a form of manslaughter.

Yet, the USA is typically socially and legally tardy upon progressing to adequate recognition of civil and moral rights.

One may argue the merits of killing convicts all they wish, but what it comes to is the USA and many of its states remaining relatively socially regressive and uncivilised outliers in this world.

You appear to decide what you wish but will be fairly judged upon murdering those under your care and a prime violator upon fundamental human rights. Not a state of pride, rather that of disgrace.

 

[Screech]

I tend not to support the death penalty for most cases -- too many innocent people have been killed. However, I do support it in certain cases of mass murder. ie, if adam lanza had been apprehended, I would have supported killing him; I also support the death penalty for the aurora shooter. These are cases where there were multiple witnesses, basically no doubt as to who did it, etc.