Its time to end capital punishment in America, Another botched execution tonight...

[CitizenKain]

Then you're asking for the impossible. What's your threshold? 1 dead innocent every 10 years? Every 20? Every system, be it natural or man-made, screws over someone some of the time. Even Star Trek's Utopia does it. The question is whether the screwing over is worth it.

Then you don't have a death penalty. That isn't that confusing to understand is it?

 

[FrankRamiro]

more pain = better punishment. These murderers and rapist deserve no better.

They should do the same as what they do in some Arabian Countries, start cutting their arms and then legs till they end up to cut their neck all in public.
anybody that commits horrendous crimes against any Human person should get 1 year of Payne and then death

 

[MongGrel]

From what I've heard and hadn't even looked into it, he basically buried a girl alive.

I honestly have little sympathy for the guy and hope he did feel something.

 

[irishScott]

Then you don't have a death penalty. That isn't that confusing to understand is it?

I'd rather have an effective death penalty that saves lives via deterrence with an extremely low rate of failure. But then again I like to solve problems rather than try to avoid them.

 

[BoberFett]

I'd rather have an effective death penalty that saves lives via deterrence with an extremely low rate of failure. But then again I like to solve problems rather than try to avoid them.

Gotta break a few eggs huh?

Me? Personally I don't care for being executed by my representative government for something I didn't do.

 

[irishScott]

Gotta break a few eggs huh?

Me? Personally I don't care for being executed by my representative government for something I didn't do.

Well currently the odds of the latter are greater than zero and you're still here posting with to my knowledge no real likelihood of being unjustly executed in the future. I propose we make those odds even smaller and decrease some crime in the process. I fail to see what the problem is.

 

[Jaepheth]

If deterrence is the goal then why aren't executions public?

And for the lesson to be taught best it should be taught during the formative years. Therefore, executions should be mandatory viewing in elementary school.

 

[berzerker60]

I'd rather have an effective death penalty that saves lives via deterrence with an extremely low rate of failure. But then again I like to solve problems rather than try to avoid them.

Except there's absolutely no evidence that the death penalty deters anything, even thought it's been studied a whole lot over decades.

 

[irishScott]

Except there's absolutely no evidence that the death penalty deters anything, even thought it's been studied a whole lot over decades.

And for the... 4th time or so I'd say the problem is a matter of implementation. No shit the modern death penalty doesn't deter anything, it doesn't kill enough hardened criminals. In the US we've executed 1,348 people since 1976. That's about 36 people per year. In 2012 alone there were 78,174 forcible rapes and 14,173 cases of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, according to the FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...ime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/16tabledatadecpdf

Clearly only ~35 were deserving of the death penalty and the remaining 91,994 are either provably insane, wrongly convicted or can be rehabilitated into upstanding citizens.

 

[nehalem256]

Except there's absolutely no evidence that the death penalty deters anything, even thought it's been studied a whole lot over decades.

Say what?

What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
...
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/death-penalty-deters-murders-studies-say/

 

[TheSiege]

If what you said is true, then why do states with NO death penalty have less murders. Here is 3 articles that contradict your CBS story.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/fe...08-tsarnaev-death-penalty-postscript-20140208

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23374844/no-credible-evidence-whether-death-penalty-deters-experts

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf

The death penalty has been phased out more and more over the years, and crime and murders have also? Coincidence?

 

[MongGrel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvOJgzb52-Y

 

[nehalem256]

If what you said is true, then why do states with NO death penalty have less murders. Here is 3 articles that contradict your CBS story.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/fe...08-tsarnaev-death-penalty-postscript-20140208

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23374844/no-credible-evidence-whether-death-penalty-deters-experts

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf

The death penalty has been phased out more and more over the years, and crime and murders have also? Coincidence?

From your own link

Violent crime rates have fallen nationwide due to an aging population, tougher incarceration of criminals and other factors.

 

[Sunburn74]

Except there's absolutely no evidence that the death penalty deters anything, even thought it's been studied a whole lot over decades.

I don't think there is any evidence that doing anything actually works, be it the death penalty or imprisonment or anything. I mean look through history when societies existed that didn't care about humane executions. Despite knowing that you could be tortured to death people still committed heinous crimes. In general I would say the more heinous the crime the less rational thought goes into it.

IMO when I look at the death penalty its not about deterrence or about rehabilitation. Its about making society feel better. Its about the punishment fitting the crime.

Rehabilitation is not the point of the justice system though it thinly attempts to pass that as its purpose. Think about the man for example who through violation of some law accidentally kills his family and another. He is instantly rehabilitated once he knows his evil deed; he weeps tears and begs for forgiveness from everyone he's hurt. Yet it feels wrong to say "you've learned your lesson and have suffered enough". Instead he get a long manslaughter charge despite already being rehabilitated. Most of the offenders in prison if we paid them the cost of imprisonment (60k USD) as a flat wage for the length of the term they would have served for staying out of trouble you'd dramatically slash your repeat offender rate. But it seems wrong to do that.

When I look at the justice system the actions we make as a society are not about rehabilitation or even about deterrence, but rather to achieve catharsis and if that is the case then perhaps the death penalty is justified.

Regarding this particular case, a vein blew. It happens. Its akin to a lightbulb blowing out as you're lining up a critical shot. In hindsight they should set up two IVs rather than just one. Or have a backup agent which can be given intramuscularly.

 

[TheSiege]

Violent crime rates have fallen nationwide due to an aging population, tougher incarceration of criminals and other factors.

Ok...And your point? That the death penalty has no effect on crime, I agree with you.

 

[shortylickens]

The government fucks up more than the execution system.

Maybe we should get rid of that, too?

 

[BoberFett]

The government fucks up more than the execution system.

Maybe we should get rid of that, too?

Ok

 

[row]

The imagination game again already, I want to play too.....Whenever a black man is arrested for murder, you can amputate his feet and keep him as a sex slave. That way you can satisfied all your hidden desires and feel all warm and fuzzy every night.

lol, sounds like wishes from the wife of a viagra deficient mate :awe:

anyway all trial courts in the U.S. should be located on the 4th floor (or above) of a building. once the accused has been convicted with no further appeals available, the individual should be taken to the execution room and pushed out the 4th story floor door (into a waiting dumpster). if for some reason the court is on a lower floor, the convicted can be dropped more than once

to make sure this procedure doesn't fall under the category of cruel and unusual punishment the perp should be dropped head first :hmm:

 

[irishScott]

Ok...And your point? That the death penalty has no effect on crime, I agree with you.

In its current form. Your argument against the death penalty is that it is ineffective, therefore it should be shut down.

Which is like arguing that doing 1 pullup a day is ineffective at increasing arm strength, therefore pullups in general do nothing to increase arm strength.

You just don't like the idea of executions and could more easily stomach their outright removal than fixing the system; don't pretend it's anything but. If we repealed the current death penalty tomorrow and came back with a completely revamped system that promised fewer dead innocents and more dead bad guys, judging from your posts here you'd reject it out of hand.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Its AN argument, not the ONLY argument.

 

[irishScott]

Its AN argument, not the ONLY argument.

Of course not, but the other arguments typically consist of various moral musings on society's supposed responsibility to pay irredeemably violent prisoners more than the average American sees in a year in the form of housing, food and healthcare.

Not saying we should kill all prisoners, but the notions that we should put millions of dollars into incarcerating a single serial killer for decades, and that this is morally superior to spending that money on people who are actually of value or potential value to society, baffles me. The only living serial killers should be the ones we haven't caught/convicted, and the money that would have been spent on their incarceration should hire a quality teacher for decades or pay down the national debt or help launch a mission to Mars or any other of the innumerable things that would be more productive than housing an irreparably violent sociopath for life; or worse, letting him out on parole after a decade to save money, so he can kill again.

I find it ironic that the anti-death-penalty crowd claims the death penalty is about societal catharsis; that it's just around to make people feel better. I'd say SuperMAX prisons owe their entire existence to making squeamish people feel better about themselves.


Don't get me wrong I'm all for re-vamping the system to actually rehabilitate/integrate into society those prisoners that can be rehabilitated, and I'm even willing to spend more money per prisoner if someone can show me a system that does so with a good rate of success. But there are some criminals who cannot and will not ever value human life; they know right from wrong and they don't care. Society is better off with them dead; it's an Old Yeller situation, plain and simple.

 

[mikeymikec]

But there are some criminals who cannot and will not ever value human life; they know right from wrong and they don't care. Society is better off with them dead; it's an Old Yeller situation, plain and simple.

I generally agree with what you're saying.

(Re: bit in bold) - While I'm sure that this is true in some cases, how does a fair judicial system determine this? I spent a bit of time when driving between customers thinking about this yesterday, and peoples' motivations for committing crime differ and so therefore the approach for reforming them logically should be different as well - treating someone who "just wants to watch the world burn" with the same method as someone who thought they might get away with skimming their employer's accounts isn't logical. Even if one made a comparison between two violent crimes it's not even remotely logical that the causes of the crimes are the same.

So an approach that minutely examines the crime and the circumstances of the criminal and determines that person's reasons for doing what they did IMO is mostly a head job, if you want to find out what drives a particular criminal to commit crime.

I then need to make an enormous assumption that the people doing the examining have the skills and experience dealing with this branch of psychology, and they come to generally correct conclusions.

Many crimes are going to come down to very basic things, IMHO:

1 - Greed; people who want more but not having to work for it in the way that law-abiding people do.
2 - Attraction; people who are attracted to the achievement of pulling off a criminal act and haven't found an honest equivalent. Is there always an equivalent?
3 - Ignorance; (whatever crime) is the only thing they think they're good at.
4 - Lack of fear of the consequences; and possibly a combination of points 1-3.

Then responses to counter their reasons to commit crime need to be devised. The fourth is probably the most problematic to directly counter as the obvious conclusion is "give them something else to fear then". Other responses might be the sorts of things that many civilised countries already do (like ensuring that someone gets training to start them in a suitable career), but perhaps with more information about what makes that person tick, a better job can be done. According to some stats I read on a government website yesterday, the US has a reoffending rate of approximately 75%, compare that to the UK (again, stats from another gov website), apparently approximately 25-33%. Something is obviously wrong somewhere, ideally that figure should be significantly less (in both cases IMO).

IMO some of the sorts of responses could lead a judicial system down some very dark paths (e.g. 'A Clockwork Orange' or Room 101 in '1984'), but if you want better answers then you have to start asking more questions.

 

[nehalem256]

Of course not, but the other arguments typically consist of various moral musings on society's supposed responsibility to pay irredeemably violent prisoners more than the average American sees in a year in the form of housing, food and healthcare.

Not saying we should kill all prisoners, but the notions that we should put millions of dollars into incarcerating a single serial killer for decades, and that this is morally superior to spending that money on people who are actually of value or potential value to society, baffles me. The only living serial killers should be the ones we haven't caught/convicted, and the money that would have been spent on their incarceration should hire a quality teacher for decades or pay down the national debt or help launch a mission to Mars or any other of the innumerable things that would be more productive than housing an irreparably violent sociopath for life; or worse, letting him out on parole after a decade to save money, so he can kill again.

And executing serial killers pretty much avoids the issue of them possibly being innocent. What are the chances of an innocent person being convicted of multiple independent murders?:hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

Ok...And your point? That the death penalty has no effect on crime, I agree with you.

No the point is that multiple variables impact the crime rate.

 

[Jhhnn]

In its current form. Your argument against the death penalty is that it is ineffective, therefore it should be shut down.

Which is like arguing that doing 1 pullup a day is ineffective at increasing arm strength, therefore pullups in general do nothing to increase arm strength.

You just don't like the idea of executions and could more easily stomach their outright removal than fixing the system; don't pretend it's anything but. If we repealed the current death penalty tomorrow and came back with a completely revamped system that promised fewer dead innocents and more dead bad guys, judging from your posts here you'd reject it out of hand.

Yeh, and if pigs had wings, they'd fly. Insisting that perfection is possible in no way justifies the current system, nor will what you advocate ever come into being. It's fantasy.

What's more important- seeing yourself as a stern agent of God's Vengeance, or removing violent criminals from society? In practical terms, which one is more cost effective?

Or does any of that matter in the face of emotional craving for the ultimate retribution?