• 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.

People who are for the death penalty please come in

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ntdz
Eye for an Eye

Why should someone be able to murder someone else and live?

Deters people from committing the crimes

Ask you teacher (who is obviously a liberal) why it's ok to murder innocent babies in abortion but not kill a convicted murderer or child rapist?
Click to expand...
If you kill them, how are you any better than they are? Your method is different, but the end is the same.
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
All you need to know is that it's a punishment. Not a deterrent. I wouldn't call anyone in jail or prison wasting anything. There are ( for good reasons ) many laws that allow a person sentenced to death to have many reviews and appeals. And that is as it should be.
Click to expand...
Deterrence is one of the three justifiable purposes of punishment (alongside retribution and rehabilitation). Capital punishment doesn't meet any of these criteria on inspection. The only one that can really be argued for at all is deterrence, but the data available don't really support capital punishment deterring anyone.
 
Originally posted by: krcat1
First, we really don't have a death penalty in the US. When it takes 10+ years for the execution to occur, or when the penalty is applied in a grossly incompetent manner, it has no deterent value. A true death penalty would be applied within a short period of time, and be applied in a extremely competent manner.

The big reason for a death penalty is that sometimes it takes the fear of death to prevent people from killing others.
Eye-for-an-eye is not about revenge. It means that taking a life is so serious that one must forfeit one's life if you commit murder.
It has nothing to do with vengeance or closure.
Click to expand...

Yeah mass murders are always scared to die....Right. The death penalty is just that, a penalty. It deters no one.
 
Ok, now that I have read all the arguments I agree with the Pro-Death Penalty side for one specific reason.

When someone is guilty of a crime that is so heinous and the state keeps them alive (in fairly decent conditions) for the rest of their life I think that is not right. If lets say we had prisons like they had during the middle ages, I would be for keeping them alive just because doing so is more painful than dieing. But in this country, and for good reason, we cannot treat criminals like that (which I agree with), so in turn I think those that have been convicted and given the chance to appeal (or have appeals) and still found guilty, they deserve to die.


It is not about deterrence (no fact to prove it deters anyone), it is not about money (it IS more expensive), it is about punishment. Just like the rhyme says "you do the crime, you do the time".
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I have swayed back and forth on this issue. Currently I am against the death penalty because our court systems makes way too many mistakes when it comes to death penalty cases.

I would rather 30 people rot in prison rather than a single innocent person be executed.
The costs also appear to be more to kill the person. Just throw them in with the general population for the rest of their rotting lives. That is probably a more cruel fate than death anyways.
Click to expand...

I agree - except that I would honestly rather have 30 killers free on the streets than one innocent person executed; not because of a balance of social costs (the free killers may kill more innocent people than we wrongfully execute) but because of the incredibly presumtuous nature of a justice system that operates on the principle of vengeance, despite the impossibility of knowing 100% of the truth, 100% of the time. In the end, the death penalty comes down to people killing people.

As far as 'no appeals' (above)... that ranks right up there with 'the police don't arrest innocent people, if they were innocent they wouldn't be suspects'.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Genx87
I have swayed back and forth on this issue. Currently I am against the death penalty because our court systems makes way too many mistakes when it comes to death penalty cases.

I would rather 30 people rot in prison rather than a single innocent person be executed.
The costs also appear to be more to kill the person. Just throw them in with the general population for the rest of their rotting lives. That is probably a more cruel fate than death anyways.
Click to expand...

I agree - except that I would honestly rather have 30 killers free on the streets than one innocent person executed; not because of a balance of social costs (the free killers may kill more innocent people than we wrongfully execute) but because of the incredibly presumtuous nature of a justice system that operates on the principle of vengeance, despite the impossibility of knowing 100% of the truth, 100% of the time. In the end, the death penalty comes down to people killing people.

As far as 'no appeals' (above)... that ranks right up there with 'the police don't arrest innocent people, if they were innocent they wouldn't be suspects'.
Click to expand...

Lemme get this right, you'd rather have 30 murderers on the streets, than have one put to death? What if one of the thirty released came to your house and murdered your family? Would you still think that the person you saved from the chair deserved to stay alive at the cost of your family? That is the danger that anyone should feel at that comment.
 
It is one of the few truly balanced forms of punishment in the justice system that a person forfeit their own life if they choose to take the life of another. Each person should know in their heart, before they strike their blow of murder, that they are forfeiting their own life by doing so.

When you show compassion for the guilty you show contempt for the victim.

 
Originally posted by: cruiser1338


Lemme get this right, you'd rather have 30 murderers on the streets, than have one put to death? What if one of the thirty released came to your house and murdered your family? Would you still think that the person you saved from the chair deserved to stay alive at the cost of your family? That is the danger that anyone should feel at that comment.
Click to expand...

Than have one innocent person put to death? Yes.

And yes, I would still feel this way if a suspected killer released because of due process were to kill my family, or try to kill me, or whatever. Of course the tradeoff could never be this direct; the choice isn't death versus freedom, uness the convict can prove they were in fact wrongfully convicted (which is not always the same as innocent).

Opposing the death penalty has nothing to do with compassion for the killer, at least for me; it rests on the impossibility of the 'state' being all-knowing and a resultant rejection of the state's authority to practice 'final solutions'.

 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

And yes, I would still feel this way if a suspected killer released because of due process were to kill my family, or try to kill me, or whatever. Of course the tradeoff could never be this direct; the choice isn't death versus freedom, uness the convict can prove they were in fact wrongfully convicted (which is not always the same as innocent).

Opposing the death penalty has nothing to do with compassion for the killer, at least for me; it rests on the impossibility of the 'state' being all-knowing and a resultant rejection of the state's authority to practice 'final solutions'.
Click to expand...

It's direct for someone. Someone's wife, husband or child murdered by a released murderer. If the person was really innocent, then they would have bee found not guilty by a jury of their peers. But they obviously were. Letting them live would be destructive to the justice system. If you agree that a jury's verdict can't be right then the whole thing falls apart. Innocent until proven guilty. If they are on death row, they have been proven guilty. How are we to know they are innocent? On their word, or some evidence. That evidence didn't fly with the jury, who have to be right. So why should we believe it?
 

Not sure if this will work for you, but has your professor said why is he against the death penalty? Find out what those reasons are and then develop your arguements to dispute his reasons...you may have a better chance of getting your point across...





 
Originally posted by: cruiser1338
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Genx87
I have swayed back and forth on this issue. Currently I am against the death penalty because our court systems makes way too many mistakes when it comes to death penalty cases.

I would rather 30 people rot in prison rather than a single innocent person be executed.
The costs also appear to be more to kill the person. Just throw them in with the general population for the rest of their rotting lives. That is probably a more cruel fate than death anyways.
Click to expand...

I agree - except that I would honestly rather have 30 killers free on the streets than one innocent person executed; not because of a balance of social costs (the free killers may kill more innocent people than we wrongfully execute) but because of the incredibly presumtuous nature of a justice system that operates on the principle of vengeance, despite the impossibility of knowing 100% of the truth, 100% of the time. In the end, the death penalty comes down to people killing people.

As far as 'no appeals' (above)... that ranks right up there with 'the police don't arrest innocent people, if they were innocent they wouldn't be suspects'.
Click to expand...

Lemme get this right, you'd rather have 30 murderers on the streets, than have one put to death? What if one of the thirty released came to your house and murdered your family? Would you still think that the person you saved from the chair deserved to stay alive at the cost of your family? That is the danger that anyone should feel at that comment.
Click to expand...


Wow cruiser, I've really never heard any sane person say they like killing innocent people.

Really, lemme get this straight - you'd rather have your innocent daughter killed than let some murderers out on the street? That's pretty insane dude.

edit: funny, neonerd is nowhere to be found in this thread other than the opening post.
 
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: chrisms
The fact that the government has and will continue to execute innocent people is reason enough for the death penalty to be abolished. Look at all the people who have been freed from death row, and imagine how many weren't freed in time.

I would gladly let Timothy McVeigh live if the many innocent men who have been executed were allowed to live as well.
Click to expand...

Isn't it just as wrong to lock an innocent person in jail for the rest of his life as to put them to death?
Click to expand...

When you find you made a mistake, you let the innocent person out of jail and apologize. Your options regarding the dead person are somewhat more limited.

 
Havent seen any additional numbers in the posts but I believe in California its closer the 50,000 a year per inmate. I have no idea if this is Max security or general population.
Even if it was only $30 G's a year the little republican inside me starts to wonder:

Why is is that so many people are expected to earn and provide for their families with $30,000 a year, and we just give it away to a single low-life?
I dont know the inmate and I dont know his victim, but I would rather get him out of the picture and maybe give that money to the family for 2 or 3 years. Hopefully they can get their lives back together with a little help.

I know this is greatly over-simplifying the issue. Cat burglers probably dont need the death penalty. But if I worked in the "Correctional" system I would likely not be as objective in my opinion. I think its kind of a catch 22. (Like so many political debates).
 
Originally posted by: cruiser1338
It's direct for someone. Someone's wife, husband or child murdered by a released murderer. If the person was really innocent, then they would have bee found not guilty by a jury of their peers. But they obviously were. Letting them live would be destructive to the justice system. If you agree that a jury's verdict can't be right then the whole thing falls apart. Innocent until proven guilty. If they are on death row, they have been proven guilty. How are we to know they are innocent? On their word, or some evidence. That evidence didn't fly with the jury, who have to be right. So why should we believe it?
Click to expand...

Guy Paul Morin, David Milgaard, the list goes one. There are innocent people convicted of crimes!

The US keeps statistics on people who have been executed who are now KNOWN to have been innocent.

The jury does NOT have to be right, and they do NOT always have all the information. In fact they have a tendency to think just like you do, and it can take a great deal for a jury to aquit someone, simply because they wrongly assume that only guilty people are ever arrested! If you don't kill the person, then mistakes can always be mitigated should new evidence come to light.
 
Originally posted by: neonerd
I need more reasons to back up my argument. We're having a debate in class, and half my reasons aren't even being written down by the teacher (he's against it). He says my arguments are bad. I need some arguments that he couldn't argue with.

EDIT: my arguments; this is when the person is convicted beyong reasonable doubt, and would otherwise be facing life without any chance of parol
Click to expand...
1.) Waste of tax money (Approx. $30k/year per person
2.) Waste of jail-space
Click to expand...
It is not true that death penalties are lee costly to the state than life sentences at present. Legal costs of the appeals process are huge.
3.) Person "lives above the law"; if he gets pissed and kills guards and/or other figutives, the worse thing that's going to happen is he's going to get another life sentece. Big deal.
Click to expand...
Not really a good argument since if a person is going to be deterred by a death sentece, he will be deterred at least to some degree by a life sentence.

Actually I think that without considering retributive justice you can't justify the death penalty IMO. From only the grounds of deterrence and expense you would have some combination of jail (in different conditions to those that exist now) and torture.
 
Originally posted by: CSMR
Originally posted by: neonerd

EDIT: my arguments; this is when the person is convicted beyong reasonable doubt, and would otherwise be facing life without any chance of parol
Click to expand...
1.) Waste of tax money (Approx. $30k/year per person
2.) Waste of jail-space
Click to expand...
It is not true that death penalties are lee costly to the state than life sentences at present. Legal costs of the appeals process are huge.
.
Click to expand...
"Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment."
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7
 
In your debate can you have some more middle of the road position? For example, I feel we should greatly restrict the people that can be put to death to cases of certainty. In other words beyond a reasonable doubt would not be enough to commit someone to death. I worry about the wrongly convicted getting put to death. But for those that commit violent crime resulting in someones death, and I know they did it for 100% sure, then I have no problem with it. In that case the punishment fits the crime and I believe you could expedite the process of killing them (save money) if they were to have originally been held to a higher standard of guilt.
 
1. Prisoners are let out by the parole board before a life sentence is over and they get out of Jail and just kill people again.

2. Inmates escape prison and kill more people.

3. Not enough space in prison so the judges are forced to free convicts early.

4. The dead do not kill and rape more people when they are dead.

5. You cant fix stupid.

I cant think of one reason to let a drug addict or a child molester keep on living. They chose to try to destroy society. Society is better irradicating these kind of low-lifes. Any one that picks up a gun with an intent to commit a crime desrves the death sentence. Society has a right to demand it.
 
Originally posted by: neonerd
I need more reasons to back up my argument. We're having a debate in class, and half my reasons aren't even being written down by the teacher (he's against it). He says my arguments are bad. I need some arguments that he couldn't argue with.

thanks :beer:

EDIT: my arguments; this is when the person is convicted beyong reasonable doubt, and would otherwise be facing life without any chance of parol

1.) Waste of tax money (Approx. $30k/year per person
2.) Waste of jail-space
3.) Person "lives above the law"; if he gets pissed and kills guards and/or other figutives, the worse thing that's going to happen is he's going to get another life sentece. Big deal.

we had a few more, but i forgot them....the third was was kind of dumb, but i think if you think about it, it makes sense. Teacher said we were assuming too much with it.

Topic Title: People who are for the death penalty please come in
Click to expand...

You need to occasionally thin out the herd.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Eye for an Eye

Why should someone be able to murder someone else and live?

Deters people from committing the crimes



Ask you teacher (who is obviously a liberal) why it's ok to murder innocent babies in abortion but not kill a convicted murderer or child rapist?
Click to expand...

the death penalty is not a deterent when it comes to the kind of criminals that commit the kind of crimes involved.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
1. Prisoners are let out by the parole board before a life sentence is over and they get out of Jail and just kill people again.

2. Inmates escape prison and kill more people.

3. Not enough space in prison so the judges are forced to free convicts early.

4. The dead do not kill and rape more people when they are dead.

5. You cant fix stupid.

I cant think of one reason to let a drug addict or a child molester keep on living. They chose to try to destroy society. Society is better irradicating these kind of low-lifes. Any one that picks up a gun with an intent to commit a crime desrves the death sentence. Society has a right to demand it.
Click to expand...

comparing a drug addict to a child molester is the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
1. Prisoners are let out by the parole board before a life sentence is over and they get out of Jail and just kill people again.

2. Inmates escape prison and kill more people.

3. Not enough space in prison so the judges are forced to free convicts early.

4. The dead do not kill and rape more people when they are dead.

5. You cant fix stupid.

I cant think of one reason to let a drug addict or a child molester keep on living. They chose to try to destroy society. Society is better irradicating these kind of low-lifes. Any one that picks up a gun with an intent to commit a crime desrves the death sentence. Society has a right to demand it.
Click to expand...

So does this mean that Rush Limbaugh and Brett Favre need to both be executed?!?! They both got addicted to pain killers and went into rehab for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top