Opinions On The Death Penalty

[PoeticVengeance]

DivideByZero14

@ Fires
OK, I see what you're saying, but you took me the wrong way. I meant not that we should cut trial time for the death penalty, but that we should increase trial time for the prison sentences. We are either punishing the right man or the wrong man, and we should put as much time and money into that discrimination as necessary. (I guess I wasn't very clear... sweatdrop heh...)

Oh, ok... I thought you meant something else.  

[PoeticVengeance]

Copper Forrest

I think the death penalty is reasonable for:
----people who murder more than one other person (demonstrating that they can do it more than once) and
----once the government can clear up the ridiculous and unfair justice system. (too many poor people go to prison cuz they can't afford a rich man's justice.)

Honestly, I am inclined to say kill 'em all the very day the jury or judge determined them guilty... and the victim's family gets first shot. My brother was murdered when I was in the 7th grade. Its not just that we grieve still, its that we are still haunted, 30 years later. (Did he suffer? Was he scared? Did he cry? Was he worried about us? How long thru the stab wounds did he live?) Now I have a little one and I know that the worst can happen to anyone.

However, enough time has passed that I recognize my emotions are based in my personal experience. Justice needs to intervene REGARDLESS of the victim's family - and regardless of the accused bank account.

So if the accused is innocent and he/she gets executed on the day of the trial, who should be blamed for their wrongful death?

We have the appeals process for a reason.  

[xorflex]

I think China has it figured out. Their cost of execution is almost nothing because persons sentenced to death are simply taken out and shot within 20 minutes of the trial  

[Redem]

xorflex

I think China has it figured out. Their cost of execution is almost nothing because persons sentenced to death are simply taken out and shot within 20 minutes of the trial

That's a good thing is it?  

[Copper Forrest]

PoeticVengence

Copper Forrest

I think the death penalty is reasonable for:
----people who murder more than one other person (demonstrating that they can do it more than once) and
----once the government can clear up the ridiculous and unfair justice system. (too many poor people go to prison cuz they can't afford a rich man's justice.)

Honestly, I am inclined to say kill 'em all the very day the jury or judge determined them guilty... and the victim's family gets first shot. My brother was murdered when I was in the 7th grade. Its not just that we grieve still, its that we are still haunted, 30 years later. (Did he suffer? Was he scared? Did he cry? Was he worried about us? How long thru the stab wounds did he live?) Now I have a little one and I know that the worst can happen to anyone.

However, enough time has passed that I recognize my emotions are based in my personal experience. Justice needs to intervene REGARDLESS of the victim's family - and regardless of the accused bank account.

So if the accused is innocent and he/she gets executed on the day of the trial, who should be blamed for their wrongful death?

We have the appeals process for a reason.

Yup, we do.

Thats why I saidjustice needs to intervene rather than the victim's family.

Thats why I said that the justice system needs to be straightened up first.

Frankly, whether you're for the death penalty or not, it only makes sense to focus on that first. Innocent people shouldnt be locked up. There should be more checks and balances when it comes to murder trials.  

[PoeticVengeance]

Copper Forrest

PoeticVengence

Copper Forrest

I think the death penalty is reasonable for:
----people who murder more than one other person (demonstrating that they can do it more than once) and
----once the government can clear up the ridiculous and unfair justice system. (too many poor people go to prison cuz they can't afford a rich man's justice.)

Honestly, I am inclined to say kill 'em all the very day the jury or judge determined them guilty... and the victim's family gets first shot. My brother was murdered when I was in the 7th grade. Its not just that we grieve still, its that we are still haunted, 30 years later. (Did he suffer? Was he scared? Did he cry? Was he worried about us? How long thru the stab wounds did he live?) Now I have a little one and I know that the worst can happen to anyone.

However, enough time has passed that I recognize my emotions are based in my personal experience. Justice needs to intervene REGARDLESS of the victim's family - and regardless of the accused bank account.

So if the accused is innocent and he/she gets executed on the day of the trial, who should be blamed for their wrongful death?

We have the appeals process for a reason.

Yup, we do.

Thats why I saidjustice needs to intervene rather than the victim's family.

Thats why I said that the justice system needs to be straightened up first.

Frankly, whether you're for the death penalty or not, it only makes sense to focus on that first. Innocent people shouldnt be locked up. There should be more checks and balances when it comes to murder trials.

Good good.

Of course this makes any capital punishment very expensive due to the necessary appeals process.

Which begs the question, is it really worth the extra cost to execute them?  

[PoeticVengeance]

xorflex

I think China has it figured out. Their cost of execution is almost nothing because persons sentenced to death are simply taken out and shot within 20 minutes of the trial

Hardly a good thing.

Innocent people being executed is never a good.

And are people really getting a fair trial in China to begin with?  

[DivideByZero14]

Trials convict the wrong person for the same reason they exist in the first place: people commit crimes, lie, steal, cheat, and murder. There's no such thing as a perfect trial, because it wouldn't be necessary in the first place.  

[Azaleya]

If somebody has killed another, there's usually a reason for it, such as vengance. in this case, is it fair to kill a person for getting even with someone who may not have gotten punished for what they did?
And what if it's society's fault that they killed someone? what happens to the people who drove the person to do the deed? nothing. i hardly feel this is fair.
It also goes back to whether or not you follow the "eye for an eye" philosophy.  

[Orson Welles]

There's really no point. I'd just keep the person in jail. 3nodding  

[Dathu]

Okay, to execute is about as expensive as incarceration.

The purpose of incarceration is to prevent further crime.

The purpose of jail is punishment by removal of normal living rights.

The problem, in many cases, is that jail isn't much worse than normal living conditions.

The criminals aren't afraid of jail.

Most of them are afraid of death.

Start killing inmates, and they will become afraid.

To the ignorant, fear is the most powerful form of control.

I agree with the death penalty, and, in some cases, I would be happy to throw the switch.  

[Zwiebelsaft!]

redem

Does it stop people killing? No.
Can we be completely sure we are killing a guilty person? Not usually.
Is it cheaper? No.



What, exactly, is the point?

 

[Xanthir]

Is it ever morally right to kill a human being?
Yep. We kill lots of things for lots of reasons. While morality is ultimately founded on reciprocation (I dont' kill you, you don't kill me), other principles do become more important on occasion.

Is it ever Ok to kill someone if you aren't at war or imediately threatend by them?
Yep. See above. There are plenty of things that aren't justifiable on an individual basis, but are justifiable from the standpoint of the community. Taxes, for example.

(for theists reading this)Is the biblical eye for an eye punishment for henious crimes cool with you? In the specific way that it is phrased, no. Mirroring the criminal's act isn't necessarily the best.

Should we chop off the life of a hatchet man if you think the fear of death penalty can DETER crime?
Yep. Does the knowledge that cops are around sometimes deter you from speeding?

Do you trust the government to kill only bad people?
Of course not. The government is made up of people. People are fallible.

Should we rub out the truly rotten if it saves tax money?
While saving tax money is *one* consideration in the good-of-the-community line of reasoning, it's not the only one. Attempting to simplify it that much is a little dishonest.

By saying all those pro-death arguements before you EVEN consider those satements YOU HAVE TO AGREE that it is okay to kill a human being.
Yes, yes it is.

In the same situation of the murdered victim's family we can see that we might agree with the death penalty. Lou Reed once sang an eye for an eye is elemental..Sure vengenace is hot and immediate but law is cold and its slow and methodical so as a group we might act wiser than an individual would. Personal pain and (for theists) biblical tradition is still not enough reason to take the life of another human being.
I agree. There are many, many more factors to consider than just "He hurt me!"

The death Penalty is not only the state killing it involves physical and psychological terror and torture and it culminates the act of human extermination. Governments are exterminating people by gas, electrucution, or giving them lethal injection. BUT.... what does this say about the rest of us? to me it is something pretty dark and disgusting. Now I don't want these crazy lunatics running around the streets that is why we have jails for and they should stay there in wherein they belong.
Jails which are themselves hotbeds of physical and psychological torture. And it's not anything we can fix - the power that a guard or a dominant inmate has naturally leads to abuse. It's a fact of our human nature.

It is our moral integrity which calls for the abolishment of the death penalty. In the 21st century, the death penalty takes a part of our humanity away. It is an immoral issue for us in this century. The desire to kill, the desire to want someone to kill, this is a barbaric instinct indeed that which we as human beings have and the more we control it, the better.
It's not instincts that we're appealing to here. It's game theory, the essential basis of an atheist morality. You have to ground your morals on *something*, and science is the only thing you get from the universe. If it's best for the community to kill someone, they get killed.

Governments should be in a different business other than killing people they should protecting society, but murdering people does not get us closer to protecting people it demeans everyone.
Evidence for this assertion? In what way, exactly, does killing a human demean all other humans? In what way does killing harmful people not make us safer? If they're dead, they can never commit a crime ever again.

We all know that our justic systems is run by humans and as humans we err, we have problems, we have mistakes. prosecutial misconduct is something becoming more and more common,there are some prosecutors withholding evidence, there are police officers who falsify testiments in order to win.
Yep, which is why we need as many safeguards against bad trials as possible. This applies to *all* things, not just death penalty cases.

For those of you who suggest Lethal Injection it should be pointed out that the goal of lethal injection isn't easier for the person being killed that the goal is to make it easier for the person to make the killing.
Evidence for this assertion? Lethal injection is the only execuion method left to us because of the "cruel and inhumane punishment" clause being enforced. I don't think anyone went to court saying, "We should get rid of the electric chair because it makes me feel sad when I pull the lever."

here are the chemicals involved for lethal injection
first they inject 5,000 miligrams sodium thiopental (it puts you to sleep for about 30 seconds)
next they inject you with 100 miligrams of pancuronium bromide (it paralyzes your lungs and diaprahm so you stop breathing)
Finally they inject you with potassium chloride (which induces cardiac arrest)
two minutes after the state declares you dead. it sounds so peaceful but that is simply perception.
a study published by the medical journal The Lancet examined data from autopsies performed from 49 executions from Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. doctors found that 43 of the executed had lower levels of the sleeping medication (thiopental) than that required of that for sugery . 21 of those had low enough concentration that they were most likely awake and aware of what was going on because if you don't get enough of the thiopental you stay awake and the pancuronium bromide stops you from moving but does not affect your awareness. THAT means that the 21 who were executed may have experienced suffocation and excruciating pain without anesthesia without the appearance of suffering the study of this topic also mention that this method fails to meet the standards of putting animals to sleep. This leaves me asking "What the F*** are we doing?"
And here's a picture of an aborted fetus. Does this prove that abortion is always wrong? The last paragraph may argue for a reevaluation of dosage, nothing more.

Here is another interesting history tip that you may find suprising
The father of lethal injection was a man by the name of Dr. Karl Brandt. people might not know him but he was the personal physician of Adolph Hitler. Lethal Injection was meant for a killing practice and it was a Nazi Idea and a Nazi Practice and the fact that we use it today in America and call it Justice is Obscene and Outrageous.
Ah, the Nazis. I'd invoke Godwin's Law, but there's no need. Let me say this clearly: THE FACT THAT THE NAZIS DID SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE IT WRONG. The Nazis did some horrible, horrible things. However, the vast majority of the things they did were perfectly fine. Actions must be evaluated by their effects, not by the history of who did them previously.

Deterrence is the worst most, most fraudulent principle. the death penalty has no deterrence effect because murder is committed for three different reasons or motivations. First, passion. second, profit. and third, compulsion. If it's for profit, the people who do it for profit do it very rationally. They are always convinced that they will not be caught. (such as assassins, the mafia, or mercenaries) Second, Passion crimes can not be deterred. If you hate your husband or wife that much for example, that you might kill them. NO ONE, no punishment can deter you. (for example you come home and find your spouse with another man or woman -and don't invite you to join them wink - you just snap or simply flip out, this doesnt stop you from murdering you don't weigh risk or reward when you are angry that is a simple definition of flipping out) and the wrost is, of course crime by compulsion. If a sexual criminal kills a child for example. Unfortunately, these are the kinds of criminal, violent acts which cannot be deterred at all because it is a compulsion. ( pure evil mofos like charles manson, son of sam, john wayne gacy, and jeffery dahmer come to mind. all of them tried to hide their criminal acts this that certainly suggests that they were aware of the consequences of their acts but the fear of the system still did not stop them from commiting their acts.)
Deterrence does NOTHING. if deterrence were a real issue in america one would have to look no further than in the state of texas. because texas has the highest number of inmates executed and it is also the 2nd highest
of inmates on death row. you think that people in Texas would not commit murders but they still DO! maybe it might be the heat in texas that causes them to kill or maybe their own stupidity How would I know? but what I still do know is that they are talking about killing another human being.

Evidence? Can you pull up numbers that back up your statement that the death penalty does not cause deterrence? Remember to control for other factors, or else your statistics are useless!

The simple fact is, it has been proven in numerous sociological experiments that punishment *does* deter people from committing crimes, both directly and by example. Without any evidence to the contrary, we can apply this to murder as well. If you would like to bring some evidence, do so.

There may be chances that there may be innocent people in Death Row and if you don't believe me research about a man named Alan Gell if you can find him search search for death penalty information center, or sho.com and click bulls*** and look at the death penalty episode.
The day is coming that we will be sure to know without a shadow of a doubt that we have executed an innocent person and on that day we will be all murderers.
Oh no, it's quite certain that we've killed innocent people already. If it hasn't been directly proven, the statistical likelihood of us correctly indicting the guilty party every single time is nearly zero. We've messed up; we've killed innocent people. It doesn't mean that we are murderers, unless you purposely pervert the meaning of the word. If I fall off of a ladder and land on someone just right, killing them, am I a murderer? No. So, it is quite possible to kill people without murderering them. At worst, it's manslaughter. At best, it's an acceptable cost that should be minimized as much as possible.

here is something to think about logically about the death penalty
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 deserved to be killed.
This is the paradox of the death penalty and you cannot avoid this paradox.
Strawman. Look above. People kill innocent people all the time without being murderers. The definition of murder is up to us.

its blatanly hypocritical for the government on one hand to teach children to urge and respect for the culture of life from the time we are little through life and yet the government interceeds against some violent convicted felons and kills these people in the name of the law.
Come again? Give me some reasoning here. Exactly what is the government teaching to children that it is violating? We are taught that it is wrong for individual people to take life in most situations, because we are flawed and cannot always know the truth. A court of law is a vastly different entity from an individual person, though.

I dont believe in killing to make a point. an eye for an eye is the basest of human emotions and if people are dangerous keep them locked up longer if it's too expensive give them cheaper food.
Raw assertion without evidence. Actually analyze the situation. Is it cruelty to lock someone up in prison for their entire life? Is it cruelty to kill someone for their crimes? Which is crueler? You can't answer that immediately - you need to actually study the question.

YEAH DETERRENCE the idea that the death penalty keeps a criminal from having anymore influence on the world? the idea that once you kill someone no one will follow in footsteps?, the idea that all the ideas die with someone once you killed them? yeah deterrence JESUS CHRIST rolleyes
Invalid argument. Does putting someone in jail for life prevent copycat killers? Do their ideas stay locked up in jail with them? In this respect there is no difference.  

[Status Quo Joe]

"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
-Mahatma Ghandi  

[Kiron]

actually the death penalty is not a deterrance as states with the death penalty have roughly around double the crime as ones that do not, also 90% of people on death row could not afford a lawer and thus had a state appointed one, proving pretty much the wealth is a indication if you get the death penalty or not (also race, as black's are most likley to get the death penalty), also the death penalty is a waste of money.

Slave labour is the best punishment for people that commit really bad crimes, or life in SC, that would suck, or even if this is pretty much the death penalty, gladiator battles in massive stadiums would rock.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut3.htm
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108