Death Penalty

[Scoobydoo]

I dont like the death penalty.....it concerns me for several reasons

[Rinoa]

Before I reply I'd like to state my stance. The death penalty in the case of one person being murdered is not something I support. But in the case of a serial killer I think that we have every right as a society to kill someone that enjoys the death and suffering of others. People who murder mutliple times(I am not reffering to multiple people in the same incident, but multiple incidents) show a consistent lack of regard for human life, and once we know them to be guilty we know that they will do it again if they get out.

Serial Killers have a different mentality. They devalue human life, and in most cases kill you because they like watching you die. I'm sorry, but when you get to that point, you are disposable.

[quote=Dean_Letham;380397]

1) As someone mentioned earlier, 2 wrongs don't make a right

.

And if we aren't looking to 'make a right'? I personally just want them the hell out of society, with no way to escape. Out of curiousity, does anyone know the current escape rate from prison? (please link your source)

2) The person who kills the criminal can also be described as a murderer even if the death is by law, he or she is still taken another life.

But is that life deservable of being classified as human? There is a point where I start to doubt that. Now, I understand in the case of one murder out of rage, I wouldn't want the death penalty. But when it gets to the point that human lives are so valueless that they enjoy it...Sorry Bundy, it's the chair for you.

3) The person may be innocent and if you only save 1 innocent life over the world by not having the death penalty then it is essential we don't have it.

Hmm...and if guilty many people would the person have gone on to kill afterwards? There are lives on both sides of line.

4) A murderer may be mentally unwell and need help and support as he or she may not have been aware of there actions.

That's why we have insanity pleas and requirements that the person be shown to be mentally sound before they stand trial. Also, the punishment differs in the case of the mentally incapable. Usually they are sentenced to mental hospitals, not prison.

However if you can prove 100% that the murderer is indeed guilty and was mentally well then he has to be in prison for his full life in my opinion, taken his freedom away for the rest of his life will be a bigger punishment than the death penalty anyway. Not 1 single murderer should be allowed to leave prison after x amount of years.

Well, for one we know that they are guilty if there is a security camera that tapes them doing it. If there are multiple witnesses who see the face of the man then we also know that he did it. For instance, if the VT killer had managed to run, there were so many witnesses who saw his face and knew him personally, as well as cameras on grounds that we would know it was him regardless.

Quote by: brien Since death is absolute, the verdict would have to be determined upon absolute corroboration of the evidence. Keep in mind, eyewitness accounts were even used to railroad blacks in the Jim Crow south to blame them for murders caucasians committed there.

You also have to keep in mind the times in which that happened. If they didn't kill those men 'legally' they would have found another way. The witnesses were biased, and in many cases flat out lied.

Perhaps we should have a special Federal prison exclusively for the solitary incarceration of those convicted of homicide. No frills, heat of no more than 50 degrees in the winter if needed, and absolutely no air conditioning for the summer. One meal daily. No entertainment. No computers. No creature comforts. No parole. Books ok. One phone call of reasonable length per week, and one reasonable visitation per month. Paints and creative materials for self expression ok so long as they can't be fashioned into weapons.

I wouldn't even allow them books. I'm sorry, but books are a priviledge that they should have to earn.

Life w/o parole in solitary confinement should mean a uncomfortable life in a living hell so as to remind them of their crime every waking hour of their life. This would serve as a real deterrent as opposed to the DP. Prisoners tire of the monotony and the boredom of their evil selves. Executing them is merely doing them a favor and is hardly a deterrent.

Except in cases where the perp doesn't regret what they did. In those cases they won't suffer the way they should.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: ladyphoenix I can not, in good conscience, take the life of a human being who is not an imminent threat to my safety.

I think the death-penalty purpose is two-fold: prevention and punishment. You've covered punishment to some degree, only instead of looking at this from the perspective of an individual, you, look at it from the perspective of society. Sure, you may not be in imminent danger from a criminal. The official executioner may not even be in imminent danger. But society as a whole may be in imminent danger.

And yeah, theoretically, if the person is sent to prison for the rest of their life, they won't get out. But that's impractical. Prisoners often escape. Besides, it's not like prisons are totally isolated from society; they're within society. Criminals could be likened to hemoglobin in red blood cells; maybe in and of themselves, they have real value as human beings, but there's a possibility that the red blood cell, their prison, may rupture, and they may be released into the rest of the body. And hemoglobin is toxic to the rest of the body.

As for punishment, yeah, it often goes along the lines of an eye for eye. The penalty is an instrument of the forces of justice within a society, and it's supposed to enforce cultural solidarity according to given ethical standards.

[Klio]

I put this in another post, but it holds true for this one as well:

I don't know whether it still is or not, but it used to be, in the State of Texas and other States, that when a convict was executed, the Cause of Death line on the Death Certificate read either "Murder" or "Homicide," thereby making the entire State guilty of same.

If we execute ANY criminal, how does that make us any better than the criminal?

Killing anyone should be done only for defensive purposes, and the purpose should be clear-cut.

[Scribbler1]

That sounds more like the reason for the execution itself. Are you sure about this and would you have a source perhaps?

[Hellsea]

To Brien,

I see what you are saying, but I have an issue when it comes to playing the good guy all the time. We need to have a balance of "good cop bad cop." I do believe that terrorists should be given a fair trial, but I do not think that measures to gather information should be labeled illegal. As long as we keep some morals, we will always be better then those animals. My point is this, if the terrorists do not cooperate in the beginning, then they should be forced to cooperate. Think about it, the lives of many many people may lie in the information that is gathered from the terroists. As long as we are using these "actions" for good, we will always have morals to back them up with. The death penelty should be thought of in the same manner. If nothing else is working, then death should be used as a last resort. I am talking about after concluding that counciling, jail time, and medications no longer work. "Eye for an Eye" isn't a bad idea either. :)

[Beckah]

In my opinion, without death penalty, there would be so many more criminals and murderers. People who do unspeakable things to other people kind of deserve to die. And, there's always the possibility that they could escape from prison or an asylum. We can't take that chance. Too many people have died or been hurt already. What about Pedophiles? Even fellow prisoners won't go near pedophiles. Murderers also deserve to die. It's kind of like an eye for an eye kind of thing. There needs to be some way to punish people who go against the law.

[brien]

Guilt is supposed to be proven beyond the shadow of doubt in the jurors

Os Just a correction in semantics here. Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases but it only takes the preponderance of the evidence, in civil cases.

[brien]

Quote by: Hellsea To Brien, I see what you are saying, but I have an issue when it comes to playing the good guy all the time. We need to have a balance of "good cop bad cop." I do believe that terrorists should be given a fair trial, but I do not think that measures to gather information should be labeled illegal. As long as we keep some morals, we will always be better then those animals. My point is this, if the terrorists do not cooperate in the beginning, then they should be forced to cooperate. Think about it, the lives of many many people may lie in the information that is gathered from the terroists. As long as we are using these "actions" for good, we will always have morals to back them up with. The death penelty should be thought of in the same manner. If nothing else is working, then death should be used as a last resort. I am talking about after concluding that counciling, jail time, and medications no longer work. "Eye for an Eye" isn't a bad idea either. :)

Hellsea:

You make cogent argument with regard to torture for sovreign nations that ignores the Geneva Protocols and that is neither the US or Germany I wish to know. You must remember that suspects are merely suspects before they are convicted, and I see very little ground on which to apply any means of physical force in their questioning excepting in some extreme circustances.

We simply must follow the rule of law, even if terrorists do not do the same. Torture doesn't work and it violates the rule of International law. Once we begin to torture terrorists, we become terrorists ourselves who trade our respect for the rule of law for the same anarchy that the terrorist defends as his "right to might". Once we do this, what are we fighting for? Not the nation in which I wish to live or respect. We simply must not torture suspects who have neither been convicted of a crime or are merely suspected of involvement of a crime.

What kind of acts do we get involved in when an individual is tortured into giving false information and then we base our actions upon that information? This is bad policy.

As far as the death penalty, I can only say, man makes mistakes. Juries make mistakes. We should not execute people based upon some of the evidence we convict the guilty today. Furthermore, in the US, the majority of people on death row are minorities. We convicted two black men in NJ for the murders of white people based upon evidence that was contrived by the police out of a vendetta against one of the men.

Rubin "Hurricane" Carter Biography - Biography.com

Rubin "Hurricane" Carter

This man would have been executed, along with John Artis, if the DP had been in force in NJ. We simplyy can't tolerate these type of "mistakes" in the Justice System.

In addressing DNA evidence we have available to us now that may convict a person beyond a reasonable doubt, we shouldn't execute people because it lowers the state, meaning we citizens, to the same level of morality of the criminal convicted of murder. The DP is merely either revenge or a punishment that affects the convicted only up until the time of the execution of the sentence. After that, what good does it do for the living?

[brien]

In my opinion, without death penalty, there would be so many more criminals and murderers

Perhaps you should reconsider your opinion because it has been shown that the DP doesn't act as a deterrent in cases of murder.

And, there's always the possibility that they could escape from prison or an asylum.

Can you provide an example of such escapes from modern prisons in the last 15 years, or is this merely your opinion as well?

What about Pedophiles?

What about Pedophiles? You want to execute them as well? Why stop there? Let's execute wife beaters, child abusers, and the mentally ill. Afterall, one has to be mentally disturbed to murder, to abuse children and to beat their spouses as well, do they not? Let's just execute the dregs of society, right?:rolleyes:

[brien]

I think the death-penalty purpose is two-fold: prevention and punishment

It has been shown that the DP doesn't act as a deterrent. And with regard to punishment, what good does it do to kill someone as a punishment? They no longer are compelled to confront their crime when they are dead. The DP merely gets them off the hook by hastening their eventual demise.

But society as a whole may be in imminent danger.

How is society in "imminent danger" by incarcerating a criminal?

Prisoners often escape.

Can you provide some examples where convicted murderers have escaped from maximum security correctional centers in the past 15 years? I seem to recall one instance down south in which every prisoner was captured very quickly. Bottom line is, it doesn't happen very often at all.

As for punishment, yeah, it often goes along the lines of an eye for eye

Where, in the bible? I certainly don't see this in our Crimnal Justice System. Oh yeah, right, when we convict a wife beater, we turn him into the square and beat him while he is restrained in the stocks. Sure.:rolleyes:

Can you provide some examples of this as well ? I don't want to make the mistake of living there.

[brien]

Rinoa wrote:

You also have to keep in mind the times in which that happened. If they didn't kill those men 'legally' they would have found another way. The witnesses were biased, and in many cases flat out lied.

Who is to say this still can't happen today? What has changed to prevent an innocent man from being charged with murder and then convicted by a jury?

Here are 74 recent cases that have been overturned.

USA: No getting away from it - the risk of lethal error in death penalty cases - Amnesty International

No getting away from it - the risk of lethal error in death penalty cases I can't tell you how it is to stand outside of that cell and have a gentleman come and put a tape measure around your chest, around your waist, the inseam of your legs, and measure you for your burial suit. (Joseph "Shabaka" Green Brown) Joseph "Shabaka" Green Brown spent more than 14 years on death row in Florida, USA, for a crime he did not commit. His case is by no means unique. Since 1973, 74 other condemned prisoners have been released from US death rows after proof of their wrongful conviction was uncovered. Many, like him, had come within hours of their execution before being exonerated.

This, I am sure, is only the ones we know about, so what about the people on death row who haven't been exonerated yet? Can you tell me with absolute certainty there isn't one more innocent person on death row. Odds are showing me that there indeed are now.

Except in cases where the perp doesn't regret what they did. In those cases they won't suffer the way they should

First how do you know a convicted murderer won't regret what they did.? Second, should an inmate suffer or should he be remorseful? Is the goal of prison to make inmates suffer?

[Rinoa]

Quote by: brien Who is to say this still can't happen today? What has changed to prevent an innocent man from being charged with murder and then convicted by a jury?

Which is why I don't support it when it's one murder. A one time killer is easily misconvicted, and not likely to kill again after release. Show me an overturn in the case of a serial killer. Those are the men that will kill again if they get out and those are the ones that aren't worth the risk of keeping alive.

This, I am sure, is only the ones we know about, so what about the people on death row who haven't been exonerated yet? Can you tell me with absolute certainty there isn't one more innocent person on death row. Odds are showing me that there indeed are now.

And again, I don't support it in the case of a onetime crime. That is easily misconvicted, and I don't know that I feel comfortable in killing that person even if they are guilty. I only support it in the case of a serial killer.

First how do you know a convicted murderer won't regret what they did.? Second, should an inmate suffer or should he be remorseful? Is the goal of prison to make inmates suffer?

It is to make them pay for their crimes and to deter others from committing the same crime. Now, some inmates regret the crimes that they committed, and those I feel pity for, and those will create their own suffering. But, some don't, they flat out don't care that they are responsible for someones death, rape or collateral loss. And those people need to see that something bad will happen to them in order to abstain from the crime. From everything I've ever read/seen/heard on the mentality of a serial killer they all fit that bill. If you can show me ten murderers that are classified as serial killers that don't I'll be shocked.

[brien]

Show me an overturn in the case of a serial killer. Those are the men that will kill again if they get out and those are the ones that aren't worth the risk of keeping alive.

So you are saying it is reasonable and just to kill a criminal who murders several times but not merely once. Seems discriminatory to me, not to mention that it serves no purpose in deterrence or punishment.

And those people need to see that something bad will happen to them in order to abstain from the crime.

I have no problem with this except when that something "bad" is the DP. The DP serves as no deterrent nor does it serve as punishment so I fail to see how it is effective in either case for any murderer, serial or single instance.

[Rinoa]

Quote by: brien So you are saying it is reasonable and just to kill a criminal who murders several times but not merely once. Seems discriminatory to me, not to mention that it serves no purpose in deterrence or punishment.

There is a difference between the mentality of a murderer and that of a serial killer. A serial killer kills because he likes doing it. He murders for the thrill of killing a human being. They have multiple victims, and if let out(or in the case that they escape, because that has happened) they will kill again. Basically it comes down to choosing to let him live, and risking the deaths of multiple people should he escape. Honestly, I don't think his life is worth the risk of the lives he will take if he escapes.

I have no problem with this except when that something "bad" is the DP. The DP serves as no deterrent nor does it serve as punishment so I fail to see how it is effective in either case for any murderer, serial or single instance.

Oddly a serial killer sees the consequence of himself dying as bad, but does not see himself killing others as bad. The fact that there is a consequence that will harm them is something that they see as bad, and will try to avoid.

However, with my stance it is more accurate to say that it removes the risk to society. I support it in this example because the person has proven their willingness to kill for fun. Once they have shown that great a disrespect for the rules of society and lives of others I believe that they forfeit their own right to life.

[brien]

Basically it comes down to choosing to let him live, and risking the deaths of multiple people should he escape. Honestly, I don't think his life is worth the risk of the lives he will take if he escapes.

Do you have any examples of serial killers escaping in recent history? Do you have any examples of any killers escaping maximum incarceration in recent years? And when they escaped, did they kill again before they were captured?

The fact that there is a consequence that will harm them is something that they see as bad, and will try to avoid.

Can you provide any evidence that the DP is a deterrence for serial killers? It has been shown that the DP is not a deterrent for murderers, but please show us the evidence tothe contrary.

it is more accurate to say that it removes the risk to society

And so does incarceration for life. No parole.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: saltinespike Since this topic has not been active lately, and the fact that I was not able to be a part of it, I am bringing it back up. The Death Penalty. I think that it is quite justified and quite simple: you kill someone and we'll kill you back. We are justified because you (someone with the death penalty) were unjustified in what you did. Of course, this is not restricted to killing someone. It all depends on the situation. But whenever you break the rules, you can always expect a punishment which leads back to "We are justified because you (someone with the death penalty) were unjustified in what you did." What's your opinion?

saltinespike as I've stated before in these forums I am wholeheartedly against the death penalty. Those who've commited and thoroughly proven of murder, which can be categorised as abhorent by the rest of society should not be put to death as retribution, justice or any other crazy word we use to ensure their crime is punished.

These diabolical creatures should be de-classified as humans and their bodies used for vivisection or other experiments in which science can learn more about disease and pain progress.

Thus my stance is the death penalty, is that it is a waste of a valid resource that will enable the rest of us humans to improve our world, whilst ridding the world of those who have no social consience. Yes I concur that keeping them could risk escape, but a suitable lobotomy should render them halmless :)

[brien]

These diabolical creatures should be de-classified as humans and their bodies used for vivisection or other experiments in which science can learn more about disease and pain progress

Sorry sir, under the BOR this is a violation of the VIII Amendment in the US.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: brien Sorry sir, under the BOR this is a violation of the VIII Amendment in the US.

brien then if you agree with me, you should consider advocating appeal or altering of the VIII Amendment, the law should be dynamic and move with societies needs. :)

[Hellsea]

To Brien: you say that we should only use physical actions in extreme situations. Well, that is what those situations are. Terrorists are extremists, they go to extreme measures all the time. When a solid case is built around the terrorist, one that has no loopholes, then they are in essence guilty. Terrorists are not terrorists because they like to cuddle with little puppies. They are terrorists because they kill, because they cause terror. You also have to understand something else. When we capture these terrorists they are proud of what they do. They have as much faith in their cause, as we do in ours. Have you ever watched a case when a terrorist was on trial? They want people to know what they did... they even brag. When the words "I did it" come out of their mouth, they are guilty. When they say they are terrorists they are guilty. When they cause terror in the hearts of the innocent they need to be dead, or they need to be forced to give up information regarding their mission and the mission of others. Only in this way, will we be able to save the lives off millions and in turn stay on top of the terrorists.

Do you honestly think that major covert organizations in the United States do not use torture methods? It is better to torture a few men without the world knowing it, then to have thousands..even millions die because you played nice with the bad guys. And because you were "nice” you lost the opportunity to gather valuable information that would lead to a cell, headquarters, and or a group of recruits making plans of terror.

Brien, there is a huge difference where our country and the terrorists are concerned. The terrorist’s, guess who they torture... They torture innocent American soldiers, men who did no wrong. The soldiers didn't strap bombs to children, give them a gun, tell them to "have faith," then make them blow themselves up. That is what the terrorists do. We are fighting because we believe we, and other countries should have freedom. They are fighting because they are ruthless monsters whose only objective is to cause fear and panic worldwide.

Where the death penalty is concerned, I think that it too should be used in extreme cases. Such cases would be with murderers (brutal murders and serial killers). Pedophiles and rapists should just be locked in a room and never allowed to see the light of day again.