The Death Penalty
FilthyLarry
Join Date: 2003-08-31 Member: 20423Members
Join Date: 2003-08-31 Member: 20423Members
in Discussions
A recent news article here in the States got me thinking yet again about this issue:
"OCALA, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush suspended executions in Florida after a medical examiner said Friday that prison officials botched the insertion of the needles when a convicted killer was put to death earlier this week.
Separately, a federal judge in California imposed a moratorium on executions in the nation's most populous state, declaring that the state's method of lethal injection runs the risk of violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment."
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/15/diaz.execution.ap/index.html" target="_blank">Full Article here</a>
I am opposed to the death penalty for a number of reasons. One that will I mention up front is the simple possibility that an innocent person could be wrongfully convicted of a crime and subsequently killed by what amounts to government sanctioned murder at that point.
I'm interested in discussing the pros and cons of having the death penalty in place. Does it really deter crime for example? Feel free to bring morality into the picture as you please.
"OCALA, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush suspended executions in Florida after a medical examiner said Friday that prison officials botched the insertion of the needles when a convicted killer was put to death earlier this week.
Separately, a federal judge in California imposed a moratorium on executions in the nation's most populous state, declaring that the state's method of lethal injection runs the risk of violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment."
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/15/diaz.execution.ap/index.html" target="_blank">Full Article here</a>
I am opposed to the death penalty for a number of reasons. One that will I mention up front is the simple possibility that an innocent person could be wrongfully convicted of a crime and subsequently killed by what amounts to government sanctioned murder at that point.
I'm interested in discussing the pros and cons of having the death penalty in place. Does it really deter crime for example? Feel free to bring morality into the picture as you please.
Comments
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=386474317433807232&showtopic=95258&hl=capital+punishment" target="_blank">Capital Punishment: Right Or Wrong</a>
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=386474317433807232&showtopic=90478&b=1&st=&p=&#entry" target="_blank"> Capital Punishment/life Sentence Alternative: Pic </a>
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=386474317433807232&showtopic=90289&b=1&st=&p=&#entry" target="_blank">Capital Punishment</a>
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?s=386474317433807232&showtopic=68386&hl=capital+punishment" target="_blank"> Capital Punishment For Any Crime.... </a>
Of course, I can't think of a way in which we can feasibly do the recycling thing without death = profit = corporate sentencing, so it is then a bad idea, but you know. If it worked it would be nice. I'll settle with just killing them.
If you want to look at it in a purely logical way, the death sentence is perfectly fine because it will remove those unfit for our society. They obviously lack the characteristics to survive in the modern world, mine as well remove them to prevent them from breeding. Like societal "Natural Selection." Animals unfit for survival are killed off. Same concept here. You could just eliminate the criminals on the spot, no need to wait around for anything. The faster they are gone, the less society will have to be burdened by them. This is a really strange way to look at it though, were dealing with human lives. Doesn't it pretty much come down to a question of "sacrificing for the good of the whole?"
What is the main purpose of death penalty? Cause I honestly don't know. If it's to deter crime, I want to hear if it is effective. I need to know what the main purpose of it is if I want to begin discussing whether it should exist or not.
To those critics who feel it's wrong because of the possibility of an innocent person being killed, the chances of this happening are extremely low. The death penalty is considered an extreme punishment and the judicial system takes a lot of care in finalizing the decision. There are several safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty.
Pros: We eliminate societal threats and reduce jail population.
Cons: We may kill innocent individuals.
At least that's the way I see it.
Like I said, I don't agree with it, because there will always remain that marginal (or perhaps not so marginal) chance that an innocent person will be convicted and sentenced to death. But I can appreciate and understand those who support it.
Cheers & Happy Holidays,
~ DarkATi
I don't really see how society as a whole gets safer by killing a man who'd otherwise probably be sitting for life in prison.
If we start killing people to get rid of or reduce our problems, we might as well start killing old and/or disabled/retarded people if they're a burden to society.
So no i dont think its a good solution.
Besides having a death penalty is stating that murder is ok sometimes.
And what about indirect but intentionall murder, eg starting a war or polluting the planet. how can you let "eye for an eye" rule if its not for everyone.
Then what if you have to murder someone to get money so your 8 kids wont starve to death.
i dont think you can get everyone to agree on what deserves death and what doesnt so you cant follow "eye for an eye".
gah i cant express myself >_<
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]when one looks over the longest period possible (1934-2000) there is more evidence that the death penalty stimulates murder than that it deters murder.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no documented correlation between death penalty <i>(as far as I know)</i> and a reduced crime rate; even severe crimes. Please show me if you got any or can find any documentation on it.
So, as long as death penalty does not help the actual crime rates, it'll only be some low means of "getting revenge" which in my opinion is not justified.
By the way, the claim tankefugl links to is supported by a paper that is seemingly only available to institutions.
Since nobody has talked about whether it is effective as a deterrent, I'll just mention what I've heard. In the U.S., there doesn't seem to be a correlation between murder rates in the different states and whether they use the death penalty or not, i.e. death penalty is no more of a deterrent that high prison sentences. Don't bother asking me to back this up with statistics, as this is purely anecdotal. Your time would be better spent looking for the statistics to prove me right or wrong yourself, if you are so inclined.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have already researched this, and frankly you could argue a good case for it or against it, regarding deterrment. Therefore I'll pass, and let ya'll toss that one about.... ... .. .
Let the punishment fit the crime. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth as it states in Exodus.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah the bible is such a good moral guide...
Yeah the bible is such a good moral guide...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dont diss and be a h8ter. Olde days moral usually orginated in utilitarian principles.
Contribute to the discussion by providing your view of the argument in a clear, concise, and <i>open</i> manner or get the hell out.
Now, personally, I think I'd rather take the death penalty over life in prison, even if I was innocent. If I can't prove myself aright by the time the clock strikes midnight for me, I guess that's just the way the cards fell. But, that's just my own opinion, I'm not allowed to apply that to someone else. I just think it's more cruel to leave a person stuck in our prison system than it is to kill them, is all.
That could be part of the deterrence problem, actually. It takes a long time for all the red tape to be cleared and actually put someone to death from when they're first sentenced that I think it may lessen the impact of it all. But there's an obvious trade-off for speedy executions. The chances of killing an innocent man sky rocket.
Maybe the execution should be televised? With the kind of stuff we have on TV these days, I don't see why it would be so gruesome that we can't be able to see it. But then you gotta ask: "Would it be effective?" If we're so used to the fake blood and gore on TV, would a real person being given an injection be that much of a shock?
I'm not keen on taking the word of a study that compares violent crimes to areas that have had capital punishment over the last 80 or so years. It rings a bit like a "The ocean has risen in temperature over the last 200 years. Pirates on the seas have decreased in number over the last 200 years. Therefore, global warming has killed all the pirates" kind of argument to me.
I guess if I had your mindset I'd be for the death penalty. But I don't, and I'd probably lean towards not having the death penalty mostly because you can make mistakes.
You think it's more cruel to leave someone in jail than to kill them? I don't understand that at all. I'd much rather be alive in prison than dead, and I bet a large majority of people would agree with me as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, not so much. If it turns out later that you're innocent, it won't do you much good if you're already dead.
Really, though, if you want a <i>practical</i> argument against the death penalty, why not abolition on grounds of cost effectiveness? We waste more money on death penalty appeals than any other aspect of our justice system every year. If we were to do away with the punishment all together, we might be able to put the money we save towards building more prisons to help alleviate this horrible overcrowding problem we're having.
You think it's more cruel to leave someone in jail than to kill them? I don't understand that at all. I'd much rather be alive in prison than dead, and I bet a large majority of people would agree with me as well.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whether I was guilty or not, I would totally prefer to be put to death than to live the rest of my life without my family or freedom. Hands down, no doubt about it. In that instance I agree with Rob.
Although, televising? For me, it's ok to see blood & guts & gore if I know it's fake (well, ok, I do close my eyes sometimes during doctor-type shows)... but knowing that what you're seeing is real? That's different. I remember being on a horror movie kick some years back and renting <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077533/plotsummary" target="_blank">faces of death</a>... just thinking about it makes me sick. Not TV appropriate, not at all!
Back to the topic at hand. I am for the death penalty, but not so much how it's implemented here. By the time a prisoner is put to death, they've been on death row too long, gone through so many appeals, and too much time and money is spent on them. The process takes too long and is too expensive. I don't have a solution. Morally, I'm fine with it, but politically & financially it might be cheaper to spare their worthless lives and leave them in the system until they die naturally.
Concerning the recent 'botched' injections - I don't have feelings about them. Those prisoners <i>still </i>died much more humanely than their victims & the victim's' families... think about all their pain and suffering. NO - putting the 'bad guy' to death isn't going to reverse anything - but at least it's some form of justice.
Let the punishment fit the crime. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth as it states in Exodus.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mahatma Gandhi : "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world would soon be blind and toothless."
If we as a society wish to make clear that certain behaviour is unacceptable I would think that it presents a stronger message to distance oneself as much as possible from said behaviour.
"You killed Person X and now we're going to kill you to show you how wrong you were to do that". It seems very close to hypocrisy. I would further argue that it reinforces violence as a solution to problems.
I can fully appreciate the fact that if I were to be murdered it would cause much pain and suffering for my family. However I would _not_ wish the killing of anyone to be carried out in my name.
<!--quoteo(post=1589938:date=Dec 18 2006, 06:22 PM:name=GrayDuck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GrayDuck @ Dec 18 2006, 06:22 PM) [snapback]1589938[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Concerning the recent 'botched' injections - I don't have feelings about them. Those prisoners <i>still </i>died much more humanely than their victims & the victim's' families... think about all their pain and suffering. NO - putting the 'bad guy' to death isn't going to reverse anything - but at least it's some form of justice.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would rather cultivate mercy - even for someone that showed none to the victim. Perhaps, just perhaps with time they can still do something positive with their lives e.g. Stanley Tookie Williams Anti-Gang activism while in prison.
Let the punishment fit the crime. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth as it states in Exodus.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin- NSAB New Testament Heb 8: 7-13+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( NSAB New Testament Heb 8: 7-13)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
7For (P)if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
8For finding fault with them, He says,
"(Q)BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD,
WHEN I WILL EFFECT ®A NEW COVENANT
WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
9(S)NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS
ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
10"(T)FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM (U)ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11"(V)AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,'
FOR (W)ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12"(X)FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
(Y)AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."
13When He said, "(Z)A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete (AA)But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The death penalty really serves no purpose, seeing as it hasn't decreased any crime rate where it is practiced. Life in prison seems to be an "ok" alternative for me.
Let the punishment fit the crime. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth as it states in Exodus.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't it also state "Thou shalt not kill"?
I'm not a Christian, but I remember from the attempted indoctrinations I was subjected to in school that Christ's message supersedes the old testament. Didn't JC say "Turn the other cheek"? How are you to reconcile and forgive someone who has been brutally murdered by society?
I am staunchly anti the death-penalty, but not for religious reasons. I think it is highly ironic that anyone would use the bible to justify murder.
A protestanthic christian in my class said something like this.
2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.
?!
At least the bible has the decency to say you need two or three witnesses to kill a man for worshiping another god! One witness would be absurd! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Sorry for the slight derail <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Pro's:
Sense of justice. (we all have feelings of revenge if we get violated, depending on the crime, only the violators death can absolve)
Reduced upkeep. (alleged)
Permanently removing a threat to the society. (no breakout/parole)
Humanitarian principles (best to be put down than to live your life in prison)
Con's:
No reversion of the ruling (yes, you can appeal, but sometimes you need alot longer time to come up with a evidence that would clear you)
Slippery slope (into a more barbaric society/more cruel punishments (approving torture sentiment in the US general opinion) - oppression of political opponents - scapegoating, which the recent HIV murder trials of libya is a good argument for)
Not a con in itself, but it can be a good indicator of the civility of the society. People's view on the sanctity of life can manifest itself in the society as reduced murder rate.
Ideally, I think that the violated (or families of) should dictate and execute the violator's sentence on a serious crime (sex assault/extreme violence/murder/etc..) But I'm also a realist and say that's as idealistic as marxism or anarchism.
Nadagast, consider back then they couldn't afford to have divergent sentiments in the population as it would no doubt lead to civil war and disputes because of general poverty/struggle for life. 1 innocent man's death can be justified if it's for saving alot of lives later if you follow the utilitarian mindset.
Consider those people who run from the police. (High-speed chases) I almost always watch those things and say, "why do they even bother running??" Those guys almost always get caught, if they don't die in a horrible collision beforehand. But there still exists that odd human tendency to believe, "I can beat the odds!"
In summation, if someone is going to kill someone, then they are going to kill someone. Period. If someone has made up there mind on such a serious matter, then I do not believe that anything will stop them. Certainly not some far-away case of a stranger dying because <i>they got caught</i>.
Cheers & Happy Holidays,
~ DarkATi
Cons:
Humanitarian principles (better to live your life in prison than to be put down)