Crime and Punishment

[OchrisO]

Everyone keeps talking about killing this guy, but I bet everyone would get offende dif I suggested throwing all of the babies in the world off of a bridge. Murder is murder, folks, wether or not it is sanctioned by a majority, and despite what the person did.

[TerribleT]

I'm pretty much ANGRY at the news I've seen lately...we should make an example of just one of these cases...


Authorities said they believe Luong then drove on Monday to the two-lane Dauphin Island bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway, stopped at the highest part of the span and threw the (four) youngsters over the side.

Luong reported the children missing Monday, initially telling police that he had given the kids to his girlfriend, who was living in a hotel in Gulfport, Mississippi, and that she failed to return them.


Seriously, lets build a dome on the moon, send these fuckers there, place a small hole at the top of the dome, and every two weeks the hatch is opened, exposing everyone inside to the vacuum of space for five minutes. :dance:


Another classic argument for the death penalty. I think the whole idea that lethal injection is inhumane is ignorant. I hope it DOES hurt, ya fucking piece of human garbage. I hope it hurts a LOT. We really need to shorten the appeals process to 2 years, and put people like this to death.

[TerribleT]

Everyone keeps talking about killing this guy, but I bet everyone would get offende dif I suggested throwing all of the babies in the world off of a bridge. Murder is murder, folks, wether or not it is sanctioned by a majority, and despite what the person did.

The notable difference being that the children had done nothing that would cause them to deserve to die. Throwing young children off of a bridge, IMO is something worthy of being killed for, in a painful, brutal fashion.

[OchrisO]

I just can't see murder ever being the proper response to murder, no matter what the person in question did. It just seems like energy moving in the wrong direction to me. *shrug*

[Jean]

I am totally with Terrible T on this question

[TerribleT]

If someone punches you in the eye, will you hit them back? If so, isn't the death penalty just the most extreme form of the same act? What is the most extreme crime a person can commit? In my opinion it's taking the life of another person with no justification for doing so. So I think it deserves the most extreme form of punishment.

[TerribleT]

I am totally with Terrible T on this question

*Runs and grabs his calendar and marks this day in history*

:rofl:

*scratches the bear behind the ear, while hoping bears actually LIKE being scratched behind the ear*

[Jean]

::after getting scratched behind the ear and enjoying it thoroughly::

::reading previous TT's post::

ah no, I am not totally with Terrible T... I am for death penalty in some extreme cases, but for all different reasons.

(I just don't believe in an eye for an eye. When someone rapes someone, we do not normally rape him as a punishment... and when he rapes a kid, it's just too late to rape him back.)

[TerribleT]

::after getting scratched behind the ear and enjoying it thoroughly::

::reading previous TT's post::

ah no, I am not totally with Terrible T... I am for death penalty in some extreme cases, but for all different reasons.

(I just don't believe in an eye for an eye. When someone rapes someone, we do not normally rape him as a punishment... and when he rapes a kid, it's just too late to rape him back.)


Yeah, those posts came out in the wrong order for what you were trying to agree with.

[Jean]

to avoid further confusion:


Throwing young children off of a bridge, IMO is something worthy of being killed for, in a painful, brutal fashion.
totally agree

while disagreeing about "an eye for an eye" principle which never works properly

[OchrisO]

If someone punches you in the eye, will you hit them back? If so, isn't the death penalty just the most extreme form of the same act? What is the most extreme crime a person can commit? In my opinion it's taking the life of another person with no justification for doing so. So I think it deserves the most extreme form of punishment.



I think that this is apples and oranges, because if somone punches me in the eye and I punch them back, they can walk away from the punch, realize they were wrong in punching me, get anger management treatement and be changed for it. Also, if somone were to kill my child and I were to kill them for it, it is still murder and I should still be punished for it. I think that the country/state condonin the death penalty makes everyone involved in the process all the way down to the people who voted, a murderer by proxy. Even if they feel taht it is a just murder, it is still murder in the end. It is still saying that it is ok to end someone's life. In my mind that makes everyone as bad as the person they are killing. It is obvious that a great deal of people won't agree with me on this, or there would be no death penalty.

Also, in the case of this bridge incident, how about this?
This guy is obviously a horrible person, but he has family, parents, grandparents, cousins, etc who most likely love him in some manner. Now the kids who were killed were also their grandkids, grteat-grandkids, cousins, etc etc. They have already lost the four of them and are dealing with the pan and loss that comes with it. Now, if we kill this man as punishment for killing the kids, it will most likely fullfill some sort of sense of revenge/punishment for people at large as well at the family of the mother of the children and well as the mother herself. However, it will just heap more pain and loss upon the side of the family of the father. What did taht side of the family do to deserve another loss and death in their life, even if he wasn't nessecarily a good person. And, what does that make us for heaping more sense of loss on a family who has already suffered so much? *shrug*

[Bethany]

if it matters, they were arguing over dad's girlfriend.

[ZoNeSeeK]

Although its understandable to want to exercise the death penalty in these extreme cases where the truth is evident, the death penalty being available as a form of punishment in itself is inherently flawed.

By supporting the death penalty, you are supporting the idea that at some point, the state is going to execute an innocent person. The justice system will never be 100% just and every system is prone to flaws of some degree. These are normally well within our abilities to absorb, but when you are talking about one of the only absolutes that exist the risk is far too great. By supporting something so final, you're standing up and saying that police, detectives, witnesses, prosecutors, juries and judges are always correct, impervious to corruption, human error and bias.

The only thing more horrible than a psychotic individual killing someone, is for that someone to be wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death by the very structure thats in place to protect their lives. Spending 10 years in jail for something you didn't do is fucking horrible enough, I don't understand why anyone would want to invite worse catastrophe into a public system.

[Darkthoughts]

Yep, what Zone said.

Anytime I've debated in favour of the death penalty for a particular case, I've always started "in a hypothetical situation where guilt could be proven 100%..." because in the real world, as Zone points out, that margin for error is always there.

[Bethany]

in the case being discussed, dad has already confessed.

[Telynn]

I have to admit, I personally have a big problem with the death penalty. I can't quite get myself to agree with myself on it. Part of me says that people like this guy should be put to death. I mean what he did was so horrible that I can't think of a bad enough punishment. He deserves it. Being from Oklahoma City, I have to say I was all for McVeigh's death. How can you let someone like that live? BUT, I don't think I could ever be on a jury and sentence someone to death. Certainly not be able to pull the switch or inject the needle. So by saying I'm for the death penalty I'm saying that it is ok as long as someone else is willing to do the dirty work. That just doesn't feel fair to me. So I have a quandry.

[jayson]

By supporting the death penalty, you are supporting the idea that at some point, the state is going to execute an innocent person. The justice system will never be 100% just and every system is prone to flaws of some degree. These are normally well within our abilities to absorb, but when you are talking about one of the only absolutes that exist the risk is far too great. By supporting something so final, you're standing up and saying that police, detectives, witnesses, prosecutors, juries and judges are always correct, impervious to corruption, human error and bias.

Very well said Zone. I'd even go so far as to say the inherent flaw is supporting the idea that the state can execute ANY person. This is far too much power to invest in authority.

[Erin]

Indeed. I am completely and totally 100% against the death penalty.

[TerribleT]

My arguments for the death penalty

Charles Manson

Timothy McVeigh

John Couey
John Evander Couey (born September 19, 1958) is an American sex offender and murderer. He was convicted of kidnapping, raping, and murdering nine-year old Jessica Lunsford in February 2005, in Florida

Her body had undergone "moderate" to "severe" decomposition and, according to the publicly released autopsy reports, was skeletonized on two fingers that Lunsford had poked through the bags before suffocating to death because she'd been buried alive

Lynette Fromme

Adolph Eichmann

Herman Georing

This rat fuck that threw his children off of the bridge

Dennis Rader aka BTK
Dennis Lynn Rader (born March 9, 1945) is an American serial killer who murdered 10 people in Sedgwick County (in and around Wichita), Kansas, between 1974 and 1991.

Rader's victims include:

1974: Four members of one family (Joseph Otero, his wife Julie Otero, and two of their five children: Joseph Otero II and Josephine Otero)
1974: Kathryn Bright (he also shot Bright's brother twice, but he survived)
1977: Shirley Vian
1977: Nancy Fox
1985: Marine Hedge
1986: Vicki Wegerle
1991: Dolores Davis


Robert Harlan
In 1994, Harlan kidnapped, raped, sodomized, tortured, and murdered Rhonda Maloney (25), a cocktail waitress. One night when she was travelling home from work, Ms. Maloney's car broke down in a snowstorm. Harlan stopped and raped her. She escaped and flagged down a passing motorist, Jaquie Creazzo (32). Ms. Creazzo tried driving Ms. Maloney to safety. Harlan chased the two women down the interstate, firing repeatedly into Ms. Creazzo's car. The chase ended on the lawn of the Thornton Police Department when Ms. Creazzo could no longer keep driving after having been hit by several of Harlan's bullets. Harlan re-kidnapped Ms. Maloney, beat her savagely, murdered her, and dumped her body under a bridge. Ms. Creazzo survived permanently paralyzed. Harlan told an ex-wife that he would drive around at night looking for women who were by themselves, and that he would think of ways he could rape and murder them and get away with it. He had sexually assaulted or sexually abused a number of women friends and coworkers.




Would you like me to continue, these are the ones right off the top of my head?

[Erin]

Yes, I agree all those people committed horrible and unexcuseable acts, but in regards to my stance on the death penalty, I lean heavily on a human rights perspective. I can't justify killing another human being, even if they committed murder. I think the cycle of violence and barbaricness need to be broken at some point.

[Telynn]

Can't forget Dahlmer.

[TerribleT]

Can't forget Dahlmer.

I could go on for a long time. Like I said, those are a few that I can think of right off the top of my head, which requireed little or no research. I would have no problem being on their juries, voting for them to get the death penalty, and throwing the switch. I think they should die, and it should hurt. What I would be unable to do is to look their families in the eye, and say "I'm sorry, there will be no justice for your loved one." Each of you who is opposed to the death penalty, what if Jessica Lunsford was your daughter? What if Rhonda Maloney was your wife or girlfreind, and she'd been beaten raped, sodomized, murdered, and dumped under a bridge like so much human waste. You would HONESTLY tell me that you wouldn't kill these people if you got them alone for 5 minutes? Methinks you lie.

[TerribleT]

By supporting the death penalty, you are supporting the idea that at some point, the state is going to execute an innocent person. The justice system will never be 100% just and every system is prone to flaws of some degree. These are normally well within our abilities to absorb, but when you are talking about one of the only absolutes that exist the risk is far too great. By supporting something so final, you're standing up and saying that police, detectives, witnesses, prosecutors, juries and judges are always correct, impervious to corruption, human error and bias.

Very well said Zone. I'd even go so far as to say the inherent flaw is supporting the idea that the state can execute ANY person. This is far too much power to invest in authority.

Weren't you one of the one's that argued Rhea should have died under Roland's guns? Cordelia?

[ZoNeSeeK]

in the case being discussed, dad has already confessed.

There's obvious cases where everything points towards something like the death penalty - but everything in the system is linked. Precedent dictates future court decisions. So a similar case in 5 years where children have been allegedly murdered by a parent and there's a confession in place will also receive this same punishment - but what if there's a little more to this one, or the process has been corrupted in some way? I'm not saying that the judicial system takes terms like "beyond reasonable doubt" lightly, but it will consider someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt before considering corruption of the process its a part of.

An interesting statistic: as of 12th Dec 2007, 126 people have been exhonerated from death row after new evidence has been discovered proving their innocence (22 alone in Florida). Its a pretty solid indication of just how flawed the process can be, and how the interpretation of "reasonable doubt" changes from one person to the next. Should something as final as killing be an option when most people are not groomed to be androids with perfect objectivity?

From a social point of view, state-controlled death is standardising killing as a solution to an action. The state could argue that it is acting in self-defence - its protecting its constituents from possible future murder. This is also flawed, though - preemptive action is not only grossly unfair and criminal, it instills a level of distrust in a population. As Bobby Kennedy said "too often we honour the swagger and bluster of weilders of force", or something along those lines. How can a government guide its population towards peace when it has sentenced innocent people to die?

[TerribleT]

Do you support the Death Penalty? If so why, or why not?

Could one of the Mods move the relevant posts from the Displeased thread to here?

[Erin]

From a social point of view, state-controlled death is standardising killing as a solution to an action.

Yes, this leads to a phenomenon know as the "brutalization effect". When a state is in the midst of preparing and preforming an execution, general violence and murder rates in the area tend to increase, as the state is condoning murder, yet another downside to the death penalty.

[ZoNeSeeK]

TT: So becoming emotionally overwhelmed by the details of heinous crimes is enough to stop thinking with reason?

Coming to grips with the violent capabilities of some people and what these people can inflict on other people is a psychological issue and part of the human condition and shouldn't be used as proof that an absolute sentence such as death should be included in a judicial system that applies to the entire population.

What to do with people who have truthfully committed crimes such as these is another argument altogether. Death should not be on the table, as much as there's consensus that some people should never have been given a life at all, the risk is still too high. You cannot say that the ability to impose the death penalty on true monsters is worth more than an unknown number of innocent people who have been killed by the state. At what cost should revenge come to?

[ZoNeSeeK]

From a social point of view, state-controlled death is standardising killing as a solution to an action.

Yes, this leads to a phenomenon know as the "brutalization effect". When a state is in the midst of preparing and preforming an execution, general violence and murder rates in the area tend to increase, as the state is condoning murder, yet another downside to the death penalty.

Another supporting statistic - US states with the death penalty have a higher murder rate (almost double) than those states without the death penalty.

Devoid of an emotive reaction, you have to look at whether this sentence is beneficial to the population in any way. It certainly doesn't prevent horror violence from taking place. The tough thing to realise is that there will never be complete protection from other people and when violence such as the stuff TT outlined occurs, thinking with your gut instead of your head gives the event the power to consume you.

Similarly, its like some people I have spoken to who are adamant that they would kill anyone who killed a loved one of theirs. Wrong.

[ZoNeSeeK]

TT: not sure if you wanted to amend your post at the end here?
Edit: aha! good work :D

[TerribleT]

Zone et al... You make very compelling and logical arguments. I agree with them to a large degree, and understand that if we are to have the death penalty, the way it's administered needs to be overhauled. I will even grant you that maybe it should be withheld only to be used in cases that are of a particularly heinous nature, which can be proven beyong a shadow of a doubt. I think it does need to exist. I can debate all of the facts and figures, and do a lot of research to find support for my beliefs, but I'm really fucking lazy, and don't feel like doing it. I think the ladies and gentlemen whom I've used as examples are fine reasons why there needs to BE a death penalty. Alss understand that it's VERY difficult to even get the death penalty in heinous cases. An idea that was voted on here in Colorado and passed was that a three judge panel would decide whether or not a case deserved the death penalty, we voted it into law, and it was overturned by the US Supreme Court. I think the individuals, and the MANY other cases like them deserve to die for their crimes.

[Aesculapius]

I'm pretty much ANGRY at the news I've seen lately...we should make an example of just one of these cases...


Authorities said they believe Luong then drove on Monday to the two-lane Dauphin Island bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway, stopped at the highest part of the span and threw the (four) youngsters over the side.

Luong reported the children missing Monday, initially telling police that he had given the kids to his girlfriend, who was living in a hotel in Gulfport, Mississippi, and that she failed to return them.


Seriously, lets build a dome on the moon, send these fuckers there, place a small hole at the top of the dome, and every two weeks the hatch is opened, exposing everyone inside to the vacuum of space for five minutes. :dance:


Another classic argument for the death penalty. I think the whole idea that lethal injection is inhumane is ignorant. I hope it DOES hurt, ya fucking piece of human garbage. I hope it hurts a LOT. We really need to shorten the appeals process to 2 years, and put people like this to death.


It's hard for me to be 100 per cent FOR the death penalty...because I side with Zone, and that 100 per cent anything is not possible. One can not produce a prefect piece. A civil site survey can not begin at a starting point and end directly back at that point.

I AM for a deterrent for murder. Obviously, people who commit murder are not thinking enough about the punisment for said crime, so, it is my opinion that we as a species, not as a single country on the third rock from the sun, need a stronger deterrent for murder.

If there was a dome on the moon, as I previously mentioned, where a small hatch opens to the vacuum of space at random periods, whereby creating a clog of humanity, I'm quite sure that the murder rate would decrease. If that's too cruel and could be considered murder for a murder, or, flat out torture, then find some relative punishment that is beyond what we have now.


THINK....it's not illegal....yet.
-The D.O.C.

[OchrisO]

Honestly, I have too much in my head on this topic to write any more than I already have, because I can't prooerly organize it, so I think that I will just bow out of the discussion, leaving the points in my last post to speak for themselves.

:ETA: and making my above stuff in this post a big lie, I suppose. haha.

It seems like I remember Erin having some info at one point for a paper or something about murder rates not going down in any of the states that still have the death penalty, which supports the idea that the death penalty isn't an active deterant to murder though, and I don't think that anything ever could be a deterant to murder, because murder is almost always driven by either passion or insanity to some degree, and neither passion nor insanity have any room for logical deterants. People who commit murder either plan to never get caught or don't care if they die.

[Aesculapius]

I believe an objective truth would help...everything.

[Jean]

in the options, what is the difference between "yes" and "in some cases"? it surely can't be "all cases"?

[Brice]

My opinion on the death penalty is really simple. I am 100% against state/government sanctioned murder without exception, even if we KNOW they are 100% guilty.

[TerribleT]

in the options, what is the difference between "yes" and "in some cases"? it surely can't be "all cases"?

:rofl:

*scratches the bear behind the ears*

I've noticed that a lot of people, myself sometimes included, don't like yes and no, so I was just trying to help with that.

[cozener]

Totally against it. I'm not against it because I think its wrong to kill someone for killing someone else. I think that if you do murder you should die for it. My problem is that if you ever execute on innocent person...just one...then the whole system is fucked. And we've already killed a lot of innocent people.

[jayson]

My opinion on the death penalty is really simple. I am 100% against state/government sanctioned murder without exception, even if we KNOW they are 100% guilty.

I'm completely with Brice on this one. I feel there is never a reason to invest the state with the power to take someone's life.

[TerribleT]

Totally against it. I'm not against it because I think its wrong to kill someone for killing someone else. I think that if you do murder you should die for it. My problem is that if you ever execute on innocent person...just one...then the whole system is fucked. And we've already killed a lot of innocent people.

That's kinda why I really think it should be used in the more extreme cases where guilt is not really in question. Let's face it, there are some people who are convicted of a crime with strong enough, but questionable evidence, there are some that the evidence is really strong, and there are some where there's just no damn question about it. In other words, there's a spectrum there, like with most things. I think we might reserve the death penalty for the more heinous and certain cases. This is where I REALLY like the idea of a panel of judges deciding whether a case warrants the death penalty.

[Matt]

I just really want to say how proud I am of you guys. Too often, people say that these subjects are untouchable on message boards because folks can't control themselves. You guys are proving that isn't true and I thank you.

I am for the DP

The reason is not about revenge or anything like that. I think revenge consists of locking a person in an 11X8 cell for the rest of their lives. It will literally drive a person insane.

The reason I support it is because I think a society has a right to remove predators that infest it. Its not anger or revenge, its..."you fucked up, goodbye"

Also, I think the idea that a murder can't be 100% proven in this day and age is not correct. If a person is caught on a security camera (its them, no question) killing someone else--admits to doing it, well--there you have it folks.

I also think there are levels to murder and each has to be taken into consideration separately. Woman who was abused for 20 years, finally snaps and kills her husband--prison, not death for sure.

Scott Peterson. Yeah, we found your pregnant wife (sans her baby), without her head and we are almost positive you did it. Almost is not good--life in prison.

This isn't to wholeheartedly murder folks imo, it should be use with discretion and only in extreme and 100% provable cases--DNA is useful for that as well. Any shadow of a doubt...any...we can't kill them.

I also believe that every single case on death row right now should be reviewed and dropped if they can't prove it.

[TerribleT]

This isn't to wholeheartedly murder folks imo, it should be use with discretion and only in extreme and 100% provable cases--DNA is useful for that as well. Any shadow of a doubt...any...we can't kill them.

I also believe that every single case on death row right now should be reviewed and dropped if they can't prove it.

Me like!!!!!!

[Jean]

a man who recently killed more than 15 little girls in a Moscow woods... I'll spare you the details... he was doing it for a few months, methodically, and he confessed happily, with greatest delight giving all those details I decided to spare you... telling things nobody but the murderer could know, which wasn't that necessary because of the forensics conclusions, but he wanted to tell them... he was reveling in it... According to medical expertise, he is perfectly sane

The people who locked those kids in Beslan school and tortured them there, and were shooting them one by one, and pretended to let them go, and were shooting them in the back

It's only what recently happened in my country. There always are others, everywhere, - terrorists? maniacs? serial killers? professional assasins? All of them are people who don't even know those they kill, it's "nothing personal", you see.

Why should they be allowed to live? Every hour they spend on the face of earth is a spit in the dead face of those they killed, and in the face of the families of their victims.

To my mind, we think too much of murderers nowaday, and neglect the victims. And that is wrong.


a society has a right to remove predators that infest it. Its not anger or revenge, its..."you fucked up, goodbye"
Precisely. An act of a murder like what I described above should be considered an act of suicide as well. Someone who does it excludes himself from mankind; he denies himself the right to be called human.

[alinda]

In a very real sense I do not believe in death either ( only of the death of the phyical body) which is not a big deal in my view. Would the term "instant karma" come to mind?

[Brice]

a man who recently killed more than 15 little girls in a Moscow woods... I'll spare you the details... he was doing it for a few months, methodically, and he confessed happily, with greatest delight giving all those details I decided to spare you... telling things nobody but the murderer could know, which wasn't that necessary because of the forensics conclusions, but he wanted to tell them... he was reveling in it... According to medical expertise, he is perfectly sane

The people who locked those kids in Beslan school and tortured them there, and were shooting them one by one, and pretended to let them go, and were shooting them in the back

It's only what recently happened in my country. There always are others, everywhere, - terrorists? maniacs? serial killers? professional assasins? All of them are people who don't even know those they kill, it's "nothing personal", you see.

Why should they be allowed to live? Every hour they spend on the face of earth is a spit in the dead face of those they killed, and in the face of the families of their victims.

To my mind, we think too much of murderers nowaday, and neglect the victims. And that is wrong.


a society has a right to remove predators that infest it. Its not anger or revenge, its..."you fucked up, goodbye"
Precisely. An act of a murder like what I described above should be considered an act of suicide as well. Someone who does it excludes himself from mankind; he denies himself the right to be called human.

I don't think we shouldn't kill them for what it does to them. I think we shouldn't kill them for what it does to us.

[sarah]

I voted no.

Why take away a human life when you can make their living so much worse? The way I see it is that if someone has done something so horrible so awful so unbearably evil, they should be locked in a 5 x 8 box and fed twice a day. that's it. no getting out of that box. no outside time. no internet. nothing but their own mind. i think that would be a horrible way to live for 30 years or however they have until their natural death.

[TerribleT]

I don't think we shouldn't kill them for what it does to them. I think we shouldn't kill them for what it does to us.

Brice, I like that a LOT, I vehemently disagree with you on this topic, but I think that's something that has to be taken into consideration.

[Matt]

a man who recently killed more than 15 little girls in a Moscow woods... I'll spare you the details... he was doing it for a few months, methodically, and he confessed happily, with greatest delight giving all those details I decided to spare you... telling things nobody but the murderer could know, which wasn't that necessary because of the forensics conclusions, but he wanted to tell them... he was reveling in it... According to medical expertise, he is perfectly sane

The people who locked those kids in Beslan school and tortured them there, and were shooting them one by one, and pretended to let them go, and were shooting them in the back

It's only what recently happened in my country. There always are others, everywhere, - terrorists? maniacs? serial killers? professional assasins? All of them are people who don't even know those they kill, it's "nothing personal", you see.

Why should they be allowed to live? Every hour they spend on the face of earth is a spit in the dead face of those they killed, and in the face of the families of their victims.

To my mind, we think too much of murderers nowaday, and neglect the victims. And that is wrong.


a society has a right to remove predators that infest it. Its not anger or revenge, its..."you fucked up, goodbye"
Precisely. An act of a murder like what I described above should be considered an act of suicide as well. Someone who does it excludes himself from mankind; he denies himself the right to be called human.

I don't think we shouldn't kill them for what it does to them. I think we shouldn't kill them for what it does to us.

I believe the price is worth it.

And Sarah, I can understand that. I believe that position is much more behind making the murderer suffer which I don't want. I just don't want them in society anymore.

[TerribleT]

I voted no.

Why take away a human life when you can make their living so much worse? The way I see it is that if someone has done something so horrible so awful so unbearably evil, they should be locked in a 5 x 8 box and fed twice a day. that's it. no getting out of that box. no outside time. no internet. nothing but their own mind. i think that would be a horrible way to live for 30 years or however they have until their natural death.

But c'mon, we ALL know that's not how it works. Lynette Fromme just applied for parole, and I'm pretty sure that Manson has had several parole hearings as well. Plus, as a prisoner you have a right to your porn, sex change operations etc... If we were going to actually act in the fasion you describe, I might agree with you. I just know that given our legal system, they'll work less, and have more benefits than you and I.

[sarah]

Oh TerribleT, I'm not saying they do that now. I'm saying that's what they should do. IMO, they give prisoners too much freedom. I think child molesters and murders should be locked up in the way I said. I think if they misbehave they should have their toenails pulled out.

Why kill the worst of the worst when we can make living so horrible?



matt:


And Sarah, I can understand that. I believe that position is much more behind making the murderer suffer which I don't want. I just don't want them in society anymore.


but they wouldn't be in society, they would be in a box going crazy.

[Jean]

Simon Wiesenthal, - my hero, - said once, after he had spent a few decades tracing a nazi criminal only to know that the crime was too old to qualify for hanging, and the criminal would stay in prison till the end of his day: "First, I was shocked, and then I thought, all right, let the motherfucker spend the rest of his miserable life behind the walls and never see sunlight" (quoted from memory). I don't share this feeling generally - I'm rather with Matt here - but I certainly do in this particular case.

[Matt]

but they wouldn't be in society, they would be in a box going crazy.

Well, maybe.

And to me, that isn't even the point. I don't want them to suffer no matter what they did. I just think this is one of those actions that should cost you your own life

:couple:

I am not in the business of making them suffer, they can do that in the afterlife. I want it clean and simple, just end it.

[sarah]

interesting point, matt. I think maybe even in some cases I could see it that way.

[jayson]

matt - though i still don't agree about the death penalty, if i did believe in it's use, i agree completely with your ideas on how careful we should be in its application.

[Daghain]

I voted no.

Why take away a human life when you can make their living so much worse? The way I see it is that if someone has done something so horrible so awful so unbearably evil, they should be locked in a 5 x 8 box and fed twice a day. that's it. no getting out of that box. no outside time. no internet. nothing but their own mind. i think that would be a horrible way to live for 30 years or however they have until their natural death.

Because that's MY tax dollars at work, and I'd much rather see it go to a worthy cause than keeping some waste of skin alive.

I agree you have to know 100% the person is guilty - video, whatever, as has been said before, but once you know that, I see no reason to waste good money on these dregs of humanity. And I also agree our jails are waaaay to nice to people. I'd go back to bread and water and chaining people to the walls all day if I ruled the world, but I'm a bitch like that. :D

[cozener]

Totally against it. I'm not against it because I think its wrong to kill someone for killing someone else. I think that if you do murder you should die for it. My problem is that if you ever execute on innocent person...just one...then the whole system is fucked. And we've already killed a lot of innocent people.

That's kinda why I really think it should be used in the more extreme cases where guilt is not really in question. Let's face it, there are some people who are convicted of a crime with strong enough, but questionable evidence, there are some that the evidence is really strong, and there are some where there's just no damn question about it. In other words, there's a spectrum there, like with most things. I think we might reserve the death penalty for the more heinous and certain cases. This is where I REALLY like the idea of a panel of judges deciding whether a case warrants the death penalty. I see what you mean but to allow the death penalty at all allows too many gray areas...too many points of contention...too much debate over what evidence is good enough and what isn't. The kind of cases where there's just absolutely no doubt whatsoever (and one has to consider motive here as well) are pretty rare and not worth it. Its far simpler to just say no death penalty ever. And I truly believe that being stuck in prison for the rest of your life is worse than death. Prison, by all accounts, is a very horrible place.

Some would say, and have said to me, that its worth the trade off. But I don't care what the ratios are. It could be one innocent for every trillion guilty. To my mind, this is a "can't make an omelette without breakin' some eggs" approach to justice and is beyond obscene. Its never worth the pain and anguish of that one innocent person and those that love him.

If you find out later that they didn't do it or had a good reason for killing (self defense or the defense of someone else)you can't bring them back. But if they're in prison you can at least let them out to enjoy whatever time is left to them (and probably a hefty $$$ settlement as well)

[Matt]

Personally, I do think its worth it and there are plenty of cases (cited above) where the guilt is beyond doubt.

[William50]

I think that is somebody kills another person, than the death penalty is in order.

[TerribleT]

Totally against it. I'm not against it because I think its wrong to kill someone for killing someone else. I think that if you do murder you should die for it. My problem is that if you ever execute on innocent person...just one...then the whole system is fucked. And we've already killed a lot of innocent people.

That's kinda why I really think it should be used in the more extreme cases where guilt is not really in question. Let's face it, there are some people who are convicted of a crime with strong enough, but questionable evidence, there are some that the evidence is really strong, and there are some where there's just no damn question about it. In other words, there's a spectrum there, like with most things. I think we might reserve the death penalty for the more heinous and certain cases. This is where I REALLY like the idea of a panel of judges deciding whether a case warrants the death penalty. I see what you mean but to allow the death penalty at all allows too many gray areas...too many points of contention...too much debate over what evidence is good enough and what isn't. The kind of cases where there's just absolutely no doubt whatsoever (and one has to consider motive here as well) are pretty rare and not worth it. Its far simpler to just say no death penalty ever. And I truly believe that being stuck in prison for the rest of your life is worse than death. Prison, by all accounts, is a very horrible place.

Some would say, and have said to me, that its worth the trade off. But I don't care what the ratios are. It could be one innocent for every trillion guilty. To my mind, this is a "can't make an omelette without breakin' some eggs" approach to justice and is beyond obscene. Its never worth the pain and anguish of that one innocent person and those that love him.

If you find out later that they didn't do it or had a good reason for killing (self defense or the defense of someone else)you can't bring them back. But if they're in prison you can at least let them out to enjoy whatever time is left to them (and probably a hefty $$$ settlement as well)

WOW!!!! And people accuse ME of being a binary thinker. Can you tell me what the difference is, if any, between an innocent man spending the remainder of his life locked up in a cage, and an innocent man receiving the death penalty? From the previous arguments it seems that the ONLY difference is that there is some possibility that some bit of evidence will later come to light which would clear him of the crime. But what if that never happens? To me there's no real difference, we're going to make mistakes, and innocent people are going to recieve punishments they don't deserve. The man who wrongly spends his life in jail, lose his life as surely as the one who recieves the death penalty. I also wonder, because the point has been made numerous times, that some death penalty cases have been overturned; how many of those people have been exonerated, and how many have just had evidence come to light which cast a shadow on their guilt, but didn't necessarily prove them innocent.

[cozener]

Personally, I do think its worth it and there are plenty of cases (cited above) where the guilt is beyond doubt.You might change your tune if you or someone you care about gets convicted of a murder they didn't commit. ;)


And again Terrible, you make another good point, but if I were convicted of murder I'd much rather have that slim hope then none at all.


Now...all that said...

I have to admit that if I saw someone murder someone I loved right in front of me...I'd kill the fuck right there.

[Matt]

Sure, you might change yours if someone killed a member of your family :couple:

:lol:

[cozener]

Aye, I just might. But I like to think not. Like I said, I really do believe that life in prison is worse than dying. And like a stated above, if it happened right in front of me I would kill the fuck. But thats different in that I'm there. I saw it. And I can take my vengeance right there and then...not waiting for the courts to muddy the waters of guilt and innocence.

[Matt]

I understand man, I feel the exact same way.

[Aesculapius]

a man who recently killed more than 15 little girls in a Moscow woods... I'll spare you the details... he was doing it for a few months, methodically, and he confessed happily, with greatest delight giving all those details I decided to spare you... telling things nobody but the murderer could know, which wasn't that necessary because of the forensics conclusions, but he wanted to tell them... he was reveling in it... According to medical expertise, he is perfectly sane

The people who locked those kids in Beslan school and tortured them there, and were shooting them one by one, and pretended to let them go, and were shooting them in the back

It's only what recently happened in my country. There always are others, everywhere, - terrorists? maniacs? serial killers? professional assasins? All of them are people who don't even know those they kill, it's "nothing personal", you see.

Why should they be allowed to live? Every hour they spend on the face of earth is a spit in the dead face of those they killed, and in the face of the families of their victims.

To my mind, we think too much of murderers nowaday, and neglect the victims. And that is wrong.


a society has a right to remove predators that infest it. Its not anger or revenge, its..."you fucked up, goodbye"
Precisely. An act of a murder like what I described above should be considered an act of suicide as well. Someone who does it excludes himself from mankind; he denies himself the right to be called human.


Excellent post, Jean.

[Telynn]

Let me say this. I have never been touched by a killer, never had the feeling of having a family member taken away from me like that. But I came pretty close with the OKC bombing. I was about 4 blocks away. I could see that building out my window from work and looked at it every working day until it came down. I had several family members and friends that fell into the 'close call' catagory. And my sis-in-law had so many funerals to go to during that time that she couldn't make them all. So while not directly, I felt it hard.

When McVeigh was executed I didn't feel all that much BETTER, like I thought I would. BUT it did feel more 'closed' and 'over'. Not completely, never completely. But I do have to say, I'm glad he is gone.

[Brice]

You might change your tune if you or someone you care about gets convicted of a murder they didn't commit. ;)




I have to admit that if I saw someone murder someone I loved right in front of me...I'd kill the fuck right there.


Sure, you might change yours if someone killed a member of your family :couple:

:lol:

Well, there is a huge difference between state sanctioned execution and revenge on behalf of a loved one. I oppose the death penalty 100%, but if someone killed someone in my family (or those I'm closest to) there is a highly increased probability of them having an "accident" and it being slow (days, weeks, months...basically prolonged systematic torture here). While I sincerely hope I wouldn't act on the impulse, I really can't say for certain.

[jayson]

You might change your tune if you or someone you care about gets convicted of a murder they didn't commit. ;)




I have to admit that if I saw someone murder someone I loved right in front of me...I'd kill the fuck right there.


Sure, you might change yours if someone killed a member of your family :couple:

:lol:

Well, there is a huge difference between state sanctioned execution and revenge on behalf of a loved one. I oppose the death penalty 100%, but if someone killed someone in my family (or those I'm closest to) there is a highly increased probability of them having an "accident" and it being slow (days, weeks, months...basically prolonged systematic torture here). While I sincerely hope I wouldn't act on the impulse, I really can't say for certain.

Once again I agree with Brice. Personal justice and state-sponsored justice are two different things. Like Brice, I would hope I could rise above any violent impulses in a situation like that, but I am human and I can't make an absolute statement like that.

[Matt]

I sure don't understand that angle, I thought you guys said killing someone was never okay, not anytime.

To me, that's just a faster death penalty. :lol:

[Brice]

I sure don't understand that angle, I thought you guys said killing someone was never okay, not anytime.

To me, that's just a faster death penalty. :lol:

It's really simple. It is never okay, but in a fit of rage/emotional grief I can comprehend an individual doing a horribly wrong thing and yes, they/I would deserve their/my coming punishment.

[TerribleT]

I sure don't understand that angle, I thought you guys said killing someone was never okay, not anytime.

To me, that's just a faster death penalty. :lol:

It's really simple. It is never okay, but in a fit of rage/emotional grief I can comprehend an individual doing a horribly wrong thing and yes, they/I would deserve their/my coming punishment.

So why can you not understand, and allow the family members of the victim the same sort of justice?

[jayson]

I sure don't understand that angle, I thought you guys said killing someone was never okay, not anytime.

To me, that's just a faster death penalty. :lol:

I know I never personally said "not anytime" about anything. I don't believe in absolutes. What I have said in this thread is that I don't believe in the death penalty, by which I mean having the state take a person's life. I didn't say I don't believe in revenge [which also has consequences]. Like I said, there's a difference between personal justice and what we would/should allow a government to do.

[Brice]

I sure don't understand that angle, I thought you guys said killing someone was never okay, not anytime.

To me, that's just a faster death penalty. :lol:

It's really simple. It is never okay, but in a fit of rage/emotional grief I can comprehend an individual doing a horribly wrong thing and yes, they/I would deserve their/my coming punishment.

So why can you not understand, and allow the family members of the victim the same sort of justice?

I can understand totally and sympathize. I just don't think we should ever sanction killing. It is wrong. If the family member's want revenge bad enough that they'll trade their own freedom for it, then they will. Nothing can be done to stop that, but killing is wrong IMO absolutely. Why should the government decide what/if any watered down impersonal revenge should be had? If there is to be revenge, it SHOULD be very personal. State sanctioned justice is not justice at all. If those family members act on their desire for revenge they absolutely deserve what punishment they get= to the punishment for the original crime.

[cozener]

I sure don't understand that angle, I thought you guys said killing someone was never okay, not anytime.

To me, that's just a faster death penalty. :lol: For my part, if you kill someone you should die for it. The reason I'm against the death penalty isn't that killing someone for murder is "wrong" or "barbaric" or some other morally pretentious crap. My only problem with it is the possibility of sending an innocent person to their death...something we've already done numerous times. This, to me, is what makes the death penalty wrong.

[Brice]

Why would thinking murder is wrong be morally pretentious?

[jayson]

Why would thinking murder is wrong be morally pretentious?

I'd like to know that as well. I don't recall saying I was better than anyone because I'm against the death penalty, and I didn't think Brice did either. So, where's the pretensious aspect of it?

[Aesculapius]

Hmm...the state governments are elected By The People (*we like to think), so, the states decisions regarding laws come directly from our influence. It's not some governing body that was placed into fuction by an outside source. (*again, that is something we like to think)

I think my point is that it seems, to me, that there is a deep rooted moral issue going on, and, not just in this country. There is supposed to be a governing body, elected by its people, who speak for them. Whenever I get into these subjects, I always find myself back at an 'infant' point. In this case, what makes another person want to take another person's life. Crimes of passion, like the guy who threw his kids off the bridge, because there was a girlfriend involved in his sphere. Genetics? What pushes someone to the point of destruction of ones personal sphere?

Just like the way we have governments, we are all connected to each other in some way, and we rely on those collective processes. Like Alinda said on the previous page, I personally believe there is 'karma' involved and those individual spheres have an influence on the greater whole.

Sorry. That probably makes no sense.

(*-is it that we are 'voting' all the time - subconsciously- that all this behavior is OK by our support of menial things in our everyday lives?)

[Brice]

Hmm...the state governments are elected By The People (*we like to think), so, the states decisions regarding laws come directly from our influence. It's not some governing body that was placed into fuction by an outside source. (*again, that is something we like to think)

True, but just because we (as a collective) elect them does not mean we (as individuals) agree with their decisions.


I think my point is that it seems, to me, that there is a deep rooted moral issue going on, and, not just in this country. There is supposed to be a governing body, elected by its people, who speak for them. Whenever I get into these subjects, I always find myself back at an 'infant' point. In this case, what makes another person want to take another person's life. Crimes of passion, like the guy who threw his kids off the bridge, because there was a girlfriend involved in his sphere. Genetics? What pushes someone to the point of destruction of ones personal sphere?


fear? frustration? personal grief? Pressure? Some combination of the above that is beyond the person's ability to escape, and so they attempt to escape that personal sphere entirely....oh yeah, or they're just fuckin' nuts. :lol:


Just like the way we have governments, we are all connected to each other in some way, and we rely on those collective processes. Like Alinda said on the previous page, I personally believe there is 'karma' involved and those individual spheres have an influence on the greater whole.

Sorry. That probably makes no sense.

(*-is it that we are 'voting' all the time - subconsciously- that all this behavior is OK by our support of menial things in our everyday lives?)


Maybe so....I 'm not sure on that one though.

[cozener]

Why would thinking murder is wrong be morally pretentious?

I'd like to know that as well. I don't recall saying I was better than anyone because I'm against the death penalty, and I didn't think Brice did either. So, where's the pretensious aspect of it? I wasn't really referring to anyone here...although I do not consider the death penalty to be murder.

None of you have said anything about the barbarity of the death penalty. I was talking about myself and how I used to feel about capital punishment. I'm against it still but I used to have another reason to be against it besides my abhorrence to the slaying of innocents. But 'pretentious was the wrong word really. Hypocrisy would work better.

It was just after the 911 attacks that I was thinking how we went after the terrorists...killed a lot of people that we labelled as murderers and criminals (instead of as enemy soldiers). We took eyes for eyes and teeth for teeth and it felt good to a lot of people, me included. But after thinking about it I realized that I was being a hypocrite. Yes, its different. But its also very much the same. I asked myself if I would feel better about killing bin Laden in one of our bombing raids than I would in one of our electric chairs and the answer was yes. He's been labelled a criminal and murderer thats killed Americans but so was Tim McVeigh. The only difference between the crimes is that the latter was American too. I don't think I'm the only person that does not support the death penalty to fall into this trap.

[ZoNeSeeK]

WOW!!!! And people accuse ME of being a binary thinker. Can you tell me what the difference is, if any, between an innocent man spending the remainder of his life locked up in a cage, and an innocent man receiving the death penalty? From the previous arguments it seems that the ONLY difference is that there is some possibility that some bit of evidence will later come to light which would clear him of the crime. But what if that never happens? To me there's no real difference, we're going to make mistakes, and innocent people are going to recieve punishments they don't deserve. The man who wrongly spends his life in jail, lose his life as surely as the one who recieves the death penalty. I also wonder, because the point has been made numerous times, that some death penalty cases have been overturned; how many of those people have been exonerated, and how many have just had evidence come to light which cast a shadow on their guilt, but didn't necessarily prove them innocent.

You're not seriously saying that spending 10 or even 20 years in a cell before being exhonerated is just as bas as losing your life? People tend to be attached to their status of "living". ;)

In regards to clear cut cases of psycho monsters committing truly heinous crimes against other people - yes, I can see how the need to execute can arise. But this isn't what we're really arguing about because of the way the penalty is applied in most US states. Its application has been far too liberal - I probably wouldn't have an issue with it if history states that there have been only 10 executions in the US over the past 70 years, and the guilt was unquestionable for monstrous acts of murder, like the examples that have been outlined. Instead there's been hundreds of "black man convicted of raping / murdering white woman" - serious doubt that the same level of conviction would be possible for such cases. This is the issue, the fucking "trigger happy" approach to the death penalty.

But don't get too down about it - most SE asian countries execute anyone for trafficking drugs. Now thats what you call the cheapening of human life.

[Daghain]

I really believe, if you can prove 100% (video, DNA, set your requirement of choice) that a person is guilty, (and it happens, unfortunately not frequently enough) then that person needs to be removed IMMEDIATELY from society. I certainly don't want to execute an innocent person, but in the case of people whose crimes are on video where we KNOW it was them, take them out. Period.

In a perfect universe that I ruled, I would give the family members of a murder victim 10 minutes in a fenced-in field with the killer, armed with baseball bats.

You walk out, you're free. You don't - too bad.

Again, I'm a bitch like that. I also have NO problem killing a person who kills a member of my family. Of course, I would have to be SURE. DNA, whatever, but if that SOB did not get AT LEAST life in prison (and trust me, my butt would be there EVERY time that bastard got up for parole) I would kill him. And I'm not joking.

[cozener]

DNA evidence can be planted and/or tampered with. Video can be sketchy. There's just too many ifs, ands, and buts for me to comfortable with a death penalty and once a case gets to the courts the gray areas just get grayer and grayer. Even with all of our miraculous modern marvels of crime investigation the innocent do sometimes get convicted and even one is too many to me.

And you don't have to kill someone to take them out of society.

Its one thing to kill someone that murdered right in front of you. Its quite another to, having not witnessed the murder yourself, act as judge and jury and take that person out yourself after the fact.

[Jon]

Just a question about this.

If the American Constitution guarantees Americans freedom from "cruel and unusual punishment" does that me we could be subject to "cruel" punishment as long as it is not "unusual" and vice versa?

I'm serious. I know it's unusual for me to be serious.

[Jean]

I don't think "and" is here the same as "&" is in logic; they rather must mean "V", that is, and/or; I think, however, that in practice it results in mostly "cruel" being taken into serious consideration (I don't know what actions could be taken against someone who would make someone else, say, embroider a handkerchief as a punishment, which would sure be unusual. Unless a lawyer can drag it under the category of "himiliating", of course)

[jayson]

I'm not a constitutional law expert, but I'd trend towards agreeing with Jean that in this case it should be interpreted as "cruel and/or unusual" punishment. I think it qualifies as either it can be argued as being unconstitutional.

[cozener]

Just a question about this.

If the American Constitution guarantees Americans freedom from "cruel and unusual punishment" does that me we could be subject to "cruel" punishment as long as it is not "unusual" and vice versa?

I'm serious. I know it's unusual for me to be serious.Good question. And I think this is part of the debate about capital punishment. The meanings of the words "cruel" and "unusual" can be very relative. Some might say that because you cruelly murdered someone it should not be considered cruel to kill you in an excruciatingly painful way. Others might say that its cruel and unusual to make you wait for your execution...that it should be as swift and as unceremonious as possible...like a quick shot to the back of the head with a .45 rather than, after waiting months and/or years on death row, being strapped down into a chair and having deadly electric shocks shot through your body. Its pretty much another debate unto itself really.

[Jean]

yes. That's why I personally am very mistrustful of laws composed of such ambiguous words; it's not a poem, after all. Everything should be specified in as literal a way as possible, or it is open to interpretations and, thus, misuse.

[Jon]

One could clearly make the argument that the electric chair is cruel...but it is not unusual. This is where my question was born.

[jayson]

...it's not a poem, after all. Everything should be specified in as literal a way as possible, or it is open to interpretations and, thus, misuse.

I couldn't agree more Jean.

[Brice]

yes. That's why I personally am very mistrustful of laws composed of such ambiguous words; it's not a poem, after all. Everything should be specified in as literal a way as possible, or it is open to interpretations and, thus, misuse.


Ambiguity is god in our laws. I think they are not just in vague and subjective terms, but intentionally so.

[Jon]

One could clearly make the argument that the electric chair is cruel...but it is not unusual. This is where my question was born.


Bumping this because it seems to support a "yes" answer to my query and I wanted to hear some thoughts on this observation.

[Jean]

I am afraid electrocution doesn't qualify as "cruel" for those who composed the law. I suspect it belongs to the more humane ways of taking life - along with hanging or lethal injection, but as opposed to drawing and quartering, skinning alive, impalement, or boiling in oil.

[Jon]

I am afraid electrocution doesn't qualify as "cruel" for those who composed the law. I suspect it belongs to the more humane ways of taking life - along with hanging or lethal injection, but as opposed to drawing and quartering, skinning alive, impalement, or boiling in oil.


Good point sir...as always!

[cozener]

Dunno why they don't just put a bullet through the back of their skulls. Seems much more cost effective and humane to me.

[Brice]

Hmm...I don't know I think IF we are gonna' do it it should be as ugly and messy and painful and inhumane as possible.

[TerribleT]

WOW!!!! And people accuse ME of being a binary thinker. Can you tell me what the difference is, if any, between an innocent man spending the remainder of his life locked up in a cage, and an innocent man receiving the death penalty? From the previous arguments it seems that the ONLY difference is that there is some possibility that some bit of evidence will later come to light which would clear him of the crime. But what if that never happens? To me there's no real difference, we're going to make mistakes, and innocent people are going to recieve punishments they don't deserve. The man who wrongly spends his life in jail, lose his life as surely as the one who recieves the death penalty. I also wonder, because the point has been made numerous times, that some death penalty cases have been overturned; how many of those people have been exonerated, and how many have just had evidence come to light which cast a shadow on their guilt, but didn't necessarily prove them innocent.

You're not seriously saying that spending 10 or even 20 years in a cell before being exhonerated is just as bas as losing your life? People tend to be attached to their status of "living". ;)

Its application has been far too liberal - I probably wouldn't have an issue with it if history states that there have been only 10 executions in the US over the past 70 years, and the guilt was unquestionable for monstrous acts of murder, like the examples that have been outlined.



For me, and this is just my own personal preference, I much rather be dead than spend 20 years locked in a cage, innocent or guilty. That's not what I'd exactly refer to as "living". I kinda tend to have a problem with the idea of being some other man's "bitch" etc... Again, that's just my own personal preference.

I wonder how many people have been executed since the re-institution of the death penalty in the US? Do you have any numbers on that?

[cozener]

Hmm...I don't know I think IF we are gonna' do it it should be as ugly and messy and painful and inhumane as possible.How about gladitorial games?







WOW!!!! And people accuse ME of being a binary thinker. Can you tell me what the difference is, if any, between an innocent man spending the remainder of his life locked up in a cage, and an innocent man receiving the death penalty? From the previous arguments it seems that the ONLY difference is that there is some possibility that some bit of evidence will later come to light which would clear him of the crime. But what if that never happens? To me there's no real difference, we're going to make mistakes, and innocent people are going to recieve punishments they don't deserve. The man who wrongly spends his life in jail, lose his life as surely as the one who recieves the death penalty. I also wonder, because the point has been made numerous times, that some death penalty cases have been overturned; how many of those people have been exonerated, and how many have just had evidence come to light which cast a shadow on their guilt, but didn't necessarily prove them innocent.

You're not seriously saying that spending 10 or even 20 years in a cell before being exhonerated is just as bas as losing your life? People tend to be attached to their status of "living". ;)

Its application has been far too liberal - I probably wouldn't have an issue with it if history states that there have been only 10 executions in the US over the past 70 years, and the guilt was unquestionable for monstrous acts of murder, like the examples that have been outlined.



For me, and this is just my own personal preference, I much rather be dead than spend 20 years locked in a cage, innocent or guilty. That's not what I'd exactly refer to as "living". I kinda tend to have a problem with the idea of being some other man's "bitch" etc... Again, that's just my own personal preference.

I wonder how many people have been executed since the re-institution of the death penalty in the US? Do you have any numbers on that?Ok...I can understand your preference. But I'd prefer to have the option, myself. Maybe options for suicide should be made available to convicts. ;)

[Brice]

WOW!!!! And people accuse ME of being a binary thinker. Can you tell me what the difference is, if any, between an innocent man spending the remainder of his life locked up in a cage, and an innocent man receiving the death penalty? From the previous arguments it seems that the ONLY difference is that there is some possibility that some bit of evidence will later come to light which would clear him of the crime. But what if that never happens? To me there's no real difference, we're going to make mistakes, and innocent people are going to recieve punishments they don't deserve. The man who wrongly spends his life in jail, lose his life as surely as the one who recieves the death penalty. I also wonder, because the point has been made numerous times, that some death penalty cases have been overturned; how many of those people have been exonerated, and how many have just had evidence come to light which cast a shadow on their guilt, but didn't necessarily prove them innocent.

You're not seriously saying that spending 10 or even 20 years in a cell before being exhonerated is just as bas as losing your life? People tend to be attached to their status of "living". ;)

Its application has been far too liberal - I probably wouldn't have an issue with it if history states that there have been only 10 executions in the US over the past 70 years, and the guilt was unquestionable for monstrous acts of murder, like the examples that have been outlined.



For me, and this is just my own personal preference, I much rather be dead than spend 20 years locked in a cage, innocent or guilty. That's not what I'd exactly refer to as "living". I kinda tend to have a problem with the idea of being some other man's "bitch" etc... Again, that's just my own personal preference.

I wonder how many people have been executed since the re-institution of the death penalty in the US? Do you have any numbers on that?

The most recent number I can find:

As of December of 2005-1000 executions since the 1976 reinstatement of the death penalty.

[Matt]

I sure don't understand that angle, I thought you guys said killing someone was never okay, not anytime.

To me, that's just a faster death penalty. :lol: For my part, if you kill someone you should die for it. The reason I'm against the death penalty isn't that killing someone for murder is "wrong" or "barbaric" or some other morally pretentious crap. My only problem with it is the possibility of sending an innocent person to their death...something we've already done numerous times. This, to me, is what makes the death penalty wrong.

That's why I said I am only for it in cases where the guilt is proven. Which is totally possible these days and happens all the time.

[TerribleT]

As of December of 2005-1000 executions since the 1976 reinstatement of the death penalty.

Is that death sentences, or actual executions, because that seems like a LOT.

[TerribleT]

Never mind, here's a more updated figure.

U. S. EXECUTIONS SINCE 1976: 1,029 (as of July 1, 2006)

[TerribleT]

White 590 (57%) Male 1,018 (99%)
Black 350 (34%) Female 011 (01%)
Hispanic 067 (07%)
Native Am 014 (01%)
Asian 008 (01%)

Of the 3,314 convicted murderers on Death Row
as of January 1, 2005:

64.4% had a prior felony conviction at the time of the murder.
08.2% had a prior homicide conviction at the time of the murder.
07.9% had criminal charges pending at the time of the murder.
26.7% were on probation or parole at the time of the murder.
4.9% were incarcerated or had escaped from incarceration.
14% had accumulated more than one death sentence.
22% were married, 21% divorced, and 03% widowed.
39% were high school/GED graduates.
40% were under the age of 25 at arrest; 2.9% are under 25 now.
0.2% were 60+ years at arrest; 3.8% are 60+ years now.
The average age was 40 years. (27 at sentencing)

[Jorge]

And of those 3,314 convicted murderers on death row on January 1st of 2005, probably no more than 5% have actually been executed, and 5% is a pretty generous number. The rest are still in our prisons going through years upon years of appeals. If we're not going to do this death penalty thing efficiently, we might as well not do it at all. :P

[Darkthoughts]

I'm just bumping some threads to see if the topic is still of interest, or whether they can be merged/closed.

If you'd like to see this thread stick around, please join in :)

[CPU]

I'm waaayyyy too lazy to read the entire thread so I'll just pretend I'm the first poster :lol:

I'm against the death penalty, no exceptions. To me, regardless of the circumstances, state sanctioned murder is no different than murder carried out by an individual; or the ol' two wrongs don't make a right argument.

Furthermore it doesn't seem as though the death penalty is consistently applied, meaning one defendent may get it and another not, even though they commit identical crimes. Also I don't believe we can be 100% certain that it would only be applied to the guilty and even one innocent person put to death is one to many to me. Lastly I don't believe it's a deterent against crime, most criminals are not thinking about the potential penalty they might receive if they are caught.

Oh, and one more reason :P, as a society do we want justice or vengeance? I don't see the justice in killing someone, I only see vengeance. Some people are cool with vengeance, and I'm not judging them for that, but for me vengeance holds no pleasure.

[Darkthoughts]

Out of interest, do you consider deaths in war (ie, one side killing another) to be murder also?

[CPU]

Generally speaking, No, I don't consider deaths in war to be murder. There may be exceptions however. To me it comes down to intent.

If two platoons of soldiers meet on the battlefield and are ordered to engage and some are killed I don't believe those deaths are murder because the intent (on both sides) is to defend themselves, or a location, etc. They also have the option of surrender, or capture at the hands of their foes at the end of the battle. The object of war is to make it so painful for they enemy that they give up and give you whatever you're after, it's not (usually) to kill 100% of the enemy.

Take the same two platoons of soldiers and send them into villages populated by their enemies civilians and have them execute them; that I would consider murder because the intent is to simply kill people.

Hopefully that explains my distinction between deaths in a war, and deaths via "murder" :lol:

[Darkthoughts]

Yep, it does :D

[jayson]

Hopefully that explains my distinction between deaths in a war, and deaths via "murder" :lol:

I think you explained it quite well. :clap:
I agree with regard to the soldiers themselves, though I may have different views when it comes to those who ordered the soldiers to be there in the first place (ie. was it a "just" war?)

[Darkthoughts]

Yes, I agree Jayson. To me, unless the people dicatating the terms of the war are willing to put themselves on the frontline, then I consider it murder at some level.

[CPU]

Hopefully that explains my distinction between deaths in a war, and deaths via "murder" :lol:

I think you explained it quite well. :clap:
I agree with regard to the soldiers themselves, though I may have different views when it comes to those who ordered the soldiers to be there in the first place (ie. was it a "just" war?)

Sure, again I think that illustrates the question of intent. The trials of the Nazi high-command after WW2 are, to me, a perfect example of what you're alluding to. There were elements in the government and military of Germany who wanted nothing more than to kill certain groups of people. That is killing with intent, ie - murder.

I still wouldn't support the death penalty, even for them. They should have been imprisoned, forced to work, and subject to research that might shed light on why some people kill.

[Matt]

I'm still for it. :nana:

:lol:

Obviously only in cases where it can be proven (and it can these days)--one shadow of doubt, can't do it.

Its not revenge for me, I just think some folks need to be put down.

Hopefully that doesn't offend anyone.

[jayson]

Sure, again I think that illustrates the question of intent. The trials of the Nazi high-command after WW2 are, to me, a perfect example of what you're alluding to. There were elements in the government and military of Germany who wanted nothing more than to kill certain groups of people. That is killing with intent, ie - murder.

I still wouldn't support the death penalty, even for them. They should have been imprisoned, forced to work, and subject to research that might shed light on why some people kill.

I agree with you 100%.

[CPU]

I'm still for it. :nana:

:lol:

Obviously only in cases where it can be proven (and it can these days)--one shadow of doubt, can't do it.

Its not revenge for me, I just think some folks need to be put down.

Hopefully that doesn't offend anyone.

Not offended at all :grouphug:

I don't any problem with differing opinions, that's what keeps the world interesting. :)

[jayson]

Exactly. I appreciate your right to your opinion Matt, and that you always express it with respect for the opinions of others.

[MrQuint]

Not offended at all :grouphug:

I don't any problem with differing opinions, that's what keeps the world interesting. :)

Differing opinions and don't forget internet porn.

For whatever it's worth, I'm torn on the issue. I'm leaning toward being against, only for the fact that I don't think it's an affective deterrent to crime ... isn't that supposed to be the point in the first place?

[jayson]

The deterrent factor is usually what is claimed to be the point, though statistically it doesn't appear to have deterred anyone from anything. I agree with what Corey said earlier that the actual motivation is revenge. I don't believe in state-sanctioned revenge.

[MrQuint]

The deterrent factor is usually what is claimed to be the point, though statistically it doesn't appear to have deterred anyone from anything. I agree with what Corey said earlier that the actual motivation is revenge. I don't believe in state-sanctioned revenge.

Justice vs revenge is a very interesting debate to me. Personally, I don't see the difference between the two ...

And we agree on the deterrent factor (wow, 2 out of 3 'aint bad RofG)

[jayson]

Justice vs revenge is a very interesting debate to me. Personally, I don't see the difference between the two ...

Justice, I think, is subjective. I don't even necessarily think personal vengeance is "wrong" in some cases (ie. if someone murdered a member of your family). It's just state-sanctioned killing I can't abide.



And we agree on the deterrent factor (wow, 2 out of 3 'aint bad RofG)

Yes, we are making progress for sure. :)

[Matt]

I would think consigning someone to a hole with bars on it for the rest of their lives is more akin to revenge---that kind of thing can drive a person crazy and is easily on par with a quick end.

If not worse.

It's not justice or revenge to me. I think if someone commits a crime like this they are wired wrong and society has to deal that.

[jayson]

bumping in light of the death penalty coming up in another thread

[John Blaze]

Jayson, is there a way to transfer that whole line of posts here? For some reason whenever we have a discussion like this and them move it to the relevant thread I lose my thread of thought easily.

if not, I'll just shuffle back and forth. I didn't even know we had this thread, or I woulda been in here way before now.

[jayson]

Jayson, is there a way to transfer that whole line of posts here? For some reason whenever we have a discussion like this and them move it to the relevant thread I lose my thread of thought easily.

if not, I'll just shuffle back and forth. I didn't even know we had this thread, or I woulda been in here way before now.

my powers don't work in that thread, but i will get someone on it. :D

[jayson]

this story illustrates one of the key issues i have with capital punishment. this man was clearly never given a chance. the criminal investigation was corrupt not based on scientific evidence.

he was not given a fair trial (with faulty evidence presented against him) and eventually the state of texas took his life for a crime that he didn't commit. for that matter, the investigation now shows that it's possible NOBODY committed the crime because there may not have even been a crime committed.

the man lost his entire family in a fire and instead of being able to mourn them, he spent the rest of his life defending himself in vain against charges that he murdered them.

what makes me sick is that the state of texas knew the evidence was faulty. they did nothing. governor rick perry ignored requests to stay the execution until an investigation could be completed? why? because he was up for re-election and needed to appear "tough on crime."

whatever alleged "benefits" capital punishment may have (and i still say there are none), when a single innocent person is murdered by the state, it is time to abolish the entire enterprise. this is not what civilized societies do.

anyway, this is the story...

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/08/26/0826arson.html

Man convicted of murder, executed over arson that wasn't, scientist says
Faulty investigation of fire that killed 3 kids led to conviction, state-funded report concludes.

By Chuck Lindell
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

The fatal house fire that led Texas to execute Cameron Todd Willingham in 2004 was erroneously ruled to be arson by fire investigators who relied on bad science, unproven theories and personal bias, a state-funded analysis concludes.

The analysis, prepared by nationally known fire scientist Craig Beyler, raises the possibility that Willingham did not commit the crime for which he was executed, a 1991 fire that killed his three young children in the Corsicana house they shared.

Only Willingham escaped the burning house, and he insisted on his innocence until the moment of his death.

"I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do," he said while strapped to the execution-chamber gurney.

Beyler's report, requested by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, listed more than a dozen instances of improper analysis and mistaken conclusions provided by two fire officials during Willingham's capital murder trial.

Most damaging was testimony that burn patterns on the home's floors proved that an accelerant was used to start three different fast-burning fires that doomed the children — a conclusion not supported by the facts or by fundamental scientific analysis, Beyler wrote.

"The investigators had poor understandings of fire science," wrote Beyler, who is chairman of the International Association for Fire Safety Science and author of several books about fire investigation.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission, created in 2005 to investigate allegations of scientific negligence or misconduct, will use Beyler's analysis to draft its report on the Willingham fire. That document is expected in the first half of 2010.

First, however, the agency will request comment from the State Fire Marshal's Office, whose investigator received the brunt of Beyler's frequently pointed criticism. Commissioners also plan to question Beyler at their Oct. 2 meeting in Dallas, said Austin lawyer Sam Bassett, chairman of the agency.

"This is a major step in the commission's review," Bassett said, "but it is by no means the end of the investigation."

At his capital murder trial in 1992, Willingham testified that he was awakened by yells from his 2-year-old daughter and found the house filled with smoke.

He said he told the girl to go outside and entered the fiery bedroom where his 1-year-old twins were sleeping, receiving several burns but never finding the toddlers.

Beyler reviewed the investigative reports and trial testimony provided by two fire officials: Manuel Vasquez of the State Fire Marshal's Office and Douglas Fogg, an assistant chief for the Corsicana Fire Department.

Vasquez died in the mid-1990s, a fire marshal spokesman said.

Beyler said the investigators relied on debunked investigative standards to conclude that the Willingham fire did not behave naturally and therefore must have been intentionally set, including:

• Melted aluminum: Vasquez testified that wood burns at 800 degrees, meaning an accelerant must have been used to reach the 1,200 degrees necessary to melt an aluminum threshold.

On the contrary, Beyler said, accelerant fires are no hotter than wood fires, and both can reach 2,000 degrees.

• Floor patterns: Vasquez and Fogg testified that "puddle configurations" and burn patterns on the floor could only have been caused by burning liquids.

In reality, Beyler said, such patterns are typical in rooms — like those in the Willingham home — that were fully involved in a fire.

• Crazed glass: Vasquez determined that a severely cracked porch window indicated a fast, hot fire due to accelerants.

"In fact it is much more likely that any crazing resulted from the application of water to hot glass during firefighting," Beyler wrote.

In addition, Vasquez was criticized for telling jurors that most of the 1,200 to 1,500 fires he had investigated were arsons — a statistic that "far exceeds any rational estimate" and reflects his "predisposition to find arson in his cases," Beyler wrote.

The State Fire Marshal's Office had not seen the report Tuesday and could not comment on the specifics, but spokesman Jerry Hagins said Vasquez used then-valid national standards for fire investigation.

Beyler's report, however, said the standards used by Vasquez had been disproved by the early 1990s.

[Darkthoughts]

So, will the state that sanctioned his death by reprimanded in any way?

[Daghain]

No.

[rosie real]

anybody ever seen the life of david gale (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289992/)? it's relevant to this conversation, even if fiction.

[mystima]

I know there has been a lot of debate on this subject all over the place the past week or two, with the shooting in Arizona, it has perked up. Another is the international ban of selling Sodium thiopental as told in this story...


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/24/ap/world/main7276894.shtml

[Brice]

I am for the death penalty for those who personally piss me off. In all other cases I'm against it.

[Jean]

I think we had a similar thread a few years back, I'll look around

ETA: found it, here (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?1799-Crime-and-Punishment)

[alinda]

I'm for it but they keep turning me away alive!

[pathoftheturtle]

this story illustrates one of the key issues i have with capital punishment. this man was clearly never given a chance. the criminal investigation was corrupt not based on scientific evidence.

he was not given a fair trial (with faulty evidence presented against him) and eventually the state of texas took his life for a crime that he didn't commit. for that matter, the investigation now shows that it's possible NOBODY committed the crime because there may not have even been a crime committed.

the man lost his entire family in a fire and instead of being able to mourn them, he spent the rest of his life defending himself in vain against charges that he murdered them.

what makes me sick is that the state of texas knew the evidence was faulty. they did nothing. governor rick perry ignored requests to stay the execution until an investigation could be completed? why? because he was up for re-election and needed to appear "tough on crime."

whatever alleged "benefits" capital punishment may have (and i still say there are none), when a single innocent person is murdered by the state, it is time to abolish the entire enterprise. this is not what civilized societies do.

...Not the only time, I'm sure. It's rare that innocence is proved like that, though. What the state of Texas has is really less a justice system than a death machine.

[John Blaze]

for it, but only when guilt is proven beyond a doubt (surveilance footage, 2 or more reliable witnesses, etc.) Of course, it also depends on the severity of the crime.

[OchrisO]

Against in all cases.

[John_and_Yoko]

Against in all cases.

Hear, hear! Both the Declaration of Independence ("all men...are endowed...with certain unalienable rights...among these are life....") and the Fifth Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") are against the death penalty. It's a cruel, medieval policy that should have gone extinct hundreds of years ago. I don't care WHAT the guilty party has done, if you support their execution you're lowering yourself BELOW the guilty party's level, because then you're supporting the LEGAL murder of human beings, which is worse than breaking the law to murder someone.

Anyway, we need to get the idea out of our heads that letting someone LIVE is the same thing as condoning everything they've ever done in their lives. No one learns their lesson if their lives are ended prematurely. I believe that making the claim that someone has somehow "forfeited" their human rights, no matter what they did in order to do so, is only justifying the speaker's own desire for death, which is unconscionable.

Besides, what about the wrongly accused? Better to let the guilty live than to execute one innocent person, whatever else you believe about it.

[Merlin1958]

I have to say that while I am not morally against it, I do think it is a more fitting punishment to let them rot in jail than to kill them off. I think the fact that they have to live with the crime for years is more fitting, even if more expensive.

[pathoftheturtle]

Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord.

[John_and_Yoko]

Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord.

Wwwwhat exactly does that mean?

[Merlin1958]

Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord.

Wwwwhat exactly does that mean?

Yeah, really!!!!! ???????????????????

[John_and_Yoko]

If I had to venture a guess (but I could be mistaken on path's point), I'd think it meant that it's up to God to punish evildoers, not us--our job is just to do what we can to prevent them from doing their evil. That at least makes sense to me.

[pathoftheturtle]

Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord.

Wwwwhat exactly does that mean?:o I thought that you knew the Bible.
"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." -- Romans 12:19 (New International Version)

[John_and_Yoko]

:o I thought that you knew the Bible.
"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." -- Romans 12:19 (New International Version)

So I was correct in my interpretation. That's good.

Hey, I've ONLY JUST come back to the Church a couple of months ago, and while I've made a point of reading through the entire Bible this year, I'm still on Leviticus, I haven't even left the Pentateuch yet!

Anyway, yes, that's a perfect way to look at it, and it does appear to reflect the sentiment of some Biblical quotes I AM familiar with, such as "Judge not, lest ye be judged", and Christ's teaching of removing the log from your own eye before removing the mote from another's, and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

[pathoftheturtle]

... "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".:doh: I would like to change my answer. Wish that I'd thought of posting that one.

[alinda]

Thank you everyone for your excellent and valid viewpoints and arguments , sorry if my joke was in poor taste.
If only we as a species no longer required such debate

[Brice]

Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord.

I would debate this

...with him. :evil:

Seriously I am 100% against the death penalty although I do believe in the art of revenge. Basically I'm against violence, but I can say if it were someone I care about I would (shamefully) put my morals and others little laws aside.

[Erin]

Always 100% against it. I did a huge report in grad school regarding the death penalty. I'll look up my paper later and post some of the statistics. I was leaning towards being against the death penalty before starting that project and after researching the stats, I became totally convinced.

[Bethany]

I am for it. Completely. It has nothing to do with deterring future criminals or any thing like that. Some people are beyond redemption in the human realm and cannot be rehabilitated (does anyone even believe this is what the penal system does anymore?) and need to be taken out. Rotting in jail? Yeah, when I was on Grand Jury and had to tour the local jail as part of my duties, I got to see the female inmates "rotting away" by laying up in bed and watching "The Sopranos" and most of the male population was working out.

[John_and_Yoko]

Well, I'll never agree with you on that, bethany. It's not for us to decide if someone is beyond redemption just because we thirst for their deaths in a legal manner rather than breaking the law and killing them ourselves, thereby putting ourselves at risk with the law. What if, had they lived, they DID reform and become better people, but they didn't get the chance because their lives were ended prematurely. A human life is still a human life, whatever's done with it.

Not to invoke Godwin's law, but remember that the Holocaust was legalized murder of people who were thought to be a scourge of the human race that needed to be taken out. That's a dangerous path to take, and I pray that you and everyone else who supports the death penalty will realize this soon.

My point is that I believe that's why the death penalty exists--because people have latent (and unconscionable) desires to see those they don't like DIE, and as that's a very unpopular position they try to justify it any way they can, and the worst way is to legalize killing with the death penalty. Then it's not even breaking the law, and you don't have to get your hands dirty because the government's doing it for you. All fine until they come after YOU.

I believe that this desire to see someone die is reprehensible and I don't care who has that desire or who it's directed against or why--it needs to be stamped out of the human species. You could slaughter my entire family for cannibalistic purposes and while I would not be emotionally unaffected by that, I would NEVER wish DEATH upon you for it.

[Roland of Gilead 33]

i'm all for it actually, but ONLY if the party is actually guilty. while the thought of them rotting in prison thinking about what they did is a good thought,

some do think that. & those i am for rotting in jail rather than killing them. but when you have evil bastards like "Son of sam', "Charlie Manson" for example, "Ted Bundy" etc.. those guys won't EVER think about what they've done! now i may be wrong about the son of sam mind you. i have seen
him do interviews & he may regret what he's done. so i may take him off that list to be put to death. but

when you have these evil bastards that have no soul, no consious & sorry for my bad spelling. & who have no emotion or empathy at all. & they slit your throat just as fast as someone farts, or something along the lines of that. than those type of guys & women yes they have evil women as well.

THOSE should be put to death. cause what scares the hell out of me, is that these people sometimes escape! & kill even more people, & to kill them off i think would be more humane than keeping them alive. to save lives anyways. in short it depends on the case & the individual.

[John_and_Yoko]

If some crazy got out of jail and killed my entire family, I wouldn't be happy, but I would be a LOT more upset if it was the government executing them, whether they were guilty of ANYTHING or not.

But it should be a choice between killings happening vs. NO killings happening--

--NOT illegal killings happening vs. LEGAL killings happening.

[Yeah Sure Whatever]

Until the justice system is infallible I'm against it

[John_and_Yoko]

Until the justice system is infallible I'm against it

Well, that's something, but I pray there will come a time when you'll be against it even if the justice system BECAME infallible.

I just believe that ANY kind of support for the death penalty is indicative of the same contempt for life shown by those who COMMIT the murders in the first place. Life is SACRED, and it's not "OUR lives" vs. "THEIR lives", whoever THEY are. It's ALL human life, and it's ALL sacred, and to believe that is NOT to condone what a murderer has done, and to think that it IS is both wrong and dangerous.

[Roland of Gilead 33]

ok here's someone i'd love to see excuted, if this sounds a bit angry i apoligize in advance. a family friend was kidnapped in October of (1989) i believe John i think? knows about this cause it was on tv back than. "Amy Michajevic" i never can spell their last name right so bear with me.


anyways she was 10 at the time. only a year younger than me. & she was kidnapped. i don't think she was raped. & she was found in i think in Jan. of (1990) murdered. they never did find the guy who did it. though i was never close to her. we've been friends with the family since on or about (1986) or so. maybe (1987) anyways it was around that time. my point is i'd love to strap him into the electric chair & pull the lever myself. but

to be fair i'd let her dad do it. her mom drank herself to death basically. though she was a drinker before. she got worse after that happend. her rents divorce as it sometimes happens. & her dad has since remarried. & her brother has 2 kids now. Max is the name of one of them he's i think 5 or 6 now. i forget what his other kids' name is. i don't see him that often so bear with me.

that's why i'm all for the death penalty. if that sounds like i'm yelling here. i apologize that wasn't intended. but to be fair i think anyone would feel the same if that happend to you.

[Roland of Gilead 33]

they are still investagating it actually. & there's even a site that is dedicated to it. also i have some good pictures with me & my family with her. & an old "ALF" coloring book that she colored in. i keep that hidden away. we were actually at her rents house when "Denise Dufala" she's a news reporter i believe from cleveland, i also may have the name wrong as well. it's been over 20 years. when they came to their house.

[John_and_Yoko]

That is reprehensible, and while I've never been so unfortunate (and hence it may sound easy to come at it from my perspective), if (heaven forbid) something like that WERE to happen to someone close to me, I would pray to GOD that I would not even so much as DESIRE the death of the offending party. The fact that "anyone would feel the same" DOESN'T MAKE IT OKAY. That's an open-ended non-argument that can be used to justify ANY position no matter how despicable it is. Even people who weren't guilty of the Holocaust said, "Well, those Jews really brought it on themselves."

The law is supposed to be BETTER than the criminals, not lowering themselves to the CRIMINALS' levels, and while I don't want to make this choice, I'd rather live in a world where criminals are loose and murder people right and left than a world where GOVERNMENTS end people's lives prematurely LEGALLY.

I'm sorry for the losses anyone may have had that led them to support the death penalty, but supporting evil against evil is NEVER okay. It just means that evil wins, as it goes into a downward spiral that you can never get out of. I'll pray for those who died, and for their loved ones, but no one will ever get me to support what I know is wrong.

[Bethany]

It sounds to me like you are equating vigilante justice with the legal system. While it is flawed and in no way infallible, our legal system is in place to uphold the laws that govern the land. Murder is a crime. Rape is a crime. There are legal consequences to committing these crimes and there is a mechanism in place to mete out these consequences. That is in no way the same as an enraged, grief stricken family member going out and killing the suspect.

[Roland of Gilead 33]

i'm not asking anyone to agree with me. i'm just saying why i'm all for it. plus i think the law is kinda like a scale, if it goes one way you will get justice. but you put to much weight on it, it goes the other way & the bastard gets loose.

[OchrisO]

I have to say that while I am not morally against it, I do think it is a more fitting punishment to let them rot in jail than to kill them off. I think the fact that they have to live with the crime for years is more fitting, even if more expensive.

Actually, in most cases, it costs the tax payers less money to incarcerate a person for life than it does to execute them. I know most people choose for or against based on other reasons, as so I. I am against the death penalty for a number of moral reasons that I am too lazy to go into, but from a purely fiscal point of view, life incarceration without parole is cheaper than the death penalty for tax payers. I'll throw a bit of sourced research out here. I'm sure Erin has some better ones since she wrote a big paper on it a while back.


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in a 2002 presentation from its Capital Punishment Project titled "The High Costs of the Death Penalty," concluded:

"The available evidence is clear: the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. At every step in the process, a capital defendant receives greater constitutional guarantees than non-capital defendants, which costs time and resources. As a result, total costs for each capital case run into the millions of dollars.

While it is the politicians and legislators who often support the death penalty, local counties and communities must bear the financial burden of imposing a capital punishment system, often to the detriment of other health and social services.

With life imprisonment available at a much cheaper, fairer, and more humane form of punishment, the high costs of the death penalty, and their burdens on local governments, simply are not worth whatever benefits may be claimed for it."

2002 - American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)



The Washington State Bar Association, adopted the Apr. 13, 2007 "Final Report of the Death Penalty Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Defense," which stated:

"It costs significantly more to try a capital case to final verdict than to try the same case as an aggravated murder case where the penalty sought is life without possibility of parole.

At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel.

On direct appeal, the cost of appellate defense averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases.

Personal restraint petitions filed in death penalty cases on average cost an additional $137,000 in public defense costs.

On direct appeals and personal restraint petitions, the prosecutor spends significant attorney time responding to the issues raised by the defendant to the Washington Supreme Court. If a death penalty defendant does not succeed before the Washington State Supreme Court, additional defense costs will be incurred in a habeas corpus petition to the federal court and appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court. The Washington State Attorney General must provide attorneys to defend the death penalty sentence before the federal courts."

Apr. 13, 2007 - Washington State Bar Association (WSBA)



The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, in a June 30, 2008 report titled "Report and Recommendations on the Administration on the Administration of the Death Penalty in California" (800KB), offered the following:

"For comparative purposes, the Commission adopted a very conservative estimate that seeking the death penalty adds $500,000 to the cost of a murder trial in California. The costs of a second defense lawyer, the background investigation for the penalty phase, and the added duration and expense of the trial for jury selection and penalty trial alone would easily add up to $500,000 in most cases. The current rate of 20 death sentences per year would require 40 death penalty trials per year, for a total added cost of $20 million...

The costs of confinement can also be estimated with some precision, based upon the Department of Corrections estimate that confinement on death row adds $90,000 per year to the cost of confinement beyond the normal cost of $34,150."


Eight members of the 23-member California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice study titled "Report and Recommendations on the Administration of the Death Penalty in California," signed a June 30, 2008 supplement indicating their personal objections to the death penalty. Those eight members were Diane Bellas, JD, Alameda County Public Defender; Rabbi Allen I. Freehling, Executive Director at the City of Los Angeles Human Relations Commission; Michael Hersek, JD, California State Public Defender; Bill Ong Hing, JD Professor at UC Davis School of Law; Michael P. Judge, JD, Los Angeles County Public Defender; Michael Laurence, JD, Executive Director of the Habeas Corpus Resource Center; John Moulds, JD, US Magistrate Judge of the US District Court – Eastern District of California; and Douglas Ring, Businessman Founder of The Ring Group. The supplement stated in part:

"The resources that go into a death penalty case are enormous. The pursuit of execution adds millions at each phase of the process, from trial, to appeal, and habeas proceedings. For example, a death penalty trial costs counties at least $1.1 million more than a conventional murder trial. The state spends at least an additional $117 million a year on capital punishment, about half of it on prison expenses that exceed the usual costs of housing inmates and the rest on arguing and judging death penalty appeals.

The costs mount because death penalty trials and appeals take far longer than others, involve more lawyers, investigators and expert witnesses, and displace other cases from courtrooms. In contrast, adopting a maximum penalty of life without possibility of parole (for which there is growing sentiment) would incur only a fraction of the death penalty costs, including prison expenses."

June 30, 2008 - Supplement to the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (1,120KB)


Death Penalty Focus, an abolition of capital punishment advocacy organization, in its website section accessed Aug. 4, 2008 and titled "The High Cost of the Death Penalty," offered the following:

"The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innnocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated.

If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole, which costs millions less and also ensures that the public is protected while eliminating the risk of an irreversible mistake [...] More than 3500 men and woman have received this sentence in California since 1978 and NOT ONE has been released, except those few individuals who were able to prove their innocence."


Richard C. Dieter, JD, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, in a Feb. 7, 2007 testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado State House of Representatives regarding "House Bill 1094 - Costs of the Death Penalty and Related Issues," stated:

"In the course of my work, I believe I have reviewed every state and federal study of the costs of the death penalty in the past 25 years. One element is common to all of these studies: They all concluded that the cost of the death penalty amounts to a net expense to the state and the taxpayers. Or to put it differently, the death penalty system is clearly more expensive than a system handling similar cases with a lesser punishment. ...the most expensive system is one that combines the costliest parts of both punishments: lengthy and complicated death penalty trials followed by incarceration for life...

Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is needed for a death penalty case, only more so:
• More pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial more pre-trial motions will be filed and answered.
• More experts will be hired.
• Twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution.
• Jurors will have to be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered.
• Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment.
• The trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University (752KB) estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer than typical murder trials
• And then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in the high security of death row."

There is, of course, some research that makes opposite claims as to cost, but there is much, much less of it, leading me to side with life incarceration being cheaper for the taxpayers.

[John_and_Yoko]

It sounds to me like you are equating vigilante justice with the legal system. While it is flawed and in no way infallible, our legal system is in place to uphold the laws that govern the land. Murder is a crime. Rape is a crime. There are legal consequences to committing these crimes and there is a mechanism in place to mete out these consequences. That is in no way the same as an enraged, grief stricken family member going out and killing the suspect.

I'm not equating them. At all. I'm saying that the legal system is SUPPOSED to be BETTER than vigilantism IN its task of upholding the laws. No one is arguing that murder is a crime--my point is that BECAUSE it's a crime, the legal system should not be PRACTICING a crime to PUNISH that same crime. It makes no more sense to have the death penalty than to have a RAPIST being sentenced to SODOMY (and don't think there aren't people who would like to see THAT!). It's cruel and unusual punishment, which violates the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.

I know that's in no way the same. That's WORSE. That's killing in cold blood, as opposed to killing in the heat of anger or hatred or whatever.



EDIT: I want to say this in case anyone gets the wrong impression. I do not in any way accuse ANYONE here who's said they support the death penalty of being EVIL, or even of being worse than an actual murderer. I just believe that people who follow the law need to be BETTER in their deeds, words, and thoughts than those who break it, and should know better than to lower themselves to the level of criminals by supporting the same things that criminals do, never mind the reasons for it. No reason can justify prematurely ending someone's LIFE. None.

[Mattrick]

while I agree with capitol punishment in Theory, the justice system is too frayed for it be too be effective. Too many innocent people getting executed. Not to mention it's costly with their lethal injections and such. I like what Chris Rock said, "You want the death penalty? You take them out back, shoot em in the head and charge the family the bullet." But that rather barbaric by these standards and perhaps that's the problem with the justice system, it's not barbaric enough.

Bring back The Code of Hammurabi!

[Darkthoughts]

I am for it. Completely. It has nothing to do with deterring future criminals or any thing like that. Some people are beyond redemption in the human realm and cannot be rehabilitated (does anyone even believe this is what the penal system does anymore?) and need to be taken out. Rotting in jail? Yeah, when I was on Grand Jury and had to tour the local jail as part of my duties, I got to see the female inmates "rotting away" by laying up in bed and watching "The Sopranos" and most of the male population was working out.


Well, I'll never agree with you on that, bethany. It's not for us to decide if someone is beyond redemption just because we thirst for their deaths in a legal manner rather than breaking the law and killing them ourselves, thereby putting ourselves at risk with the law. What if, had they lived, they DID reform and become better people, but they didn't get the chance because their lives were ended prematurely. A human life is still a human life, whatever's done with it.

However, many people don't ever reform or repent. I'm not for the death penalty but only because there isn't 100% certainty of guilt. If there was, in certain cases I think I would be for it. Especially over here in the UK, a life sentence is 7 years - that's it. Can you imagine how many repeat offenders we have here?

[Mattrick]

However, many people don't ever reform or repent. I'm not for the death penalty but only because there isn't 100% certainty of guilt. If there was, in certain cases I think I would be for it. Especially over here in the UK, a life sentence is 7 years - that's it. Can you imagine how many repeat offenders we have here?

Would be nice if more people got 7 years over here. Though it's not murder or anything, curreny TNA Wrestling champion Jeff Hardy (some of you may know) had a raid done on his house. They found large quanities of opium, painkillers and steroids. He's being charged with two counts of possession, intent to distribute and other small charges. If this was me getting busted, I'd already be in prison for 10-15 years. He's probably going to get off with nothing but probation and will probably do no jail time. In fact, his sentencing even keeps getting delayed. Just goes to show what's wrong with the judicial system. They allow well off people to get off pretty good but people are have little to no money get the book thrown at them and they can NEVER recover. No one will hire an ex-con without many employable skills. All Jeff Hardy knows how to do it jump off ladders and hurt himself for money and even though he's going to court...he was still able to visit Europe. WTF

[cozener]

As I said in the old thread, I'm against it...not because I believe that it's wrong to kill a murderer. If you take someone's life you should probably have yours taken too. My issue is that we've already killed innocent people. I don't care how many times we get it right. It isn't worth what that one innocent person goes through. People can be framed. Evidence can be tampered with. I'll say it again (and I say it a lot) I cannot accept a "can't make an omelet without breakin' some eggs" approach to justice.

Sure, you can give me all kinds of what ifs. What if the person admits what they did? What if we have DNA evidence? What if this? What if that? See...the problem is that if it's acceptable to execute in certain instances where we know "beyond the shadow of a doubt" that the person is guilty it makes it more acceptable in other instances that are a bit more questionable.

[Brice]

It sounds to me like you are equating vigilante justice with the legal system. While it is flawed and in no way infallible, our legal system is in place to uphold the laws that govern the land. Murder is a crime. Rape is a crime. There are legal consequences to committing these crimes and there is a mechanism in place to mete out these consequences. That is in no way the same as an enraged, grief stricken family member going out and killing the suspect.


I am in fact comparing them. The justice system is nothing but government sanctioned revenge. While I'm against the death penalty period I have some sympathies for the family member who seeks revenge for a wrong done to their family. I'm not saying it is right or that I condone it, but I also can't say I wouldn't do the same and I can certainly say I would want to do so.

[Brice]

However, many people don't ever reform or repent. I'm not for the death penalty but only because there isn't 100% certainty of guilt. If there was, in certain cases I think I would be for it. Especially over here in the UK, a life sentence is 7 years - that's it. Can you imagine how many repeat offenders we have here?
:scared: There are people who do more time than that for marijuana possession here. :lol:

[John_and_Yoko]

I've already spoken my piece so I'm not going to repeat myself. All I will say is, if nothing of what I've already said is enough to convince someone that the death penalty is immoral in ALL instances, maybe this will be a deterrent:

Some murderers actually have a death wish for themselves. They have so much contempt for life that not only can they take a life, but they themselves WANT to die. In other words, they take advantage of the fact that there's a death penalty by committing a crime that is punishable by death, just so that they CAN die. Do you really want to TEMPT these people?

[Mattrick]

Some murderers actually have a death wish for themselves. They have so much contempt for life that not only can they take a life, but they themselves WANT to die. In other words, they take advantage of the fact that there's a death penalty by committing a crime that is punishable by death, just so that they CAN die. Do you really want to TEMPT these people?

Those people won't go away with no death penalty. Why do you think so many people go shoot up a school or an office then off themselves? They plan on dying anyways, doesn't matter who kills them.

[John_and_Yoko]

Some murderers actually have a death wish for themselves. They have so much contempt for life that not only can they take a life, but they themselves WANT to die. In other words, they take advantage of the fact that there's a death penalty by committing a crime that is punishable by death, just so that they CAN die. Do you really want to TEMPT these people?

Those people won't go away with no death penalty. Why do you think so many people go shoot up a school or an office then off themselves? They plan on dying anyways, doesn't matter who kills them.

Yeah? That doesn't in any way indicate that it's not a good idea to abolish the death penalty, from what I can see. It may not matter to THEM who kills them, but in an objective sense, it matters EVERYTHING. Aside from which I never said there would be NO murder without the death penalty--I'm just saying that that is not a good argument for keeping the death penalty, the fact that there would be murderers with or without it. There was no segregation in the days of slavery, does that mean we should keep SLAVERY so that white supremacists can't segregate their homes, schools, bathrooms, and drinking fountains?

[Mattrick]

You insinuated the death penalty encourages people who want to die to commit murder so they can be killed.

The biggest problem with the death penalty is death row. Sometimes people are on death row for over a decade before they're killed, what a waste of taxpayers money. At least with regular prison the taxpayers money goes to the hope that they will reform...ten years of room and board for someone who simply die seems pointless.

[John_and_Yoko]

You insinuated the death penalty encourages people who want to die to commit murder so they can be killed.

The biggest problem with the death penalty is death row. Sometimes people are on death row for over a decade before they're killed, what a waste of taxpayers money. At least with regular prison the taxpayers money goes to the hope that they will reform...ten years of room and board for someone who simply die seems pointless.

Well, that last part we can agree on--that's even more nonsensical than the death penalty itself. Besides, if they're on death row they pretty much won't have ANYTHING to be afraid of anymore.

[pathoftheturtle]

... Some people are beyond redemption in the human realm and cannot be rehabilitated (does anyone even believe this is what the penal system does anymore?) ...Which penal system?

I certainly don't think that changing any one law in one place will solve all of the problems of crime. Societies are complex, and making a better one requires a lot of different steps to be taken in concert.

[pathoftheturtle]

Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord.

I would debate this

...with him. :evil:

Seriously I am 100% against the death penalty although I do believe in the art of revenge. Basically I'm against violence, but I can say if it were someone I care about I would (shamefully) put my morals and others little laws aside.I wasn't trying to impose my faith on anyone. I just phrased it that way because, outside of east Asia, it seems that most support for the death penalty comes from people of the book. I think that's shameful.

I am totally in favor of self-defense and defending loved ones, but not revenge. Morality is not just laws to me. I'm not against violence, but I am for virtue. We certainly don't need to resort to family feuds.

[Randall Flagg]

Dead people never kill again.

[Jean]

I am for death penalty. There are things, committing which one places himself outside the realm of human existence (like, blowing up a bus full of people). Executing him, the state in this case would only finalize his own decision.

[Ben Staad]

Due process and then yes.