How can people not support capital punishment?

Under my watch, executions would decline for the less than certain cases and greatly increase for the without any doubt cases

majwill24

And how do you propose we differentiate between those cases? Execution in the US is already reserved for the cases where the person has been convicted due to evidence indicating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

There are a few items to consider in this matter:

1. Why do we want the death penalty? If it is there merely to satisfy a sick obsession with death by using convicted murderers then clearly that should not be allowed, as it's rather sadistic and uncivilized and makes us little better (morally) than the Romans and their Colosseum. If we want it to deter further crimes then there should be some verifiable data supporting that hypothesis; however, no conclusive study has ever been presented (to my knowledge) that states that the death penalty deters crimes such as murder. If we want it for retribution then I do not think it should be allowed because "retribution" is merely another word for "revenge," which is an irrational quality, and I believe a rational penal system is the greatest root.

2. What is society trying to say with the death penalty? Are we saying that we are morally superior to the criminals. . .by doing exactly what the criminals did? If society holds moral superiority over the criminal then shouldn't our actions reflect this?

3. If we are doing it in respect to the phrase "an eye for an eye," why do not rape rapists or torture torturers? Given the choice between rape and death, I believe most people would choose rape, arguably making it a "lesser" punishment than the death penalty; so wouldn't a rapist be subject to the legal distribution of rape? Same argument applies for all crimes, really.

4. What about those on Death Row who are innocent of the crime for which they were convicted? It has been shown through DNA testing that it was impossible for some felons on Death Row to have committed the crimes for which they were scheduled to be executed, which means that we have and still are executing innocent people. If the purpose of the Death Penalty is to kill "those who kill our men, women and children," and if the Death Penalty is killing innocents in addition to that, then how can we possibly justify the Death Penalty? It makes no sense. The only way we could is if we could objectively prove that 100% of criminals on Death Row are innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted, and that is not possible even with DNA testing.

5. We should also consider costs involved. Due to the appeals process to which every Death Row inmate has a right, the Death Penalty actually costs more taxpayer money than to imprison somebody for the rest of their lives, with food and electricity provided.

These are just a few reasons why I do not support the Death Penalty in any circumstance. The Death Penalty fails in its objectives, costs a ton of money, executes innocent people, arguably deteriorates the morality of a society by serving to satisfy an irrational bloodlust, and is incompatible with a civilized nation of rational people.

Theokhoth

If the purpose is to remove them from society then you can put them in prison with no possibility of a parole. It serves the same exact purpose.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I'm not american.

Espada12

What country are you from, then?

Trinidad and tobago. We are now the murder capital of the Caribbean since we abolish capital punishment.

That's a correlation/causation fallacy.

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

Under my watch, executions would decline for the less than certain cases and greatly increase for the without any doubt cases

GabuEx

And how do you propose we differentiate between those cases? Execution in the US is already reserved for the cases where the person has been convicted due to evidence indicating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If we kill the suspect quickly enough, we can reduce costs greatly. It would also help with the issue of over-population in prisons. l4dak47

We can't kill the suspect quickly enough without endangering their right to life (yes, they still have it) as well as the lives of any innocents on Death Row. Not enough people are executed under our current system to help with prison populations, so that's hardly an argument here.

If we kill the suspect quickly enough, we can reduce costs greatly. It would also help with the issue of over-population in prisons. l4dak47

If we didn't even hold a trial and just killed the accused, we would reduce costs even more.

If costs must be reduced, the ability of the justice system to do its job is the absolute last place anyone should look to cut corners.

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

Under my watch, executions would decline for the less than certain cases and greatly increase for the without any doubt cases

GabuEx

And how do you propose we differentiate between those cases? Execution in the US is already reserved for the cases where the person has been convicted due to evidence indicating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm talking about cases where there is irrefutable evidence, like multiple witnesses, video footage, caught in the act, confessions etc.

I'm talking about cases where there is irrefutable evidence, like multiple witnesses, video footage, caught in the act, confessions etc.

majwill24

There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence.

Witnesses can lie or be mistaken.

Video footage can be forged or misinterpreted.

"Caught in the act" relies on witness testimony.

Confessions can be coerced.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]If we kill the suspect quickly enough, we can reduce costs greatly. It would also help with the issue of over-population in prisons. GabuEx

If we didn't even hold a trial and just killed the accused, we would reduce costs even more.

If costs must be reduced, the ability of the justice system to do its job is the absolute last place anyone should look to cut corners.

I support it in a limited sense. There is a small amount of people who can even do a huge amount of damage to society inside of Jail. You definitely have to get rid of those people in some way.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] If we kill the suspect quickly enough, we can reduce costs greatly. It would also help with the issue of over-population in prisons. Theokhoth

We can't kill the suspect quickly enough without endangering their right to life (yes, they still have it) as well as the lives of any innocents on Death Row. Not enough people are executed under our current system to help with prison populations, so that's hardly an argument here.

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

I'm talking about cases where there is irrefutable evidence, like multiple witnesses, video footage, caught in the act, confessions etc.

GabuEx

There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence.

Witnesses can lie or be mistaken.

Video footage can be forged or misinterpreted.

"Caught in the act" relies on witness testimony.

Confessions can be coerced.

So when a gunman enters a store and kill the clerk, caught on camera, ID'ed by multiple witnesses, is this not good enough for you?

A man who kills his family, admits it, finger prints, there is blood on him, the weapon used is there.

What are you saying? That we shouldnt execute those people because someone wore makeup to look like someone else before robbing the store and had some extremely skilled help to tamper with the video?

or that the man was setup by some unknown person or group to take the fall for the death of his family? and is too afraid not to admit to it?

woah, I though my standards were tough, but how can you as a juror even put some in jail for life if that is your perspective

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Capital punishment isn't even illegal here but due to outside pressure "hur hur US" we don't use it, ever since the last one in 99 our murder rate has gone x5 higher.

ProudLarry

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Capital punishment isn't even illegal here but due to outside pressure "hur hur US" we don't use it, ever since the last one in 99 our murder rate has gone x5 higher.

GabuEx

If abolishing capital punishment causes crime rates to skyrocket, then explain the graph I presented to you. You can't claim a causation in general when you only have one specific correlated instance to point to and when there are countless numbers of instances that run contrary to the asserted causation.

Because the main source of killings has been due to gang activity and drug related crimes, the thing is even before 99 those were around.. the only that changed was the use of capital punishment.

[QUOTE="ProudLarry"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Capital punishment isn't even illegal here but due to outside pressure "hur hur US" we don't use it, ever since the last one in 99 our murder rate has gone x5 higher.

kussese

An eye for an eye makes two people 1/2 blind. Why would the world poke out its own eye?

I like capital punishment but I don't support making someone live on death row for 10 or 20 years first. After the trail is done just take the guy into the back and end it right away.

I'm talking about the slam dunk cases, the kind that is deliberated for less than 20 minutes.

@ the people talking about mistakes and such.

Making someone live the rest of their life in a jail for a crime they didn't commit is as bad as killing them, except on one hand you are torturing them in the process.

@ the people talking about mistakes and such.

Making someone live the rest of their life in a jail for a crime they didn't commit as bad as killing them, except on one hand you are torturing them in the process.

Espada12

Many anti death penalty people just dont like the idea of people being executed by the state. I'm not sure where these morals come from. Even if there was a device that could guarantee the guilt or innocent of someone, many would still be against it.

The only reasonable argument is on the certainty of guilt. Now, for the religious people like Christians, yeah, I can see why they may be against it, but religion should not be the law of the world. Not everyone believes as they do.

@ the people talking about mistakes and such.

Making someone live the rest of their life in a jail for a crime they didn't commit is as bad as killing them, except on one hand you are torturing them in the process.

Espada12

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] If we kill the suspect quickly enough, we can reduce costs greatly. It would also help with the issue of over-population in prisons. l4dak47

We can't kill the suspect quickly enough without endangering their right to life (yes, they still have it) as well as the lives of any innocents on Death Row. Not enough people are executed under our current system to help with prison populations, so that's hardly an argument here.

Dude, holy **** Advocating for the execution of the mentally ill? Seriously?

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

We can't kill the suspect quickly enough without endangering their right to life (yes, they still have it) as well as the lives of any innocents on Death Row. Not enough people are executed under our current system to help with prison populations, so that's hardly an argument here.

worlock77

Dude, holy **** Advocating for the execution of the mentally ill? Seriously?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] We can still reduce costs by not allowing them 20 years of appeal process. The only people that should be killed are people that have a clear mental illness and therefore cannot function in society. Everybody else should only receive jail-time.l4dak47

Dude, holy **** Advocating for the execution of the mentally ill? Seriously?

Seriously, please tell me you're joking...

Looks gang related. OR were they robbing the store?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtWHH2HtGw&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HPFySefQdk&feature=player_embedded

Not for minors, it's a man getting shot, it's not graphic but minors shouldn't be watching that anyway.

How can anyone justify not executing these men? Why should they be given rights when they did not show the same to another? Why are they deserving of life when they took one so easily and for something as petty as a car? Why should only the families of one grieve and also live with the thought those criminals maybe given a second chance? Imo all these men should be hanged in the square, let all those little crooks see. Ever since we abolished physical punishment from schools and the death penalty our crime rate has soured, time to bring them back imo. (My country), and other countries should skip all the excessive paper work and appeals and start executing criminals faster. Limit it to 2 appeals and a maximum of 5 years on death row before execution.

Espada12

.. Because its not about them? Its about US? There is certain paths you shouldn't go down to, and regardless of what the person has done isn't a excuse to ignore it..... Furthermore the death penalty is extremely expensive.. And NO the APPEALS are there for a reason.. Reducing them just increases the chacnes of putting to death a innocent person. And last I checked our justice system with our appeals is FAR more important then your petty belief of vengence which is useless..

Lol no it hasn't our crime rate for violence has gone DOWN.. Look it up, we are on a 30 year low not a 30 year high..

Looks gang related. OR were they robbing the store?

Snipes_2

Robbery.

So when a gunman enters a store and kill the clerk, caught on camera, ID'ed by multiple witnesses, is this not good enough for you?

A man who kills his family, admits it, finger prints, there is blood on him, the weapon used is there.

What are you saying? That we shouldnt execute those people because someone wore makeup to look like someone else before robbing the store and had some extremely skilled help to tamper with the video?

or that the man was setup by some unknown person or group to take the fall for the death of his family? and is too afraid not to admit to it?

woah, I though my standards were tough, but how can you as a juror even put some in jail for life if that is your perspective

majwill24

I am saying that there does not exist "irrefutable evidence" in the sense of evidence that cannot theoretically be refuted. This is true, and is widely acknowledged in criminal law, which is precisely why all criminal trials operate based on the standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is an attainable standard that dismisses proposed scenarios that are patently unlikely, as opposed to "beyond a shadow of a doubt", which does not, and which is thus unattainable as a standard. You are trying to change the subject by alleging things about my thoughts regarding what the standard for conviction should be, whereas I have made no such statements of any kind.

There have been cases in the past where someone was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the same standard as any other conviction, where the accused was later exonerated and freed. If you execute someone, this cannot happen. That is all. What you are proposing is effectively a fourth standard that lies between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond a shadow of a doubt", but you have not, as far as I can tell, made any effort to rigorously define it such that it could be applied consistently in a court of law.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

@ the people talking about mistakes and such.

Making someone live the rest of their life in a jail for a crime they didn't commit is as bad as killing them, except on one hand you are torturing them in the process.

PannicAtack

Well that's why I did say rest of their life :P

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Dude, holy **** Advocating for the execution of the mentally ill? Seriously?

worlock77

Seriously, please tell me you're joking...

He may be referring to people with incurable illness that have succumbed to it and has become a threat to society. Jeffrey Dhamer would be one

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]If we kill the suspect quickly enough, we can reduce costs greatly. It would also help with the issue of over-population in prisons. l4dak47

If we didn't even hold a trial and just killed the accused, we would reduce costs even more.

If costs must be reduced, the ability of the justice system to do its job is the absolute last place anyone should look to cut corners.

You say it is to "reduce costs", yet executions in their current state cost more than life imprisonment. To reduce costs you would need to reduce their ability to appeal rulings, which in turn would have the effect of shifting the standard of judgment further to the left and would thereby necessarily result in more innocent people having their conviction ultimately upheld. That is my point: you cannot reduce costs without shifting the standard of judgment, which is a slippery slope towards the wholesale destruction of the judicial system itself as we know it.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Huh? What's so bad about that? majwill24

Seriously, please tell me you're joking...

He may be referring to people with incurable illness that have succumbed to it and has become a threat to society. Jeffrey Dhamer would be one

Dhalmer full well knew what he was doing, that is why he was convicted as a criminal.. And not for the criminally insane.. He was killed in prison not a mental ward.. Furthermore all criminally insane can and/or are a threat to society, thats why they seek treatment usually for life within high security mental institutions.

Given rights? Deserving of life?

A life sentence in jail grants neither of these things. :?

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Dude, holy **** Advocating for the execution of the mentally ill? Seriously?

worlock77

Seriously, please tell me you're joking...

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Huh? What's so bad about that? majwill24

Seriously, please tell me you're joking...

He may be referring to people with incurable illness that have succumbed to it and has become a threat to society. Jeffrey Dhamer would be one

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Seriously, please tell me you're joking...

l4dak47

He may be referring to people with incurable illness that have succumbed to it and has become a threat to society. Jeffrey Dhamer would be one

Dhalmer was found sane and convicted criminally.. He was not sent to a mental institution.. Your point flops.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If we didn't even hold a trial and just killed the accused, we would reduce costs even more.

If costs must be reduced, the ability of the justice system to do its job is the absolute last place anyone should look to cut corners.

GabuEx

You say it is to "reduce costs", yet executions in their current state cost more than life imprisonment. To reduce costs you would need to reduce their ability to appeal rulings, which in turn would have the effect of shifting the standard of judgment further to the left and would thereby necessarily result in more innocent people having their conviction ultimately upheld. That is my point: you cannot reduce costs without shifting the standard of judgment, which is a slippery slope towards the wholesale destruction of the judicial system itself as we know it.

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Seriously, please tell me you're joking...

l4dak47

He may be referring to people with incurable illness that have succumbed to it and has become a threat to society. Jeffrey Dhamer would be one

To my knowledge Dhamer was never diagnosed with any mental illness.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="majwill24"]

He may be referring to people with incurable illness that have succumbed to it and has become a threat to society. Jeffrey Dhamer would be one

sSubZerOo

Dhalmer was found sane and convicted criminally.. He was not sent to a mental institution.. Your point flops.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Mhh. When have I said we shouldn't give them a trial? Serial killers, serial rapists, child molesters, etc most likely have some sort of mental disease that cannot allow them to function in society. So, we should execute them to reduce costs since there is no way that they can ever contribute to society. l4dak47

You say it is to "reduce costs", yet executions in their current state cost more than life imprisonment. To reduce costs you would need to reduce their ability to appeal rulings, which in turn would have the effect of shifting the standard of judgment further to the left and would thereby necessarily result in more innocent people having their conviction ultimately upheld. That is my point: you cannot reduce costs without shifting the standard of judgment, which is a slippery slope towards the wholesale destruction of the judicial system itself as we know it.

A) Even in prisons, the convicted do jobs sanctioned by the state with in the institution..

B) You exceuting some oneof what you consider "not useful to society" borders dangerously close to the thinking of the reasons why dictators did through out history.

The purpose of the justice system is not and should not be the exacting of revenge on those who wronged another, but rather is and should be the creation and maintenance of law and order, beginning first with the presumption of innocence of all accused and ending with the application of a fair and ordinary punishment if one has been found through a speedy and fair trial by jury to have be guilty as charged. As such, the question of what one "deserves" is not and should not be a part of any consideration regarding what punishment one should receive for having committed a crime.

Furthermore, pursuant to the value system that places the protection of innocents as more important than the punishment of the guilty, which is implied in the presumption of innocence in a trial, the prevention of the execution of an innocent person is more important than the execution of a guilty person.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Yes, I am. l4dak47

Dhalmer was found sane and convicted criminally.. He was not sent to a mental institution.. Your point flops.

Hence why he was put 900+ years in prison..

Through extensive psychological training, we can determine whether or not they are fit to function in a society. If they can't, why waste money and time in letting them live, if they won't contribute to society.l4dak47

Would you also support killing those who are sufficiently mentally disabled that they will never have a job and will constantly be a burden on society until they die?

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]Through extensive psychological training, we can determine whether or not they are fit to function in a society. If they can't, why waste money and time in letting them live, if they won't contribute to society.GabuEx

Would you also support killing those who are sufficiently mentally disabled that they will never have a job and will constantly be a burden on society until they die?

Why stop there? We should also include quadriplegics.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]Through extensive psychological training, we can determine whether or not they are fit to function in a society. If they can't, why waste money and time in letting them live, if they won't contribute to society.GabuEx

Would you also support killing those who are sufficiently mentally disabled that they will never have a job and will constantly be a burden on society until they die?

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Dhalmer was found sane and convicted criminally.. He was not sent to a mental institution.. Your point flops.

sSubZerOo

Hence why he was put 900+ years in prison..

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]Through extensive psychological training, we can determine whether or not they are fit to function in a society. If they can't, why waste money and time in letting them live, if they won't contribute to society.l4dak47

Would you also support killing those who are sufficiently mentally disabled that they will never have a job and will constantly be a burden on society until they die?

Neither does the convicted in a maximum security prison.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Even though he said that he would keep killing if he could. The man was obviously unbalanced and therefore was not able to be rehabilitated into society. My point still stands. l4dak47

Hence why he was put 900+ years in prison..

Yet again, it costs more to execute them then it does to house them in prison.. Furthermore they can do state jobs within the prison that can give back to society.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]Through extensive psychological training, we can determine whether or not they are fit to function in a society. If they can't, why waste money and time in letting them live, if they won't contribute to society.l4dak47

Would you also support killing those who are sufficiently mentally disabled that they will never have a job and will constantly be a burden on society until they die?

Sure they do. They harm others by taking resources and not contributing anything back.