How can people not support capital punishment?

There will be appeals, perhaps time for only one.

majwill24

Why one? And if one, why not two or three?

the point is you reach a point when you say enough is enough. If you cant differentiate between the ex husband who walks into McDonald's and gun downs his wife on camera and in front of the crew with another murder that is far more ambiguous and uncertain, then obviously we will never see eye to eye. Your standards and skepticism are just to high.

majwill24

No offense, but you really do not seem to understand the way in which the judicial system is structured. You say that the judge can make this decision and then a panel will examine if it was justified... but, like I said, this is the entire point of the appellate court system. It's not just for kicks or time-wasting; it's precisely so we don't have the situation where someone was convicted on the basis that it was an open-and-shut case when it really wasn't. (And it's also to place scrutiny on the judges in order to ensure that they were not biased or incorrect in their justification for their ruling.)

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It seems few (or no) people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.worlock77

The concept of the death penalty has been around for as long as human civilization has been. Now how do you figure it's been any deterrent?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It seems few (or no) people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.twitchmonkey399

The concept of the death penalty has been around for as long as human civilization has been. Now how do you figure it's been any deterrent?

My point was pretty clear. You seem to think the death penalty deters people from commiting murder. I ask how you come to this conclusion.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] The criminally insane will kill people wherever they are, whether that be in prison or mental institutions, so it doesn't matter. Let's backtrack to my original point. We should kill people that have been shown that they are incapable of functioning in society with a smaller amount of appeals to reduce the costs and make sure they don't harm people again. As for the gang-memember example, they have the chance to be rehabilitated whereas the criminally insane people don't. The gang-members don't have a compulsive need to kill people unlike the criminally insane does as well as the violent and mentally ill prisoners. l4dak47

So yoru saying that a schizophrenicc who was abused as a child and committed murder later on in life should be put to death.. Because they can't completely recover when A) Its not their fault.. B) They were never given help at a certain age.. and C) they were abused by parents? Your ridiculous sir, this kind of logic has pretty much been the excuse of any regime to eliminate undesirables.. What right do you have to kill off people in a condition that can't be cured but can be helped, that they had no control over? DHALMER FOR THE LAST WASN'T CRIMINALY INSANE.. THE CRIMINALY INSANE DO NOT GET EXECUTED.

Thats not justice then thats murder.. Human beings are not animals, and the law is about responsibility.. The person that has a reality placed infront of their eyes that is not actuality due to mental disorder are not responsible for their actions.. Many of these people are really non violent people that became violent due to their disorder which warped their reality.. That is the point, and it can be treated or reduced..

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

By the way, you will not find insanity (criminal or otherwise) listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

sSubZerOo

Criminally insane is not a disorder.. Its a judgement in which it pretty much says that the person was not in control or aware what they were doing due to a mental illness.. Schizophrenics are a great example of this where they have a entire reality where they think their lives are in danger so they murder some one.

Right. I was just throwing that in as many people seem to think that insanity is a mental illness in-and-of-itself, or seem to throw the word around to refer to all mental disorders.

It seems few people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.twitchmonkey399

Then explain this picture, which I produced earlier in this thread:

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

There will be appeals, perhaps time for only one.

GabuEx

Why one? And if one, why not two or three?

the point is you reach a point when you say enough is enough. If you cant differentiate between the ex husband who walks into McDonald's and gun downs his wife on camera and in front of the crew with another murder that is far more ambiguous and uncertain, then obviously we will never see eye to eye. Your standards and skepticism are just to high.

majwill24

No offense, but you really do not seem to understand the way in which the judicial system is structured. You say that the judge can make this decision and then a panel will examine if it was justified... but, like I said, this is the entire point of the appellate court system.

Of course Im not a legal expert. also Im fully aware how the appeals process work. The panel was meant to be something similar to a grand jury, but made up by those knowledgeable in law.

You are making the the argument that a conclusion cant be made, unless its been examined dozens of times over years.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

Why one? And if one, why not two or three?

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

the point is you reach a point when you say enough is enough. If you cant differentiate between the ex husband who walks into McDonald's and gun downs his wife on camera and in front of the crew with another murder that is far more ambiguous and uncertain, then obviously we will never see eye to eye. Your standards and skepticism are just to high.

majwill24

No offense, but you really do not seem to understand the way in which the judicial system is structured. You say that the judge can make this decision and then a panel will examine if it was justified... but, like I said, this is the entire point of the appellate court system.

Of course Im not a legal expert. also Im fully aware how the appeals process work. The panel was meant to be something similar to a grand jury, but made up by those knowledgeable in law.

You are making the the argument that a conclusion cant be made, unless its been examined dozens of times over years.

A person's life is on the line it better damn be that way..

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It seems few people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.GabuEx

Then explain this picture, which I produced earlier in this thread:

This doesn't really prove anything. Mere correlation. One would have to assume that all relevant factors were held constant...

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It seems few people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.coolbeans90

Then explain this picture, which I produced earlier in this thread:

This doesn't really prove anything. Mere correlation. One would have to assume that all relevant factors were held constant...

It certainly does prove that the burden of proof is on the one claiming that the death penalty creates an effective deterrence that lowers crime compared to where it would be were there no death penalty.

Of course Im not a legal expert. also Im fully aware how the appeals process work. The panel was meant to be something similar to a grand jury, but made up by those knowledgeable in law.

You are making the the argument that a conclusion cant be made, unless its been examined dozens of times over years.

majwill24

The appellate court system is in place precisely to ensure that a decision is checked, double-checked, and triple-checked, by multiple sets of people, before it is enacted. Your "panel" is nothing more than an appellate court, so why not simply refer the case to the appellate courts that already exist?

I do not feel that executing criminals is a punishemnet. Do you think it would be worse to be locked in a cell until you die or just killed on the spot. Plus executing criminals is more expensive than confining them for a life sentence. I wrote an entire research paper on this subject recently.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] How was it debunked? All I have seen is morals which is irrelevant in an argument like this. l4dak47

You mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer as an example of your argument when Dahmer was never found to have any mental illness.

I think we'd find numerous people behind bars who suffer from a mental illness. I remember when Peter Sutcliffe who murdered numerous prostitutes was initially sentenced to prison, even though he was clearly schizophrenic. Why? Because it satiated the population who bayed for punishment, and a mental institution was deemed too soft to befit such violent crimes. Likewise in Jeffrey Dahmer's case, irrelative of the state of his mental health, a rehabilitative sentence would not have satisfied the punishment hungry public.

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

You mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer as an example of your argument when Dahmer was never found to have any mental illness.

poptart

I think we'd find numerous people behind bars who suffer from a mental illness. I remember when Peter Sutcliffe who murdered numerous prostitutes was initially sentenced to prison, even though he was clearly schizophrenic. Why? Because it satiated the population who bayed for punishment, and a mental institution was deemed too soft to befit such violent crimes. Likewise in Jeffrey Dahmer's case, a rehabilitative sentence would not have satisfied the punishment hungry public.

.. A psychopath does not = criminally insane.. A psychopath is some one who full wells know what they are doing and show no remorse.. They enjoy it.. Dahmer was found to full well know what he was doing..

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Looks gang related. OR were they robbing the store?

Espada12

Robbery.

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

Of course Im not a legal expert. also Im fully aware how the appeals process work. The panel was meant to be something similar to a grand jury, but made up by those knowledgeable in law.

You are making the the argument that a conclusion cant be made, unless its been examined dozens of times over years.

GabuEx

The appellate court system is in place precisely to ensure that a decision is checked, double-checked, and triple-checked, by multiple sets of people, before it is enacted. Your "panel" is nothing more than an appellate court, so why not simply refer the case to the appellate courts that already exist?

The panel is just to determine if the expediated sentence was warranted. if yes, then the convicted has less time for appeals. there is a difference.

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It seems few people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.GabuEx

Then explain this picture, which I produced earlier in this thread

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Most likely, they didn't find him being mentally ill ibecause they didn't have the knowledge they do now. It's clear that Dahmer was a psychopath.sSubZerOo

I think we'd find numerous people behind bars who suffer from a mental illness. I remember when Peter Sutcliffe who murdered numerous prostitutes was initially sentenced to prison, even though he was clearly schizophrenic. Why? Because it satiated the population who bayed for punishment, and a mental institution was deemed too soft to befit such violent crimes. Likewise in Jeffrey Dahmer's case, a rehabilitative sentence would not have satisfied the punishment hungry public.

.. A psychopath does not = criminally insane.. A psychopath is some one who full wells know what they are doing and show no remorse.. They enjoy it.. Dahmer was found to full well know what he was doing..

Ah well TBH I really know very little of Dahmer. I was just pointing out that sometimes a sentence is correlated with a crime regardless of the offender's mental health in order to satisfy the public. I'll get my coat and leave now :)

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It seems few people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.twitchmonkey399

Then explain this picture, which I produced earlier in this thread

It's still more evidence than you've offered in support of your argument.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Then explain this picture, which I produced earlier in this thread:

GabuEx

This doesn't really prove anything. Mere correlation. One would have to assume that all relevant factors were held constant...

It certainly does prove that the burden of proof is on the one claiming that the death penalty creates an effective deterrence that lowers crime compared to where it would be were there no death penalty.

The burden of proof is on whatever party claims that it is an effective deterrent regardless. This graph really doesn't alter the situation in any way. The death penalty very well could be holding crime rates down within the states that it is legal.

Because the system is seriously flawed and there is significant evidence that innocent people get put to death every year. Because every year, people get off death row because of new evidence that proves them innocent. I'm not saying certain murderers don't deserve to do, but capital punishment is far too widely supported for how uncertain our legal system really is.

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

The concept of the death penalty has been around for as long as human civilization has been. Now how do you figure it's been any deterrent?

worlock77

My point was pretty clear. You seem to think the death penalty deters people from commiting murder. I ask how you come to this conclusion.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"] I think I made my post unclear, subsequently making your response unclear to me. When I said "few people," I was referring to people in this thread. If you already understood it that way, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate a little further on your point, so as to better understand what you're asking me.twitchmonkey399

My point was pretty clear. You seem to think the death penalty deters people from commiting murder. I ask how you come to this conclusion.

Sorry, but human history does not support your premise.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"] I think I made my post unclear, subsequently making your response unclear to me. When I said "few people," I was referring to people in this thread. If you already understood it that way, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate a little further on your point, so as to better understand what you're asking me.twitchmonkey399

My point was pretty clear. You seem to think the death penalty deters people from commiting murder. I ask how you come to this conclusion.

Dont fall for their trap. Since the Death penalty is legal in the US, the opponents need to point out why its flawed. also, make them point out concrete reasons and use their tactics aginst them by debating from the netherworld of ambiguity, circular arguments and quantifying everything to standards of proving the unprovable.

Yes its tit for tat, but these childish and intellectually dishonest and irrational positions warrant it.

to me it would be worst to sit in a tiny cell for the rest of your life thinking about what you've done then just dieing. I can see y ppl believe in it somewhat as it is more cost effective to the tax payerCrusher89

it costs a lot more to execute some one than it does to keep them in jail for life.

i'm not against it..

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.

Cruse34

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

My point was pretty clear. You seem to think the death penalty deters people from commiting murder. I ask how you come to this conclusion.

worlock77

Sorry, but human history does not support your premise.

And even if history doesn't prove my rational justifiable (which it blatantly does), simply saying I'm wrong and stopping there is a poor way to argue.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]It seems few people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.twitchmonkey399

Then explain this picture, which I produced earlier in this thread

It shows that the states without a death penalty do not have a higher crime rate than the states with one.

You are the one who made the assertion; it seems to me that the onus is on you to provide evidence showing causation between the presence of a death penalty and lower crime rates.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"] This conclusion has come to mind through the time-tested effectiveness of punishment. Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire. To such a degree this is true that most religions prophecy punishment for those who do evil in life. Religion being the popular thing that it is, I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment. My point is pretty clear, too. The death penalty is a strong form of punishment, hence carrying a strong motivational weight. Let me illustrate further: A man carrying a stick (a mild form of punishment) is more persuasive than a man carrying a gun (a strong form of punishment), for obvious reasons. The same logic applies to lawful persuasion.twitchmonkey399

Sorry, but human history does not support your premise.

And even if history doesn't prove my rational justifiable (which it blatantly does), simply saying I'm wrong and stopping there is a poor way to argue.

You are distracting from the point. Human history does not support your premise that the death penalty is a deterrant.

The panel is just to determine if the expediated sentence was warranted. if yes, then the convicted has less time for appeals. there is a difference.

majwill24

Determining whether the ruling at the end of a trial is warranted is precisely the purpose of appellate courts. That includes sentencing.

I don't see a difference between your panel and an appellate court.

[QUOTE="Cruse34"]

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.

BuryMe

Unfortunately the oppoents believe appeals should go on to ad nauesem. Its like when a child counters what you say with "You never know" when explaining how nature works.

They know they arent being sensible. When you take the extreme position that even slam dunk cases, with overwhelming evidence should be scrutinized for 20 years, you have to question if their motives are political.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="Cruse34"]

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.

majwill24

Unfortunately the oppoents believe appeals should go on to ad nauesem. Its like when a child counters what you say with "You never know" when explaining how nature works.

They know they arent being sensible. When you take the extreme position that even slam dunk cases, with overwhelming evidence should be scrutinized for 20 years, you have to question if their motives are political.

Did you see the Illinois example that I've posted twice in this thread?

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Sorry, but human history does not support your premise.

worlock77

And even if history doesn't prove my rational justifiable (which it blatantly does), simply saying I'm wrong and stopping there is a poor way to argue.

You are distracting from the point. Human history does not support your premise that the death penalty is a deterrant.

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

The panel is just to determine if the expediated sentence was warranted. if yes, then the convicted has less time for appeals. there is a difference.

GabuEx

Determining whether the ruling at the end of a trial is warranted is precisely the purpose of appellate courts. That includes sentencing.

I don't see a difference between your panel and an appellate court.

They wont be challenging the verdict, rather if the evidence is so absolute, that an expedited sentence is justified. The appellate court is still there if the convicted wants to argue for his innocence.

Its like how a grand jury determines if a case should go to trial. The purpose of the panel would be different, but similar concept.

So no matter what how damming he evidence, a person should get 20 years of appeals instead of being executed a year later with possibly just one appeal?

In my mind I thinking about cases, where guilt is virtually absolute. Im being told reasons why they arent is because of tampered video footage, cops and witness all lying, coerced confession. Do you see how ridiculous this sounds

I'm not talking about executing someone for a murder in the middle of the night, with no witness and some circumstantial skin under the guys fingertips.

majwill24

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]So they have absolutely no right to appeal, even if there was a problem with the trial?

worlock77

Unfortunately the oppoents believe appeals should go on to ad nauesem. Its like when a child counters what you say with "You never know" when explaining how nature works.

They know they arent being sensible. When you take the extreme position that even slam dunk cases, with overwhelming evidence should be scrutinized for 20 years, you have to question if their motives are political.

Did you see the Illinois example that I've posted twice in this thread?

I'm talking about executing people where the guilt is virtually 100%.

Not you, but others are essentially saying "you never know" I then say they will still have time for possible 1 or 2 appeals "Well, why not 4 o5"

I dont take a position on deterrent because its irrelevant to me

It seems few people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.twitchmonkey399

If that was the case, why do homocide rates tend to be lower in non-death pentaly states than states that do execute?

And people who are so passionate about something will do it anyway. They will just try harder not to get caught.

Taking the criminal's life away does not automatically resurrect the dead person. However, keeping this criminal on earth will give them a chance to rethink their crimes and do better for the community through community service and by setting an example for killer wannabes :P

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Sorry, but human history does not support your premise.

twitchmonkey399

And even if history doesn't prove my rational justifiable (which it blatantly does), simply saying I'm wrong and stopping there is a poor way to argue.

You are distracting from the point. Human history does not support your premise that the death penalty is a deterrant.

No, I do not mean that. I mean this:

It seems few people have been mentioning the effect the death penalty has on the people's minds. People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught.twitchmonkey399

Which you posted on page 8. Or did you forget about that?

Too barbaric imo.

(no point debating about it though)

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

Unfortunately the oppoents believe appeals should go on to ad nauesem. Its like when a child counters what you say with "You never know" when explaining how nature works.

They know they arent being sensible. When you take the extreme position that even slam dunk cases, with overwhelming evidence should be scrutinized for 20 years, you have to question if their motives are political.

majwill24

Did you see the Illinois example that I've posted twice in this thread?

I'm talking about executing people where the guilt is virtually 100%.

Not you, but others are essentially saying "you never know" I then say they will still have time for possible 1 or 2 appeals "Well, why not 4 o5"

I dont take a position on deterrent because its irrelevant to me

The idea behind the justice system is that the convicted person is virtually 100% guilty. That is why jurors are suppose to vote for aquital if there is any reasonable doubt in their minds, and why it take a unanimous verdict to convict. We do not say "well, he's probably 95% guilty, so let's put him away".

They wont be challenging the verdict, rather if the evidence is so absolute, that an expedited sentence is justified. The appellate court is still there if the convicted wants to argue for his innocence.

Its like how a grand jury determines if a case should go to trial. The purpose of the panel would be different, but similar concept.

majwill24

An appellate court has two functions: first, to examine the ruling given by the lower court and to determine if an error has been made or if any other circumstances warrant a new trial; and second, to hold that new trial if indeed there is reason for it to proceed. The first function would appear to me to be precisely what your panel would do.

[QUOTE="majwill24"]So no matter what how damming he evidence, a person should get 20 years of appeals instead of being executed a year later with possibly just one appeal?

In my mind I thinking about cases, where guilt is virtually absolute. Im being told reasons why they arent is because of tampered video footage, cops and witness all lying, coerced confession. Do you see how ridiculous this sounds

I'm not talking about executing someone for a murder in the middle of the night, with no witness and some circumstantial skin under the guys fingertips.

BuryMe

In individual instances that may happen, but the examples I give, all those things would have to happen in one trial.

I used the example of a gunman who goes into a public space and starts killing people. He is eventually subdued and the evidence against him is rock solid. Guilt is a formality. The evidence of video, civilian witnesses, victims, the police and the confession from the perpetrator on why he did it; results in the jury coming back with a guilty verdict in less than 20 minutes. I believe in such cases a quick execution is warranted. the delay can be set by the state, 6 months, 1 or 2 years, they can determine it

Unfortunately the counter I got can be summed up as "You never know"

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Then explain this picture, which I produced earlier in this thread

GabuEx

It shows that the states without a death penalty do not have a higher crime rate than the states with one.

You are the one who made the assertion; it seems to me that the onus is on you to provide evidence showing causation between the presence of a death penalty and lower crime rates.

[QUOTE="majwill24"]

They wont be challenging the verdict, rather if the evidence is so absolute, that an expedited sentence is justified. The appellate court is still there if the convicted wants to argue for his innocence.

Its like how a grand jury determines if a case should go to trial. The purpose of the panel would be different, but similar concept.

GabuEx

An appellate court has two functions: first, to examine the ruling given by the lower court and to determine if an error has been made or if any other circumstances warrant a new trial; and second, to hold that new trial if indeed there is reason for it to proceed. The first function would appear to me to be precisely what your panel would do.

I honestly dont see how you can draw that conclusion. The panel basically approves if the convicted is on death row for 2 years or 20 years, the time frame is up the laws of the respective state.

It does show that the states without a death penalty do not have a higher crime rate than the states with one. I know how to read a graph. But it doesn't support your point of view for the reasons I stated above. I will continue to show this. Beef consumption in the last 20 years has increased; as has our waistlines. One could, using your logic, extrapolate from this information that beef causes fat gain and subsequently use it in an argument. A graph depicting such information doesn't let you know what else increased, decreased, and stayed constant. For example, sugar and refined flour during these last twenty years have skyrocketed to incredible proportions. I do believe you see where I'm getting at. The death penalty has been practiced in society since the beginning of recorded history, and is currently legal in the U.S. I do believe it is the responsibility of the questioner of the prevalent practice to provide evidence against it.twitchmonkey399

You have made an assertion - that the presence of the death penalty as a punishment to which one may be sentenced results in less crime than there would be were there no such punishment available.

You have provided exactly zero evidence for that assertion.

I don't really feel as though there's much more to say than that.