The Death Penalty

That is a valid point. I was making an assumption that the majority of those on death row took the chance of receiving the death penalty by pleading innocent. The idea being that "I'll plead innocent, take the chance of beating the wrap, and if I don't then it I can use my appeals and die of old age on death row." That is something I do not know or pretend to.

marcus4hire

Even if you plead innocent, you eventually run out of appeals. The only people who could realistically believe that they would die of old age before being executed would be those who are already quite old or are in poor health.

[QUOTE="marcus4hire"]

That is a valid point. I was making an assumption that the majority of those on death row took the chance of receiving the death penalty by pleading innocent. The idea being that "I'll plead innocent, take the chance of beating the wrap, and if I don't then it I can use my appeals and die of old age on death row." That is something I do not know or pretend to.

pianist

Even if you plead innocent, you eventually run out of appeals. The only people who could realistically believe that they would die of old age before being executed would be those who are already quite old or are in poor health.

I had always heard that, depending on the state, you can have up to 30 years of appeals. Depending on your age it would be a fair bet. Or at least of having a somewhat full life, despite being behind bars for a good poriton of it. Nonetheless I concede the point.

Yeah, and I actually saw this documentary of this woman who was put on trial for the murder of her two children in texas. They said that she slashed her own throat and said that it had to be her because they had this video of her and her family at her sons grave chewing gum, laughing, and spraying silly string on their graves (they were celebrating one of the boys 7th birthdays.) So they said based on that video because she was not like a typical grieving mother she had to be a psychopathic murder.

The jury tried her as guilty and called for the death penalty but due to lack of evidence she just got life in prison. They later found out that some photos of other bruises she had was withheld from them, which would make her seem even more innocent because she couldn't put those bruises on herself. Then here's the kicker the police withheld a video they took of her an hour before the silly string incident with her crying of her departed boys, and it should her sister or cousin bringing the silly string to her to try and liven her up because her sons always loved silly string. The reason they police withheld this video was because they were afraid to be sued for taping her without consent.

That video could prove her innocence what would have happend if she was put to death. I heard her husband is trying to get an appeal but he had to also become a prime suspect in the case as well.

This is like saying just because I laugh occasionally when I her of someone's death means that I'm automatically a bad person. Everyone has their own way of dealing with issues whether you cry about it or try to laugh to mask the pain.

blackldragon

Well see back when the death penalty was legal everywhere, there wasn't such a problem with violent crime. Criminals knew that they wouldn't live long after they were caught. Then the bleeding hearts and the rights activists got into the act, insisting that criminal's rights be carefully adhered to, even if it meant that justice might not be served. Laws were passed that gave criminals more rights than law-abiding citizens. As a result, crime has increased ever since, and will continue to do so until we put a stop to the revolving door justice system and start executing the violent offenders.

The death penalty is not the answer to violent crime, but it is one of the major factors in the process of eradicating it. Other factors include: less gun control, so that honest citizens can more easily protect themselves and their families, more rights for police officers, fewer appeals for criminals, and more education for the prevention of crime. These, plus some other factors, could very well greatly lower the crime rate in the United States.

xSIZEMATTER

Nice theory. Here's the problem - the death penalty was in use throughout most of the world for thousands of years and it didn't eradicate violent crime. The death penalty is still in use throughout much of the world and it is not eradicating violent crime. If something has been in use for thousands of years and has not achieved the desired result you simply CAN NOT make the claim that it is a major factor in achieving the desired result. It just doesn't make any sense.

The only thing in your post that I agree with is the notion that we should focus on crime prevention rather than punishment. If you want to eradicate violent crime, you need to identify what makes a person susceptible to it and address the root causes. Focusing on punishment is very much like treating the symptoms of a disease instead of trying to cure the disease.

[QUOTE="xSIZEMATTER"]

Well see back when the death penalty was legal everywhere, there wasn't such a problem with violent crime. Criminals knew that they wouldn't live long after they were caught. Then the bleeding hearts and the rights activists got into the act, insisting that criminal's rights be carefully adhered to, even if it meant that justice might not be served. Laws were passed that gave criminals more rights than law-abiding citizens. As a result, crime has increased ever since, and will continue to do so until we put a stop to the revolving door justice system and start executing the violent offenders.

The death penalty is not the answer to violent crime, but it is one of the major factors in the process of eradicating it. Other factors include: less gun control, so that honest citizens can more easily protect themselves and their families, more rights for police officers, fewer appeals for criminals, and more education for the prevention of crime. These, plus some other factors, could very well greatly lower the crime rate in the United States.

pianist

Nice theory. Here's the problem - the death penalty was in use throughout most of the world for thousands of years and it didn't eradicate violent crime. The death penalty is still in use throughout much of the world and it is not eradicating violent crime. If something has been in use for thousands of years and has not achieved the desired result you simply CAN NOT make the claim that it is a major factor in achieving the desired result. It just doesn't make any sense.

The only thing in your post that I agree with is the notion that we should focus on crime prevention rather than punishment. If you want to eradicate violent crime, you need to identify what makes a person susceptible to it and address the root causes. Focusing on punishment is very much like treating the symptoms of a disease instead of trying to cure the disease.

I have a feeling that alot of people will be saying violent games and movies are the root cause. :roll:

[QUOTE="xSIZEMATTER"]

Well see back when the death penalty was legal everywhere, there wasn't such a problem with violent crime. Criminals knew that they wouldn't live long after they were caught. Then the bleeding hearts and the rights activists got into the act, insisting that criminal's rights be carefully adhered to, even if it meant that justice might not be served. Laws were passed that gave criminals more rights than law-abiding citizens. As a result, crime has increased ever since, and will continue to do so until we put a stop to the revolving door justice system and start executing the violent offenders.

The death penalty is not the answer to violent crime, but it is one of the major factors in the process of eradicating it. Other factors include: less gun control, so that honest citizens can more easily protect themselves and their families, more rights for police officers, fewer appeals for criminals, and more education for the prevention of crime. These, plus some other factors, could very well greatly lower the crime rate in the United States.

pianist

Nice theory. Here's the problem - the death penalty was in use throughout most of the world for thousands of years and it didn't eradicate violent crime. The death penalty is still in use throughout much of the world and it is not eradicating violent crime. If something has been in use for thousands of years and has not achieved the desired result you simply CAN NOT make the claim that it is a major factor in achieving the desired result. It just doesn't make any sense.

The only thing in your post that I agree with is the notion that we should focus on crime prevention rather than punishment. If you want to eradicate violent crime, you need to identify what makes a person susceptible to it and address the root causes. Focusing on punishment is very much like treating the symptoms of a disease instead of trying to cure the disease.

We know that some criminals are repeat offenders. We also know that with the death penalty recidivism is zero.

You don't need a PhD to do that math. The death penalty, regardless of deterrent value, reduces crime, specifically it eliminates repeat offense in the specific cases in which its applied.

The purpose of the death penalty is two part: deterrence, threat removal. The deterrent part works a little I suppose, the problem comes when we get to the second part, removal of threat. The problem is people who kill or commit atrocities will do so again and they should be "removed". There is little hope for rehabilitation and a lifetime in prison is not only too expensive but it lets them train others in act atrocity. Once a person has been fairly determined to be a threat, that should be it. In the few cases of wrong man going under the axe, the people who defended the person should be punished. The death penalty is not for mentally ill people nor should it be used as a "super"punishment. It should simply be a threat removal process, hes a threat to society, remove him.

I have a feeling that alot of people will be saying violent games and movies are the root cause. :roll:

blackldragon

Well it could be, but if the parents teach their kid right from wrong, then there would be no problem.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]I think killing another human is wrong, period. Life in prison is far more humane, not to mention much cheaper.fastesttruck

We know that some criminals are repeat offenders. We also know that with the death penalty recidivism is zero.

You don't need a PhD to do that math. The death penalty, regardless of deterrent value, reduces crime, specifically it eliminates repeat offense in the specific cases in which its applied.

The purpose of the death penalty is two part: deterrence, threat removal. The deterrent part works a little I suppose, the problem comes when we get to the second part, removal of threat. The problem is people who kill or commit atrocities will do so again and they should be "removed". There is little hope for rehabilitation and a lifetime in prison is not only too expensive but it lets them train others in act atrocity. Once a person has been fairly determined to be a threat, that should be it. In the few cases of wrong man going under the axe, the people who defended the person should be punished. The death penalty is not for mentally ill people nor should it be used as a "super"punishment. It should simply be a threat removal process, hes a threat to society, remove him.

xSIZEMATTER

Incarcerating a criminal reduces the risk to almost 0 as well. The only chance of re-offending would involve either an escape (which, despite what death penalty proponents would like you to believe, is EXTREMELY rare, and is nearly always resolved before the escapee can do anything which puts another person at risk), or an offense commited against someone in the prison. The deterrent part is rather irrelevant. Thousands of years of history have demonstrated that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is negligible. If it were significant, then violent crime would be dramatically lower in any country that employs the death penalty by comparison to countries with more lenient penal systems. That hasn't happened.

As for the rest of it, I don't really know where to begin. Incarcerated criminals don't train new criminals. I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Punishing defense attorneys when they lose cases where the defendant is later proved innocent is just plain stupid, since more often than not it is the prosecuting team or police that are responsible for the wrongful conviction when they withhold important evidence that would suggest a person's innocence. And a lifetime in prison is not expensive by comparison to the death penalty as has been previously established. The only way the death penalty would be more cost-effective is if the process was 'streamlined,' and if you do that, you run an even greater risk of wrongfully executing a person. That's a mistake you can't take back. And finally, it is no secret that the majority of people who commit heinous crimes are mentally disturbed. They may be rational, but they are at a serious disadvantage to the majority when it comes to controlling their violent impulses. With advances in genetic research, we may soon figure out why some people are pre-disposed to violence or have difficulty feeling compassion compared to others. So where do you draw the line with 'mental illness?'

When you get right down to it, there is no good reason to support the death penalty in its current form. None. The only purpose it serves is revenge, and the only true benefit it provides is reducing the risk of re-offending all the way down to 0% as opposed to a tiny, tiny fraction above 0%, along with an almost completely insignificant reduction of the prison population. That just isn't worth the added costs, nor the risk of state-sponsored murder of innocent defendants.

[QUOTE="darkspineslayer"]if they deserve death by taking someone elses life/virginity/other such things than yes.The_Last_Ride

So if they rape they should be killed or doing something else?

well yes, i do think pedo's deserve to die.

I think it is pretty barbaric. The only time I agree with it is if they did something so excessive like killing a whole town or a whole nursery of newborns. Then I say they get the chair.

Other than that, I'd say just give them prison in the manner of maximum security.

Well I have a cheap easy solution that costs only $.50.

A lead bullet to the head.

I am sorry, but please(and this is not meant to be insulting in the slightest way) explain to me how locking a man up and denying him access to the world is more humane than giving him a merciful death?

atejas

I don't know. Explain to me why most criminals would rather serve life in prison than to be executed.

noone has the right to put anyone else to death, no matter the circumstances.

if a person is a threat to society then sure lock them up, karma will take care of their punishment, in this life or the next. It is beyond us to think we can possibly decide someone elses fate fairly.

every person deserves to live, the good will live a good life like they deserve, like a reward for their good living, where as the bad will suffer a bad life, a life which will punish them for their crimes. it just depends when karma catches up with them

noone has the right to put anyone else to death, no matter the circumstances.

if a person is a threat to society then sure lock them up, karma will take care of their punishment, in this life or the next. It is beyond us to think we can possibly decide someone elses fate fairly.

every person deserves to live, the good will live a good life like they deserve, like a reward for their good living, where as the bad will suffer a bad life, a life which will punish them for their crimes. it just depends when karma catches up with them

_zeldredz_

This is one of the most flawed foolish comments Ive ever read.

1. Not everyone deserves to live.

2. Your basing your statement on "karma" ok earl

3. People who are "good" live a good life. as if do you know how many scum bags have great lives and how many truly caring good people have horrid lives.

we should have it for horrible murderers. it gives the family closure, reduces prison populations, and they gave up their rights when they killed another person.shoeman12

Sorry if I sound "insensitive", but **** the family. We're talking about a person's (understandably) emotional desire for blood.

If someone raped and murdered my mother and or sister, would I want them to suffer a horrible death? Probably. And that's EXACTLY why I should have no say in the matter, and why my opinion should have no bearing on that person's fate. Anger is NEVER a justifiable reason to kill. If killing is to be done, it should be based on a cold, logical reason. Killing because of heated emotions is precisely why a lot of people are in prison for murder. You separate yourself from the emotional aspect when you're deciding whether or not someone gets to live. And if you can't separate yourself from your base emotions, you have no business deciding that someone should die.

I think we need to streamline the death penalty process. As soon as there is a conviction they need to be executed. None of this expensive chemical crap, no high powered electrlc chairs, and no waiting for years on death row. Hanging or firing squad will suffice. as bullets are cheap and a noose can be re-used.

Death penalty should be reserved for: Pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and politicians who lie to the people.

SunofVich

So...you think that we should execute innocent people?

[QUOTE="SunofVich"]

I think we need to streamline the death penalty process. As soon as there is a conviction they need to be executed. None of this expensive chemical crap, no high powered electrlc chairs, and no waiting for years on death row. Hanging or firing squad will suffice. as bullets are cheap and a noose can be re-used.

Death penalty should be reserved for: Pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and politicians who lie to the people.

MrGeezer

So...you think that we should execute innocent people?

Do you know how low the percentage is of innocent people who are convicted to the death penalty.

Immediate beheading if I'm elected!

OrDisemboweling, viewers choice!

But honestly I'm for, even if they had regrets. The killer should suffer what the killed has suffered

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="SunofVich"]

I think we need to streamline the death penalty process. As soon as there is a conviction they need to be executed. None of this expensive chemical crap, no high powered electrlc chairs, and no waiting for years on death row. Hanging or firing squad will suffice. as bullets are cheap and a noose can be re-used.

Death penalty should be reserved for: Pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and politicians who lie to the people.

kingyotoX

So...you think that we should execute innocent people?

Do you know how low the percentage is of innocent people who are convicted to the death penalty.

Oh wow now thats damage control if I ever heard it. So even if 1 or 2 innocents are put to death than it's alright. The ends justify the means?

I oppose the death penalty. I however think that people sentenced to life in prison should have the choice to be humanely euthanized.(I know if I was sentenced to life in prison, I would rather be euthanized). I don't think death should be a penalty, regardless of the crime.ElectronicMagic

I heard that there is one state which allows doctor assisted sucides where if a person wants they can go to a doctor and they will give them a shot to kill them.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="SunofVich"]

I think we need to streamline the death penalty process. As soon as there is a conviction they need to be executed. None of this expensive chemical crap, no high powered electrlc chairs, and no waiting for years on death row. Hanging or firing squad will suffice. as bullets are cheap and a noose can be re-used.

Death penalty should be reserved for: Pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and politicians who lie to the people.

kingyotoX

So...you think that we should execute innocent people?

Do you know how low the percentage is of innocent people who are convicted to the death penalty.

So...you think that we should execute innocent people?

Do you know how low the percentage is of innocent people who are convicted to the death penalty.

kingyotoX

Is even one justifiable? How do you explain to that person's family that you executed him or her for a crime he or she didn't commit? Sorry, but this is a terrible argument.

Well, with all the stupid religion and "X candidate sucks" threads, I figured, how about a good topic on a single controversial issue?

As for my views, I'm rather divided. I wouldn't be comfortable unless the said executed was 100% proven guilty. I wouldn't want to risk killing an innocent.

Aside from that, I'm unsure.

PannicAtack

Well I have a cheap easy solution that costs only $.50.

A lead bullet to the head.

kool-aids

:roll:

Why is it that so many death penalty proponents don't even understand the most basic issues involving it? It's not the execution itself that is expensive. It's making sure that you don't kill an innocent person that's expensive. We don't need drum-head justice in this country.

[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]I oppose the death penalty. I however think that people sentenced to life in prison should have the choice to be humanely euthanized.(I know if I was sentenced to life in prison, I would rather be euthanized). I don't think death should be a penalty, regardless of the crime.blackldragon

I heard that there is one state which allows doctor assisted sucides where if a person wants they can go to a doctor and they will give them a shot to kill them.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="RiSkyBiZ-13"]My only opinion on the matter is that I believe Lethal Injection to be far more inhumane than any methods used before. You can feel poison working it's way through your veins, and you become very tired. You try to fight off the sleep, but it's overwhelming you. You KNOW, that if you fall asleep, you won't wake up again. How is injection better than the chair? I'm not against injection, but it's just a thought.RiSkyBiZ-13

All execution methods involve the knowledge of "I won't wake up again", so I don't see how the least painful of those methods can be considered the most inhumane.

I was thinking on terms of the psychological aspect. The fatigue issue, trying to fight the sleep. A firing line seems more humane, althought undoubtadly messier.

[QUOTE="kingyotoX"]

Do you know how low the percentage is of innocent people who are convicted to the death penalty.

pianist

How do you explain to that person's family that you executed him or her for a crime he or she didn't commit?

Oops. My bad. Hey, here's a cookie. We're still cool, right?

[QUOTE="OfficialJab"][QUOTE="duxup"]

You can put a several dudes in jail for life for what it costs to put someone to death. It doesn't deter squat. It's just not cost effective.

blackldragon

Lots of crimes should be punishablle by death... it really would help. This planet needs a good 'weeding'/

I'm going to use the anime/manga death note in this so if you don't get well....

So lets just say that hypothetically there was a kira and s/he was supported world wide and every person who commited a crime was put to death instantanously. That could be a possible detterent to crime, however what happens to the people who don't care about dieing that would probably just create even worser criminals, because they know they are going to die so they take out as much people they can before going. I know if I was a criminal who had nothing to live for and was going to die anyways I'd cause as much destruction as possible. Also, there are alot of innocent people in jail.

I propose that we create a type of special prison which takes the worst types of criminals (or those who get sentenced to life) and put them in there. This prison will have crappy food, no recreational activities except for reading the oldest of books, maybe one 15 min phone talk per week, beds made of stone, little to no medical care, mines placed around the perimeter of the entire prison except locations to get in and out which will be gaurded by snipers. Also, no items that can be converted into some type of weopon. Oh, and make everything greyish color so that it's depressing.

We already have that, it's called Guantanamo Bay (minus the mines, of course, and the bad healthcare, but pretty darn close)

[QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="kingyotoX"]

Do you know how low the percentage is of innocent people who are convicted to the death penalty.

MrGeezer

How do you explain to that person's family that you executed him or her for a crime he or she didn't commit?

Oops. My bad. Hey, here's a cookie. We're still cool, right?

:lol:

You'd think they'd at least splurge for a ham.

[QUOTE="blackldragon"]

[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]I oppose the death penalty. I however think that people sentenced to life in prison should have the choice to be humanely euthanized.(I know if I was sentenced to life in prison, I would rather be euthanized). I don't think death should be a penalty, regardless of the crime.linkthewindow

I heard that there is one state which allows doctor assisted sucides where if a person wants they can go to a doctor and they will give them a shot to kill them.

[QUOTE="kool-aids"]

Well I have a cheap easy solution that costs only $.50.

A lead bullet to the head.

pianist

:roll:

Why is it that so many death penalty proponents don't even understand the most basic issues involving it? It's not the execution itself that is expensive. It's making sure that you don't kill an innocent person that's expensive. We don't need drum-head justice in this country.

Hey, it's not like I'M ever gonna end up on death row for a crime that I didn't commit.

Let me put this in disease terminology. If there's a virus going around and killing people, what do you do to it? Do you kill it or do you just quarantine it forever?UT_Wrestler

Let me put this in disease terminology. Which is the better way to go about combating an illness - treatment of the symptoms or prevention?

Well, with all the stupid religion and "X candidate sucks" threads, I figured, how about a good topic on a single controversial issue?

As for my views, I'm rather divided. I wouldn't be comfortable unless the said executed was 100% proven guilty. I wouldn't want to risk killing an innocent.

Aside from that, I'm unsure.

PannicAtack

Hey, it's not like I'M ever gonna end up on death row for a crime that I didn't commit.

MrGeezer

That's exactly it. It's easy to say that executing an innocent person is just 'unfortunate' when it's someone you don't personally care about.

Back on topic, no, I really don't support the death penalty. It's just an easy way out for some people, and plus, nobody wants to kill a man convicted of mass-murder only to find out he never did it. Read Shawshank Redemption and you'll find out what I mean.

Besides, isn't a lifetime of sexual abuse by your inmate even worse?