what do you think about death penalty?

as for the whole innocent argument...there is not much I can say for that, except that there will be mistakes made...mistakes happen on a daily basis that take the lives of innocent people, doesn't mean you should shut down and stop what you are doing, I know it sounds harsh...not much can be done...so if people think I'm inhuman to support the death penalty, and possibly have an innocent person caught in the crossfire, then I geuss I am...oh well..

jJaAmMeEsS2184

Yes, but here's the thing: what additional benefit is gleaned from the death penalty?

With everything else that can potentially cause an accidental death, there is sufficient benefit gained, and sufficient loss incurred from ceasing it, to justify it. But that is clearly not the case with the death penalty: going with life in prison presents a deterrence, and additionally protects society from the person being punished. The only extra thing gained through the death penalty is the satisfaction of those who want to see blood.

So what you are saying is basically that satisfying those who desire revenge is worth the deaths of innocent people.

Is that really a claim you want to make?

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

In 2004 an innocent man was executed. DNA evidence does not save someone from incompetent or unwilling court-appointed defense attorneys, faulty evidence, and fabricated testimony.

The idea that it doesn't happen anymore is the part that doesn't fly.

[QUOTE="jJaAmMeEsS2184"]

that fact does not make me oppose the death penalty....there is going to be mistakes made...that is no reason to lighten up on the thousands of others that are guilty, and do deserve to no longer breathe air

GabuEx

As foxhound-fox said, this has nothingto do with "lightening up". This has everything to do with ensuring that the government does not murder innocent people - which it already has done in the past. Every single other punishment in existence can be halted the moment the one charged was found to be falsely accused. The murder of an innocent man or woman cannot be undone. The US is the only country in the civilized world that still executes those charged with crimes; there is a reason for that.

I presented the story of Cameron for a reason. People hear "129 people on death row have been exonerated" and think "well, that's not a very large number; the system still works". This is exactly what Joseph Stalin once said, really: you kill one, it is a tragedy; you kill ten million, it is a statistic. That 129 is not just a number on a page. It is one hundred and twenty-nine individual human beings, each of whom had lives to lead, families who loved them, and friends who cared about them, and each of whom would have been murdered by the government had new evidence not come to light. That is not simply a clerical error. It is not something that can be made OK through an apology and an admission of error. That is a fundamental miscarriage of justice that damns the entire judicial system of the country that would do such a thing. It is not a matter of a sufficiently large percentage of those executed having been innocent; if even one single person is executed falsely, the system has failed.

Again, no one has said that those charged with a crime should not be punished. But they should be punished in such a way that it maximizes the extent to which their life can be pieced back together if they are later found to be innocent. No one should be punished on the basis that he or she "deserves it", because to do so is to fundamentally cast into the trash the human right of presumption of innocence.

....and the figures you have of 129...I've seen a higher study of about 350...and still if you incorporate that into the prison population...it is somewhere between .025% up to 3-4% of prisoners that went to prison/deathrow as an innocent person....that to me is far too small of a percentage to say..ok you can murder all you want..you'll still be able to live out your life..just behind bars is all..yet your victims, who had no choice in the matter, are never going to be here again.....makes no sense...if you are willing to kill, then you should be willing to die....

needled24-7

You are assuming that the ones charged are guilty. That goes against every single legal system in the developed world. Even if we were to dehumanize those we punish - which itself is a totally sick way of going about punishment - it is still the case that every punishment enacted must, if we are to be a civilized society, contain an admission in the back of everyone's head that innocent people are guaranteed to be convicted of crimes. Punishment should go as far as necessary to deter others and protect society, and go no further, because to go any further is to transition from a just punishment to a craven act of vengeance on someone who is not by any means guaranteed to be guilty of what they have been changed with.

I think the fundamental difference here, really, is the question of which is more important: the protection of the innocent or the punishment of the guilty. It is a plain fact that we mustchoose between those two; we cannot perfectly segregate the innocent from the guilty.And anyone who supports a system of justice in which innocent people can be put to death plainly does not place the emphasis on the protection of the innocent. That's really all there is to it.

I have a hypothetical question for you....I could be wrong, but it seems your main reason to be opposed is the innocent people that occasionally get put on death row....Yes/No?

What if we had some magical justice system, that without a doubt could find with 100% accuracy the guilt or innosence in the accused?..would you oppose the death penalty still? Just curious...

I'm against it. The death penalty is letting them off too easy. And I don't agree with the people that say rape is worthy of the death penalty. Because if it is, then there's a much higher chance that the rapist will then kill his victim.GamerForca

or maybe he'll keep it in his pants and decide rape is not the solution...and go try finding a date like a real man should..

by giving someone life in prison vs. death is lightening up though...maybe to you it is not, but have you ever been faced with the two options?..chances are no...so to say you would rather see someone live out their life in prison and think about what they did, is like speaking for them....ask someone who is on death row what they would have preferred..I'll bet the majority would say they would rather live...that is why the death penalty is considered a more severe punishment...otherwise wouldn't the prosecutors be seeking life in prison rather than the death penalty, if it were the way you and some others think?jJaAmMeEsS2184

and once your dead, there's nothing you can do to undo it....well sitting in prison isn't going to undo anything either..is it going to undo what he/she did to their victims? no. the only outcome would be (possible) self enlightenment, and forgivness to themselves...to me they shouldn't get that chance..

as for the whole innocent argument...there is not much I can say for that, except that there will be mistakes made...mistakes happen on a daily basis that take the lives of innocent people, doesn't mean you should shut down and stop what you are doing, I know it sounds harsh...not much can be done...so if people think I'm inhuman to support the death penalty, and possibly have an innocent person caught in the crossfire, then I geuss I am...oh well..

jJaAmMeEsS2184

I have a hypothetical question for you....I could be wrong, but it seems your main reason to be opposed is the innocent people that occasionally get put on death row....Yes/No?

What if we had some magical justice system, that without a doubt could find with 100% accuracy the guilt or innosence in the accused?..would you oppose the death penalty still? Just curious...

jJaAmMeEsS2184

Yes, I would still oppose it, on the different grounds that I do not believe that basing a justice system on revenge is morally justifiable.

But for the purposes of this discussion I'm focusing on this point, because it seems to me that the preservation of innocent life is something that everyone (I would at least hope) would consider to be a desirable outcome, whereas that is purely a philosophical discussion.

The convicted can actively seek retribution for the family (whether material or conceptual).foxhound_fox

I think you mean "repentance" or something similar, unless you're encouraging those charged with crimes to take revenge on the people who put him there. :P

or maybe he'll keep it in his pants and decide rape is not the solution...and go try finding a date like a real man should..

jJaAmMeEsS2184

I think you mean "repentance" or something similar, unless you're encouraging those charged with crimes to take revenge on the people who put him there. :P

GabuEx

I think its an easy way out for the bastards( they should be in jail till they die). If he/she is guilty.Tropicalshower

Good idea! Lets let them use up even MORE of the state's resources! I say let them go free if it's just a drug possession thing. Even some who are convicted of violent crimes deserve a second chance. Everyone does.

Hot-Tamale

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"] Good idea! Lets let them use up even MORE of the state's resources! I say let them go free if it's just a drug possession thing. Even some who are convicted of violent crimes deserve a second chance. Everyone does.

foxhound_fox

Well then even more reason to give them a second chance! :)

I oppose it in all circumstances.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="jJaAmMeEsS2184"]

I have a hypothetical question for you....I could be wrong, but it seems your main reason to be opposed is the innocent people that occasionally get put on death row....Yes/No?

What if we had some magical justice system, that without a doubt could find with 100% accuracy the guilt or innosence in the accused?..would you oppose the death penalty still? Just curious...

GabuEx

Yes, I would still oppose it, on the different grounds that I do not believe that basing a justice system on revenge is morally justifiable.

But for the purposes of this discussion I'm focusing on this point, because it seems to me that the preservation of innocent life is something that everyone (I would at least hope) would consider to be a desirable outcome, whereas that is purely a philosophical discussion.

but that's the thing..I don't see it as revenge...it is a penalty for the wrong doings you have done...just like the ticket you recieve for speeding..it's not revenge on you by the state..it's the penalty you get for speeding...but to me if you take a persons life..there is no reason you should have the right to live..(of course it depends on the degree)..since you stripped your victims right to live, without them having a say in the matter..so you to should lose your right..sad thing is you will have a say in the matter...so many times people opt to plea bargain to escape the death penalty..that angers me as well...just because they come clean, they get a lighter sentence...

and of course, who wouldn't want the preservation of innocent lives as a desired outcome..I would, but it is an impossibilty, that would still be an issue even if the death penalty was abolished

[QUOTE="jJaAmMeEsS2184"]

or maybe he'll keep it in his pants and decide rape is not the solution...and go try finding a date like a real man should..

foxhound_fox

No, I was disagreeing with the part that he said they would just kill their victims...maybe they would since they will already be getting a death sentence...or maybe they wouln't do anything at all like I said....baseless claim IMO..how would anyone know..

It should be used when there is absolutly no doubt the person is guilty...same with life.

I'm glad its here. Disgusting people with morbid minds that ruthlessly kill people and start wild fires should die. Life in prison is not good enough, they can escape, its possible, its happend.

Some people deserve it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="jJaAmMeEsS2184"]

I have a hypothetical question for you....I could be wrong, but it seems your main reason to be opposed is the innocent people that occasionally get put on death row....Yes/No?

What if we had some magical justice system, that without a doubt could find with 100% accuracy the guilt or innosence in the accused?..would you oppose the death penalty still? Just curious...

jJaAmMeEsS2184

Yes, I would still oppose it, on the different grounds that I do not believe that basing a justice system on revenge is morally justifiable.

But for the purposes of this discussion I'm focusing on this point, because it seems to me that the preservation of innocent life is something that everyone (I would at least hope) would consider to be a desirable outcome, whereas that is purely a philosophical discussion.

but that's the thing..I don't see it as revenge...it is a penalty for the wrong doings you have done...just like the ticket you recieve for speeding..it's not revenge on you by the state..it's the penalty you get for speeding...but to me if you take a persons life..there is no reason you should have the right to live..(of course it depends on the degree)..since you stripped your victims right to live, without them having a say in the matter..so you to should lose your right..sad thing is you will have a say in the matter...so many times people opt to plea bargain to escape the death penalty..that angers me as well...just because they come clean, they get a lighter sentence...

and of course, who wouldn't want the preservation of innocent lives as a desired outcome..I would, but it is an impossibilty, that would still be an issue even if the death penalty was abolished

You try to present your opinion as completely pragmatic, but here is where you admit that your judgment on the matter is based on emotion rather than logic. Oh, and taking someone's life because they took a life, there's a word for that, it's called revenge. It can be called a punishment as well, but calling it punishment also doesn't negate the revenge aspect.

As for innocent lives, they can be preserved through imprisonment, but since you brought the subject up what about the people who are wrongly convicted? There was a revelation recently where this dad was sentenced to death for burning down his house with his two kids inside. At the time, multiple opinions from fire experts came forth and said there wasn't enough evidence to support the claim of arson, but they went ahead and executed him anyways. Now they're coming out and saying they've found indisputable evidence it wasn't arson, eight years after the execution. Personally, I just see no reason to continue the practice. It costs money, it can take innocent lives, and it's self-righteous to assume the government has the right to take lives in retaliation for someone else taking lives.

but that's the thing..I don't see it as revenge...it is a penalty for the wrong doings you have done...just like the ticket you recieve for speeding..it's not revenge on you by the state..it's the penalty you get for speeding...but to me if you take a persons life..there is no reason you should have the right to live..(of course it depends on the degree)..since you stripped your victims right to live, without them having a say in the matter..so you to should lose your right..sad thing is you will have a say in the matter...so many times people opt to plea bargain to escape the death penalty..that angers me as well...just because they come clean, they get a lighter sentence...

jJaAmMeEsS2184

But here's the thing: you aren't just saying that they should be punished. You said this:

if you are willing to kill, then you should be willing to die....

jJaAmMeEsS2184

That, to me, says, "You did something bad, so now we will pay you back in kind." That is revenge, plain and simple: someone does something, so now you want to do the same thing to him. Punishment that is truly for the sake of deterrence and for the sake of the protection of society has no such criteria; its criteria is merely whether or not it properly deters others and protects society. The moment you stop caring about those two points and start caring about "payback" or "eye for an eye", that is revenge. And the carrying out of revenge has no place in criminal law, no matter how much grieving loved ones of one who was murdered want someone to pay.

and of course, who wouldn't want the preservation of innocent lives as a desired outcome..I would, but it is an impossibilty, that would still be an issue even if the death penalty was abolished

jJaAmMeEsS2184

But in this case, people are openly saying that they value the execution of guilty parties above the preservation of the life of the wrongfully charged. The acceptance that some people will inevitably die in accidents is fine; the refusal to do something that will stop innocents from dying is less so.