The Death Penalty

Remove all ads!

I've yet to see this topic posted, and I'm pretty sure why, but curiosity has finally gotten the best of me...

So, what are YOUR opinions on the death penalty?

 

Why can't they have it in England. I've never been able to see any bad points about the death penalty. I'm sure there would be much less crime if we had the death penalty for just about every crime. Initially a few people might get executed for silly things but later on people would be too scared and we would have zero crime and no need for prisons... the more I think about it the better it sounds...

 

I am against it. We have it in parts of the US and it does nothing to deter crime. Most people committing capital crimes are not thinking about the penalty they may pay if caught.

 

I always thought two wrongs don't make a right... Oh well.

[edit: this is Serena Lynx I'm on Baldak's computer]

[This message has been edited by Baldak Oakfist (edited July 09, 2002).]

 

It might not deter those committing the worst crimes but bring it in for things like armed robbery and then you are gonna see improvements. Perhaps this is a bit harsh but these people see that the penalty isn't that big and don't care too much about going to prison but the death penalty would scare them.

 

Well, Serena, aren't you assuming that the execution of a convicted criminal is "wrong"?
---

I am opposed to the death penalty not because of morals, but because there have been cases where innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit.

With a prison sentence, after learning of this mistake, we can release the innocent person. But with the death penalty, there is nothing we can do.

If guilt was somehow absolutely certain, then I would support the death penalty. But, this is not the case.

[This message has been edited by A_Seal_Clubber (edited July 09, 2002).]

 

For one thing, to be on Death Row, you ahve to be judged Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Yes mistakes are made, the Jury is human, and is not omniscient, but the clues present concivinced them that the person charged was guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

Jack Funk(also A_Seal_Clubber), the reason the Death Penalty doesnt deter crime like it should, is because people who are on death row, sit in a cell for 5-10+ years. Why?!? So it can be assured that the person is guilty? That kind of negates the original reason they are on Death Row. That generally means that they are unsure if the person is guilty or not, and if they arent sure about guilt, the Person should not be on Death Row.

 

Actually DeBhaal, for any crime, the jury has to believe the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a reasonable doubt, they are "required" to bring a verdict of not guilty.

That the jury is human and capable of error is the very reason I think a permanent, "irreversible" punishment should not be allowed. Even with a life sentence, an innocent person can be freed.

And, yes, there have been cases where a person is found to be innocent after being convicted.

[This message has been edited by A_Seal_Clubber (edited July 09, 2002).]

 

I did not say that there was less believeablity in any other crime, but I am talking about the Death Sentence.

There is a more serious issue with the Death Sentence.

"That the jury is human and capable of error is the very reason I think a permanent, "irreversible" punishment should not be allowed. Even with a life sentence, an innocent person can be freed."
You think a computer should do it then? Computers fail more than people do, and current Technology such as Forensics and other sciences, there are less chances for error, but no matter what system is used, there are ways around it, if you have the money, or knowledge of the inner workings.
Death Penalty would work as a deterent, if it were used the way it should be. I.e. You are convicted for Murder1 on three accounts, and various other crimes, you are Sentenced to Death Row, and you are then killed(by whatever way is used). That is how it should be done, and that is how crime would begin to drop. Not by sentencing someone to Death Row and leaving them sit for 5+ years.

Even with lighter sentenses, there should be absolutely no Parol, if you are sentenced to a crime, you should serve the time you are given, to the last day. Not get out for being good, in a couple years. The reason they were placed in jail wasnt good, or they wouldnt be there.

 

"You think a computer should do it then? Computers fail more than people do, and current Technology such as Forensics and other sciences, there are less chances for error, but no matter what system is used, there are ways around it, if you have the money, or knowledge of the inner workings."

You missed my point. My point was that there IS error when humans decide guilt (which is the current system), so the death penalty should not be used. I did not mean that humans should not decide, but that anything that is capable of error should not decide.

 

-A_Seal_Clubber

Ah yes, so leaving someone in jail for 60 years and pulling them out after it's found out that they're innocent is NOT an irreversible punishment, good point...

EDIT: (in response to A_Seal_Clubber's post below)
You missed my point, a life sentence is no more reversible than death. The person may not die, but they have lost their life.

[This message has been edited by Faerus Stoneslammer (edited July 09, 2002).]

 

That's why I used quotes.

 

In the last few years, now that PCR-based DNA analysis has become a standard crime investigation technique, more than one hundred people have been discovered innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted -- and executed. Oops!

The death penalty has never been seen to have any value as a deterrent to would-be criminals. Life, or even twenty years in prison are bad enough that armed robbery doesn't strike the average person as a good idea; but of course armed robbers are not average people.

They are poor -- the single greatest predictor of criminality is poverty (surprise!). They are retarded -- one estimate puts 30% of death row inmates at IQ 80 or less. They also don't look much like the judges who sentence them -- Hispanic and Black people fill our prisons far out of proportion to their numbers in society. Study after study has shown -- not even conservatives pretend to doubt it now -- that Black and brown people are more likely to live in poverty, more likely to receive a substandard education, and receive harsher sentences on average than a white person committing the same crime, and (ta-da!) represent 80% of death row inmates nationwide.

Why is that? Well, since no one here is idiot enough to propose that genetic inferiority is at work -- we have to conclude that our justice system is flawed. Poor people in general, despite our best intentions, and people of color in particular, feel the long arm of the law more heavily than rich and white people. And women, interestingly enough -- women are far less likely to be sentenced to death than men who commit the same crime.

Leaving aside the question whether it is right to take lives in the name of justice (or vengeance), surely common sense demands that if we exact the ultimate punishment, we must be dead solid certain it is correctly applied.

We're not.

 

Methyl,
The first instinct of a low-intilect individual such as you described, is to save his own ass, so to speak..
If the laws were enforced better, then yes, Crime would be alot lower, I do not speak of just the Death Penalty.

Yeah, Oops! but as BTA said in the post above, accidents happen all the time, and the Death Penalty has put more Guilty people under than Innocent people.

[This message has been edited by DeBhaal Stasion (edited July 09, 2002).]

 

Bosh! Shame on you, Blackthorne!

We are not talking about fatal accidents, but fatal *on-purposes*. We are not talking about not letting people sit on the electric chair because -- every so often, randomly -- it fries someone! No, Blackthorne, unlike cars, airplanes and swimming pools, capital punishment is purposeful and directed killing.

We also cannot claim that our justice system is as fair as human frailty can make it. We know it is not. We know what is broken, and we know who suffers because of it. Whether we know how to fix it is a question for another day.

Until we know that our justice system is as fair as we can make it, capital punishment can only be unjust.

(Edit)I am the world's slowest typist.

Can you possibly believe, DeBhaal, that killing even one innocent person is justified if a hundred guilty people bite it too?

[This message has been edited by Methylviolet (edited July 09, 2002).]

 

Methyl, yes I do believe that the death of even one innocent person is something that I would trade for the deaths of 100 guilty people, especially if the deaths of all one hunderd and one people would make people stop and think before doing something that would harm another person.

Do I think it is justified, no, I dont. Would I allow them to die if I thought they were innocent, no I wouldnt, I would do everything in my power to prove their innocence. But, to protect the greater majority, yes I do think that one innocent death and one hundred guilty deaths, sounds better than one hundred innocent deaths, and the person that killed them just sitting in a jail burning our money.

[This message has been edited by DeBhaal Stasion (edited July 09, 2002).]

 

Blackthorne, safety locks are required on all handguns in the United States. Why is this so? To help prevent accidental deaths.

Why must cars pass certain safety requirements in order to be driven? To help prevent accidental deaths.

Clearly, eliminating driving or electricity is absurd, and would have huge repercussions on daily life (in the United States). They have become considered "necessities". Even then, there are many safety standards that must be met, showing that the government does care about its people.

Now, I don't see how the death penalty is as important as driving or electricity. It can always be replaced by a life sentence.

"Shall we end car driving because so many thousands die in car accidents? How about shutting down commercial airlines because they can't guarantee you'll arrive safely? Shall we prevent people from swimming or owning pools because someone might drown? Maybe we should ban electricity because innocent people might be electrocuted."

Obviously, your answer to these questions is "no". Why do you think that way? (Note that I do not necessarily agree/disagree with your answer of "no".)

 

You argue well, Blackthorne, but how I am to equate an accident with a misdirected, but purposeful, act -- I am sure I don't know. It is more than mere semantics, I believe. It in fact goes to the heart of my problem with the death penalty.

A better analogy, I think -- if I sell you a car with defective tires that I know are, say, 50% more likely to have a blowout -- and you have a blow-out, and die -- am I allowed to say that it was only an accident? No! Though I did not intend to cause the accident that killed you, I knew the car was flawed. I knew accidents were liable to happen in that car. So when my car kills someone, I am at fault -- accident schmaccident. Mrs. Blackthorne and all the little Blackthornes sue me for my last nickel.

I sit on a sentencing jury. I know the system is flawed, and likely to convict innocents who meet certain demographic criteria. I sentence such a one to death -- who later is revealed to have been innocent. Am I blameless? No, I'm not, nor is the state who sanctioned my act.

It's wrong to kill an innocent -- most religions agree on that much. To kill the guilty with malice aforethought, we must at least be sure of their guilt. We cannot be sure -- we cannot be sure that we are not killing an innocent, which is wrong. No pragmatic argument about taxpayer's money can outweigh this for me.