Are you for the death penalty? And why?

[jimmyboy]

I just wanted to get everyone's opinion on the issue of capital punishment. Pro or against.

[Anakha1]

Pro for murderers where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt. Rapists, too.

[TheUnchosen]

Against.

But for you, I'll leave an exception.

*Hangs jimmyboy for creating a death penalty thread*

Now I sit back and watch the carnage.

[jimmyboy]

Can you guys do some soul-searching? I need the "why" part.

[SatansAvenger]

for, definitely for

[Isolde212]

I am against capital punishment. Partly because eye for eye is vicious cycle, partly because I would rather see the accused rot for the rest of his life. I am aware of overflowing jails and the price it costs the taxpayers to maintain them. However, the personal satisfaction people feel seeing the man/woman who killed their family member will do nothing to bring them back. Let him/her sit in a 8x8 cell with minimal contact with anyone and the basic necessities of life and think about it for the rest of his life.

[adamfgt78]

Can you guys do some soul-searching? I need the "why" part.

If you want others to write huge posts on the subject, how you about you also invest some effort into your original post.

Now be honest, is this for a homework assignment?

[TheUnchosen]

If you want practicality,

Death peanalty is more expensive.
Along with the whole "Oops we killed the wrong person" thing, I vote No.

[SatansAvenger]

death penalty is more expensive???!@$$@#%

[Isolde212]

death penalty is more expensive???!@$$@#%
The amount of government money invested in court procedures, paperwork and appeals it is cheaper to put up the person in jail.

[jimmyboy]

If you want others to write huge posts on the subject, how you about you also invest some effort into your original post.

Now be honest, is this for a homework assignment?

Not homework to be sure. But I've gone through about 5 texts and about 40 cases. Most are legal. I just wanted the layman's opinion without the legal advocacy.

[jimmyboy]

Against.

But for you, I'll leave an exception.

*Hangs jimmyboy for creating a death penalty thread*

Now I sit back and watch the carnage.

Why are you against? Do you feel that the legal system fails? Or do you believe that capital punishment is cruel and unusual?

[jimmyboy]

for, definitely for

Because you demand justice for the family of the victims? Or is there another reason?

[SatansAvenger]

The amount of government money invested in court procedures, paperwork and appeals it is cheaper to put up the person in jail.
that i really did not know, dont have much knowledge in this area, but ive read somewhere it costs 30K a year to maintain a prisoner, now if he did something that could be considered for death penalty, then his sentence should not be less than 20 years no? so total cost of court procedures, paperwork and appeals would exeed 600K? seems a bit unneccessary to me...if somebody would clarify or correct, id appreciate it

[psyadam]

I am for capital punishment for violent and senseless crime. It should be done in a painless a way as possible though. God knows there's times I wish I could just end all myself painlessly.

[Anakha1]

The amount of government money invested in court procedures, paperwork and appeals it is cheaper to put up the person in jail.


Unless you do it Soviet Union style, which means a bullet to the back of the neck behind the prison and a bill for the cost of the bullet to the family. It's the countless appeals that makes it so expensive. They should be allowed one appeal, that's it. Beyond that, it's just paperwork that costs money. It's a total waste the way we do it.

I'm good with either death penalty or locking him in a dark box with no human contact for the rest of his life. Either works.

[adamfgt78]

death penalty is more expensive???!@$$@#%

I believe this is due to the lengthy appeals processes that follow a death sentence.

If I had to choose, I would say I'm not in favor of the death penalty. The deterance values of sitting in jail for the rest of your life versus getting the death sentence are pretty much the same. If someone is going to commit that horrible of a crime, they are going to do it with or without the possiblity of being executed. I think it is not a necessary evil. And there is also the possibility of killing an innocent person and to avoid this as much as possible requires the expensive appeals process.

But, I am not vehemently opposed to the death penalty.

[TheUnchosen]

Why are you against? Do you feel that the legal system fails? Or do you believe that capital punishment is cruel and unusual?
I said it before,

1) It's expensive.

2) The slim chance of accidentally killing an innocent person is a risk I am not willing to take/allow the government to take.

3) Actual life in prison is more of a punishment than a simple death. Note, I don't believe in God/Heaven etc so killing a criminal is, IMO more of a release than a punishment.

[SatansAvenger]

hmmm, 2 contradicts 3...would you rather have an innocent man sitting in jail for the rest of his life knowing that he got no chance of getting out and he did absolutely nothing?

[jimmyboy]

I said it before,

1) It's expensive.

2) The slim chance of accidentally killing an innocent person is a risk I am not willing to take/allow the government to take.

3) Actual life in prison is more of a punishment than a simple death. Note, I don't believe in God/Heaven etc so killing a criminal is, IMO more of a release than a punishment.

The current chance of executing an innocent man is between 6 and 9 %. What would be the acceptable rate for you, if there is one.

[TheUnchosen]

If there was a 0% chance of executing an innocent man then my opinions may sway.

[Anakha1]

If there was a 0% chance of executing an innocent man then my opinions may sway.

Like I said... if the guy is 100% guilty with no chance of innocence, do him in. And none of this gas chamber, lethal injection or electric chair wussy crap that costs loads of money.

No. Bullet + second vertibrate + bill to family = save save save!

[corax]

yes. yes i think in some cases it is justified.for people serving like 4 life sentences and there is no doubt anyone else did it. as in they confessed. then shove them off a cliff or something. something you could sell to funny home videos. that way the actually death is running at a profit
yes but pier it is cheaper.

i had it explained to me in this way by a good friend of mine who is my chem teacher n the way he worded was alot better than this will be but here goes

people have rights and responsibilites. when someone doesnt uphold their responsibilities (say taking a life or ****) then why should they be given the rights that they denied to the victim and the victims family.

it was alot longer and better but thats the basic principle behind it

[Pier]

Against.
No man has the right to take another man's life.
This is one of the fundamental building blocks of a democratic society.
Off course: where there is crime, there should be punishment. But it is in the punishment that society inflicts, that one can see the true nature of society itself.
Does one stick to it's fundamentals, or is one going to make exceptions for the unwanted parts of society.


Personaly I think that "it's cheaper" is one of the worst arguments one can give.
You put a price on a human life, and no price is high enough IMO.
But I have to admit, when you hear about child rapers, serial killers and so on, my hands starts to itch too to do something nasty to those people.

Grr pIER

[Anakha1]

Rights to do this or that are given by man and governments. If you have a right to deny someone their freedom for life you have a right to take their life entirely. Rights are what we say they are.

[thejdawg2]

Against.

Regardless of my feelings of how a murderer or rapist should be treated, I don't feel that the government has a right to take a life while claiming to do so in the name of justice.

Also, considering the enormous flaws in the American legal system, I'd be afraid to move to Texas if I was African-American.

[Anakha1]

Against.

Regardless of my feelings of how a murderer or rapist should be treated, I don't feel that the government has a right to take a life while claiming to do so in the name of justice.

Also, considering the enormous flaws in the American legal system, I'd be afraid to move to Texas if I was African-American.

Justice is subjective. To many people taking the life of a rapist or murderer is quite just. And again, the right to take a life is what the government and society says it is. It too is subjective.

[MithrandirX]

I just wanted to get everyone's opinion on the issue of capital punishment. Pro or against.

Well... I hate to say it but I am against the death penalty. I just do not believe that the government is able to administer it in a fair way, without the possibility of innocent people being executed by mistake.

That being said, I think many kinds of criminals, and ALL murderers richly deserve death. It actually pains me that I am not for the DP.

[Pier]

Rights to do this or that are given by man and governments. If you have a right to deny someone their freedom for life you have a right to take their life entirely. Rights are what we say they are.

They are, but I believe some rights are universal, and one of those is the right to live, despite what you have done in the past.


On a side note, I want to add a statement and would like to hear your comment about it:

If I'm for the death penalty, I am also for abortion; they're both the taking of lives.

What do you think?

Grr pIER

[ASTRALdragon]

i'm TOTALLY for it. it is my belief that there are humans out there that commit such heinous crimes or too many heavy crimes to be "rehabilitated" back into civilization. sometimes it is a society's duty to weed out the ones they deem not worthy enough to co-exist with the rest of the general population. sure we could lock him/her up in a prison for life but that would leech at the taxpayer's money and i think that's better off in funding for education, social security, homeland security, etc. it is much cheaper to execute than to imprison. the death penalty is sometimes more expensive because the freakin numbnutz lawyers will always go for some stupid appeal, and then 4 more after that if the previous ones don't work. i say 1 appeal and after that you're off to see Mr. potassium chloride. i know killing a criminal isn't going to bring back a dead person but it would sure as hell give me closure knowing the person that took my loved one's life pays with his and no longer can take any other person's life.

[Anakha1]

On a side note, I want to add a statement and would like to hear your comment about it:

If I'm for the death penalty, I am also for abortion; they're both the taking of lives.


That's such a huge can of worms and would take this thread so far off course from the original intent that I'd rather not comment on it other than I'm for both. It would be too big of a hijack.

[SaroDarksbane]

Against.

Death as opposed to life with a cell mate named Bubba? Lock that sucker up forever. :D

[Suicidal Zebra]

Against.

There is no true way of being able to determine guilt in 100% of cases, and I am not willing to have the execution of an innocent man on my conscience.

[Anakha1]

Against.

There is no true way of being able to determine guilt in 100% of cases, and I am not willing to have the execution of an innocent man on my conscience.

Video tape of a guy shooting someone to death is a pretty clear %100 guilt. There are lots of instances where %100 guilt is assured.

[Ash Housewares]

parole seems to be too frequently an option

pro

[Suicidal Zebra]

Video tape of a guy shooting someone to death is a pretty clear %100 guilt. There are lots of instances where %100 guilt is assured.

Tapes can be faked. Easily. And nor does a tape alone take any mitigating circumstances into account, e.g. self defense, mental health problems and a multitude of others.

But beyond that, not all cases will have such compelling evidence. Is it 'Just' to sentence one person to death and another to life because a difference in evidence rather than a difference in the crime itself? Personally, I think not.

Further, if the death penalty was re-instituted nationwide there would be a huge push by certain groups to have it extended to other crimes, and I worry the effect that that would have on the nation as a whole.

[Sergeant]

Unless you do it Soviet Union style, which means a bullet to the back of the neck behind the prison and a bill for the cost of the bullet to the family. It's the countless appeals that makes it so expensive. They should be allowed one appeal, that's it. Beyond that, it's just paperwork that costs money. It's a total waste the way we do it.

I'm good with either death penalty or locking him in a dark box with no human contact for the rest of his life. Either works.

You and I both man. I'm for due process. If the person is sentenced to death, they get one appeal, ONE. After that they either win the appeal or lose.

It's when we waste money and time on appeal after appeal and spend 10-20 years wasting time on someone who went through the system of justice and was found guilty.

Personally, I am completely for it. I'm for it in all cases involving the illegal and intentional taking of life. Accidentally killing someone isn't a death penalty crime in my opinion. That means I'm for the death penalty when someone kills an unborn child, no matter the stage of development (there are exceptions to this one). That's why I'm also against abortion.

Here's your why. I believe in being subject to governements and the rule of law. I believe in justice. To me, when you take a life, the appropriate punishment is that you forfeit your own. I'm still speaking about murder here.

[DurfBarian]

YPersonally, I am completely for it. I'm for it in all cases involving the illegal and intentional taking of life. Accidentally killing someone isn't a death penalty crime in my opinion. That means I'm for the death penalty when someone kills an unborn child, no matter the stage of development (there are exceptions to this one). That's why I'm also against abortion.
I have no desire to turn this into an abortion thread, but I'd like to know whether you would levy the death penalty on the (previously) pregnant woman or the doctor carrying out the procedure in this case.

[Sergeant]

I have no desire to turn this into an abortion thread, but I'd like to know whether you would levy the death penalty on the (previously) pregnant woman or the doctor carrying out the procedure in this case.

Good question. It's hard to say isn't it? The woman is the one who chooses to have the abortion but the doctor is the one who ends the life. I guess in that scenario, it would have to be the doctor. Cause as far as I know, no doctor is obligated or forced to end a pregnancy.

I guess I really didn't think my opinion through on that specific scenario. That'd be a tough one to legislate. I guess it could be made easier by outlawing abortion. Then whoever actually kills the baby, ends the life, is the guilty one. If the doctor did it, he gets the hot shot in the arm and the mom gets a long time in prison.

Now, this isn't taking into account the exceptions I said existed. In cases of ****, incest or danger to the mother's life, I support the woman's right to end a pregnancy after a thorough consult with a competent professional and some serious soul searching. Obviously a law can't force someone to "soul search" but ending a life ought to get more thought than "am I following the law?"

[thejdawg2]

Justice is subjective. To many people taking the life of a rapist or murderer is quite just. And again, the right to take a life is what the government and society says it is. It too is subjective.
I am aware. However, it is not something I personally agree with.

[Raistlin Majere]

Against.

Death as opposed to life with a cell mate named Bubba? Lock that sucker up forever. :D
at that case, I would be begging for a death sentence.

I have pondered this several times, what if that dude who just got out was executed. what would this lead too? hell, if he was killed, would someone have even bothered to check the evidence at all? :scratch:

[Xenon[XoA]]

May be a slightly cynical PoV, but I'm for it.
Why? There's too many of us on this planet.
Also, it'd be cheaper if they sped up the process. Like someone mentioned, 1-2 appeals. None of this *injection* stuff. Guilty? <Judge takes out gun> Kapow!

Hey, they could even air the trials on TV or something. New reality tv.

[MixedVariety]

Against.
Because of what SZ said, for one thing; there is a chance, no matter how infinitesmal, that the guilty party is not really guilty.
There is no doubt in my mind that there are criminals who deserve death. The problem I have with it is, it seems to me that whoever pulls the switch, the trigger, what have you, is committing murder. Lowering themselves, for whatever reason, to committing as horrible a crime as the accused. Nothing can take away the fact that they, themselves, have taken another human life, justified or no. In a fit of passion, I could to it, and would regret it afterward. Cold-bloodedly, just doing a job? Never.

[AeroJonesy]

I'd have to say I'm against it, for the moment, because of the cost thing. The only thing these criminals are to most of society, is a tax burden.

Morally, I'm still undecided. First, there's worry that the person may be innocent. Second, I don't know if it's right for a man-imposed system to determine who lives and who dies. But at the same time, it doesn't seem fair that someone can be responsible for plotting to kill, then killing, and sometimes even feeling no remorse after the fact, and then stay alive after taking someone else's life.

[llad12]

Against the death penalty

It is wrong to kill.

It is wrong when the criminal does it.

It is wrong when the State does it.

[Damascus]

Against it. It's really icky to kill someone .

[Yaboosh]

Anakha, don't try to make yourself feel better about the death penalty by adding "when there is absolutely no doubt that he did it". You KNOW that there is no such criteria for guilt. It is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is approximately 95% sure, NOT 100% sure. You have the death penalty and you will have mistakes. If you can't live with that then you need to reassess your feelings. If you can, fine. Also, if you can live with the racial disparity in death penalty sentencing. Blacks are sent to death row more often than whites.

But hey, if that is cool with you, then that is fine. But I just don't like seeing people give these unrealistic qualifications such as "as long as he is 100% guilty", because that doesn't happen.

[jimmyboy]

Corax, Anaka1, AstralDragon and Seargent brought up one good point that I see reoccuring in every pro-death penalty argument.

That is the death penalty represents LEGAL RETRIBUTION. It is the ability for the family of the victims to strike back, which helps with the healing process. The other arguments from cost to deterent seems to be just a bonus.

For all the anti-death folks, how do you feel about this? Wouldn't you want the same if you lose a love one to a crime?

[Isolde212]

Corax, Anaka1, AstralDragon and Seargent brought up one good point that I see reoccuring in every pro-death penalty argument.

That is the death penalty represents LEGAL RETRIBUTION. It is the ability for the family of the victims to strike back, which helps with the healing process. The other arguments from cost to deterent seems to be just a bonus.

For all the anti-death folks, how do you feel about this? Wouldn't you want the same if you lose a love one to a crime?

As I said before, what will killing someone else do for me? It won't bring the victim back. It's not going to give me any closure except for the fact that he's dead. Justice is very objective. I would feel justice knowing that the person responsible is behind bars and won't hurt anyone ever again. Others might feel differently.

[tactik]

I'm againts it. Why? Because death is actually a release from the torment I think going to jail is. I say: " Let them rot in jail before they rot in hell!".

[Yaboosh]

I am willing to wager that the people in jail now for life will gladly stay with their life sentence as opposed to being put to death.

[Raistlin Majere]

Corax, Anaka1, AstralDragon and Seargent brought up one good point that I see reoccuring in every pro-death penalty argument.

That is the death penalty represents LEGAL RETRIBUTION. It is the ability for the family of the victims to strike back, which helps with the healing process. The other arguments from cost to deterent seems to be just a bonus.
Striking back is a healing process? if anything, in my mind they are just as sick and evil as the killer then.


For all the anti-death folks, how do you feel about this? Wouldn't you want the same if you lose a love one to a crime?
No, not at all, sure I would feel the impulse and it might feel good at first, but on the long term run I feel I would hate myself for sinking to their level.

[Anakha1]

Striking back is a healing process? if anything, in my mind they are just as sick and evil as the killer then.

Actually revenge can be quite healing. People want justice and to some justice means eye for an eye. They want to know retribution has been done. Otherwise, why not just let the killer go? Justice always has some form of retribution.

[Anakha1]

Anakha, don't try to make yourself feel better about the death penalty by adding "when there is absolutely no doubt that he did it". You KNOW that there is no such criteria for guilt. It is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is approximately 95% sure, NOT 100% sure. You have the death penalty and you will have mistakes. If you can't live with that then you need to reassess your feelings. If you can, fine. Also, if you can live with the racial disparity in death penalty sentencing. Blacks are sent to death row more often than whites.

But hey, if that is cool with you, then that is fine. But I just don't like seeing people give these unrealistic qualifications such as "as long as he is 100% guilty", because that doesn't happen.

It does happen. Irrefutable proof is a pretty good assessment. It may not happen often, but it does happen. The legal requirement is that it's beyond a reasonable doubt, but there are some instances where there is no doubt at all. My point was that the death penalty should be acceptable but the level of certainty should be higher than that for a prison sentence.

And blacks are sent to death row more because a) blacks commit more crime and b) death penalties are given often by juries and juries are often white. I think death penalties should be given by judges.

Like I said, I don't have a problem if he rots in a hole with no human contact for the rest of his miserable life. I just don't have a problem with the death penalty.

[spudboy]

I work for the Michigan Department of Corrections. There is no death penalty in our state although there has been recent talk of it in our legislature. I will reserve my personal feelings on the subject as work rules prevent me from representing anything other than the "Department" POV. Look at these numbers from the end of 2000 and get a better understanding of the economic as well as statistical information involved with this discussion:

Some facts about Michigan Prisoners (end of 2000 - most recent I could dig up)
Population make up: 96% Male - 4% Female
Average age: 35
Race: 54.5% Black, 42% White, 3.5% American Indian, Asian, Hispanic.
Assaultive Offenders: 62%
Drug use before incarceration: 64%
Reported not to have finished High School before incarceration: 50%
Serving first prison term: 62%
Level of incarceration (higher is more secure)
CRP (Electronic monitoring & community programs) 4%
Level I: 33.2%
Level II: 31.6%
Level III: 5.6%
Level IV: 10.7%
Level V: 3.8%
Level VI: 0% (usually housed in Admin. Segregation)
Ad. Seg: 3.8%

Average term of minimum sentence: 8 years
34% of prisoners were serving sentences of 10 years or more.

Prisoner population: 45,715
New commitments: 8,914
Paroles Granted: 10,468
Prisoner Deaths:
Homicide: 1
Suicide: 3
Natural: 88
Parolees: 13,132
Probationers: 50,717
Sex Offenders: 10,873
LIFERS: 4311
total # of offenders monitored by MDOC: 112,479

Budget: $1.6 BILLION DOLLARS!!
that was 15.4% of State General Revenue
30% of the State workforce were correction employees
Yearly cost per prisoner:
Level I: $16,584
Level II: $20,131
Level III: $22,114
Level IV: $34,732
Max (V & VI): $33,946
Boot camp: $26,136
Electronic Monitoring: $6,486
Parole/Probation Supervision: $1,600

[dirkdig]

The current chance of executing an innocent man is between 6 and 9 %. What would be the acceptable rate for you, if there is one.
nice made up statistic, given that we've not executed a single innocent since we reinstated the death penalty... So in fact the real "chance" to execute an innocent man right now is 0%.
many have been CONVICTED to die, yet got off on technicalities, so in fact were never executed. I'd be willing to bet that many of these "innocents" are legally innocent rather than factually innocent anyways, meaning that they're getting off on technicalities, misfiled paperwork or unreliable testimony rather than some proof that they actually didn't do it.

We're also not really executing many people for first time offenses. Usually prosecutors only go for the death penalty for second time offenders or worse, the only exceptions being for particularly heinous crimes. So even if your 6-9% was valid, when they're convicted of 3-5 violent crimes before being sentenced to death, that makes it (.09)^3-(.06)^5, or .07%-.000004% chance that they are actually an innocent PERSON, even if they're innocent of the particular crime.

Makes all this debate sound pretty silly to me, I say we kill the bastards.

[Yaboosh]

This debate IS silly, but only because there is very little factual basis to argue upon. It is all ones personal beliefs of whether or not it should be legal or illegal. This is what makes this debate so wholly uninteresting.

[Ash Housewares]

As I said before, what will killing someone else do for me? It won't bring the victim back. It's not going to give me any closure except for the fact that he's dead. Justice is very objective. I would feel justice knowing that the person responsible is behind bars and won't hurt anyone ever again. Others might feel differently.

thats how I feel, to kill a prisoner solely on vindictive hate or desire for catharsis is not something I would approve of

my concern was that dangerous criminals are too easily let back onto the streets, if the dangerous criminals were incarcerated lifelong, without chance of parole (obviously subject to their crime) then I would see no reason for the death penalty as it's only function IMHO is to prevent the condemned from further crime

[DrunkPotHead]

I think the best deterrent is torture. And recently, i figured out a torture more heinous than physical torture: Tie a person up and feed him LSD for the rest of his life. That is so horrible that no mind can withstand that.

Back to reality: I am usually against the death penalty, becase i am anti-government. The less power the government has, the better.

[eds01]

Im against, mostly because of the chance you could kill an innocent person. if they're in jail and are proven innocent, they can go back into society, if theyre dead, you can only say "oops." also, can you amagin being in the jury that sentenced an innocent man to death? that must be realy hard, knowing you killed an innocent person.

yaboosh: is that alton brown in your avatar, or is it just me?

[spudboy]

More fuel for the fire.....

The Michigan Department Of Corrections recently had a situation which resulted in an inmate being released before he was actually eligible for parole (clerical error). I know the people involved in the mistake extremely well and they were almost inconsolable since it caused a LOT of trouble for this Department and the Governor of our state, but more importantly the individual released killed someone when he was released (just as he had promised he would). I must remind you all that there is NO death penalty in my state, so what was the deterent to this individuals actions? Certainly not the prospect of returning to prison....

[Ikeren]

Debates with little to no factual evidence to go on, ones on beliefs, I feel, are often the best. Nobody can refute a set statistic, they can just work around the fact that 100% of murders were not suicides (That's just an example).

Anyways. 1 thing.

It is wrong to kill people who kill people to show that it is wrong to kill people.
Think about it. We are saying "Killing people is wrong" by Killing people who kill people.

[DrunkPotHead]

Debates with little to no factual evidence to go on, ones on beliefs, I feel, are often the best. Nobody can refute a set statistic, they can just work around the fact that 100% of murders were not suicides (That's just an example).

Anyways. 1 thing.

It is wrong to kill people who kill people to show that it is wrong to kill people.
Think about it. We are saying "Killing people is wrong" by Killing people who kill people.
Kinda reminds me of: "To get rid of guns, we must shoot all the people that have them."

[Deathwing]

nice made up statistic, given that we've not executed a single innocent since we reinstated the death penalty...


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=111#executed

Idiot. You could have used Google for 10 seconds and proved yourself wrong. by any chance are you that psycho who said he wanted to join the marines so he could kill people?

There are never any cases that have no doubt at all. You can't even think that as long as there are cops who beat people until they sign confessions, for example.

[jimmyboy]

nice made up statistic, given that we've not executed a single innocent since we reinstated the death penalty... So in fact the real "chance" to execute an innocent man right now is 0%.
many have been CONVICTED to die, yet got off on technicalities, so in fact were never executed. I'd be willing to bet that many of these "innocents" are legally innocent rather than factually innocent anyways, meaning that they're getting off on technicalities, misfiled paperwork or unreliable testimony rather than some proof that they actually didn't do it.

We're also not really executing many people for first time offenses. Usually prosecutors only go for the death penalty for second time offenders or worse, the only exceptions being for particularly heinous crimes. So even if your 6-9% was valid, when they're convicted of 3-5 violent crimes before being sentenced to death, that makes it (.09)^3-(.06)^5, or .07%-.000004% chance that they are actually an innocent PERSON, even if they're innocent of the particular crime.

Makes all this debate sound pretty silly to me, I say we kill the bastards.

I was wondering where you got your information from. I won't refute it. I just wanted to read the information to determine if my information was incorrect.

[jimmyboy]

It does happen. Irrefutable proof is a pretty good assessment. It may not happen often, but it does happen. The legal requirement is that it's beyond a reasonable doubt, but there are some instances where there is no doubt at all. My point was that the death penalty should be acceptable but the level of certainty should be higher than that for a prison sentence.

And blacks are sent to death row more because a) blacks commit more crime and b) death penalties are given often by juries and juries are often white. I think death penalties should be given by judges.

Like I said, I don't have a problem if he rots in a hole with no human contact for the rest of his miserable life. I just don't have a problem with the death penalty.

I'd agree that blacks commit more crimes. But I can't figure out why blacks are three times more likely to receive the death penalty for the same crime as a white person. I suppose that one can argue that blacks are morely likely to be repeated offenders which would make them meet the death penalty test of being a future threat to society. However, all reports omits this possibility, to I am inclined to not believe this explanation.

In addition to the jury being mostly white, everyone in the court room is non-black from the jury to the judge to the bailiff to both district attorney and defense attorney to the court reporter. That is pretty intimidating to a black defendant.

[fiend!]

Pro for murderers where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt. Rapists, too.

So if there is a murderer in jail, but it isn't 100% certain, then you disapprove of the death penalty? If that's the case then it would seem unfair to jail the accused.

I support the death penalty. It's not really a deterrent, but it does save "innocent" lives while ridding the world of something evil.

edit, jimmy afro-americans are more likely to receive the death penalty because there is still some prejudice out there, right?

[jimmyboy]

More fuel for the fire.....

The Michigan Department Of Corrections recently had a situation which resulted in an inmate being released before he was actually eligible for parole (clerical error). I know the people involved in the mistake extremely well and they were almost inconsolable since it caused a LOT of trouble for this Department and the Governor of our state, but more importantly the individual released killed someone when he was released (just as he had promised he would). I must remind you all that there is NO death penalty in my state, so what was the deterent to this individuals actions? Certainly not the prospect of returning to prison....

The problem is that the fact that this convict was given a prison sentence with parole shows that he committed a crime insufficiently serious to warrant a death penalty even if there was one in Michigan. So a valid death penalty couldn't have taken him off the streets.

Do you think that the possibility of a death penalty may have deter this criminal from murder once he was released?

[jimmyboy]

edit, jimmy afro-americans are more likely to receive the death penalty because there is still some prejudice out there, right?

I'm unsure if it is truely prejudice or whether it's easier to kill a person we have had less association with. It's natural for a person to have more compassion with if he's more like you. One of such measure is his skin color.

So it may be possible that the disparity of blacks and whites on death row may be caused by the fact that it's harder for a white jury to kill a white man. It may be cause by compassion for the common man rather than hatred for the black man.

Of course this fails to explain why there are often all white juries for a black man on death row.

I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Anakha1]

So if there is a murderer in jail, but it isn't 100% certain, then you disapprove of the death penalty? If that's the case then it would seem unfair to jail the accused.

I don't see why it's unfair. If there's a chance that he didn't do it, the justice system isn't perfect and it does make mistakes, he shouldn't be sentenced to death. There should be a higher requirement for proof to sentence one to death.

If it is for certain, however, like multiple corroborating witnesses (ie shot up a public place, etc) or video camera (video surveillance works) of the crime in progress execute the bastard.

And none of this humane execution crap. Bullet. Neck. Hole.


Edit: And yes, my point about black men being more likely to be sentenced to death was based on the fact that people are inherently prejudiced. There are more black men up for trial than whites because black men commit more crimes and there is a higher ratio of black men sentenced to death for similar crimes because juries and courts feel less compassion for people of different races.

[spudboy]

The problem is that the fact that this convict was given a prison sentence with parole shows that he committed a crime insufficiently serious to warrant a death penalty even if there was one in Michigan. So a valid death penalty couldn't have taken him off the streets.

Do you think that the possibility of a death penalty may have deter this criminal from murder once he was released?

The History of this individual was a LONG and familiar one:

1993 convicted of Multiple Controlled substances violations
Sentenced to 1 to 20 years & 6months to 6 years (served 6 years)

1995 convicted of 4th Habitual - Escape Prison
Sentenced to 1 to 15 years (served 3 years)

1998 convicted of Multiple Controlled substances violations
Sentenced to 2 1/2 to 30 years
(erroneously paroled due to changes in drug laws in 2004)

5/2004 convicted of 4th Habitual Murder 1st degree
sentenced to LIFE (x 3)

This individual killed his family (except for his daughter) upon release. It is difficult for me to imagine ANY circumstances which would drive me to murder my family, but I will say that if it were to be my intent, then NO LAW would be a deterent since I don't think I could live with myself after the act.

The whole point of this thread in my opinion is to fathom the depths of our morals, not determine whether the death penalty is an effective deterent to crime. Violators sometimes DO NOT CARE what the repercussions of their actions are (hindsight being 20-20). The job of the Department of Corrections is to protect the public from those individuals that the court system (read - society) has determined to be a threat to society. Occasionally, we fail in that mission because you cannot know the motives of everyone nor can you control the actions of people all of the time. The death penalty is a "final solution" to the control of those people judged by society to be unredeemable; for those with no hope of ever being rehabilitated or who have committed a crime so horrific that only the most severe of penalty will serve to deter people from repeating such actions. Unfortunately, most people are blissfully ignorant of the facts behind most of the people who are to be executed (or already have been). In a lawful society there will always be a need for penalties for those who choose to harm others. I wish there was some way to reprogram all of the faulty carbon units walking the earth today, but there isn't. It is sad to me that this individual has spent a lifetime in pursuits deemed unacceptable by society and therefore ultimately forfeiting his freedom. I am certain that when he was a little boy it was never even a consideration to grow up and become a mass murderer (of the very people that he at one time had to love). In our system of penaties he will have to live out the rest of his days with the knowledge and memories of his actions which have lead to his circumstances in life. There will be no more freedom for him - there is no way of redeeming his life. He is from that fateful day a burden to society and guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Will the continued incarceration of this individual bring back his victims? No - no more so than the termination of his life would. From the economic standpoint, would all of the legal wrangling be worth removing the burden of warehousing this individual from society? So far, my State has determined that we are willing to incur the cost of holding convicted LIFER criminals for the balance of their lifetimes. The moral of this story is to think before you act my friends and failing that, be sure that you err in a state (or country) that doesn't have the death penalty.

[mysnistaken]

death is too quick a punishment

[AeroJonesy]

For those that think it's not going to give a sense of satisfaction:

There was a story in Columbus a year or two ago that has stuck with me ever since I first heard it. There was a guy whose daughter was ***** and murdered. They found the man responsible and threw him in jail. While in jair, one of the other inmates heard what this guy was in for. The other inmate thought it was so terrible and disgusting, he murdered the child rapist. Later in the news, they had the little girl's father publicly thanking the murdering inmate for finally carrying out justice.

[th5418]

I am against the death penalty. First off, I'd like the guy to be in jail and be there for the rest of his life. I don't want him to die so quickly. I know he won't reflect or anything like that but I'd want him to suffer. Also, there are cases where they find out that the person who got put to death wasn't actually the murderer.

[Choogy]

I believe some cases should go to the death penalty. And some should just let them rot. And the victim's family should have say in what happens...not to say that they decide the fate, but that their wishes could be heard atleast. Some families, even after losing a family member, still are against the death penalty. As for me? I believe in certain cases it is a good idea.