Capital Punishment

J

jadedskies

Part Of The Furniture
PF Member
Now, on my last forum, debates on debatable issues were commonplace in a particular forum, and it was one of the things I enjoyed most.

So I figure this'd be the best place to put it...

What's everyone think about Capital Punishment?
 
I'm going to move this to government/politics. It seems more like a political thing. If I'm wrong it can be moved back. It's definitely not a rant though...

But what do I think of it? You killed someone, so you should die too.

----------------------------
"No man can be condemed for owning a dog.
As long as he has a dog, he has a friend;
and the poorer he gets, the better friend he has."

- Will Rogers
 
Sure,

I'm all for capital punishement provided there are safeguards such as 2+ witnesses and no excluded class of persons.

They can begin with the sharpshooter that shot Vicky Weaver right between her eyes as she stood in the door of her cabin at Ruby Ridge, Idaho with her ten-month-old child, Elisheba in her arms and get off with no punishment whatsoever. He probably got a medal for his "courage & excellent performance"
http://www.ruby-ridge.com/gspence.htm

Next we can move on to the responsible parties who burned, gassed and shot to death 80 Men, Women & Children (21 children under 16, including twelve younger than five) in Waco, Texas and then proceeded to raise the BATF departmental flag on the flagpole on the property, as if making some sort of victorious rejoiceful statement.
I hope Janet "The Butcher of Waco" Reno dreams about those children screaming as they took their last painful flame engulfed breaths.
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/waco.html

Noone should EVER be executed based solely on circumstantial evidence, there must be multiple witnesses.

----------------------------
Regards,

Pyroxy

Is it time for another Tea Party?
 
Thanks for moving it. I only put it in Rants cause I had no idea which thread to put it in.

My view is in agreeance with all of the previous posts.
For murder, capital punishment should be implemented much more often. I don't know about the US, but here, we've had a string of murderers get off with only a couple of years in prison. It's ridiculous. I also think that capital punishment should be implemented for rape, and some other crimes which deserve it that don't come to mind at this moment.
 
lol.gif
, liltaz probably knew your post would ignite another of my extreme replies. I hope if you are not familiar with the accounts of the incidents I refer to that you read them.

Your post is greatly welcomed here.

----------------------------
Regards,

Pyroxy

Is it time for another Tea Party? Hell YES it is!
 
I agree with Taz on this one. If you don't show mercy to your victim (and, um, if you kill them, that's not mercy), no mercy should be shown to you.

I'd actually like to see murderers be executed in the exact same way they killed their victims, but that would never happen. If nothing else, it would traumatize the executioners even more so than they already are.

Hmmm, maybe we should draft convicted murderers to be the executioners...at least we know their consciences won't bother them.
 
Another way of saying this is the Death Penalty right?
Okay, well, I'm not against it nor am I for it. I think it just is. I think if people kill a number of people, then I for one think they should be killed themselves.
Also, I believe that everyone has a right to their life, even if they do kill others.
Therefor, I'm stuck in-between because it's wrong to kill, yet it's your right to have your own life!

----------------------------
This has been a post from Trumpet Spectacular! You should feel very honored that you have the chance to read it!
 
I too really sit on the fence on this now.
Up until about a month ago, I was fervently for the death penalty, when I read a post in a similar debate on my last forum by a friend of mine who'd been abused as a child. It really changed my views.
 
I'm with hermanm on this. I think that as soon as they're convicted, as long as the conviction wasn't made based upon circumstantial evidence, they be marched out of the courtroom and killed in the exact manner they killed their victims. Why should we have to pay for them to sit in a jail cell for another 10+ years and appeal when their victims didn't get any chance of appeal.

----------------------------
"No man can be condemed for owning a dog.
As long as he has a dog, he has a friend;
and the poorer he gets, the better friend he has."

- Will Rogers
 
I did a peice on this subject on my home page (www.socialbaggage.com) just a few days ago. Here's what I had to say...

I am for capitol punishment. In fact, I think it should be used more and in a swifter manner. The death penalty serves as a deterrent to violent crime. When we say to people, "If you murder someone in the United States, you will be sentenced to die," they may reconsider their actions. I know it doesn't work that way for everybody. However, it helps create a more responsible society.

Part of the reason we see so much violence today (especially in our young people) is because people don't see a consequence to their actions. Criminals get off on technicalities, and those who don't usually sit in prison for years (on our tax dollars) awaiting their sentence. Hey, free food, room and board and cable TV sound pretty good to some.

I believe a person sentenced to death should automatically get one appeal unless they confess to the crime. That would save innocent people who were wrongly convicted. If they loose that appeal, they should get one month (behind bars) to settle their affairs with family. Then they should be hanged from the neck until dead in the public square.

This may sound cruel to some, but think of the people who were murdered by these criminals. Some were raped, beaten, tortured, abused, held captive and more. I have a friend whose sister was beaten to death with a hammer by her husband. This man still sits in prison while my tax dollars pay for it. How bold do you think some of these people would be if they saw one guilty man dangling from a rope on the town square?
Click to expand...

I'd like to add the following comments:

  • Several people made a good point about two witnesses. I think DNA evidence could also be a criteria. It often tells the story better than any other witness to the crime.
  • I am also for castration of multiple sex offenders (especially child molesters
    reddevil.gif
    ). If we cut their 'thing' off, they aren't going to do it again.


----------------------------
Romans 12:11 "Never be lacking in zeal."
 
I'm pretty strongly against capital punishement for a couple of reasons:

1. If we as a society put one person to death when they didn't deserve it, we are all guilty of murder. People (defending attornies, witnesses, DAs) make mistakes and can be easily swayed by the emotions involved. Since DNA testing came into play 55 death row or life sentence convictions have been overturned.

2. Capital punishment is, in a lot of cases, reserved for the most heinous and horrible crimes. When a person is put to death by lethal injection their deaths are swift and painless. They generally do not suffer. I do not believe that that's justice.

Making a person spend the rest of their life in jail paying for their crimes (and working for the state in most cases) gives a person time to think long and hard about what happened to them; a chance to pay back some debt to society.

3. There's no evidence that it works as a deterrent. Comparing states that have the death penalty to states that don't, and comparing murder rates in states that went from not having the death penalty to having it, numbers indicate no change. In some states (Virginia and Florida) there is evidence that the opposite happens, that there's an increase in the murder rate.

Sandwiching all of this is the fact that we have a judicial system that has a huge bias towards the rich. It's no accident that 92% of the people currently on death row are black or hispanic. 99% had little or no money to defend themselves with. This makes me feel like I live in some kind of Nazi state, and makes death row seem like a concentration camp.

If we fixed the system so that we could be sure that 100% of the people who went to the chair were 100% guilty, and if we had proof that the system works, I'd consider it.

Otherwise, I feel like we have blood on our hands and I hope that I won't have to answer for it someday.
 
True, but you said that with DNA testing, several death row cases had been overturned. But with DNA testing, then it should be possible to find out beyond doubt who committed a crime, and then execute them.

You also said that having a prisoner in jail benefits the state. It does not. The cost of maintaining a single prisoner in prison for a year is ridiculously high.
 
Originally posted by PsychoticIckyThing:
True, but you said that with DNA testing, several death row cases had been overturned. But with DNA testing, then it should be possible to find out beyond doubt who committed a crime, and then execute them.
Click to expand...
Even DNA testing isn't 100%. There are cases involving family members whose DNA is too similar (not just twins), cases where there is not enough DNA for a sample, and cases where the accused person's DNA may be present but it's not proof of guilt.

I brought up DNA to prove that there are 55 innocent people who were convicted by a jury of their peers to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If those 55 people were put to death, that would have been murder.

It's also worth noting that a lot of states refuse to use DNA testing. On the surface they say because it's too expensive, but many critics think that it would let a lot of innocent people out of jail.

You also said that having a prisoner in jail benefits the state. It does not. The cost of maintaining a single prisoner in prison for a year is ridiculously high.
Click to expand...

True. The benefits I was talking about weren't monetary. Without question, it is more expensive to keep someone in jail then it is to kill him. The benefits I was talking about involve looking at the things you can do with a living person rather than a corpse.

You can study and learn from a living person. That living person, even if guilty, may provide insight into criminals (how they work, what they think, etc.) that can work to prevent crime. And may have knnowledge useful in specific investigations.

A corpse isn't good to anybody.

But while we're talking about money, you should note that the criminal proceedings are always ridiculously high (judges, cops, and D.A.s need to eat too; even when people don't get prosecuted), but a death penalty case costs an average of 70 times more money than a life sentence proceedings. In all states (even Texas) it requires a much higher level of scrutinization, trial process, legal time, appeal time, etc. In some states, a person would have to live in jail 60 years before it became more expensive than a death penalty trial.

<font color="#000000">[Edited by DanCasey.com on October 24, 2000 (edited 1 time)]</font>
 
1. I don't believe that capital punishment is a deterent. Certainly not a significant one.

2. Capital Punishmnent costs the government more money due to appeals etc. than life imprisonment in most cases.

3. Judges, lawyers witnesses and scientists are human (unless maybe Alien it was Alien
smile.gif
) and therefore fallible. Sure DNA tests are pretty good, but they can be run improperly or maliciously. What if a bad cop planted the DNA etc.

4. More non-whites are on death row than are whites by a signifacant amount. Since there are more whites in country this goes against the law of averages and therfore shows a biased system. Yes. it is just as biased for non-capital crimes, but it is much more of a wrong to put someone to death than to imprison them since that can never be overturned. The system needs modification and "permanent punishment" is difficult to modify.

5. Personally I think that the death penalty is "cruel or unusual." Or more specifically cruel. Forcing someone to live with the knowledge of their impending death can only be called cruel. Sure, they may have done something like that in their crime, but the US gov't shouldn't be in the business of revenge or "an eye for and eye" etc.

6. I see no possible advantage to the death penalty extecpt for the warm, happy feeling it gives to the victim(s)'s family(ies). I have to admit I would probably call for vengeance if a family member was killed etc., but I don't think that the death of the assailant would make the bad feeling go away. Nothing would ever bring the person back so how much better would life be one way or the other. Even if I changed my mind on the issue in a time of grief that still would not make it right. Point 6 has begun to meander and lose any point at all so I will end here maybe I'll add more later if something pops in my head.

(These are primarily my opinions only. I have seen numbers that suggest capital punishment is not a deterrent, but don't have them on hand. nor do I currently have the time for a lot of research on this topic. So bear that in mind.)

----------------------------
my eyes, the goggles do nothing

<font color="#000000">[Edited by jourgenson on October 24, 2000 (edited 1 time)]</font>
 
I would disagree with your statement that the system is biased. I wouldn't say that black people get injustice from the system. However, I believe they are more likely to end up in death row because of being awfully poor, rather than because they're black.
 
Of course. You are agreeing with me. Minorities (not only African-Americans) tend in the U.S. to have less money which gives them lesser legal defense and then causes more convictions. So you have essentially proven my argument for me. Not to say that there aren't racist judges and juries, but it is primarily a money issue as our friend O.J. has shown (although I case isn't scientifically significant).

Economic bias is just as bad as any other kind.

----------------------------
my eyes, the goggles do nothing
 
True, but it's the way the legal system works. Whether we're talking about the US, Australia, or Burkina Faso, if you're in the courts, money talks.
 
Maybe, but since the system is biased and therefore guilty people can sometimes get off and innocent people can be found guilty due to a skin tone or money, we shouldn't have sentences that cannot be fixed in the future, such as death.

----------------------------
my eyes, the goggles do nothing

<font color="#000000">[Edited by jourgenson on October 24, 2000 (edited 1 time)]</font>
 
I didn't say that.
I said that guilty, rich people get off.
Innocent, poor people get off.
Guilty, poor people, go to prison.

Edited to say: (In theory, anyway)

<font color="#000000">[Edited by PsychoticIckyThing on October 25, 2000 (edited 1 time)]</font>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top