Death penalty: For or against?

[RocketMan]

You are focused on "what if we are wrong?" instead of what brings justice to the victims? 

"We executed an innocent man?  Well, sucks to be him."

The justice system is flawed because it is comprised of human beings trying to administer justice.  It will never be perfect, because human beings are flawed.
In the mean time, I suppose we will just have to go on executing the occasional innocent person.  At least we mean well...

[seeker_two]

For it with compelling evidence and the following stipulations:

1. Compelling, no-reasonable-doubt evidence = DNA, video, confession, etc.

2. Individual or multiple prison sentences equalling more than 20 years without parole automatically become death sentences.....life w/o parole is cruel to the prisioner and a drain on society's resources.

3. Executions are carried out within two calendar years from the initial sentence....only SCOTUS can rule a stay or delay...and only up to 90 calendar days...then either free them or fry them.....

[vaskidmark]

I voted "No, under any circumstances."

My reason for that vote has nothing to do with religion, morality, the effectivness of forensic science, or "closure" for the relatives/close friends/absolute strangers to the victim(s) of the convicted defendant.

I voted NO for three simple reasons:

1) although the death penalty is an absolute deterrant as regards the recently departed, it is useless in preventing anyone else from commiting a similar crime.  Therefore, it is merely revenge carried out by the state.  Any sort of revenge that does not make the object of such revenge suffer long and hard to the point of forever wishing they had never committed whatever crime it was is not, in my very considered opinion, useful to society or the the object ofthe revenge.

2) as our current system operates, those under a death sentance get at least 1 automatic appeal, and may end up with numerous appeals.  All of these appeals take time and cost money.  Since the convictred defendant usually does not have sufficient funds to mount their appeal, the state (me and you) end up paying for it.

3) If the death penalty had any meaning, it was because at one time it was swift, sure, and certain (see #1 above), and it was carried out in public (again, see #1 above).  Now, executions are usually so far removed in time from the conviction (average time on death row = ~17 years) that the media must remind us who the person to be executed is and what their crime was.  If the public's long-term memory cannot span much beyond the commercial breaks, how can executing someone years afterwards, have any meaning except to the object of the exercise?

For me, the bottom line is exactly that - the bottom line   Incarcerating someone for 45 years @ $27K/yr = $1,215,000.  The average cost of death penalty appeals is ~$5,000,000 (not counting the cost of incarceration).  It's just cheaper to keep them locked up.

There is a chance that they could have their sentence commuted, or be pardoned.  But the odds of that happening in the first 20 or so years is small.  I'm willing to take the risk to save the $3.7+ million.

All this from someone who spent almost 20 years working in the prison system, including with inmates on death row.

stay safe.

skidmark

[wmenorr67]

The automatic appeal process can be streamlined.  The appeals court looks to see if any errors were made at trail and if anyone else could have committed the crime.  If both answers are no then carry on the execution.

[vaskidmark]

The automatic appeal process can be streamlined.  The appeals court looks to see if any errors were made at trail and if anyone else could have committed the crime.  If both answers are no then carry on the execution.

It's not the automatic appeal that delays the execution - it's all the appeals that drag on afterwards.

Right now our system permits those appeals, and I've never been convinced I would want to eliminate that.

stay safe.

skidmark

[wmenorr67]

There shouldn't be appeals just for the sake of an appeal.

[MechAg94]

You are focused on "what if we are wrong?" instead of what brings justice to the victims? 

"We executed an innocent man?  Well, sucks to be him."

The justice system is flawed because it is comprised of human beings trying to administer justice.  It will never be perfect, because human beings are flawed.
In the mean time, I suppose we will just have to go on executing the occasional innocent person.  At least we mean well...

"We imprisoned an innocent man?  Well, sucks to be him."
Does that really sound better? 

If you think the system is flawed enough that we can't execute criminals after many appeals and reviews, how can you justify any punishment?  Especially when cases of imprisonment are often appealed very little. 

[Werewolf]

I've been pro DP for most of my life. Lately I've been unsure of that stand and that is how I answered the poll but after reading thru this thread twice I find that pro is the way to go.

Premises:
1. Self-defense is a natural right. Quite often self-defense means killing a threat because that is sometimes the only way to eliminate a threat.

2. Man is a social animal. He evolved as a social animal. The long term (and probably even the short term) survival of an individual depends upon the group within which he lives. Without the group mankind, living as individuals wouldn't last long. That is as true today as it was 100,000 years ago; more so in all probability.

3. It is imperative that the society upon which man is so dependent, be able to defend itself against the mad-dogs within it. This assures the continuation of society and the survival of individuals within it.

4. If it is OK for an individual to kill in self-defense, then it is completely logical for it to be OK for the group within which the individual lives and is dependent upon for his continued survival to kill in self-defense.

Conclusion:
The death penalty is a logical extension of self-defense and is therfore an acceptable group practice.

Everything else is just the rules behind how the defense of society is implented. Who decides, what level of anti-group behavior rates the DP, what level of evidence is required, etc etc etc - it's just rules and it seems most here are more focused on the rules than whether or not the death penalty it self is an acceptable practice.

Regarding the innocent being executed (which is one of the things that put me in the undecided category for awhile):

That's little more than a cost/benefit relationship. What cost is society willing to accept in order to assure it's continued existence? Is society willing to execute 1 innocent man to make sure a million guilty are put away? 10 innocent men, 100 innocent men, 1000. That's a decision made by the group. Some societies on this planet don't consider the cost of executing an innocent man high at all and executions are common. Others do consider the cost high and executions are rare to non-existent. It still all boils down to the rules for implementing the practice and not the practice itself.

In the final analysis, though, I for one have no doubt that society has the right to defend itself from the mad-dogs within it by killing them and that justifies the death penalty.

The implementation of and the rules behind the DP are another matter entirely.

[Phyphor]

I'm for it, provided the evidence is good enough.

[RocketMan]

You're response was silly, MechAg94.  I can think of no other way to describe it.

[RevDisk]

Theoretically, I have no problem with the death penalty from a moral or legal standpoint.

I do have a problem with the way it is currently implemented.  Too many times folks on death row have been cleared.  Incompetent counsel, biased juries, suppressed evidence, DNA evidence, etc etc.  If 99.9999% of the convictions stuck, I'd say sure.  If a sizeable percentage are shown to have been falsely imprisoned, it's not worth it.  And let's face it, if you have any money, you're not going to death row.  Our legal system is set up in mind that it is better to let a dozen evil men free than falsely imprison one innocent man.  It's a good system.  Far from perfect, but much better than it's converse.   We would not want to live in a country that presumed guilt instead of innocence.