Death Penalty opinions

[Perd Hapley]

So failing to inflict precisely the kind of punishment you favor is injustice?

No, it just happens to be the right thing to do.  However, reducing your opponent's point of view to mere personal preference is a time-honored polemical trick. 

[azmjs]

I'm sorry, but that's crazy.  Every moment people like Malik Hasan, Charles Manson, or Ted Kaczynski are allowed to live is a slap in the face to justice and to civilized society.  They should be shot.  Today.  This morning.  No pomp and circumstance.  Just open the cell doors, put a round in the skull, and dispose of the carcass with the day's garbage.

Letting people like that live is not a tribute to our supposed civility.  It's a testament to our stupidity.

I disagree.

Punishing killers with life imprisonment Is an order of magnitude less unjust than killing an innocent person.

The point of an automatic-moratorium / commutation system is to use the desire to execute killers as an incentive for good honest policework and prosecution.

If a judge or prosecutor cut corners and put an innocent man to death, he would be personally responsible for saving the lives of all death row inmates everywhere.

[Gowen]

I say we drop them off into the water off Seal Island, South Africa and if they make it to shore they go free. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_Island,_South_Africa

and please don't lock the thread it's a joke.

[Tallpine]

Is putting an innocent person in the living hell of prison for the rest of their life any less a taking of their life than execution?

[alex_trebek]

For every truely evil inhuman scumbag there are ten people who may be murderers but aren't truely evil.

The Grisham novel "A time to kill" comes to mind. In that scenario, two people were murdered. The two people raped the daughter of the murderer. Most would say they deserved it, and I would probably do the same thing Carl did in that situation.

So let's say that Carl is found guilty, and sentenced to death. How do you feel about it now?

Could you personally throw the switch knowing that Carl was a decent guy forced into a bad decision?

I used to focus on the people like Manson, but I now wonder how many people may not deserve the death penalty, but are sitting on death row.

Furthermore, if I couldn't/wouldn't be willing to throw the switch on someone like Carl, or someone who may be innocent, then I think it is immoral to ask someone to do so in my stead.

[BridgeRunner]

Is putting an innocent person in the living hell of prison for the rest of their life any less a taking of their life than execution?

At least it's revocable.

[Strings]

Umm... not as much as you might think.

The torture, mental anguish, and damage to their life is irrevocable.

Can you imagine trying to recover your life after serving, say, 5 or 10 years of a murder sentence? Your original life would be gone, so what COULD you do?

[wmenorr67]

Put them on a deserted island with three days of rations for the rest of their life.

[French G.]

I'm sorry, but that's crazy.  Every moment people like Malik Hasan, Charles Manson, or Ted Kaczynski are allowed to live is a slap in the face to justice and to civilized society.  They should be shot.  Today.  This morning.  No pomp and circumstance.  Just open the cell doors, put a round in the skull, and dispose of the carcass with the day's garbage.

Letting people like that live is not a tribute to our supposed civility.  It's a testament to our stupidity.

No different than all the rules we like republicans having use of, but then freaking out when the party changes and the rules remain. If we have a culture with a permissive attitude toward the death penalty we are just a regime change or two away from construction cranes and hanging people who disagree with our notion of governance. Our governmental system is already too corrupt to be entrusted the power to kill, if the gov''t gets worse, so will the killings.

[Perd Hapley]

At least it's revocable.

Not entirely. 

While the death penalty is less revocable than other punishments, it is interesting that many arguments against it fail, just by applying the same arguments to other punishments, then noting how silly they sound.  Of course, some arguments pass this test, but many do not, and should be dropped accordingly. 

[Tallpine]

You can't ever give somebody N number of years back, even if the error gets eventually rectified.

And you can never give them back their original teeth busted out by real criminals, or un-give them the AIDS that they got from being raped in prison.

Then there are the inmates that get murdered in prison. (probably by somebody who should have been hanged)

[RoadKingLarry]

Another way to reduce prosecutorial misconduct might be to subject all involved in falsifying evidence or whatever other means they might use to wrongfully convict someone to the same punishment they would have inflicted had they been successful.

Using Nifong as an example. ay the men accused of the gang rape could have been sentenced to 20 years. Once it was found out that the "victim" lied and that Nifong was doing all sorts of crap to persecute the accused then he and the lying "victim" could be tried and sentenced to the same penalty they would have wrongfully inflicted on someone else.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i like that!

[Gowen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nifong

I think that what's happening to him is worse than any jail time.

[MechAg94]

You can't ever give somebody N number of years back, even if the error gets eventually rectified.

And you can never give them back their original teeth busted out by real criminals, or un-give them the AIDS that they got from being raped in prison.

Then there are the inmates that get murdered in prison. (probably by somebody who should have been hanged)

Agreed. 

Eliminating the death penalty because you think the system isn't right IMO is an emotional argument meant only to make you feel better.  It does nothing to fix the system that is accused of prosecuting innocent people.  It does nothing for the other innocent people you must think are getting lesser sentences. 

IMO, the only real constructive solution to innocents getting prosecuted is to look at each of those cases and figure out where the problems are.  I have heard a number of good ideas on this thread and on this site in the past.  I'm sure more ideas would present themselves.  I see a lot of tear-jerker stories of death row people on the news.  I rarely see good in depth analysis of the cases. 

On separate note, down here at least, it is a jury that determines whether than the death penalty gets applied versus life in prison.  Citizens do it, not some judge and not "the state". 

[MechAg94]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nifong

I think that what's happening to him is worse than any jail time.

No, it isn't.  He should get worse. 

[Inor]

Personally, I do not have a problem with capital punishment IF the case is tried in the State courts and the execution is carried out in a state prison.  I have a REAL problem with capital punishment in Federal courts. 

I do not like the idea of the Federal government having that much power.  Plus, it opens the door for a "double jeopardy" situation if crimes like murder are even tried in Federal court.  A couple years ago there was a case here in Minnesota where some scumbag killed a young woman.  It was pretty clear that he was guilty, but the police had made some procedural mistakes in collecting the evidence.  There was a big debate whether he should be tried in MN state court or Federal court.  The arguement was if he was tried in Federal Court, he could be executed if convicted.  But if he was found not guilty because of police misconduct, the MN courts were not allowed to re-try him.  However, if he was first tried in MN state court and found not guilty, the Feds were allowed to have a second shot at him.  MN does not have the death penalty.  As I recall, they chose the state court route first and he is now serving life without parole.  But the point is, even scumbags should not be allowed to be tried twice for the same crime.

[MicroBalrog]

No, it just happens to be the right thing to do.  However, reducing your opponent's point of view to mere personal preference is a time-honored polemical trick. 

So you want me to argue based on the premise you're already right?

[stevelyn]

Despite all that, when I know that there are people who have raped and murdered children, or serial killers who torture and eat their victims in prison, I ask myself why they are still allowed to be on this planet.  And I can't come up with an answer.

I agree. Expedite the appeals process as well as having the investigation itself reviewed by an outside source and if all systems are GO after this process, then carry out the deed. Rope, rusty machete, .22 to the back of the head who cares? Just get it done.

[Perd Hapley]

So you want me to argue based on the premise you're already right?

   How tedious.  If you want to argue against my point of view, fine. 

If, on the other hand, you want to single out my opinion as being some kind of arbitrary preference, I'll respond by noting that such a ploy is shallow and meaningless.  I'm being just as arbitrary as everyone else here, I just didn't decorate my comment with statistics or cost-benefit analysis.

If it bothers you that I'm not giving any reasons to support my view, I'm sorry.  I just get tired of arguing about it.  We were asked for our opinions.  I gave mine.  If you don't agree, that's your right.   

[roo_ster]

a slap in the face to justice and to civilized society.


not nearly as big a slap as when we kill the wrong guy  and then cover it up

One of the (perhaps the greatest) signs about what we as a society value is by the severity of punishment doled out to those who violate those values. 

No punishment for abortion indicates we value unborn human life at the level of chum.  Perhaps less, since there are, no doubt, regulations in certain localities about what one can dump in the ocean or how critters are treated in captivity.

The death penalty for murder indicates we value innocent human life more than if we had no penalty whatsoever.  Any lesser punishment is just quibbling.

From a practical perspective, the death penalty is society engaging in self-defense.  Most murderers who get the DP are not retards who got tripped up by clever interrogators or regular folk who just snapped.  They have a long & sordid record that pointed toward bigger & badder crimes.

Execution being final is used as an argument against the DP.  Personally, I find finality its greatest argument in favor.  Never in recorded history has a man been successfully executed and gone on to commit more crimes, as many who have had life sentences have done.  To include murder. 

Also, do we not care about those convicted of lesser crimes?  Aside from not affording them the panoply of legal resources DP convicts get, locking them up with folks with nothing to lose (life sentence w/o parole and no DP) is a good way to ensure folks who don't deserve the DP get it on the sly via outright murder or by contracting AIDS/hepatitis/etc.  Or, even if they don't die from it, tossing on multiple anal rapes on top of a few years in prison seems a heck of a lot more unjust than sending a convicted murderer to Hell (or the underworld of their choice).

WRT prosecutorial misconduct, I think that prosecutors need an IA division as much as police do.  Placing them in jeopardy of receiving the same penalty if they hide exculpatory evidence or otherwise knowingly send an innocent man to prison is fair.


I would second the notion of alternative punitive measures rather than time behind bars.  Corporal punishment, such as "X lashes for Y crime" would be much preferable. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

a critical look at what prosecutors do on a regular basis is not pretty.one could look at a couple of states as prime examples. very politicized process.  i'm gonna use my state va and texas as too prime examples. in some counties no one ever get the dp.  in others its far different.  not sure it should be.  and the fact that folks are exonerated 20 plus years after trial proves our current system is flawed seriously.  in va till a couple years ago you had 21 days to produce new evidence  after that oh well

i agree i think subjecting those engaged in misconduct to the same penalty given to those they railroad would help  though jailing that many lawyer and judges would seriously lower the morality in prisons. 

[MechAg94]

a critical look at what prosecutors do on a regular basis is not pretty.one could look at a couple of states as prime examples. very politicized process.  i'm gonna use my state va and texas as too prime examples. in some counties no one ever get the dp.  in others its far different.  not sure it should be.  and the fact that folks are exonerated 20 plus years after trial proves our current system is flawed seriously.  in va till a couple years ago you had 21 days to produce new evidence  after that oh well

i agree i think subjecting those engaged in misconduct to the same penalty given to those they railroad would help  though jailing that many lawyer and judges would seriously lower the morality in prisons. 

If things are that bad, it is a tragedy.  But it is a tragedy that is taking place in all sorts of cases, not just DP cases.  From what I have heard, DNA testing is being used to review all sorts of cases.  I've seen some stories on those cases, but I haven't seen any good look at the original cases. 

[MechAg94]

Anyone know any groups that pushing for reforms? 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

dna is good  it won't compensate for slimey folks.  dna testing during doug wilders reign showed earl washington DID NOT commit the crime hes was on death row for.  yet  wilder only commuted his sentence to life. political move.it was uncovered when the repub did the testing again and set him free.  when confronted wilder was unrepentant.