RE: The death penalty

RE: The death penalty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

GotSteel -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 6:00:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol A grown-up society makes capital punishment illegal. That's just name calling, unless you can support this with a logical argument.

shannie -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 6:05:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 The same government you conservatives deride as so imperfect ,all of a sudden is competent and capable of getting the guy who did it.... Likewise, juries can't be trusted to employ their own judgment with regard to civil damages.(Oh no, they're "out of control!" That's why we needed tort reform, remember?) But they can be trusted, without question, to impose the death penalty.

Owner59 -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 6:09:06 PM)
Define "out of control" Our right to sue for damages is our only form of redress. The few folks I know who have been disabled would far prefer to have their health back over getting the money they received.

GotSteel -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 6:10:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR If convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole, I say 'fry 'em'! Why should they be a burden to the taxpayers? This isn't a valid argument because it costs more to "fry 'em!" than to imprison them for life. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

shannie -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 6:20:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Define "out of control" Our right to sue for damages is our only form of redress. The few folks I know who have been disabled would far prefer to have their health back over getting the money they received. ' Oh, I'm totally with you. I meant: That's the excuse they used to drum up support for tort reform. That juries were "out of control" (inflamed emotions, irrational thinking). And yet, juries can be trusted to impose the death penalty?

Owner59 -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 7:12:32 PM)
Gotcha.

samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 8:17:49 PM)
There's another thread on Heinlein- and I think he had a comment on the death penalty- There's a switch to be pulled- and I'd shoot the first man that reaches for it. I am against the death penalty for several reasons- 1) The prosecutors I have met should not be trusted with the life of a gerbil- never mind a human being. The idea that any of these individuals would lose a nights sleep over executing an innocent man if it furthered their careers is laughable. 2) The idea that the death penalty needs a physician during the task to ensure that it's carried out humanely is an oxymoron. Any physician that does this should lose his/her license- it's bad medicine and sets a terrible precedent- a precedent which was used to justify the presence of physicians during torture at Gitmo. 3) At the end of the day- there is one person who is pulling the switch- following orders of the state if you will. We should not pay people to execute others in cold blood- it sets a bad example. The justification of following orders is way too close to war criminals. Alternatively- I'd make the damn governor pull the switch himself while the family of the executed man looks on. It's too easy to give the order at a distance. 4) As noted earlier- the death penalty is not color blind. Black men are far more likely to be given the death penalty- even by black juries than white men. This sets a terrible example of a double standard- that black lives are worth less than white lives. 5) Our system of justice stinks. Too many judges say that the system isn't perfect, but its the one we've got. Well, this is a recipe for mediocrity and lack of improvement. All too often the death penalty is used in cases where the identification is not clear cut or based on notoriously unreliable eyewitnesses. 6) Our judges stink too. This is a profession which is apparently highly regarded, except by the people who actually have some contact with these individuals. I have first hand experience in dealing with a judge who helped a man who fleeced banks and investors out of over $20 million (they were golf buddies)- who got away scot free and with a big chunk of the money - now living in India. I was the guy who had to tell one of the banks that the equipment that supposedly cost over $5 million was a pile of junk- it was a swindle, pure and simple. In dealing with the judge who'd been put in charge of the bankruptcy- I was the one getting screamed at. Nobody went to jail. You really want to trust these people with deciding on whether or not a human lives or dies? I don't. Sam

kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 8:20:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I'm not sure what your point is but... if he was executed for the first offense there would not be a second. If he knew for sure that if he killed with forethought then perhaps he would not kill at all. Butch The second offense is the second person he kills to escape because he has nothing to lose; being that he will already be executed for one killing two killings, no difference stakes-wise. Thus the second part of my statement Butch

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 8:21:46 PM)
You missed or twisted the point per usual. quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I do not disagree. I am pro death penalty, but also pro overhaul of the justice system. How can we take 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 years of a persons life from them with such an imperfect system. The emotional scars are likely very severe to live with if you are innocent and spend that amount of time caged with some of the felons in the system. There is no perfect justice system. There are many reasons to argue against the death penalty, and one of them is its irreversibility. What a terrible idea that it's better to execute an innocent because lifelong imprisonment is cruel!

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 9:21:44 PM)
I just did some checking. You state proven innocence in this figure, where as I find that your figure combines legal innocence (which means a technicality) and actual innocence (which means they actually did not do it). Actually the figures I found were 32 of 7300 death row cases since 1973 were exonerated (research done by National Review's Editor Ramesh Ponnuru). You used the word completed, which may be where the problem is, as some of the cases included in the review had not completed all of the appeals process yet. That same independent research done by Ramesh Ponnuru also uncovered the fact that death penalty cases carry a more extensive investigative and appeals process, than one that has a life sentence. This would allow for more opportunities to prove innocence legally or actually. This would mean they could have up to 9 different courts look at the case, how it is handled, and all relevant issues. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf The Death Penalty prevents a second offense from occuring. The Death Penalty makes sure the criminal will not prey upon society again. No. If the right person is convicted and eventually executed it prevents a second offense. Of the 1286 completed capital cases since the 1973 reinstatement more than 10% resulted in convicted being released from prison becuase of proven innocence. With an error rate at least that high the state has no business taking lives.

MasterG2kTR -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 10:07:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR If convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole, I say 'fry 'em'! Why should they be a burden to the taxpayers? This isn't a valid argument because it costs more to "fry 'em!" than to imprison them for life. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty You need to go back and read the article a little closer to understand what it is that costs more. The vast majority of the added costs is for housing death row inmates. As soon as you "fry 'em" that cost becomes zero! The cost "to execute them" even on the high end (let's say $50k) is a lot less than keeping them in prison (even if it's not maximum security) for 10, 20, 30, 40, even 50 years. Yeah it costs about $90k/yr for max. security inmates, but it still costs about $60k/yr for general population prisoners in high security lock-ups. Let's take an average of 30 yrs (most were locked up in their 20's & 30's) at $90k/yr, that's $2.7 million times how many thousands of death row inmates, and you are looking at a very sizable sum for keeping them alive. And as I stated in my first post, there are qualifiers as to who should be executed without question and those who should get locked up with a life sentence. I'd like to see how many of the liberals here who oppose the death penalty would change their minds if some nut-job came into your life and intentionally took out someone very close to you (a child, parent, spouse, etc.) just because it gave them a thrill. Would you still open your arms and forgive them and say that's all right you still deserve to live? Or would you want them snuffed out as quickly as they did your loved one?

Termyn8or -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 10:09:38 PM)
using FR I must agree with some of the objections raised here. Now I am going to sound like I am arguing against myself but I do try to see other sides of issues. Getting rid of the ingrained abhorrence of the death penalty in many people is the original issue. I still believe that we should not be afraid to use it. However leaving it it the hands of government is not acceptable at this time. There would have to be a slightly different procedure for a capital crime, which actually would only be a potentially capital crime until all the evidence is in. This would mean fully informed juries, an issue which does crop up from time to time, rules of evidence and discovery, which are disregarded by prosecutors all the time in the US. A trial for a potentially capital crime should be held to a higher standard. But then who is to determine what those standards might be ? I do share those concerns. Somewhere it has been brought up about the costs, even now of all this appeals process and all that generaly related to capital cases. These people should be on salary, which means it doesn't cost anything. These people get paid whether in court or sitting their with their thumb up their dupa. There are many aspects to this. Actually I don't think that a jury by itself should be able to order the death penalty, at the very least it should be an agreement between the judge and jury in the penalty phase. Perhaps even a panel, which would at least make recommendations, but then who shall seat this panel ? What would be the requirements to sit as a member ? Very valid points I agree, but among them is NOT "we are civilised we don't do that". Allowing the uncivilized to roam among us and prey on us and our young ones is not a mark of a greater civilisation, it is the mark of a misguided one. Again, I believe religion is part of the problem, by providing a crutch for peole who can';t think an issue through completely. So part of the blame belongs with the slothly thinking of the populace. That is what I was talking about, taking care of business, the most important business. It is not for pleasure nor revenge that we are forces to kill. It is for our betterment and that of our progeny. It is for their advancement, so that their lives can be more open, less scrutinized, and most importantly, less in jeopardy. Controlling weapons does not work. Long periods of incarceration do not work. Stop trying what doesn't work and move on to find something that does. You see the trend, it matters not how many cameras are out there, prevention is not possible. Incarceration is for thieves and the like, yes, something must be done. Of course there is no way to eliminate jails. Sometimes you simply have to look out for number one first, otherwise there will be noone to look out for number two. T

marie2 -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 10:20:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR Would you still open your arms and forgive them and say that's all right you still deserve to live? Or would you want them snuffed out as quickly as they did your loved one? And by the same token, how would you feel if it was you or a loved one wrongly convicted and sitting on death row?

DomKen -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 10:53:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I just did some checking. You state proven innocence in this figure, where as I find that your figure combines legal innocence (which means a technicality) and actual innocence (which means they actually did not do it). Actually the figures I found were 32 of 7300 death row cases since 1973 were exonerated (research done by National Review's Editor Ramesh Ponnuru). You used the word completed, which may be where the problem is, as some of the cases included in the review had not completed all of the appeals process yet. That same independent research done by Ramesh Ponnuru also uncovered the fact that death penalty cases carry a more extensive investigative and appeals process, than one that has a life sentence. This would allow for more opportunities to prove innocence legally or actually. This would mean they could have up to 9 different courts look at the case, how it is handled, and all relevant issues. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf The Death Penalty prevents a second offense from occuring. The Death Penalty makes sure the criminal will not prey upon society again. No. If the right person is convicted and eventually executed it prevents a second offense. Of the 1286 completed capital cases since the 1973 reinstatement more than 10% resulted in convicted being released from prison becuase of proven innocence. With an error rate at least that high the state has no business taking lives. 131 people have been released from death row for innocence since the 1973 reinstatement. 1155 people have been executed in that time. So those are the cases where the case is completed. I don't know where the 32 figure comes from but I know of more than that off the top of my head where the person sentenced to death was proven beyond any doubt to have been innocent.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 11:00:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Some people dare to volunteer that a few executed innocents is a price worth paying. Strangely, the same people go quiet when asked whether they'd be happy to be executed, or to have a loved-one fried, for the sake of keeping the death penalty legal. Thank god Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, did not feel that way. "Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned", was his opinion on the matter. It was this way of thinking that formed the framework for this new country he helped build, a nation founded on the absolute conviction that justice is more important than vengeance. What a disgrace that so many of the people for whom he built this country, and who claim to love the country he helped create, would reject one of the fundamental principles upon which it was founded simply because it doesn't satisfy their anger.

ElectraGlide -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 11:18:59 PM)
I like the death penalty. It gets rid of pieces of garbage that have no respect for society. If anyone disagrees with me, please put yourself or your family as the next victim of a nut case that has no respect for your life.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 11:25:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElectraGlide I like the death penalty. It gets rid of pieces of garbage that have no respect for society. If anyone disagrees with me, please put yourself or your family as the next victim of a nut case that has no respect for your life. Sure. As soon as you volunteer to be the next innocent person condemned to death.

stella41b -> RE: The death penalty (5/2/2009 11:58:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR If convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole, I say 'fry 'em'! Why should they be a burden to the taxpayers? They have obviously been deemed to be a menace to society and not fit to interact in the general population. I'm sorry but the only people I can see burdening the taxpayers are the lawyers and state prosecutors, not to mention the expert witnesses, psychologists, psychiatrists and so on. Capital trials are expensive and it's for this very reason that many of the states which do have the death penalty on their statutes hardly ever seek it and only reserve it for the most heinous of crimes. Another thing is you cannot judge a person on the basis of their crime but also must look at reason, intent and motivation. This is called justice. Consider that most killers decided that their victims were a menace and that they are not fit to live in society. By judging people on the basis of their crimes you fall into the same mindset as the killers. quote: ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR Now to qualify these statements, their conviction must have solid proof, such as DNA evidence, credible eyewitnesses, video evidence, etc. If convicted on circumstantial constructs based on crime scene investigations, keep them in prison. Exactly, and it is getting this 'solid proof' through statements, trials, appeals, expert witnesses and psychiatrists so as to 'prove beyond all reasonable doubt' which costs the money. In many killings there's no such evidence, you have to rely on witness statements, alibis, confessions and reconstructions. quote: ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR Back to the first statement, if execution is warranted, don't drag it out for years with appeals. Six months tops, or better still, six days like china! Furman vs. Georgia 438 US 238 (1976) has effectively removed any possibility of knowing whether an execution is warranted in the case of the killing. This is why state prosecutors 'seek' the death penalty because when someone is charged for a crime such as murder their guilt hasn't been established and in none of the states which carry the death penalty is the death sentence mandatory. Since 1976 over 130 condemned prisoners have been released from Death Row having been found to be innocent, others have had their sentences commuted to life in prison and there have been about 35 or so instances where someone was executed where there were some serious doubts as to their guilt. The appeals process is the most important part of this whole area of the criminal justice system and filters out many injustices and errors not to mention deficiencies in the system. However what you would find is that, if the death penalty ever were to be applied fairly and evenly across the whole criminal justice system and if those who could afford their own defense lawyers also faced the death penalty you would probably find that public opinion would change and be more in favour of abolition.

janiebelle -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 12:44:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Thank god Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, did not feel that way. "Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned", was his opinion on the matter. It was this way of thinking that formed the framework for this new country he helped build, a nation founded on the absolute conviction that justice is more important than vengeance. What a disgrace that so many of the people for whom he built this country, and who claim to love the country he helped create, would reject one of the fundamental principles upon which it was founded simply because it doesn't satisfy their anger. Amen to that. One innocent killed at the hands of the state is too many. j

TheHeretic -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 12:45:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b Consider that most killers decided that their victims were a menace and that they are not fit to live in society. Actually, Stella, unless there has been a change I missed, "he needed killing" is still an accepted defense in murder cases in some states.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875